“Clarifications and Additional Information” <br />Addendum to Comments Submitted 02-14-2026 by Albert LePage <br />ATTN: Nick Gioello, Associate Planner <br />City of Eugene, Planning and Development, Planning Division <br />99 West 10th Ave, Suite 290 <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />From: Albert LePage, M.Ed. Science, B.S. Biology, Member, Society for Conservation Biology <br />1944 Cleveland St <br />Eugene, OR 97405 <br />Date: 02-15-2026 <br />Re: PDF 25 - 01 (Final PUD – “Braewood Hills 3rd Addition”) and SDR 25 - 02 (/WR Water Resources <br />Overlay – Randy Lane Extension) – Clarifications and Additional Information <br />Hello Mr. Gioello: <br />I am writing to add this addendum of clarifications and additional information in support of <br />my previously submitted comments regarding PDF 25-01 and SDR 25-02. These clarifications <br />focus on the relationship between (1) completeness and substantive compliance, (2) the evidence <br />required under EC 9.8365, 9.8470, and 9.4980, and (3) the level of analysis appropriate for <br />development within a mapped /WR Water Resources Conservation Area implementing Statewide <br />Planning Goal 5. <br />1. Completeness vs. substantive findings under EC 9.8365, 9.8470, and 9.4980 <br />First, I recognize that the City has deemed the January 21, 2026 submittals complete for processing <br />purposes. However, a completeness determination is only a procedural threshold and does not, by itself, <br />demonstrate that the substantive approval criteria in EC 9.8365 (Final PUD), EC 9.8470 (Standards <br />Review), and EC 9.4980 (/WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay) have been met. Oregon <br />appellate decisions make clear that local governments must adopt findings supported by “substantial <br />evidence” in the whole record; the presence of a technical report or recorded easement in the file is not <br />enough if the record as a whole does not actually demonstrate compliance with each relevant criterion. <br />In this case, the outstanding questions I raised about the content and clarity of the final PUD plans, the <br />various private utility and access easements, and the stormwater analysis go directly to whether there is <br />substantial evidence that the final development conforms to the approved tentative PUD and the /WR <br />overlay standards, rather than to whether the application is merely complete. <br />2. Clarification regarding easements and conformance with tentative PUD <br />conditions <br />My prior comments are not intended to dispute that the applicant has drafted multiple easement <br />documents; rather, the concern is whether the final PUD plans and recorded easements together provide <br />a clear, objective demonstration that each tentative PUD condition—particularly COA 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, <br />and 26—has been satisfied as required by EC 9.8365. <br />For example, the tentative approval required dedication of “a 14-foot Public Utility Easement or Public <br />Wastewater Easement that will encumber the proposed public wastewater system,” and staff explicitly <br />noted that the final plans did not show such an easement. The applicant’s response is that the plans