Testimony Batch 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

1 GEPPER Jeffrey A From:Dane Butler <dane@butlerhomes.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2025 4:59 AM To:SINGER Doug K; WALCH Therese; RODRIGUES Matt J; HOEY Rich; GEPPER Jeffrey A Cc:Admin Subject:City Council work session. [EXTERNAL ❚❛❜] Hey Group. I stayed on and watched last night the work session and Doug did a great job. We sƟll feel like this is the department in which this process is controlled thru. I thought I would aƩach all parƟes aŌer our last few discussions. I sent off a very short email to council and Mayor before the work session to explain that we sƟll have concerns of the ﬁnal landing spot of this ordinance. I want to clarify a few things that sƟll don’t seem to be being vocalized of our concerns correctly last night. During all our meeƟngs with staff, WOBA was okay with the expiring of our exisƟng 2014 date which protected some properƟes that were developed prior to 2014 which did not speciﬁcally address stormwater in their approvals. We do sƟll believe that those parcels have some sort of legal standing just as the City believed they did when we used those protecƟons in the past. But WOBA believed that was more of a gray area for our legal stance thus allowing historical lots in which stormwater was not addressed in their approvals to expire. What I think WOBA’s main focus was to make sure that the City’s approvals can sƟll be relied upon. What our legal opinion has always and sƟll is that when the City speciﬁcally addresses stormwater in a PUD, Subdivision, or plat then those are relied upon for the development of the infrastructure and when the city feels like they can change their approvals then those properƟes are damaged. I felt like Gillespie BuƩe was a great example of where the neighbors and the City required the developer (The developer proposed green infrastructure and was denied) to manage their stormwater in a certain manner. The developer then completed the infrastructure based on the direcƟon not of themselves but the direcƟon of the City. Those approvals absolutely have legal standing. We vocalized this to staff, city aƩorney and the planning commission that these type of approvals don’t expire aŌer 10 years. I just don’t see the possibility of Gillespie BuƩe in which the City can require a developer to not use green infrastructure and then 10 years later reverse and require the developer to install green infrastructure when building permits are received. Those documents and approvals are the legal binding contracts between the City and neighborhood. Crescent Village is a small example of a PUD which was created with stormwater in mind. The City and the developer created a great neighborhood where green infrastructure which was incorporated on the larger more expansive areas (commercial, roads and parking). It was decided and approved by the city that the dense residenƟal lots didn’t require the new evolving stormwater standards. Those approvals were relied upon when the developer installed and completed the required infrastructure. The example of Lord Byron even shows that a permit was pulled installed and inspected by the city in which a future project could be connected to and not required to meet todays stormwater standards because the infrastructure was completed 8‐10 years ago and met the requirements of the City. There are other PUD’s out there that will be damaged by relying on the City’s approvals. I am actually meeƟng a group this week to look at a larger stalled project in the South Eugene/Churchill area. I haven’t yet done a full review of that subdivisions approval documents but I would be highly surprised based on the age of these approvals that this ordinance update won’t negaƟvely damage this property too. I’ll let you know when I get thru those documents. CA 24-3 Testimony Batch 3