BROWN Daren M <br />From:CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com> <br />Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:06 PM <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:Fwd: Please enter into the record and confirm receipt. (The content in email and <br />attachment are the same. The attachment has 3pics in it) <br />Attachments:CHPUD OpenPeriodTestimonyCrit5+6.doc <br />Just double checking that you received my testimony to be submitted to the record Nick. See below. <br />Thanks, CW Murchison <br />---------- Forwarded message ---------- <br />CW Murchison <br />From: <cwmurchison@gmail.com> <br />Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:59 AM <br />Subject: Please enter into the record and confirm receipt. (The content in email and attachment are the same. <br />The attachment has 3pics in it) <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Date: March 21, 2018 <br />To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner <br />From: CW Murchison, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee <br />Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) <br />Dear Hearings Official: <br />EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 <br />This is additional testimony regarding . (Mainly response to the <br />Criteria 7 <br />city's report with additional new testimony and a short challenge about ) <br />In the city's explanation of why they are making an exception to the code requiring secondary <br />emergency access the city says, “EC 9.6815(2)(d) requires secondary access for fire and emergency <br />vehicles. EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1) allows for an exception to these standards if the applicant provides a <br />local street connection study which demonstrates that the proposed street system meets the intent of <br />street connectivity provisions of the land use code as expressed in the purpose and intent statement <br />at EC 9.6815(1), and also shows how undeveloped or partially developed properties within a ¼ mile <br />can be adequately served by alternative street layouts.” (p.26, EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets) <br />They specifically state that an exception can only be granted if it meets the purpose and intent of EC <br />9.6815(1).EC 9.6815 (1)(a) specifically states, “Streets are designed to efficiently and safely <br />accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles.” This has not been demonstrated and <br />has not been met. The streets cannot safely accommodate emergency vehicles. The Fire Department <br />clearly established their issues and concerns in their 2-20-18 letter in the concern realities. With all of <br />the issues that were laid out here the only accommodation that has been made to mitigate no <br />secondary access and a below code primary access is to add no parking signs on Capital Dr. from <br />Spring Blvd to Cresta de Ruta St. This makes parking a fine-able offense and does not prevent it. <br />Delivery and Work trucks must park there anyway as they already do in no parking areas along the <br />same emergency access route on Spring between Capital Dr and Fairmount (which has been <br />1 <br /> <br />