My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1st Open Record Period: Applicant Comments submitted 3-21-18
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
1st Open Record Period: Applicant Comments submitted 3-21-18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2018 2:09:36 PM
Creation date
3/22/2018 12:18:10 PM
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 after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/21/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
Technical Memo to Hearings Official - Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) <br /> March 21, 2018 <br /> <br /> Branch Engineering <br />Response: The maximum slope for an accessible pathway according to the ADA is 5-percent. <br />The offsite portions of Capital Hill all exceed 5-percent in grade. It cannot meet ADA <br />standards. The onsite portions will be designed to meet ADA standards where required by <br />code. <br />maintenance, or other items not applicable to the PUD standards. <br />It should be noted that Mr. Saberian has submitted misleading and incorrect information in his report, <br />which demonstrate his inability to provide an unbiased review using the applicable approval criteria. <br />It further demonstrates that the opinion of the who independently reviewed <br />the report should be considered as more reliable. <br />Mr. Saberian showed further bias and unfamiliarity with the Oregon Engineering Board and <br />professional conduct by engineers in Oregon by misleading the public about the qualifications of a <br />civil engineer <br />examination. There are several conditions that have been grandfathered in and third-party quasi- <br />credentials you can obtain, but under the authority of the Oregon Board of Engineering Examiners, <br />there is no such examination to be a traffic engineer and Mr. Saberian was misleading the public with <br />his statements that he was somehow more qualified than a Professional Engineer (P.E.) in Oregon. <br />Attached is the application for an engineer in Oregon to apply for another discipline of engineering. <br />(There is no traffic engineer license listed.) <br />The post-nominal courtesy titles used by Mr. Saberian on his critical review <br />have no relevance in a professional capacity in the State of Oregon <br />or rule. There is no branch or discipline regulated under the Oregon State Board of Examiners for <br />what state he is attempting to practice in, is confused about what he is licensed to practice, is <br />intentionally misleading the public. <br />The proper post-nominal initials for a Professional Traffic Engineer in Oregon is PTE. These post- <br />nominal initials are not considered by the Board as having more of a credential than a P.E.; rather, it <br />is reserved and specifically described in the OARs as a very limited profession that cannot practice in <br />other areas of engineering such as civil, environmental, et cetera. This title remains from decades ago <br />when they offered a <br />as a P.E. The board will continue the title until there are no more Traffic Engineers remaining by <br /> Page | 4 <br />Branch Engineering, Inc. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.