Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte <br />Because, as you know, the City's "queuing street" standard requires 21 foot wide paving, please <br />explain professional language how an 18 foot paved roadway is "consistent with the City of Eugene <br />queuing street design standards." <br />Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation of the conflict between his statement and the actual <br />standards for a "queuing street." Gillespie's statement is false. <br />19. RE: "This further justifies the adequacy to safety serve motorists pedestrians and cyclists." <br />Please correct the typo: "safely" is the correct word. <br />20. RE: "Spring Blvd and Capital Drive do not have a crash history. This further justifies the adequacy to <br />safe[ly] serve motorists pedestrians and cyclists." <br />Please explain your basis for making this conclusion without taking into account the significant <br />increase in all modes of travel over Capital Drive. <br />Comment: Gillespie declined to address the potential impacts on safety from the substantial <br />increased in motorized and non-motorized use of Capital Drive. In particular, Gillespie has not <br />addressed the substantial increase in the probability of vehicle and pedestrian encounters. The <br />conclusion is unsupported and unreliable. <br />21. RE: "The measured speeds and lack of crash history indicate the roadway is operating as intended." <br />Please explain why the review does not address whether or not the roadway can operate as <br />intended" with the significant increase in all modes of travel over Capital Drive. <br />Comment: Gillespie declined to address the potential impacts on safety from the substantial <br />increased in motorized and non-motorized use of Capital Drive. In particular, Gillespie has not <br />addressed the substantial increase in the probability of vehicle and pedestrian encounters. The <br />conclusion is unsupported and unreliable. <br />22. RE: "Engineering staff finds no evidence that suggest the existing roadway network is unsafe or <br />incapable of accommodating the traffic impacts from the proposed development." <br />Please explain the basis for this sweeping conclusion when the review did not appear to analyze the <br />potential increase in risk from the significant increase in all modes of travel over Capital Drive; did <br />not do any projection of potential risks from the substandard street configuration and did not even <br />acknowledge the much higher safety standard that must be met to conform to the City Council's <br />adopted "Vision Zero" policy (which isn't even mentioned in this review). <br />Comment: Gillespie declined to address the evidence and factors that conflict with his conclusory <br />statement. Gillespie provided no evidence or other basis for his conclusory statement. This <br />statement is unsupported and unreliable. <br />23. RE: "The existing roadways that lead to the Capital Hill PUD site have been in existence for over a <br />century. They have been fully improved with curbs and gutters since the 1950's. The city did not <br />have a council adopted street design standard at that time. The streets were designed to standards <br />and exceptions of the design engineer and City/County engineers at the time of their construction." <br />While this is information that would be appropriate under "Existing Conditions," please explain what <br />relevance it has under the "review" analysis to the current capacity and safety of the access roads? <br />Gillespie declined to provide any explanation. These statements aren't probative to evaluating any <br />approval criteria with respect to projected use. <br />March 8, 2018 P a g e 17 <br />