EXHIBIT B <br />Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte <br />The following questions and comments were provided to Scott Gillespie on March 1, 2018, regarding <br />Gillespie's memo of December 8, 2017 to Nick Gioello in which Gillespie provide a "review" of Capital <br />Drive Roadway. <br />I requested that Gillespie correct and/or clarify several items (enumerated below) prior to my <br />submitting comments as testimony in the Capital Hill Tentative PUD proceedings. <br />Gillespie responded on March 2, 2018: "1 am comfortable with the content of the memo and don't have <br />corrections or clarifications for the record at this time." <br />1. RE: "The purpose of this memo is to review Capital Drive and Spring Blvd in the context of the <br />Capital Hill PUD application (PDT 17-1)." <br />To which section(s) of Eugene Code is your "review" relevant? Specifically, for which of the following <br />code sections is your review probative: EC 9.8320(5)(a), (b), (6), (7), (10)(b) and/or (11)? <br />Comment: Gillespie provides no references at all to Tentative PUD approval criteria or any other <br />Eugene Code. It is therefore impossible to ascertain to which approval criterion(a) (if any) he is <br />applying his evaluation. Gillespie's comments, therefore do not meet the standard for probative <br />evidence with sufficient specificity to enable the Hearings Official or other parties to respond with <br />respect to the Tentative PUD approval criteria, as required by the Public Hearing Notice: <br />"failure to provide statements or evidence with sufficient specificity to enable the Hearings <br />Official to respond to the issue, precludes an appeal based on that issue." <br />2. RE: "Public Works Engineering staff review and recommendation is [sic] specific to the roadway <br />capacity, operations and safety as the department with jurisdiction over the roadway." <br />Comment: Although the Hearings Official might infer which approval criterion(a) this review <br />addresses, there are numerous adopted comprehensive plan policies and Tentative PUD approval <br />criteria to which this review might be directed. <br />"Public Works staff defers to Eugene-Springfield Fire for a specific evaluation of Fire Codes and First <br />Responder operations." <br />Since the Eugene City Council has adopted local street standards, Oregon Statutes state that these <br />standards are applicable rather than the Eugene Fire Code standards for "Fire Apparatus Access <br />Roads" (FAAR). Are you "deferring" evaluation of the adequacy of Capital Drive and Spring Blvd. to <br />meet the effective FAAR standards, which are the adopted Eugene Street Standards? <br />Comment: The presumed answer to this is "yes," which eliminates EC 9.8320(6) as an approval <br />criterion which this review addresses. It also eliminates issues related to the adequacy of a FAAR to <br />enable adequate Fire and Emergency Service, as required under EC 9.8320(7). <br />4. RE: "Cresta De Ruta also provides an alternate route to Capital Drive but it is not the most direct <br />route." and "This memo will focus on the primary access section of Spring Blvd and Capital Drive <br />There is no review of Cresta De Ruta. Does that mean that PWD considers Capital Drive and Spring <br />Blvd. to be the only access roads that are considered to handle the total projected access to and from <br />the PUD by all modes of transportation? For example, for purposes of your review and conclusions, <br />have you assumed that all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, wheelchair, etc. access to and from the PUD <br />will be on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd.? <br />March 8, 2018 Page 13 <br />