Subject: Written Comments in Opposition – Case No. 811-26-000049-TYP2

Dear Mr. Limbird,

I am a neighboring property owner of the proposed development at the intersections of Hayden Bridge Rd. and 19th Street.

I oppose this application as submitted and request that the Director deny the application or substantially condition it to address the deficiencies identified below. The applicable approval criteria are found at SDC 5.12.125(A) through (H). I raise all issues herein to preserve my right to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals pursuant to ORS 197.830 et seq.

I. THE REVISED APPLICATION DOES NOT MEANINGFULLY ADDRESS PRIOR CONCERNS

The April 15, 2026 notice describes this as a “revised” application, but the submitted written narrative is essentially unchanged from the original March 6, 2026 filing. The same density figures, traffic analysis, access design, and infrastructure claims are repeated verbatim. The addition of Tax Lot 2100 and the redesignation of two access lots as “tracts” do not resolve the fundamental deficiencies under SDC 5.12.125.

II. UNRESOLVED LOT COUNT DISCREPANCY – SDC 5.12.125(A)

Four different lot counts appear across four documents submitted by the same applicant: the city notice states 21 lots; the application cover form states 19 lots; the written statement under SDC 5.12.125(A) states 22 lots; and the KPFF Stormwater Memo describes 19 residential lots plus two non-buildable lots. The traffic analysis is also calculated on 22 lots. This is not a clerical error — the lot count determines density compliance, whether a Traffic Impact Study is required, and whether all design standards are met. The Director cannot make a complete determination on materials that contradict themselves on this basic point.

III. UNVERIFIED STORMWATER DESIGN – SDC 5.12.125(C) AND (E)

The stormwater design rests on an assumed — not measured — infiltration rate of 2 inches per hour. The KPFF memo explicitly states that a geotechnical investigation has not yet been completed. The site soils are Hydrologic Soil Group C with slow to moderate permeability — exactly the kind of geologic condition SDC 5.12.125(E) requires be addressed. The applicant dismisses criterion (E) as “not applicable” despite their own engineer disclosing these soil conditions. If infiltration rates come in lower than assumed, the system must be redesigned, and overflow discharges to the 19th Street public storm system, directly burdening existing neighborhood infrastructure. The stormwater memo is also dated October 2025 and may not reflect the revised 21-lot layout.

IV. INADEQUATE ACCESS AND INGRESS-EGRESS DESIGN – SDC 5.12.125(C) AND (F)

All traffic from 19 new homes is funneled through two 20-foot private driveways onto 20th Street, which has an existing curb-to-curb width of 27.25 feet — well below the required 36-foot minimum. The application does not demonstrate that street improvements will be in place before residential occupancy. This fails the SDC 5.12.125(F) requirement to facilitate vehicular traffic and avoid congestion, and limits neighborhood connectivity in a manner inconsistent with criterion (F). No additional fire hydrants are proposed, and the application does not demonstrate that existing coverage meets Fire & Life Safety standards for the proposed private driveway layout.

V. DENSITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH DESIGN STANDARDS – SDC 5.12.125(A) AND (D)

The applicant’s own statement acknowledges the site is “surrounded primarily by single unit homes.” Nineteen minimum-sized lots served exclusively by private driveways, with no public interior street and no public open space, produces a development form unlike anything else in this neighborhood. Meeting a numerical density threshold does not automatically satisfy all design standards under SDC 5.12.125(D).

VI. MISSING TREE FELLING PERMIT

The applicant’s own submittal checklist indicates a Tree Felling Permit is required under SDC 5.19.100. That box is checked. No such permit application or tree inventory has been submitted. This is a missing required element relevant to SDC 5.12.125(D) and (E).

VII. SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

I respectfully request that the Director:

1. Deny the application due to the unresolved lot count inconsistencies under SDC 5.12.125(A) and (D);
2. Require a completed geotechnical investigation and verified stormwater design before any decision under SDC 5.12.125(C) and (E);
3. Require an adequate response to SDC 5.12.125(E) addressing the HSG C soil conditions, rather than dismissing the criterion as “not applicable”;
4. Require demonstration that 20th Street will be fully improved before any residential occupancy under SDC 5.12.125(C) and (F);
5. Require demonstration that fire hydrant coverage meets Fire & Life Safety standards for the proposed private driveway layout under SDC 5.12.125(C) and (D);
6. Require submission of a complete Tree Felling Permit application; and
7. If not denied outright, require a reduction in lot count to a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood under SDC 5.12.125(A) and (D).

I am raising these issues in writing to preserve my right to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals pursuant to ORS 197.830 et seq.

Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully request a copy of the land use decision when issued.

Respectfully submitted,

Your Name

Your Address, OR 97477