section of Spring Blvd south of the 5-way intersection that is even narrower and more substandard than the <br />remaining options. He then goes on to state that "the roadways listed above make multiple street connections <br />into the area and the potential for routes to access the development site multiply exponentially as proximity to <br />the site increases." This statement makes no sense and could not be further from the truth. <br />As part of Mr. Gillespie's “Review and Recommendations” he states that the narrow roadway and topography <br />create a self-regulating condition consistent with a queuing street. He also states that “Spring Blvd and Capital <br />Drive do not have a crash history. This further justifies the adequacy to serve motorists pedestrians and <br />cyclists.”As shown in the Response by the Joint Committee, a crash with significant emergency and repair <br />response occurred in September 2017. <br />The two foot wide sidewalk described on the downhill side of Capital Dr. has no railing and a steep drop off in <br />places, putting pedestrians in the roadway, just like they are all the way down Spring Blvd to Fairmount. <br />Further, he states that “From an Engineering operations and safety perspective, there is no appreciable <br />difference between an 18 foot wide road and a 20 foot wide road.” On the contrary, there is an appreciable <br />difference when a fire truck is unable to pass a Sanipac truck or other large construction vehicle due to the <br />narrow road width. This could increase emergency response time, putting existing residents and the residents of <br />the proposed PUD at risk. <br />EC 9.8320 (10) <br />EC 9.6505 (4) Sidewalks <br />Regarding the requirement for a 5-foot sidewalk instead of the proposed 4-foot width along Capital Drive <br />within the PUD, the staff report states: <br />"The 5-foot wide curbside sidewalk will allow for pedestrians and people with mobility impairments to <br />safely travel on a publicly dedicated surface in both directions between locations in the Capital Hill <br />neighborhood and to more distant attractors such as schools, stores, and parks...will provide the public <br />with a viable alternative to walking in the street and being forced to compete with larger and faster <br />bicycles, cars and trucks." <br />This sidewalk is only within the PUD, and ends at Tract D. It essentially allows pedestrians safe passage in a <br />circle along Capital Drive and the private road. After Tract D and along the proposed access to lots 18 and 19, <br />pedestrians and people with mobility impairments are forced into the street. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________ <br />In summary, after spending long hours studying the Tentative PUD application and attempting to learn as much <br />as possible about the relevant sections of the Eugene Code, it was disappointing to read the staff report. I held <br />out hope that the planning department might look at this development with a more critical eye, but in far too <br />many sections the Application's assertions were accepted without question and used nearly verbatim to explain <br />why the PUD application should be approved. <br />4 <br /> <br />