Lack of continuous or seasonal hydrologic modeling: The report uses event-based SBUH modeling for <br />2-year and 10-year storms, but Goal 5 wetland and stream functions are strongly influenced by seasonal <br />hydroperiod, low-flow conditions, and small, frequent events that are not captured in this limited <br />analysis. Without more robust modeling or monitoring data, the City cannot reasonably conclude that the <br />project will preserve or enhance resource functions as required by Goal 5 implementation measures.[4] <br />[6] <br />Downstream water quality and TMDL concerns: The report acknowledges that Amazon Creek is an <br />impaired waterbody with a TMDL for dissolved oxygen and E. coli, and that the site drains to this <br />system. However, there is no pollutant loading analysis, no evaluation of how the proposed combination <br />of swales and detention will affect temperature, bacteria, and nutrient loading, and no demonstration that <br />the project will not contribute to further impairment of this Goal 5-related water resource. [4][6] <br />These deficiencies are particularly important under Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 5, which requires local <br />governments to adopt and apply clear and objective regulations to protect specified natural resources. In the <br />absence of robust, site-specific hydrologic and water quality analysis, approval of the project would rest on <br />unsupported assumptions, making it vulnerable to challenge.[4] <br />5. Legal risk under Goal 5 and LUBA case law <br />Oregon appellate and Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decisions have repeatedly emphasized that local <br />governments must apply their adopted Goal 5 protection measures as written and cannot rely on conclusory or <br />incomplete evidence to approve development within protected resource areas.[6] <br />In particular: <br />EC 9.8365, 9.8470, and 9.4980 are clear and objective standards that require affirmative evidence of <br />compliance, not mere assertions.eugene. [1][2][3] <br />The City’s own /WR Standards Review guidance warns that failure to provide adequate information <br />“may result in a denial.” Approving SDR 25-02 on the current record, without complete resource <br />impact analysis, could be viewed as inconsistent with this guidance.[2] <br />If the City approves the Final PUD and Standards Review on the present record, a party could reasonably argue <br />on appeal that: <br />The City misapplied EC 9.8365 by relying on unverified statements rather than confirming that each <br />tentative plan condition is actually met in the final plan and record.ojd.contentdm.[1][5] <br />The City failed to require the level of site-specific analysis that EC 9.8470 and 9.4980 demand for <br />work in a /WR conservation area, particularly with respect to wetland and stream functions. [2][3] <br />[4] <br />The approval is inconsistent with Goal 5 implementation because it does not ensure that the mapped <br />water resources and their functions will be maintained or enhanced.[4] <br />For these reasons, I believe the legally prudent course is to deny the applications as submitted , or at <br />minimum to require substantial additional analysis and plan revisions before reconsideration. <br />6. Request <br />In light of the concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the City of Eugene : <br />Deny PDF 25 - 01 and SDR 25 - 02 on the grounds that the applications fail to demonstrate <br />compliance with EC 9.8365, EC 9.8470, and EC 9.4980. [1][2][3] <br />Alternatively, remand the applications to the applicant with a requirement to provide: