My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Record 1 all testimony to 5-6-26
>
OnTrack
>
SDR
>
2025
>
SDR 25-02
>
Open Record 1 all testimony to 5-6-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2026 10:51:33 AM
Creation date
5/11/2026 10:51:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
SDR
File Year
25
File Sequence Number
2
Application Name
Braewood Hills 3rd Addition
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
5/6/2026
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regarding the appeal of SDR 25-02 with WR/Resources Overlay and PDF 25-01. <br />In addition to my earlier written comments and verbal testimony, I’d like to add the <br />following to the record: <br />The Planning Director erred in stating that Condition 18 of the Planning Commission’s <br />decision had been met. <br />According to Condition 18 of Planning Commission’s decision on PDT-24-01: <br />"Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall obtain Type II Standards Review <br />approval for the proposed public street extension of Randy Lane and any other utility <br />crossings or other allowed improvements within the protected /WR conservation <br />area, subject to the applicable standards at EC 9.4900–9.4980." <br />The pertinent portion of the condition is highlighted. It states that the condition is subject <br />to the /WR Overlay standards EC 9.4900-9.4980. It does not state that the condition is <br />subject to just EC 9.4980 as has been interpreted by the Planning Director. As it is a stated <br />and signed condition, it is binding under EC 9.8365(1) "The final PUD plan conforms with <br />the approved tentative PUD plan and all conditions attached thereto." It must be upheld as <br />written and not interpreted narrowly. For this reason, I reassert my position that the /WR <br />conservation area setback required has not been properly determined as per EC 9.4920 <br />(3): <br />3) To determine the /WR conservation area for sites in which wetlands exist along <br />with either an upland wildlife habitat site or a riparian site, the /WR conservation <br />area for each of the individual water features shall be calculated and mapped <br />separately, and the total footprint of all the individual /WR conservation areas <br />combined shall be the /WR conservation area for that site. <br />While the conservation area for E35A, the Category C stream, was established and <br />mapped during the PDT process, no conservation area was established for the Goal 5 <br />Category B Wetland (AMA 5B), or as per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determination <br />letter of 25 July 2025 labels it, Wetland 2B, a jurisdictional Water of the U.S. <br />The conservation area for the Category B wetland must be established and mapped <br />following the standards in EC 9.4920(2)(b). Additionally, as per EC 9.4920(3) the total <br />footprint of both the wetland and stream /WR Conservation areas must be combined, with <br />accurate setbacks of the combined areas mapped on the Final Site Plan. <br />Any continued disallowance of the inclusion and mapping of the Goal 5 wetland setback is <br />a direct noncompliance with not only the PDT conditions placed by the Planning <br />Commission, but also the Eugene land use codes and therefore grounds for reversal.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.