The earlier comments that you paraphrased from PWD indicated the sections of Capital Drive <br />that would have to be improved would have to be reconstructed, not just a strip of pavement <br />added. Is this still the position of PWD and Planning staff? Corrects <br />On page 3 of the most recent narrative, it states: "See attached and revised Traffic Safety and <br />Street Connectivity Study." The revised "Tentative PUD ,Application" indicates a revised <br />"Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study submitted with this Revised Written Statement <br />August 22, 2017." I didn't find the revised study on-line. <br />On page 5, same document. A 20-foot pavement meets LVR standard without parking on either <br />side. To meet the standard, the segment would have to be signed with "no parking" and enforced. <br />They are proposing a 2 ' wide street, is allows for parking o one side of the road. <br />Location of "No Parking" signs is determined during the PEPI process. <br />Thank you for the additional information. <br />Paul <br />A <br />On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:28 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.GioelloCa)ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: <br />Paul, <br />I'm not sure if you are having problems viewing documents from the web site. It is true that the folder titled <br />"Application Completeness Review Letter (3/31/2017)" does not initially show up like all other documents but there is <br />a hyper link that lets you download it. That letter was the first round of review and includes the Planning checklist, <br />Public Works checklist and Fire Department comments. I have attached it in case you could not view it or download it. <br />The second review was my letter dated 6-26-17, and as I explained in another email to you, I took Public Works <br />comments that came from Eric Favreau via email and cut/pasted them into this letter. There were no additional <br />written Fire Department comments for the second review. <br />4 <br />