My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch C
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 4:02:57 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:19:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Misc.
Document_Date
3/6/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
ELL Nick <br />From: GILLESPIE Scott N <br />Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:09 PM <br />To: shortgamesue@yahoo.com <br />Cc: GIOELLO Nick R; FAVREAU Eric J <br />Subject: FW: Clarification on Class 5 truck count. <br />Attachments: CapitalACP ESAL and Design Tool.pdf; SpringACP ESAL and Design Tool.pdf <br />Hi Susan, <br />The City followed its design standards and the structure of Capital Drive is thick enough to accommodate twice <br />the expected traffic in the area over its design life. Heavy vehicles included. The City has no evidence that the <br />structure of the roadway network is incapable of accommodating the expected traffic from Capital Hill <br />PUD. The roadway network is structurally capable of accommodating the development. <br />Public Works staff has spent a significant amount of time answering a number of very detailed technical <br />questions regarding the design of Capital Drive outside the proposed Capital Drive development. I see that Mr <br />Lorschieder has been copied on your email string. I have attached the pavement calculations for your <br />reference. Our responses have been followed up with appreciation but also with an increasing number of more <br />detailed questions. It is clear that my responses are not satisfactorily addressing your concerns. We have <br />answered numerous questions and re-assured neighbors that standards are met. I am not convinced that any <br />level of Public Works Engineering response will satisfy your concerns. I would recommend your group consult <br />with a civil or geotechnical engineer to review the report and help your group develop conclusions in response <br />to the proposed development. <br />Thanks, <br />Scott Gillespie, PE <br />Public Works Engineering <br />99 East Broadway, Suite 400 <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />541-682-2706 <br />From: GIOELLO Nick R <br />Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:18 AM <br />To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Subject: FW: Clarification on Class 5 truck count. <br />See below. <br />From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:short amesue ahoo.com] <br />Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:50 AM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson6l7@msn.com>; Brent Lorscheider <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.