My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
334
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
In no particular order, here is a summary of issues that are identified as needing close <br />attention. <br />engineer, appears to have limited knowledge in common traffic engineering standards and field <br />of practice. <br />2. As the title of the prepared report suggests, instead of a full Traffic Impact Study, which is <br />required under Section 9.8650 of the Eugene Development Code, a <br />substituted and the report makes vague and inconsistent references to City standards and <br />defines many ADA, Fire, Access, Sight Distance, Street widths, etc. standards as acceptable but <br />a Traffic Safety Analysis requires that the standards be clearly addressed in detail. <br />width to the newly added homes on top of the hill. This is exacerbated even more with parked <br />cars where it essentially makes the road impassible during emergencies. <br />4. The existing 2-foot sidewalk does not provide a safe and reasonable path of travel to and <br />from the new homes, and the path often is obstructed by parked cars, overgrown vegetation <br />and construction material stored. In addition, this path is not safe to use during the day and dry <br />conditions, let alone at night and wet/icy conditions. <br />5. The report has attempted to focus on advantages of narrow streets by pointing out cost <br />savings, storm water runoff, environmental impact of constructing of roads to standards, land <br />use efficiency, and preserving neighborhood character. This kind of logic is fine, if hundreds or <br />thousands of residents would not have been affected by adverse impacts of new traffic, <br />inadequate fire and <br />and adverse impact to life and safety of current and future residents. Based on that logic, the <br />City should not have any design standards and follow substandard practices everywhere and <br />save money. <br />6. One of the City of Eugene's responsibilities as a responsible public agency is to develop, <br />adopt and implement common set of standards for new development so that they support <br />multi-modal transportation system, safe and efficient emergency access, and safe access by <br />new and existing residents as well as ADA standards. Deviating and changing the standards <br />must be done diligently and with ample engineering analysis with legal backing, so the agency <br />is not exposed to future liabilities. <br />7. The <br />this may be appropriate for a short access road on a flat section of a neighborhood, when <br />combined with steep slopes and presence of large trucks, it poses a severe and obvious danger <br />to traveling public residents and would obviously hinder emergency access. <br />8. On the bottom of page 4 of the report, it is noted that widening of the street to <br />uld hinder <br />door for litigation for past imposed conditions that can now b <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.