The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdditional Public Comments as of 3-23-18 BROWN Daren M From:Ocean Howell <ohowell@uoregon.edu> Sent:Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:02 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:NO RESPONSE -- Fw: public comment on Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17 Ï 01) Dear Nick Gioello, IwroteyoucommentsabouttheCapitalHillPUD(PDT17Α01)onMarch5,2018(pleaseseeforwardednote below).Ihavereceivednoconfirmationthatyouhavereceivedthecomment,andIdon'tseemynoteamong city'swebsite. thepubliccommentsthatwererecentlyuploadedtothe Pleaseconfirmreceipt,andpleaseenterthiscorrespondenceintothepublicrecord. Thankyouforyourtime, OceanHowell 2480MalabarDr. CƩƚƒʹOceanHowell {ĻƓƷʹMonday,March5,20188:13PM ƚʹnick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹpubliccommentonCapitalHillPUD(PDT17Α01) Dear Nick Gioello, I am writing about the Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17 – 01). I ask that you enter this letter into the record and that you confirm receipt of this letter. I am stunned to see that the Planning Staff Report of 2/28/18 recommends approval of this project. I am concerned about the impact on Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail, as well as on property values for the entire neighborhood, but I am particularly worried about safety along Capital and Spring. I live at 2480 Malabar Dr., near the 5-way intersection of Madrona, Spring, Capital and Woodlawn. From my kitchen window I watch multiple cars a day speed through this intersection without even braking, mostly coming down Capital. I am a professor--an historian of urban history and urban planning--at the University of Oregon, and I commute by bicycle. The ride is threatening. The roadway is narrow, with multiple blind curves. I have had countless close calls with cars, particularly when returning up the hill, and a car passes me on a blind curve, only to encounter opposing traffic. If I'm at the office after dark, I will not bike home because reflective clothing and bike lights are not enough to make a rider visible. I do not feel safe. I commuted by bike, during rush hour, on Market Street into downtown San Francisco for five years, and I had nowhere near the number of close calls that I have had in just two years on Spring. I'd like to add that I am an 1 avid road biker and a retired professional skateboarder. I am no alarmist when it comes to traffic (in fact I made a living out of playing in traffic in my late teens and early twenties). The blind curves and the condition of the shoulders makes these roads truly dangerous. The walk is not much better, particularly at night. I have often found myself pushed into shrubs on the side of the road in order to avoid cars. I have a two-year-old daughter, an eight-year-old son, and a puppy. I am already incredibly nervous about walking with them through the neighborhood, and I cannot imagine what it will be like if this project is permitted. Are there 34 houses on Capital and Alta Vista now? This PUD will essentially double the traffic on these narrow, winding, non- conforming streets. I'd also like to add that I am a big supporter of infill. This project, however, is not in keeping with the spirit of the movement towards infill development. The definition offered by the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission is typical: "Infill refers to the development of vacant parcels within previously built areas. These areas are already served by public infrastructure, such as transportation, water, wastewater, and other utilities." By contrast, the Capital Hill PUD is poorly served by literally every category of infrastructure, perched at the very edge of the urban area, abutting protected parkland. It would be irresponsible to approve this project under the rubric of infill. Most importantly: it's not safe. I strongly urge you to reject the proposal. Thank you for your attention, Ocean Howell Associate Professor of History Clark Honors College University of Oregon 2480 Malabar Dr. Eugene, OR 97403 ohowell@uoregon.edu (415) 385-4703 2 BROWN Daren M From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:39 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:Susan Hoffman; Cathy Johnson CHPUD REVISED Additional Testimony on Criterion 10 plus Other Items Subject: Attachments:Second PDF Crit 10 Response to Staff Rpt for HO PDF 032118.pdf Hi Nick. I just sent to you at 4:18 PM the final comments of the Response Committee on Criterion 10 plus some additional matters. Unfortunately, I sent to you an older version of the document. Sorry for the confusion. Attached hereto is the version I should have sent. The document name includes SECOND. Please confirm via return email that you have received this version and tossed the previous one. Thanks again. 1 Date: March 21, 2018 To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner From: Susan Hoffman, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee Re: Capital Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) Dear Hearings Official: This email constitutes additional testimony regarding: EC 9.8320 (10) (a), (b), (e), (f) and (k). The PUD complies with all of the following: (a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. The 2/28/18 Staff Report indicates in the middle of Page 38 of 62 that the at 2.6 to 2.9 units per acre. The Committee refers the reader to its discussion of density on Pages 94 through 102 of the Response Document dated 3/7/18. The Committee believes that the density of the proposed project, in actuality, is quite close to the maximum of 5 units per acre. on Page 38 of 62 (middle) regarding limiting lot coverage. This paragraph states: For lots 16 and 17, each lot shall have the option of constructing up to three attached single family structures. If only one single family structure is proposed, that lot shall have a maximum lot coverage of 50% of the buildable portion of the lot. If two or three single family structures are proposed, that lot shall have a maximum lot coverage of 65% of the buildable portion of the lot. The buildable portion of the lot shall be the area identified as outside any preservation area and shall not exceed 13,500 square feet, The Response Committee requests that, for clarification, the following phrase be added at the end of sentence two in the above paragraph and in Number 10 of the Conditions of Approval: The Response Committee feels that the addition of this phrase will further clarify lot coverage requirements for every lot in the project. Lots 5, 16 and 22 and concurs with reducing the buildable portion of these three lots to 13,500 SF. Page 1 However, The Response Committee want to ensure that from those three lots is added to adjacent Preservation Areas as follows: Lot 5 : Reduce the buildable portion of the lot by 3,118 SF so that the buildable portion equals Add the 3,118 SF to the Preservation Area contiguous with the lot. not more than 13,500 SF. Lot 16: Reduce the buildable portion of the lot by 2,668 SF so that the buildable portion equals Add the 2,668 SF to the Preservation Area contiguous with the lot. not more than 13,500 SF. Lot 22: Reduce the buildable portion of the lot by 4,494 SF so that the buildable portion equals Add the 4,494 SF to Tract C of the so-called Common Area, which not more than 13,500 SF. is contiguous with the lot, so that the large trees in Tract C can be preserved rather than removed. removed from the buildable square footage of Lots 5, 16 and 22 be included in Recommendation 11 of the Conditions of Approval on Page 61 of 62 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report. #### The Response Committee retains its position that the three access easements to Lots 5 through 9, Lots 17 and 17, and Lots 18 and 19, especially the two access easements that are 20 feet wide with only a 12 foot wide paving width, are too narrow and unsafe. All pedestrians, bicyclists and physically challenged individuals will be required to walk/ride in these narrow traffic lanes. Therefore, the Response Committee concludes that the Application does not fully comply with this portion of Criterion 10 and therefore: THE APPPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. EC 9.6505 (1) Water Supply Staff addresses this Criteria at the top of Page 41 of 62 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report. Staff indicates that: there is sufficient water to supply the proposed Capital Hill PUD. However, the water system is restricted by the existing infrastructure which does not have adequate capacity to provide the required domestic and fire water flows to the proposed development. The proposed development will require significant upgrades to the EWEB water system, which would include a new pump station and associated piping. Referral comments from Public Works staff note that prior to final subdivision approval the applicant will need to provide documentation from EWEB ensuring adequate water service. Therefore Staff has included Recommendation 12 in its Recommended Conditions of Approval on Page 61 of 62 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report, as follows: Page 2 Recommendation 12. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide documentation that EWEB has received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the plat. It is noted that EWEB currently accepts cash, bond, or an irrevocable letter of credit as financial guarantees. The Response Committee points out the following: In response to this Staff recommendation, on March 6, 2018, the applicant provided an Owner Commitment to Contribute to Cost of Water Infrastructure. The Response Committee feels that this document is insufficient to comply with Recommendation 12 because a mere statement by the applicant that they will conform to Condition #12, does not guarantee conformance thereto. Further, the Applicants promise or statement regarding the proposed development is not an adequate substitute for a condition of approval that is necessary to ensure compliance with applicable approval criteria. Basically, the document provided by the Applicant in a large 3/6/18 submission to the City is a promise to guarantee not a guarantee itself. A promise regarding a proposed development, (under Culligan vs. Washington County, LUBA No. 2008-038), is not an adequate substitute for a condition of approval that is necessary to ensure compliance with applicable approval criteria. The Response Committee is of the opinion that the pending Application for Tentative PUD Approval and the supporting documentation are insufficient in this regard and do not comply with EC 9.8300 (1) (a) and 9.8320 (7). #### 10 (b) The PUD complies with EC 9.5600 through 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards EC 9.6505 (3) Streets and Alleys Prior to the Staff Report issuance on 2/28/18, the Application has maintained that no replacement street trees will be planted. On Page 44 of 62 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report, Staff addresses the need for the applicant to comply with the standards in EC 9.6505 (that) require the developer to enter into an agreement establishing installation and maintenance responsibilities for street trees in accordance with the standards in EC 7.280 The Response Committee requests confirmation that the Applicant will be required to enter into an agreement establishing installation and maintenance responsibilities for street trees in accordance with the standards in EC 7.280. 10 (e) The PUD complies with EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site Page 3 In the middle of Page 45 of 62, the Staff Report claims that the pedestrian circulation standards at EC 9.6730 are not applicable. However, if either or both of Lots 16 and 17 are developed with 3 unit apartments, this standard will apply. See C113 through 115 10 (f) The PUD complies with EC 9.6735 Public Access Required nd Note that an error exists in the Staff report in the 2 paragraph from the bottom of Page 45 of 62. Access to Lot 5-10 and 16-19 will be provided via 20 foot wide shared access easements In actuality, access to Lots 5-10 is proposed to be via a shared access easement that is 28 feet wide, with a pavement width of 20 feet. Access to Lots 16 & 17 and to Lots 18 & 19 is proposed to be via a 20 feet easement with 12 feet of paving for each access lane to these two sets of lots. The Response Committee continues to assert that these access lanes are too narrow and should be required to have sidewalks adjacent. Further, the Response Committee also holds that the slope of Capital Drive is in excess of 15% at the point that the proposed access easement exits Capital Drive leading to Lots 18 & 19. This is EC 7.420 Access Connections Location (1) (b). in violation of City Staff addresses compliance with EC 7.420 Access Connections Location (1) (b) on Page there is no mention of this potential code violation. 46 of 62 of the Staff Report; however, #### 10 (k) The PUD complies with All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included in the application except where the applicant has shown that a proposed noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development. An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. On Page 53 of 62 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report, Staff discusses current code violations regarding an existing 3 unit apartment now located on proposed Lots 33 and 34. Staff proposes the following: 50 Residential Zone Development Standards including Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750, shall be met Additionally, Staff uses similar language in its proposed Recommendation 18 under Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 4 The Response Committee points out that, given the complexity of the approval process for the current Tentative PUD Application dated 8/22/17, final resolution of issues (if any) and final approval of the PUD (if any) could take a substantial amount of time. Meanwhile, a code violation could continue unaddressed for months if not years. continue to pursue an immediate resolution to the existing code violations concerning both the 3 unit apartment building and the single family residential structure. Both of these structures are contained on the existing Tax Lot 200. Note that all four units are believed to be currently rented; however, the owner (the Applicant) does not live on-site.) #### rd In the 3 bullet point on Page 54 of 62 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report, Staff has used incorrect lot numbers pertinent to the discussion as follows: Staff describes Lot 23 has having a square footage in excess of 13,500 SF and indicating has no existing building or structures but is associated with Lot 22 and contains an existing vineyard, fruit tree orchard and other large trees. Staff continues exceed 13,500 on this lot The reader deduces from this discussion that Staff means Lot 23. However, the lot numbers are reversed. Lot 22 is the lot with the vineyard and no structure. Lot 22 is associated with Lot 23. Lot 23 contains the Under discussion here is a reduction in lot square footage (to meet the 13,500 SF maximum) for Lot 22, not for Lot 23. As previously noted, the Response Committee concurs with Staffs Recommendation 11 (under Recommended Conditions of Approval) to require that the buildable areas of Lots 5, 16 and 22 be reduced to 13,500 SF. The Response Committee reiterates its request that the land removed from the buildable portion of these three lots be added to the preservation areas contiguous to the lots. #### minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage for the remainder of the lots, and fencing) will be addressed subsequently as part of the building permit process at the time each lot is (Emphasis added.) Page 5 The Response Committee once again underscores its position that many of these items should be under the purview of CC&Rs, a draft of which has never been produced. A clear demonstration of the clarification needed, but not available, is that City Staff apparently is NOT AWARE that the 8/22/17 Applicant, in the middle of Page 26 of 67, indicates Is fencing allowed or not? The Response Committee can find no other notation in the 8/22/17 Application regarding fencing between lots other than on Page 56 which indicates under Fences Proposed Height Interior Yard Does this mean that fencing between individual lots will be proposed at a later time? If so, what design standards will apply to fencing? Given that the Application is replete with errors and inconsistencies, the Response Committee perhaps, a holdover from another application used as a model for this one. Had the community and City S not exist. The Response Committee points out that it has located in excess of 25 places in the 8/22/17 Application and supporting documentation (site plans, etc.) that CC&Rs are referred to. That is, the Applicant relies on CC&Rs to promise that a number of approval criteria will be met at some unspecified time in the future. This approach has two significant problems. The most glaring of which is that no CC&Rs are presented in the 8/22/17 Application, as the Response committee has previously pointed out in numerous places throughout our response documentation. So, it is impossible for the Hearings Official to ascertain whether it is even theoretically possible that the approval criteria will be met. The second problem is that CC&Rs are not enforced by the City. They are an enforcement mechanism that relies on private civil litigation, either by a homeowners association or by an aggrieved individual. Thus, even if CC&Rs were present in the 8/22/17 Application, they cannot be relied upon as evidence to suggest that an approval criteria will be met in the future. A list of all the places within the 8/22/17 Application where the Applicant relies upon CC&Rs to meet conditions of approval has been provided as an Attachment to the Committees 3/7/18 Response Document. Therefore, the Response Committee repeats its position that the proposed development does not comply with EC 9.8320 (10) and therefore, Page 6 THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. #### The Response Committee notes below other issues with the 2/28/18 Staff Report: 1. Page 4 (middle of the page) uses incorrect lot numbers for the lots proposed as having the are option to construct up to three attached single family units (apartments). These two lots Lots 16 and 17; not Lots 17 and 18. 2. Page 6 (bottom of the page) again incorrectly uses Lots 17 and 18 for the lots proposed as having the option to construct up to three attached single family units (apartments). These areLots 16 and 17; not Lots 17 and 18. two lots 3. Page 7 (middle of the page) incorrectly claims that the additional opportunities for a range of choice in housing types consistent with the intent of The Response Committee repeats its position that allowing two unknown lot buyers (if Lots 16 and/or Lots 17 sell in the future) to decide if those two lots will contain a single family residence, a duplex or a triplex does not constitute a This is very haphazard methodology for meeting Eugenes housing shortage. 4. Page 9 of the Staff Report (top) indicates that only five trees will be removed in order to accommodate the storm water drainage channel that will run between Lots 13 and 14. The Response Committee counts 5 trees in this portion of Tract A with a red X indicating removal. At least 6 other trees within or adjacent to this area are also shown on the Site Plans. 5. Page 9 of the Staff Report (top) also indicates the preserved areas of the eastern lots also act as an uninterrupted natural wildlife The Committee has mentioned in several areas throughout its Response Document that the 6 foot fence proposed for the entire length of the eastern boundary of the site prevents (rather than promotes) the movement of wildlife. 6. Page 15 of the Staff Report (middle) discusses the thin strip of land at the very southern edge of the property that the Applicant offered to the City for access to the Ribbon Trail. This offer of land was turned down by the City because The Response Committee points out a double standard here. How can land be too steep to be including, possibly, a rear yard with an estimated slope in excess of 45%? Page 7 7. Page 17 of the Staff Report (bottom) discusses the sufficiency of on street guest parking on both Capital Drive and Cupola Drive. The Response Committee is extremely concerned with the parking situation for the proposed PUD. No actual guest parking, other than on street, is proposed. Were guest parking spaces provided, they would be required to be screened by landscaping. By omitting guest parking areas, the Applicant reduces costs and increases profits as more square footage of land is dedicated to lot development. One of the most egregious environmental ramifications from the proposed PUD will be the number of cars parked in driveways (again, the Response Committee mentions no CC&Rshow many are allowed?) and along Capital Drive and Cupola Drive. The Committee estimates that on a nice summer weekend afternoon, easily visible parked cars The visual impact of these cars adjacent to Hendricks Park could exceed one hundred. and the Ribbon Trail will be disastrous. #### Below are Response Committee Comments on Recommended Conditions of Approval (shown on Pages 59 through 62 Not Already Addressed in this Letter: Recommendation 2. Notes #8 on Sheet L 3.0. Documentation of justification for the removal of missing from the language. Why has City approval now been eliminated from this step? Recommendation 2. Notes #8 on Sheet L 3.0. Language has been added stating that The Application states that the private preservation areas are under the management of the HOA. Placing the responsibility of replacing trees with individual lot owners means that, in many cases, trees will likely never be replaced. This is problematic. Once again, the missing CC&Rs could clarify. Recommendation 7. This condition requires the placement of a n states B, C, and D, no above ground structure that requires a building permit; no impacts to preserved trees; and no grading activity s (Emphasis added.) The Response committee points out two issues that have been overlooked in Recommendation 7: Plan L 6.0 without grading? The area of Tract C, especially, will be severely damaged by the regrettable plan to remove the large tree(s) on the Tract. Page 8 2. According to Eugene code, any structure less than 200 SF may be installed on land without a building permit. Further, there o the number of < 200 SF structures allowed on a lot. Does this mean that sheds, chicken coops, tiny houses, sun shades, vehicle covers, cupolas, patio cover type structures, jungle gyms, plastic yard equipment, etc. can all be erected in the individual preservation areas? Hopefully not. But once again, we are back to the CC&R issue. How many of these types of structures, if any, are allowed on one lot? Were draft CC&Rs available, perhaps answers to some of these questions would be available. Recommendation 12. This condition requires that, applicant shall provide documentation that EWEB has received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the plat. It is noted that EWEB currently accepts cash, payment, bond, or an irrevocable letter of credit as financial guara EC 9.6505(1) Water Supply. See Response Committees comments above under All Recommendations of Approval: The Response Committee questions the exact timing for various recommendations. On the final plans Recommendation 8 indicates Recommendation 10 notes that Recommendation 11 notes that Recommendation 12 indicates Recommendation 13, 14, 15 and 18 indicate Recommendation 16 and 17 indicate The final plans shall be modified so th These various above references to points in the approval timeline are ill-defined and confusing. Perhaps Staff can clarify at exactly what point in the numerous steps to approval (if any), adherence to the Staff Recommended Conditions for Approval is required. Page 9 BROWN Daren M From:CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:28 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:RE: Please enter into the record and confirm receipt. (The content inemail and attachment are the same. The attachment has 3pics in it) Thanks CƩƚƒʹGIOELLONickR {ĻƓƷʹ3/21/20183:27PM ƚʹCWMurchison {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹRE:Pleaseenterintotherecordandconfirmreceipt.(Thecontentinemailandattachmentarethesame.The attachmenthas3picsinit) Receivedandenteredintotherecord. Nick Gioello Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. Associate Planner | Planning Division City of Eugene Planning & Development 99 West 10 Avenue th Eugene Oregon 97401 p 541.682.5453 f 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us CƩƚƒʹCWMurchison\[mailto:cwmurchison@gmail.com\] {ĻƓƷʹWednesday,March21,201811:00AM ƚʹGIOELLONickR<Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹPleaseenterintotherecordandconfirmreceipt.(Thecontentinemailandattachmentarethesame.The attachmenthas3picsinit) Date: March 21, 2018 To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner From: CW Murchison, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) Dear Hearings Official: EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 This is additional testimony regarding . (Mainly response to the Criteria 7 city's report with additional new testimony and a short challenge about ) 1 In the city's explanation of why they are making an exception to the code requiring secondary emergency access the city says, “EC 9.6815(2)(d) requires secondary access for fire and emergency vehicles. EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1) allows for an exception to these standards if the applicant provides a local street connection study which demonstrates that the proposed street system meets the intent of street connectivity provisions of the land use code as expressed in the purpose and intent statement at EC 9.6815(1), and also shows how undeveloped or partially developed properties within a ¼ mile can be adequately served by alternative street layouts.” (p.26, EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets) They specifically state that an exception can only be granted if it meets the purpose and intent of EC 9.6815(1).EC 9.6815 (1)(a) specifically states, “Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles.” This has not been demonstrated and has not been met. The streets cannot safely accommodate emergency vehicles. The Fire Department clearly established their issues and concerns in their 2-20-18 letter in the concern realities. With all of the issues that were laid out here the only accommodation that has been made to mitigate no secondary access and a below code primary access is to add no parking signs on Capital Dr. from Spring Blvd to Cresta de Ruta St. This makes parking a fine-able offense and does not prevent it. Delivery and Work trucks must park there anyway as they already do in no parking areas along the same emergency access route on Spring between Capital Dr and Fairmount (which has been established photographically). An emergency is not timed and an impediment to traffic could still be there at any time. This also does nothing to improve the main choke-point at the 5 way intersection or any of the roads further down such as Spring either way. The Fire Department still left all other concerns in their letter including this from Concern Reality 2, “The impact upon the timely response of additional fire response vehicles on major medical emergencies and fire incidents. Given the severely restricted access to the area, in all likelihood the truck company would not be able to physically drive to the scene. This means the Incident Commander would need to determine whether to have the crew from the truck park at the most out of the way place and walk in on foot or send the truck away and call for another engine company. Either way the truck company crew of 3 would be out of the fire fight.” This acknowledges that the Fire Department believes that in a major emergency the severely restricted access to the area would necessitate firefighters abandoning their vehicle ¼ of a mile from the entrance of the proposed CHPUD and running uphill to the emergency. Given that the bigger the emergency the bigger the necessary response and the larger the amount of people fleeing the emergency this necessarily creates a situation that is self-exacerbating, meaning that a larger emergency would have more congestion, more delays to response and a higher casualty rate and loss of property both public and private in the case of fires. Approval of the proposed CHPUD would allow the addition of up to 35 additional households having just one access and egress point from the site, resulting in a significant risk to public health and safety. In fact the main access via Capital Dr is not the required 20ft, but rather is 18ft per city record’s and confirmed by the Fire Department and our own measurements (17ft9in-18ft7in), leaving the proposed PUD with no emergency access that meets standards (given the route via Madrona-Cresta de Ruta is even worse, as described by the Fire Dept.) In fact the primary emergency access route, at 18ft, is not wide enough to accommodate two 10ft wide emergency vehicles to pass by each other while responding to an emergency. Thus, the proposed CHPUD is inconsistent with the intent of the street connectivity standards stated in EC 9.6815 (1) (a): Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles, making it clear that the CHPUD proposal does not meet criteria 5 and should be denied. The issue of relying on Capital Dr as the only reasonable yet inadequate emergency access for a development with over 30 new homes was driven home again yesterday when we saw this large temporary sign at the 5-way stop informing us that Capital Dr would be closed on Thursday, March 22, 2018. We asked, and it is for periodic tree trimming around powerlines. The road will be closed 2 that day and blocked by large tree trimming trucks. (This is yearly maintanance and Capital is closed for other reasons such as Utility repair/work as has been documented in the CHPUD Response Group report) Emergency responders will have to use the much less desireable Madrona-Highland- CrestaDeRuta route that “would require additional maneuvering of the fire vehicle and would potentially greatly reduce response time.” (Fire Department 2-20-18) I would also like to add that along that slow windy route there is a very narrow portion of Madrona between Malabar Dr and Highland Dr that if blocked for whatever reason would require the emergency response to use Malabar Dr and make an extremely sharp turn onto the other side of Madrona which would then allow the Emergency Vehicle to access Highland and proceed up the hill. (This turn was shown in the presentation with the Firetruck trying to make it and Fireman out of the truck helping. It is similar to the Cresta de Ruta to Capital Dr turn the Fire Department described above) This is very clearly unsafe and does not meet EC 9.6815 (1) (a). This also shows the CHPUD proposal does not meet EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 and should be denied. Capital Dr will be closed Thursday, 3/22/18 (SIGN: CAPITAL CLOSED THURSDAY) EC 9.8320 Criteria 6 says The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm water or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. Given the explanation above and the letter from the Fire Department from 2/20/18 (especially the Concern Realities 1 and 2) it is more than clear that this CHPUD proposal is a significant risk to public health and safety and clearly presents an impediment to emergency response, not meeting Criteria 6 and should be denied. There is a fundamental issue with pedestrian safety that is not addressed by the applicant. There is absolutely no accommodation for pedestrians on Capital at the access of lots 18 and 19. Here you have an 18ft wide road with curbs on both sides at a sharp 90 degree curve with no sidewalk. This is part of the proposed CHPUD and has not addressed pedestrian safety or access in any way, but rather has made it more unsafe through the introduction of the access for lots 18+19 and the addition of additional traffic from the propos \[The entire original message is not included.\] 3 BROWN Daren M From:CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:06 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Fwd: Please enter into the record and confirm receipt. (The content in email and attachment are the same. The attachment has 3pics in it) Attachments:CHPUD OpenPeriodTestimonyCrit5+6.doc Just double checking that you received my testimony to be submitted to the record Nick. See below. Thanks, CW Murchison ---------- Forwarded message ---------- CW Murchison From: <cwmurchison@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:59 AM Subject: Please enter into the record and confirm receipt. (The content in email and attachment are the same. The attachment has 3pics in it) To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Date: March 21, 2018 To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner From: CW Murchison, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) Dear Hearings Official: EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 This is additional testimony regarding . (Mainly response to the Criteria 7 city's report with additional new testimony and a short challenge about ) In the city's explanation of why they are making an exception to the code requiring secondary emergency access the city says, “EC 9.6815(2)(d) requires secondary access for fire and emergency vehicles. EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1) allows for an exception to these standards if the applicant provides a local street connection study which demonstrates that the proposed street system meets the intent of street connectivity provisions of the land use code as expressed in the purpose and intent statement at EC 9.6815(1), and also shows how undeveloped or partially developed properties within a ¼ mile can be adequately served by alternative street layouts.” (p.26, EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets) They specifically state that an exception can only be granted if it meets the purpose and intent of EC 9.6815(1).EC 9.6815 (1)(a) specifically states, “Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles.” This has not been demonstrated and has not been met. The streets cannot safely accommodate emergency vehicles. The Fire Department clearly established their issues and concerns in their 2-20-18 letter in the concern realities. With all of the issues that were laid out here the only accommodation that has been made to mitigate no secondary access and a below code primary access is to add no parking signs on Capital Dr. from Spring Blvd to Cresta de Ruta St. This makes parking a fine-able offense and does not prevent it. Delivery and Work trucks must park there anyway as they already do in no parking areas along the same emergency access route on Spring between Capital Dr and Fairmount (which has been 1 established photographically). An emergency is not timed and an impediment to traffic could still be there at any time. This also does nothing to improve the main choke-point at the 5 way intersection or any of the roads further down such as Spring either way. The Fire Department still left all other concerns in their letter including this from Concern Reality 2, “The impact upon the timely response of additional fire response vehicles on major medical emergencies and fire incidents. Given the severely restricted access to the area, in all likelihood the truck company would not be able to physically drive to the scene. This means the Incident Commander would need to determine whether to have the crew from the truck park at the most out of the way place and walk in on foot or send the truck away and call for another engine company. Either way the truck company crew of 3 would be out of the fire fight.” This acknowledges that the Fire Department believes that in a major emergency the severely restricted access to the area would necessitate firefighters abandoning their vehicle ¼ of a mile from the entrance of the proposed CHPUD and running uphill to the emergency. Given that the bigger the emergency the bigger the necessary response and the larger the amount of people fleeing the emergency this necessarily creates a situation that is self-exacerbating, meaning that a larger emergency would have more congestion, more delays to response and a higher casualty rate and loss of property both public and private in the case of fires. Approval of the proposed CHPUD would allow the addition of up to 35 additional households having just one access and egress point from the site, resulting in a significant risk to public health and safety. In fact the main access via Capital Dr is not the required 20ft, but rather is 18ft per city record’s and confirmed by the Fire Department and our own measurements (17ft9in-18ft7in), leaving the proposed PUD with no emergency access that meets standards (given the route via Madrona-Cresta de Ruta is even worse, as described by the Fire Dept.) In fact the primary emergency access route, at 18ft, is not wide enough to accommodate two 10ft wide emergency vehicles to pass by each other while responding to an emergency. Thus, the proposed CHPUD is inconsistent with the intent of the street connectivity standards stated in EC 9.6815 (1) (a): Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles, making it clear that the CHPUD proposal does not meet criteria 5 and should be denied. The issue of relying on Capital Dr as the only reasonable yet inadequate emergency access for a development with over 30 new homes was driven home again yesterday when we saw this large temporary sign at the 5-way stop informing us that Capital Dr would be closed on Thursday, March 22, 2018. We asked, and it is for periodic tree trimming around powerlines. The road will be closed that day and blocked by large tree trimming trucks. (This is yearly maintanance and Capital is closed for other reasons such as Utility repair/work as has been documented in the CHPUD Response Group report) Emergency responders will have to use the much less desireable Madrona-Highland- CrestaDeRuta route that “would require additional maneuvering of the fire vehicle and would potentially greatly reduce response time.” (Fire Department 2-20-18) I would also like to add that along that slow windy route there is a very narrow portion of Madrona between Malabar Dr and Highland Dr that if blocked for whatever reason would require the emergency response to use Malabar Dr and make an extremely sharp turn onto the other side of Madrona which would then allow the Emergency Vehicle to access Highland and proceed up the hill. (This turn was shown in the presentation with the Firetruck trying to make it and Fireman out of the truck helping. It is similar to the Cresta de Ruta to Capital Dr turn the Fire Department described above) This is very clearly unsafe and does not meet EC 9.6815 (1) (a). This also shows the CHPUD proposal does not meet EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 and should be denied. 2 Capital Dr will be closed Thursday, 3/22/18 (SIGN: CAPITAL CLOSED THURSDAY) EC 9.8320 Criteria 6 says The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm water or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. Given the explanation above and the letter from the Fire Department from 2/20/18 (especially the Concern Realities 1 and 2) it is more than clear that this CHPUD proposal is a significant risk to public health and safety and clearly presents an impediment to emergency response, not meeting Criteria 6 and should be denied. There is a fundamental issue with pedestrian safety that is not addressed by the applicant. There is absolutely no accommodation for pedestrians on Capital at the access of lots 18 and 19. Here you have an 18ft wide road with curbs on both sides at a sharp 90 degree curve with no sidewalk. This is part of the proposed CHPUD and has not addressed pedestrian safety or access in any way, but rather has made it more unsafe through the introduction of the access for lots 18+19 and the addition of additional traffic from the proposed development. In fact there is no accommodation for pedestrians anywhere from the main entrance of the proposed PUD on Capital all the way to Alta Vista. This is well within ¼ mile of the proposed CHPUD and leaves that entire section of Capital Dr 18ft wide with curbs and no sidewalk for pedestrians or wheelchairs. This is clearly a danger to public health and safety and does not meet EC 9.8320(5)(b), not meeting Criteria 5 or 6 and should be denied. Lots 18- 19 should be eliminated. EC 9.8320 Criteria 6 says The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm water or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. Based on a review of the initial Fire Department Land Use comments for the Capital Hill PUD – “ PDT17-1 by Schirmer Satre Landscape Architects, the “dead end fire department access road” no longer exists. This portion of the development, after review, removed an access road that supported lots on a private drive originally serving lots #1 and #4. Capital Hill Road will now dead end but this dead end road will not exceed 150 ft, thus removing the requirement for an acceptable fire department apparatus turn around.” (from the Fire Departments letter) So here the applicant was going to need to make a turn around for emergency vehicles at the North end of Capital Dr. To avoid this more costly solution the applicant choose to simply end Capital Dr after 150 ft serving lots 1-4. These properties beyond the 150ft would be in a much more dangerous situation if this happened. The city requires a dead end barrier at the end of the 150ft. This leaves lot 1 with no way to have it's driveway get to the street making more difficult to service in emergencies. There are also two existing homes beyond this point on the other side of the Capital from proposed lots 1-4 that would have their houses and driveways cut off from the street with this cobbled together compromise. There is no mitigation for these neighbors parking, how they would access their houses, how an emergency vehicles would get in, how a disabled person would access... This is an unacceptable situation that 3 must be prevented and creates a threat to public health and safety, violating Criteria 6 and the CHPUD should be denied. Lots 1-4 should be eliminated. EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 This proposed CHPUD fails both and should be denied. The city incorporated this into their response on Criteria 5 concerning safe access to the development site “A memorandum from Scott Gillespie P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager (see Attachment F), which is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(7), indicates that Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to serve the proposed development and no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. The memorandum concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site.” The city also uses this memorandum from Scott Gillespie to support the CHPUD Criteria 7 meeting. We firmly disagree with Mr. Gillespie's memorandum (Attachment F to City Report) and conclusions. The evidence we have provided in writing, video and photographically has clearly established that Spring Boulovard and Capital Drive are inadequate and incapable of safely serving the proposed development sight. We have also submitted a report on traffic safety completed by Massoud Saberian, a Licensed Traffic Engineer, as opposed to the applicant who did not use a licensed traffic engineer to produce their report on traffic safety. Massoud found numerous issues with the substandard report submitted by the applicant that undercut the primary evidence that Mr. Gillespie has used to support his conclusions that the necessarry roads and infastracture was in place to adequately and safely serve the development sight. I would also like to remind once again of the Fire Department's comments as well, which also refute Mr. Gillespie's conclusions about safe access to the development sights. We disagree vehemently with the conclusions of Mr. Gillespie, which were based on faulty underlying evidence. Due to all of these reasons the proposed CHPUD EC 9.8320 Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 does not meet and should be denied. Uphill on Spring from the North side of Capital. Spring approaching the 5way from 27 th. In both of these photos of Spring Blvd on each side of the Capital Dr intersection, Spring is below the required 20ft in width. It is clear that impediments to traffic are common. It is tough for a 10ft wide th firetruck to even make it through the portion of Spring from 27 shown on the right. It is very clear just from these photographs that there is inadequate access and emergency access to safely meet the needs of the proposed development, also countering Mr. Gillespie. It must also be pointed out that the applicant's traffic study did not address traffic issues beyond the 5way intersection. The two photos above are outside the area of their traffic study. Numerous safety and access issues were made about the 5way intersection, Capital Dr and the Madrona-Highland-CrestaDeRuta route in the CHPUD Response Group's report and presentation as well as Massoud Saberian's report and other testimony beyond the issues pointed out about Spring here. (Safe access issues also exist at st Fairmount-Spring intersection, along Fairmount Blvd, and down the short part of 21 St from EC 9.8320 Fairmount to Agate.) For all these reasons the proposed development does not meet Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 and should be denied. 4 In summary, after spending long hours studying the Tentative PUD application and attempting to “ learn as much as possible about the relevant sections of the Eugene Code, it was disappointing to read the staff report. I held out hope that the planning department might look at this development with a more critical eye, but in far too many sections the Application's assertions were accepted without question and used nearly verbatim to explain why the PUD application should be approved.” (Kathleen Masterson, Additional testimony 3/20/18) I fully concur with Kathleen on this. The exact reasoning used in the application was used by the city in their report consistently. The professional reports the applicant submitted were accepted without question and in fact the city went through the effort to produce and include Attachment F from Scott Gillespie whose sole purpose appears to be to argue in support of the reasoning in the application and the professional reports produced for the applicant. The lack of a critical eye by the city makes it clear that the developer's interests have been driving the process, not a more expected ensuring that the applicant's plan actually met city codes. This process has fallen on the public and shown that if we had not hired our own more qualified professionals to do higher quality reports than the applicant and had not spent countless hours researching the applicant's plan and relevant codes, the city would simply be acting as an endorser and promoter of a plan created by a private developer and selling that plan to the hearings official for a relatively clean approval of what we have established is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous plan built upon faulty logic and poorly done professional reports. This process has caused me to lose great faith in the independent decision making of the city. There was little if any here. Their report was an endorsement of poorly done work. We have established with incontrovertible evidence that the proposed development would violate many of the Criteria put forth by the city and should be denied in full. 5 Date: March 20, 2018 To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner From: CW Murchison, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) Dear Hearings Official: EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 This is additional testimony regarding . (Mainly response Criteria 7 to the city's report with additional new testimony and a short challenge about ) In the city's explanation of why they are making an exception to the code requiring secondary emergency access the city says, “EC 9.6815(2)(d) requires secondary access for fire and emergency vehicles. EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1) allows for an exception to these standards if the applicant provides a local street connection study which demonstrates that the proposed street system meets the intent of street connectivity provisions of the land use code as expressed in the purpose and intent statement at EC 9.6815(1), and also shows how undeveloped or partially developed properties within a ¼ mile can be adequately served by alternative street layouts.” (p.26, EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets) They specifically state that an exception can only be granted if it meets the purpose and intent of EC 9.6815(1). EC 9.6815 (1)(a) specifically states, “Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles.” This has not been demonstrated and has not been met. The streets cannot safely accommodate emergency vehicles. The Fire Department clearly established their issues and concerns in their 2-20-18 letter in the concern realities. With all of the issues that were laid out here the only accommodation that has been made to mitigate no secondary access and a below code primary access is to add no parking signs on Capital Dr. from Spring Blvd to Cresta de Ruta St. This makes parking a fine-able offense and does not prevent it. Delivery and Work trucks must park there anyway as they already do in no parking areas along the same emergency access route on Spring between Capital Dr and Fairmount (which has been established photographically). An emergency is not timed and an impediment to traffic could still be there at any time. This also does nothing to improve the main choke-point at the 5 way intersection or any of the roads further down such as Spring either way. The Fire Department still left all other concerns in their letter including this from Concern Reality 2, “The impact upon the timely response of additional fire response vehicles on major medical emergencies and fire incidents. Given the severely restricted access to the area, in all likelihood the truck company would not be able to physically drive to the scene. This means the Incident Commander would need to determine whether to have the crew from the truck park at the most out of the way place and walk in on foot or send the truck away and call for another engine company. Either way the truck company crew of 3 would be out of the fire fight.” This acknowledges that the Fire Department believes that in a major emergency the severely restricted access to the area would necessitate firefighters abandoning their vehicle ¼ of a mile from the entrance of the proposed CHPUD and running uphill to the emergency. Given that the bigger the emergency the bigger the necessary response and the larger the amount of people fleeing the emergency this necessarily creates a situation that is self- exacerbating, meaning that a larger emergency would have more congestion, more delays to response and a higher casualty rate and loss of property both public and private in the case of fires. Approval of the proposed CHPUD would allow the addition of up to 35 additional households having just one access and egress point from the site, resulting in a significant risk to public health and safety. In fact the main access via Capital Dr is not the required 20ft, but rather is 18ft per city record’s and confirmed by the Fire Department and our own measurements (17ft9in-18ft7in), leaving the proposed PUD with no emergency access that meets standards (given the route via Madrona-Cresta de Ruta is even worse, as described by the Fire Dept.) In fact the primary emergency access route, at 18ft, is not wide enough to accommodate two 10ft wide emergency vehicles to pass by each other while responding to an emergency. Thus, the proposed CHPUD is inconsistent with the intent of the street connectivity standards stated in EC 9.6815 (1) (a): Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles, making it clear that the CHPUD proposal does not meet criteria 5 and should be denied. The issue of relying on Capital Dr as the only reasonable yet inadequate emergency access for a development with over 30 new homes was driven home again yesterday when we saw this large temporary sign at the 5-way stop informing us that Capital Dr would be closed on Thursday, March 22, 2018. We asked, and it is for periodic tree trimming around powerlines. The road will be closed that day and blocked by large tree trimming trucks. (This is yearly maintanance and Capital is closed for other reasons such as Utility repair/work as has been documented in the CHPUD Response Group report) Emergency responders will have to use the much less desireable Madrona-Highland-CrestaDeRuta route that “would require additional maneuvering of the fire vehicle and would potentially greatly reduce response time.” (Fire Department 2-20-18) I would also like to add that along that slow windy route there is a very narrow portion of Madrona between Malabar Dr and Highland Dr that if blocked for whatever reason would require the emergency response to use Malabar Dr and make an extremely sharp turn onto the other side of Madrona which would then allow the Emergency Vehicle to access Highland and proceed up the hill. (This turn was shown in the presentation with the Firetruck trying to make it and Fireman out of the truck helping. It is similar to the Cresta de Ruta to Capital Dr turn the Fire Department described above) This is very clearly unsafe and does not meet EC 9.6815 (1) (a). This also shows the CHPUD proposal does not meet EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 and should be denied. Capital Dr will be closed Thursday, 3/22/18 (SIGN: CAPITAL CLOSED THURSDAY) EC 9.8320 Criteria 6 says The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm water or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. Given the explanation above and the letter from the Fire Department from 2/20/18 (especially the Concern Realities 1 and 2) it is more than clear that this CHPUD proposal is a significant risk to public health and safety and clearly presents an impediment to emergency response, not meeting Criteria 6 and should be denied. There is a fundamental issue with pedestrian safety that is not addressed by the applicant. There is absolutely no accommodation for pedestrians on Capital at the access of lots 18 and 19. Here you have an 18ft wide road with curbs on both sides at a sharp 90 degree curve with no sidewalk. This is part of the proposed CHPUD and has not addressed pedestrian safety or access in any way, but rather has made it more unsafe through the introduction of the access for lots 18+19 and the addition of additional traffic from the proposed development. In fact there is no accommodation for pedestrians anywhere from the main entrance of the proposed PUD on Capital all the way to Alta Vista. This is well within ¼ mile of the proposed CHPUD and leaves that entire section of Capital Dr 18ft wide with curbs and no sidewalk for pedestrians or wheelchairs. This is clearly a danger to public health and safety and does not meet EC 9.8320(5)(b), not meeting Criteria 5 or 6 and should be denied. Lots 18-19 should be eliminated. EC 9.8320 Criteria 6 says The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm water or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. “Based on a review of the initial Fire Department Land Use comments for the Capital Hill PUD – PDT17-1 by Schirmer Satre Landscape Architects, the “dead end fire department access road” no longer exists. This portion of the development, after review, removed an access road that supported lots on a private drive originally serving lots #1 and #4. Capital Hill Road will now dead end but this dead end road will not exceed 150 ft, thus removing the requirement for an acceptable fire department apparatus turn around.” (from the Fire Departments letter) So here the applicant was going to need to make a turn around for emergency vehicles at the North end of Capital Dr. To avoid this more costly solution the applicant choose to simply end Capital Dr after 150 ft serving lots 1-4. These properties beyond the 150ft would be in a much more dangerous situation if this happened. The city requires a dead end barrier at the end of the 150ft. This leaves lot 1 with no way to have it's driveway get to the street making more difficult to service in emergencies. There are also two existing homes beyond this point on the other side of the Capital from proposed lots 1-4 that would have their houses and driveways cut off from the street with this cobbled together compromise. There is no mitigation for these neighbors parking, how they would access their houses, how an emergency vehicles would get in, how a disabled person would access... This is an unacceptable situation that must be prevented and creates a threat to public health and safety, violating Criteria 6 and the CHPUD should be denied. Lots 1-4 should be eliminated. EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 This proposed CHPUD fails both and should be denied. The city incorporated this into their response on Criteria 5 concerning safe access to the development site “A memorandum from Scott Gillespie P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager (see Attachment F), which is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(7), indicates that Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to serve the proposed development and no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. The memorandum concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site.” The city also uses this Criteria 7 memorandum from Scott Gillespie to support the CHPUD meeting . We firmly disagree with Mr. Gillespie's memorandum (Attachment F to City Report) and conclusions. The evidence we have provided in writing, video and photographically has clearly established that Spring Boulovard and Capital Drive are inadequate and incapable of safely serving the proposed development sight. We have also submitted a report on traffic safety completed by Massoud Saberian, a Licensed Traffic Engineer, as opposed to the applicant who did not use a licensed traffic engineer to produce their report on traffic safety. Massoud found numerous issues with the substandard report submitted by the applicant that undercut the primary evidence that Mr. Gillespie has used to support his conclusions that the necessarry roads and infastracture was in place to adequately and safely serve the development sight. I would also like to remind once again of the Fire Department's comments as well, which also refute Mr. Gillespie's conclusions about safe access to the development sights. We disagree vehemently with the conclusions of Mr. Gillespie, which were based on faulty underlying EC 9.8320 evidence. Due to all of these reasons the proposed CHPUD does not meet Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 and should be denied. th Uphill on Spring from the North side of Capital. Spring approaching the 5way from 27. In both of these photos of Spring Blvd on each side of the Capital Dr intersection, Spring is below the required 20ft in width. It is clear that impediments to traffic are common. It is tough th for a 10ft wide firetruck to even make it through the portion of Spring from 27 shown on the right. It is very clear just from these photographs that there is inadequate access and emergency access to safely meet the needs of the proposed development, also countering Mr. Gillespie. It must also be pointed out that the applicant's traffic study did not address traffic issues beyond the 5way intersection. The two photos above are outside the area of their traffic study. Numerous safety and access issues were made about the 5way intersection, Capital Dr and the Madrona-Highland-CrestaDeRuta route in the CHPUD Response Group's report and presentation as well as Massoud Saberian's report and other testimony beyond the issues pointed out about Spring here. (Safe access issues also exist at st Fairmount-Spring intersection, along Fairmount Blvd, and down the short part of 21 St from EC Fairmount to Agate.) For all these reasons the proposed development does not meet 9.8320 Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 and should be denied. “In summary, after spending long hours studying the Tentative PUD application and attempting to learn as much as possible about the relevant sections of the Eugene Code, it was disappointing to read the staff report. I held out hope that the planning department might look at this development with a more critical eye, but in far too many sections the Application's assertions were accepted without question and used nearly verbatim to explain why the PUD application should be approved.” (Kathleen Masterson, Additional testimony 3/20/18) I fully concur with Kathleen on this. The exact reasoning used in the application was used by the city in their report consistently. The professional reports the applicant submitted were accepted without question and in fact the city went through the effort to produce and include Attachment F from Scott Gillespie whose sole purpose appears to be to argue in support of the reasoning in the application and the professional reports produced for the applicant. The lack of a critical eye by the city makes it clear that the developer's interests have been driving the process, not a more expected ensuring that the applicant's plan actually met city codes. This process has fallen on the public and shown that if we had not hired our own more qualified professionals to do higher quality reports than the applicant and had not spent countless hours researching the applicant's plan and relevant codes, the city would simply be acting as an endorser and promoter of a plan created by a private developer and selling that plan to the hearings official for a relatively clean approval of what we have established is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous plan built upon faulty logic and poorly done professional reports. This process has caused me to lose great faith in the independent decision making of the city. There was little if any here. Their report was an endorsement of poorly done work. We have established with incontrovertible evidence that the proposed development would BROWN Daren M From:Deborah Skell <deborahskella@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:13 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Fwd: Capital Hill PUD Please attach my letter to the public comments in the Capital Hill PUD file. Thank you in advance for sending me a confirmation of your receiving my letter below. Dear Mr Gioello, As you are aware there is passionate opposition to the Capital Hill PUD on many points. One being the gross inaccuracies in the geotechnical ‘field testing’ results, where sandstone became igneous rock, nothing short of a ‘miracle,’ and, factually inaccurate. Setting all of that aside, how can the Planning Department consider approval of the project when there is absolutely no remedy for the width of Spring Street. That 18 -foot-fact creates a physical bottle neck that cannot be remedied other than by condemning property and bulldozing homes to widen the the road. Please stand away from this death trap of a plan. No sprinkler system, or, five foot side walks along the proposed loop will right the harm proposed here. There is gross negligence reflected in this proposed project. The pro- ported rights of two individuals weighed in the balance against the irreparable harm to wildlife, neighbors, and environment. 1 In closing there are grave safety issues involved for over 95 homes who have no alternative to traveling through the 5 way stop in order to leave the hill, including mine. None of the 5-way stop roads have sidewalks or parking. All are all under 18 feet wide. This subdivision should not be approved. Sincerely, Deborah Skell 2400 Malabar Drive Sent from my iPhone Deborah Skell, GCFP 2 Notes from Sept. 1, 2017 Meeting at Eugene City Planning Department Between CHPUD Response Team Members & Nick Gioello, Associate Planner, and Eric Favreau, Civil Engineer I Capital Hill PUD Response Team members present: Faris Cassell, C.W. Murchison, Susan Hoffman, Nate Teich, and Cathy Johnson. Also attending: Paul Conte and (by speaker phone) Massoud Saberian – Traffic Engineer for CHPUD Response Team. (Note: Minutes and seconds in parentheses indicate time that topic was discussed in recording. Blue text indicates follow-up items.) Massoud asked about the status of the Fire Department’s review of the project. Nick responded that on 8/31/17, he sent a request for final comments (“referral comments”) to various city departments such as Public Works Department, Fire Department, Parks Department, LTD, the 4J School District and others. He will get information back from them in 3 weeks or so – approximately 9/21/17. Response Team to request of Nick that he immediately provide a copy of each response (“referral comments”) as he receives same. The meeting then went on to address the questions in Faris’ 8/31/17 email to Nick. 1.What is the road rating of Capital Drive, Spring Blvd and Fairmount Ave? Are theroads rated at 25 tons? 35, 50 or 80 tons? (6:03) Eric- We don’t use road ratings. The rehabilitation of roads is constructed to have a 20- year life and new roads are constructed to have a 30-year life as per AASHTO Pavement Design Guide. Paul - Are all of the roads under consideration under city maintenance? Eric - Yes. Nick - All are public roads. Paul - That’s not the same thing. Saying that roads are public doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re under city maintenance. City has to take certain steps, I believe it’s called “acceptance.” Eric - All of the roads are under city jurisdiction. Maintenance is a vague term; all are classified as “local streets.” They don’t receive much in terms of rehabilitationconsideration for road improvements. Of course there are exceptions, but it would be a high cost for a small number of users benefits. Paul - I know you have capital improvement and budget priorities, but I want to clarify, there is a legal distinction whether a road is under city maintenance or not. Eric - That would be a question for our Maintenance Department. Nick - We’ll get back to you. 2. Has the city calculated the number of truckloads needed to remove the trees being cut down? Eric - It’s not required. The city doesn’t do that type of analysis; there are no local regulations to govern that. The city views construction (traffic) activity as a “temporary condition” and, as such, doesn’t make those types of calculations. 3. Has the city calculated the size, weight, and length of the trucks, trailers, bulldozers, and cranes needed to cut the trees in the PUD area? Eric: No. See response to #2 above. 4.(8:51) Who is going to pay to bring Capital Drive up to the 21-foot minimum standard? (It was clarified that this question only pertains to the widening of the Capital Drive in front of the development.) Eric -The developer must pay for this improvement. Paul - Is city staff going to recommend, as a condition of approval, that the applicant does this work prior to building permits? Or simply file bonds? Eric - That will all be taken care of during the PEPI Process (Privately Engineered Public Improvement Permit Process), our construction process. It will go through plan review in my department and I’ll be the one reviewing the plans. The work will be bonded so that there is surety that it is done. Paul - Will city staff recommend that, as a condition of any possible Hearings Official approval, the PEPI Process be adhered to as it relates to the widening of Capital Drive? Nick - Yes. Any street widening work will be done in accordance “with” the PEPI Process. (11:16) Paul - Is it staff’s position that you would actually specifically say that the conditions referred to are in accordance with the PEPI process? Nick - I’ll have to go and look; we have done that in the past. Paul - It’s critical that it gets into the conditions of approval. 5.(12:31) Has the City taken into account garbage trucks during the cutting down of trees? Currently a fire truck and garbage truck cannot both be on the same road without one being backed down the hill? Eric - No. This is not a requirement in the application process nor is it standard practice. (Sanitation) requires very few trips per month, so there is little impact. Faris - You should be aware that we have photos of a fire truck having to back a significant distance down Spring Blvd. because of a garbage truck. (13:09) Nate - So this is a Fire Department issue? Eric - It’s something they will consider. Paul - Could you make sure consideration of that is put into their (the Fire Department’s) referral comments? Nick - We don’t ask them to put anything in their report – they send comments to us. Faris - So we should talk to the Fire Department? Nick - Yes. Ask them to look at certain things. I think they’re well aware of the issues up there; we’ve had a lot of discussions with them about it and we still are. 6.(13:52) Has the city calculated the impact to local roads of trucks, trailers, bulldozers and backhoes to access the project and to cut in the new proposed PUD roads and install the water, sewage, and drains? Eric - No. (See answer to #2 above.) Nick - Just to be clear, we have a set of clear criteria and that’s exactly what we follow when we analyze this. When an issue is not in the criteria, we can’t use it as a way to evaluate this project (14:52). It’s not that we’re trying to get out of what you’re talking about. Sometimes it seems like your considerations are very valid, but if it’s not in the code, we can’t use it. Paul - (15:11) Faris, can I jump the queue, because this point that Nick just made is part of the point about clarifying two of the criteria interms of their scope. Re: EC9.8320 (6)where it addresses that a proposed PUD “cannot be a significant risk to public health & safety…or an impediment to emergency response.” How far down the access road(s) is the City and the Fire Department going to evaluate that criteria? Eric - Just along frontage of the proposed PUD property. That’s why we have adopted local street standards and the Fire Department has acknowledged that that is acceptable. It’s not creating any new issues. Paul - Are you aware that the city has a formal decision that says you DO have to consider beyond the site boundaries? Eric - Yes, but then you get into the realm of what is creating, what is contributing towards… Paul - (17:00) NO, the Planning Commission said it’s not about creating. It’s about whether or not a lane provides safe and unimpeded access for emergency response. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether you create an issue. It’s that, even if some issue exists, the Planning Commission ruled that a Fire Apparatus Access Road is from the fire station to the site. It doesn’t stop at the boundary and it doesn’t need “creation.” Nick - We’re well aware of the case, it’s part of the internal discussion in how we deal with it in this project. There are some differences and a lot of similarities. We’re still evaluating. We’re waiting for the Fire Department to see what kind of language they’re going to come back with in referral comments. Then we will determine how we’re going to assess that section in the code. Paul - You have to assess it according to what the Planning Commission has said. 7. Has the city measured the length of the long driveway off Capital Drive where city deemed no turn around required? 8.Will a pumper truck be required to travel to the top of the PUD area? What are the length, weight, height of pumper trucks, ambulances and fire trucks? 9.Since there will be apartments (two stories), will a hook and ladder truck be able to negotiate Spring Blvd? Capital Drive? 10.Has the city timed response from the fire station to the center of the PUD? Has the fire department tried to have a fire truck go up to the PUD area at the same time an ambulance is going down the hill? Questions 7 through 10 above. Nick: The Response Team should address these types of issues with the Eugene Fire Department. 11.Is the City proposing building a road through Hendricks Park? Or on the backside of the PUD to Floral Hill Drive in the Laurel Hill Valley? (18:50) Eric - No. We’re not considering this. Nick - The city is not considering a road through Hendricks Park. A question in my letter (email) caused confusion. I wanted to see if the parks people have looked at and thought about putting some kind of access up there for maintenance. If so, is there the ability for emergency (only) fire access? Parks said they are not considering any new access roads. Terrain is too steep. Nick verified with site visit. Nick apologized if it seemed like the city was trying to get a road through HP. Nick needed the applicant to discuss the road feasibility in their application and explain why it can’t be done (because the approval criteria talks about looking at those types of “connectivity issues”). 12.Will there be school bus service to the PUD area? How many trips for South Eugene High School? Roosevelt Middle School? Edison Elementary? Nick - I will ensure that the Planning Dept. has included 4J (schools) in their request for final referral comments. 13.(20.33) Will there be city bus service to the PUD area? How many trips a day? th Nate: The closest city bus service is at 19 and Agate. This distance is approx.1.2 miles from the project and the way to and from is somewhat steep. Nick - That’s a long walk. Faris - Yes, especially in the winter and for those who are handicapped. Nate - That’s part of the issue when the developer claims that it is convenient. 14.Is the City going to eliminate parking on one side of the road along Spring Blvd or Capital Drive? (21:22) Eric - No. I imagine that residents would like to have the convenience of street parking. So there’s the “bonus” of having the parking there and the “bonus” of having the parked cars act as a traffic calming measure. People are going to go slower when cars are parked on Capital. But also, will they go slow because it’s too congested? As of now there are no plans to remove street parking. Even if it happens in the future, it wouldn’t be a part of this (approval) process. Paul - Some of the material claims that a road at 20 ft. meets city standards for two-way traffic and a road at 21 ft. meets city standards for two-way traffic with parking on one side at most, so how do you square continuing to allow parking with meeting the standard? The standards don’t allow parking. (22:57) Eric - At the time the road was constructed, it met city standards. If we were to go in today and construct a new road we wouldn’t build it the way that it was built, but it was acceptable at the time. Our local street standards became effective in 1999 or 2000 and there were lots and lots of roads in the city that were built before that that would be obsolete in that regard, but they still function. (23:33) Paul - That’s true, but how do you meet the criteria in sub (6) and sub (5)(b) that requires safe bicycle and pedestrian access? How do you square that with not having a road that meets current standards when that’s a requirement for the PUD to be allowed? So you have a changed condition and I don’t believe that there’s any law that says that because the street was in place, the PUD can be allowed with an unsafe access. I think that’s contradictory. It’s been determined that that’s not true. Your explanation would be fine if people were talking about conditions on Capital Drive, but they’re not. They’re talking about conditions that need to be met in order to have safe access to the PUD. If you’ve got some law, I think you should cite it. (24:32) Massoud - At the time the road was built, the standards were not required and there were no developments coming up with 50 or so units. (Actual maximum number of units is 37.) When you say parking allowed on one side to accommodate (the neighborhood) or as traffic calming for a street with a 12 to 14 foot width, I don’t think they mean that you need any additional traffic calming. It just functions poorly. Even if you have two cars going toward each other, one still has to pull to one side to allow the other to go by, assuming they can find a spot to do so. It’s a contradictory statement, as was pointed out. At the time of approval (of the street standards) there were no developments at the top of the hill. 15.(25:34) Who is responsible for damage to the road network by the heavy trucks? Eric - In general, the City. For specific damage relating to construction of the PUD – the contractor. It’s somewhat difficult to prove; you have to catch them in the act of damaging something to prove that they did it. Faris - But if it’s multiple construction vehicles, heavy logging trucks… Eric - Yes, that’s something that we consider in our pavement design. As you know, Capital Drive was repaved last year. We looked at the existing structure before we repaved it and then we did our reconstruction of it. Something that is considered is existing zoning and land uses along that corridor, so it’s designed to handle construction activity. Obviously it’s not designed for an excavator to tip over or some freak accident. Faris - So you reconstructed the roadbed so it can handle logging trucks? Eric - Yes. Massoud - Would there be a survey (assessment) of the road conditions before and after the PUD construction? Eric - No, that’s not something that we require. Faris- could we request it? Eric - I’m not familiar with anything in our code that could require that. Massoud - I’ve worked in Washington County and other places where, when there is a major development coming and Public Works anticipates a lot of heavy truck traffic going back and forth for a year or so, they do an assessment of the road condition. There are multiple categories they can look at, and then when the work is done, they can look and say that the road condition went from this level to this level. (28:44) Nick - Yes, the code actually does have provisions that require that there not be significant negative impacts offsite. Could be insub (12), I think, (We think he means sub 11) so it’s not a public works thing. This would fall under that (i.e., EC 9.8320 (11)) and the Hearings Official does have a legal basis to do what Massoud has suggested. Whether or not he’ll choose to do it is a different matter. Eric – As a side note, I don’t think that we’re anticipating a lot of extremely heavy trucks for this project compared to other construction sites. The access to the site doesn’t dictate that. Usually you have a truck and pumper or a truck and transfer to bring up your asphalt and everything, which are extremely heavy and also require a lot of street to maneuver through. I imagine that if this project gets constructed, it’s not going to be with the biggest construction vehicles. Massoud - I’m talking about a typical concrete truck going back and forth. Eric - Yes, concrete trucks, but also asphalt trucks that weigh many tons. (29:51) Nick - I think it’s a valid concern and it’s something that you should just throw out there. It’s something that could be a condition (of approval). We did that where I used to work in Arizona. I don’t know if we can do that here, but I’ll bring it up and I’ll discuss doing an assessment of the roads leading up to it (the PUD). Paul - Look at sub (12). Nick - Prior to having them do the assessment… Faris - Having who do the assessment? The developer? Nick - Yeah. Or Public Works. We’ll have to talk internally as to whether or not that’s something that could be done, but you could bring it up as a condition (of approval). Put it in there. I don’t see why not, I think there’s something valid behind it. Nate - It’s a brand new road. If you want to know what the condition is right now, anybody can tell you, it’s been repaved within 11 months. Nick - If it’s found that any of their activity caused some kind of degradation, then they’re responsible to bring it back to prior condition. Ask for that condition. We’ll deal with it from the planning side and it’ll be up to the Hearing Official. Nick - I think what I’m hearing is that they (Public Works) don’t normally do that. Faris - Is that the only way that you think we’ll be able to prove use? We need to know a way to prove degradation of a road and so a condition survey is one way. Do you have any other way? Eric - No, because degradation of a road happens all of the time, so it is hard to prove. Every vehicle that drives on a road degrades it. CW - Take the difference between the road 1 year ago and now. Faris - It sounds a little bit argumentative to suggest that a road is always degrading as opposed to degrading from a lot of heavy construction. Paul - I can tell you where it is in the code. (32:59) Massoud - With regards to the numbers, a pavement or civil engineer can come up with a level of impact. You know how many trips up there you have now, and then based on the weight of the trucks and typical construction traffic that may be going on for so long a period of time. That’s why they do a survey before and after and that gives them a pretty good idea of conditions. If your road has a 20-year life and it lasts 18 years, you know that it’s time for resurfacing. If it’s a brand new road, newly paved and you have to come back and repave in 2 to 5 years, then you know that there was an impact due to construction traffic. It’s fair (to ask) that the developer know this. (33:51) Nick - It’s knowable. Paul - You said that you don’t use a load standard; you use a construction standard that says “this is how you build the road.” That’s the standard that you refer to, so does that standard ensure that you meet Eugene Fire Code load standards for fire access roads? Eric - We have Local Street Standards adopted by the City Council that acknowledges that our street section standard is 6” of asphalt and 12” of crushed rock. They’re welcome to submit a design report that says otherwise. Paul - You would know from professional reference material, if it’s a 20-year life, the particular design profile and standard, right? Eric - Right Paul - If you build to that standard, you’re building a 20-year road. Eric - If it’s brand new, it’s 30 year. Paul - But you know that because there’s some reference that tells you that. Eric - Yes. Paul - So there’s also some reference that tells you what load it will bear to get that 30-year surface. Nick - Yes, and some calculation … Paul - So what is that load, because Eugene Fire Code, which amended International Fire Code, requires 80,000 pounds, to be able to support … Eric - I don’t have that number. Paul - Could you get it? Eric - Possibly, but… Paul - Why are you arguing about providing information that gets to the point that’s in the code that assures safe emergency access? Eric - I’m not arguing. Paul - Can you get the number? Eric - I can certainly look for it. Paul - Thank you. That would be good. (35:50) CW - I have a slightly related question. If the road does get severely damaged… In EC 9.6815 section 2(f) about a connection to an unimproved road. If the surfaces of streets connecting to the project become fully degraded, the developer constructs a temporary barrier that says “Do not use this road.” If the road itself gets extremely damaged, could the developer shut off access for people that live at the end of the road, like Jason? Eric - If it got to the point that the road was totally blown up to where it was not passable… Nick - I think that’s one of the things that you should bring up…the concern for anybody living on the section of Capital Drive that goes towards Hendricks Park. They must always have access during construction, because that’s their only way in and out.You/We might want to make sure that we’ve got something that covers that. I think that’s a valid point, too. Maybe we can put something in ahead of time. 16.When will we be notified of the hearing date? th Nick - The Hearing is tentatively set for October 18. That is when a Hearing Official is available. (NOTE: AS OF 9/12/17, THIS DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO NOVEMBER 1, 2017 AND IS STILL “TENTATIVE.”) Paul - Can you make sure that notices of the meeting get to the intended recipients & are not returned for incorrect address? Nick- Agrees that he will verify that meeting notices will go to the correct recipients at the correct addresses. 17. Is the city studying or planning ways to ameliorate access roads (Capital, Spring from 27th to 21st, including 21st and Columbia and Cresta De Ruta) weight limit or structural problems caused by the additional new residents and construction traffic of the proposed CHPUD? This is pretty much the same question as #15 (already discussed). Deterioration of the road due to construction activity. 18.(39:03) Is the City studying or planning to improve the access roads listed in #17 to address traffic safety (vehicles, pedestrians, school children, bikes)? Eric - No. Faris - Are you studying these roads – the roads that get you away from the neighborhood - are you planning to include anything about that in your review of traffic, road safety, emergency access? Eric – No. There are no plans in the TSP (Transportation Service Plan) and CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) to address traffic safety in these areas. Faris - So you don’t think it is the Planning Department’s responsibility to make sure that we have safe and adequate access? Eric - I can’t speak for the Planning Department. Nick- He’s with Public Works. Massoud - Traffic Engineers are pretty particular about the safety of streets and not compromising or worsening conditions and (they) will chime in at some point. Faris - So this question goes back to Nick and the Planning Department. Is the City or the Planning Department making an assessment that all access roads provide safe and adequate access to the PUD? Nick - We’ll rely on our engineering “folks” to tell us whether it is safe or not. Faris - The access roads… Eric - No. There are no plans in the TSP/CIP. These are adopted plans that we (use) to identify areas of the city that need improvement from a publically funded source (41:24) Paul - That doesn’t speak to the point. That doesn’t cover whether or not you approve a PUD, because those plans didn’t know about the PUD. You’re reversing the situation. The question is not “Does the city have in place plans to improve that road (i.e., any access road).” The question is “Is that road (i.e., any access road) safe and adequate for the proposed PUD? If that road is not safe and adequate, it’s your responsibility to identify that and then the PUD wouldn’t be approved because it wouldn’t meet (the requirements) in paragraph sub (5). Eric - Right and then… I wasn’t done yet because our TSP/CIP actually do look at zonings and vacant lands along the corridor and do consider maximum density when they’re evaluating the access roads. Faris - The access roads? Eric - Yes. We look at all of the corridors. Paul - Regarding sub (5)(b), which is bicycle, pedestrian & alternative mobility access offsite, what’s the distance/where’s the limit to what you’re going to study? Eric - I can’t speak to that right now. Paul - Can you follow up? Faris - That’s a real key question for us. CW - These roads are major thoroughfares for U of O students, bicyclists, pedestrians, running clubs... Faris - And school children would be generated by this project and would need safe access all the way to their schools. Nick - So you’re talking about a dedicated bike/pedestrian path? Paul - No. I’m just talking about sub(5) sub(b) that says you must have safe and adequate access. (43:15) Paul - Can you give us a professional opinion about whether “mixed traffic” increases risk or not? That is…pedestrians and vehicles sharing the same “travel way” – not the same right of way – does that increase risk? Eric - for? Paul - pedestrians. Eric - If they’re walking on the street? Paul - Yes. If they have to walk on the street as their only way to get from Point A to Point B. Paul - Not just the street but also the “travel way” – in other words – the same pavement that vehicles have to use. CW- Because there’s no sidewalk? Paul - The question is very simple – You have a “travel-way” which vehicles have to use and pedestrians have to use. Does that increase the risk for those pedestrians vs. the pedestrians being able to move outside of the “travel way”? (44:45) Eric- I understand what you’re saying but…and I think Massoud would be able to address this since he is a traffic engineer… Paul - Can we get a city response on that? Because that’s essential to sub (5) sub (b). I can tell you what the answer is. If you go look at the literature, you’ll find that it increases the risk and in fact the Public Works staff and the City Engineer have provided testimony to counsel that that’s the case. So I’ll be sure they have that testimony to submit. The point is that when you’re looking at sub (b), you need to address the fact that mixed traffic as I’ve described increases the risk to pedestrians. (45:17) Massoud - As part of my presentation, I refer to the Traffic & Safety Study by Branch Engineering, which was submitted by the Applicant. At the bottom of page 2 it says, “additionally there are areas where street parking creates a narrower than is typical condition that should be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer.” That’s one part… Massoud continues - While I’m on the topic, the beginning of the report cites City Code EC9.8650 indicating, “this development does not have significant impact” with which I disagree. Significant by whom? That’s something the City Traffic Engineer and the Engineering Group will address such as a percent impact to the existing neighborhood. As part of that code language, there are two segments that both increase traffic as well as the cross sectional element of the street. So those are all in the city code that has to be addressed at some point. But it is under this discussion and I’ll be making a reference to those when I generate a response to the Traffic Safety Analysis. Again, (the Applicants says) they’ve chosen to do it (submit a traffic safety analysis) and are not required to do it…I disagree with that. It should be a requirement for any development of this size. Eric - so I think we’ve essentially covered the next few questions (referring to 19 & 20.) 19. If improvements to the access roads listed in #17 are necessary to accommodate increased traffic caused by CHPUD by the City or in the hearing process, who will pay for those improvements? 20. Has the City calculated load limits for access roads listed in #17? Can you provide those limits to the response group? 21.(47:25) Does the Planning Dept. believe that the South Hills Study applies to either one or both FNA (Fairmount Neighbors Association) and LHVCA (Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Association) sections of CHPUD? Nick - references his 6/26/17 letter to Carol Schirmer (that’s on-line) including some maps showing the location of the South Hills Study, the Fairmount Neighbors Area and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Area. Nick - Yes…South Hills Study applies to a portion of this (property) and that came up in their (Applicant’s) argument that they couldn’t do “Needed Housing” although that’s what they wanted to do. We’re taking this project as if it’s under the General Criteria because that’s how they checked the box and that’s how they wrote their narrative. We’re not considering the needed housing argument, but that might be a separate argument that comes up in appeal, if there is one. Faris - So the South Hills Study only applies to a portion? Nick - Yes. About half of it. Faris- A significant portion. Nick - Yes. 22. (49:10)Could you explain the City's thinking about (proposed) lot 33, which has three rented dwelling units under 1 roof in a remodeled former garage? (The existing 3-unit apt. building and an adjacent single-family house are currently on one tax lot. All 4 units are rentals. The Application proposes to split the existing tax lot into two tax lots…Lot 20 with the house and Lot 33 with the 3 unit apt. building.) Both proposedlots are within the Fairmount Neighborhood, zoned R-1. Is there a requirement that an owner must reside on the property? Faris - There is an existing 3-unit apartment building (within the project boundaries) as our question indicates. Nick - Is that one in Fairmount? Faris - Yes. It is in Fairmount according to their plan. Nick - We’d have to research it and figure out, was it established legally and does it qualify? Faris - It (the 3 unit apt. building) was built when the adjacent house was owner-occupied. Since the Dreyer’s purchased that property (in approx. 2013), both the house and the 3-unit apt. building have become rentals, with no owner living in either property The Fairmount Neighbors do not allow rentals unless the owner also lives on the property. Nick - We’d have to research it. I don’t know how it was established; how it was qualified. If something is illegal, this is the time to bring it into conformance. It’s a good question. So you think the issue is – when it was established, the owner had to live on the property? Faris - Yes. Faris - Massoud…do you have any additional questions? (52:32) Massoud – In the Applicant’s Traffic Safety Analysis, they (Branch Engineering) have pointed out why narrow streets are good and beneficial. But they have not said anything about the dis-advantages of them…those should be brought up too. They are not using the correct trip generation standard for traffic count. I don’t know of any jurisdiction that would accept a situation like this. What they call a “traffic safety analysis” is lacking in many, many places. That’s because it wasn’t done by a Traffic Engineer. Faris - That affects 9.8670 (Traffic Impact Analysis Review – Applicability) Massoud: At some point, I’d like to hear the comments and feedback of the City’s Traffic Engineer. Three Additional Questions: 54:30) Regarding EC 9.8320 Criteria #11 – off-site impacts. On page 61 of 67 in the written ( Application, Applicant does not seem to directly address any specifics beyond the internal area of the PUD itself. Applicant asserts: “This criterion has consistently been interpreted and is here interpreted to address offsite impacts of the proposed use.” Nate - In EC 9.8320, # 11, Offsite Impacts - When it says no minimal off-site impacts, what is the distance beyond the boundary of the PUD that is considered off-site? The access to get to this (property) begins necessarily at the Fairmount/Spring intersection. Nick - You’re talking from a traffic standpoint? Nate - I’m talking about traffic and everything else. There’s only one way out (for large- scale trucks and fire trucks). The only way up is at the Fairmount and Spring intersection at 2100. Is that considered off-site? Is it relevant? (55:40) Nick - There’s relevance. We’ll address that when we get to the Staff Report. I don’t know what the answer is at this stage. I think what we’re hearing today (from Public Works) is that there won’t be any changes to the road(s) going in. Nate - Is it evident that this is considered under the impact? Paul - Yes. Legally, if there’s an impact. For example, if a noise beyond acceptable levels reached out a mile, that would be illegal under sub(11). Faris –That would also apply to traffic? Paul - Under that provision There are other provisions that have different limits for the impact. Nate - How far down do you go? So this is an arguable point? Nick - Yes. Faris - But in this situation, how far out do we need to consider access as an important part of the criteria? Do we consider access all the way down the hill (out of the immediate th neighborhood)…for instance, down to 19 and Agate? Paul - Separate answers. Nick has been very helpful with sub(5) and sub(6) and other traffic related things – they are one situation. Minimum negative off-site impacts are different criteria. That doesn’t have a limit. If you can show there would be significant off-site impacts two miles out, that’s another issue. But if its traffic access, that’s a different question. On page 62 (of the written Application), Applicant only addresses “peak hour” trips of proposed residences and considers them negligible. Is this a problem? Eric - That’s what we consider. “Peak hour” trips; only the worst-case scenario. What does “off-site impacts” entail? Particularly in relation to EC 9.8320 Criterion 11 – “traffic” (page 61 of the written Application) and Criterion 6 “safety” and “impediment to emergency response” (page 46 of the written Application). Does the Planning Department consider road network that provides access/egress to/from PUD site and limitations/constraints of this route? (58:04) Nick - Yes we do. As a caveat to this, it’s going to be very important what the Fire Department’s referral comments say. I’m not going to “sugar-coat” it. If they come back and say “it’s totally hazardous; we can’t get up there; putting in this PUD is going to make it worse; we can’t provide service” or something like that…(I don’t think they’ll end then we’re going to up saying that…but if they end up saying something close to that…) have to look at this very hard and decide. Do we recommend approval or do we recommend denial? We’re not at that stage yet. Typically you do these smaller projects and you know going in…yes, everything is lining up; this is going to be an approval. I’m this thing is still unknown not saying that in this case; . Paul - it’s worth pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Applicant; it is not on the opponent (to the development). Nick - Right. The (City’s) assessment involves looking at what they (the Applicant) provided and looking at the referral comments that come in. Meeting ended approximately at 10:10 AM. Meeting minutes submitted by Cathy Johnson & Susan Hoffman, CHPUD Response Team. BROWN Daren M From:Rain Ale <rainyale@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:30 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Capital Hill PUD Nick, My name is Annette Ernst. I reside at 2845 Spring Blvd, near the proposed Capital Hill planned unit development. On a regular bases, exiting and entering our neighborhood using Spring Blvd. north of 26th can be a safety concern in it's present state. Just the other night, driving home, I almost was in a head on collision, as the on coming car was going too fast and was way left of center coming around a curve in the already too narrow roadway. I feel my safety, and those who presently reside, in this area will diminish if the proposed development goes forth in becoming a reality. Also - those who bike, run, or walk on these streets are often at risk due to no sidewalks and car traffic racing up/ down these streets. I often find myself stepping way off the road just to feel safe. As you are aware - there are no sidewalks on this street, and often times it's unsafe for two larger vehicles to pass safely without one having to pull over tightly for the other to pass by. I commonly come to a complete stop to allow (and avoid head on collisions, as I did the other night) another car to safely pass. My concerns, even it the present state of development: There is not enough road excess for more than one emergency vehicle to access properties if need be. More traffic on these narrow streets will likely bring more emergency vehicles due to possibly increased accidents. Plus, with all the fires last summer around these areas, I don't believe people could have evacuated quickly enough without bottlenecks obscuring safe passage. don't I feel that adding more car traffic on this section of Spring Blvd is safe for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. Therefor, I oppose additional lots being developed upstream in an area already too congested. Thanks for your consideration and keeping our safety first and foremost in the front of your decision making. Annette Ernst 1 BROWN Daren M From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:11 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Testimony for PDT 17-1 \[typographical corrections\] Conte Testimony PDT 17-1 March 8 2018 Typo Corrections.pdf Attachments: Please acknowledge receipt of the attached document and include in the record for PDT 17-1 (Capital Hill PUD) Conte Testimony PDT 17-1 March 8 2018 Typo Corrections.pdf This version corrects several typographical errors. Additions are in bold blue; deletions have strikethrough . There are no substantive changes. Paul Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 _________________ Accredited Earth Advantage Sustainable Homes Professional On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> wrote: Please acknowledge receipt of the attached document and include in the record for PDT 17-1 (Capital Hill PUD) Paul Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 _________________ Accredited Earth Advantage Sustainable Homes Professional 1 · · · · · · o o · · · · · · · BROWN Daren M From:Wayne L Harrison <n7tqi@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 5:19 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Capital Hill PUD Mr.Gioello: Wehavebeenresidentsforover30yearsonFircrestDriveadjacenttoHendricksPark.Wehaveseenmanytreesfall overtheseyears,oneofwhichhitourhouse.Generallyawindstormaddstothepossibilityofafallespeciallysoifthe landissaturatedfromrain.Ouropinionisthataddinghomestobeservicedonexistingnarrowstreetsisirresponsible andshouldbeavoided.FiretruckscanbarelynavigateCapitalDriveatthepresenttime.Forthesesafetyreasonsthe permitshouldbedenied. WayneHarrisonandKarenHendricks. 1 BROWN Daren M From:JOSH RECKORD <jreckord@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 06, 2018 9:48 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:In regards to Capital Hill PUD Planning department Capital PUD.docx Attachments: Please find attached a letter in regards to Capital Hill PUD Josh Reckord 1575 Fairmount Blvd Eugene, Or 1 BROWN Daren M From:Ocean Howell <ohowell@uoregon.edu> Sent:Monday, March 05, 2018 8:13 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:public comment on Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17 Ï 01) Dear Nick Gioello, I am writing about the Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17 – 01). I ask that you enter this letter into the record and that you confirm receipt of this letter. I am stunned to see that the Planning Staff Report of 2/28/18 recommends approval of this project. I am concerned about the impact on Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail, as well as on property values for the entire neighborhood, but I am particularly worried about safety along Capital and Spring. I live at 2480 Malabar Dr., near the 5-way intersection of Madrona, Spring, Capital and Woodlawn. From my kitchen window I watch multiple cars a day speed through this intersection without even braking, mostly coming down Capital. I am a professor--an historian of urban history and urban planning--at the University of Oregon, and I commute by bicycle. The ride is threatening. The roadway is narrow, with multiple blind curves. I have had countless close calls with cars, particularly when returning up the hill, and a car passes me on a blind curve, only to encounter opposing traffic. If I'm at the office after dark, I will not bike home because reflective clothing and bike lights are not enough to make a rider visible. I do not feel safe. I commuted by bike, during rush hour, on Market Street into downtown San Francisco for five years, and I had nowhere near the number of close calls that I have had in just two years on Spring. I'd like to add that I am an avid road biker and a retired professional skateboarder. I am no alarmist when it comes to traffic (in fact I made a living out of playing in traffic in my late teens and early twenties). The blind curves and the condition of the shoulders makes these roads truly dangerous. The walk is not much better, particularly at night. I have often found myself pushed into shrubs on the side of the road in order to avoid cars. I have a two-year-old daughter, an eight-year-old son, and a puppy. I am already incredibly nervous about walking with them through the neighborhood, and I cannot imagine what it will be like if this project is permitted. Are there 34 houses on Capital and Alta Vista now? This PUD will essentially double the traffic on these narrow, winding, non- conforming streets. I'd also like to add that I am a big supporter of infill. This project, however, is not in keeping with the spirit of the movement towards infill development. The definition offered by the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission is typical: "Infill refers to the development of vacant parcels within previously built areas. These areas are already served by public infrastructure, such as transportation, water, wastewater, and other utilities." By contrast, the Capital Hill PUD is poorly served by literally every category of infrastructure, perched at the very edge of the urban area, abutting protected parkland. It would be irresponsible to approve this project under the rubric of infill. Most importantly: it's not safe. I strongly urge you to reject the proposal. 1 Thank you for your attention, Ocean Howell Associate Professor of History Clark Honors College University of Oregon 2480 Malabar Dr. Eugene, OR 97403 ohowell@uoregon.edu (415) 385-4703 2 BROWN Daren M From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 26, 2018 1:00 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:Faris Cassell; Tom Bruno; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Sheryl Kelly; Nathaniel Teich; CW Murchison; Jason Brown; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman; Brent Lorscheider Subject:CHPUD - Letter to Hearing Official from Faris Cassell Attachments:Faris ltr chpud.hearing official.021618-7.docx Hi Nick. I have attached to this email a letter to the Hearing Official from Faris Cassell plus several photos that visually emphasize the traffic and safety issues concerning the proposed Capital Hill Please enter this letter and all of the photos in the official record for this PUD. projectPlease confirm . Everything is in one document so it takes a few seconds to load. back by return email that this correspondence is "in the record." Thanks as always for your assistance. 1 February 26, 2018 TO: Hearing Official, proposed Capital Hill PUD FROM: Faris Cassell 2843 Capital Drive RE: CHPUD Approval? I’m writing to urge you to deny the Schirmer-Satre CHPUD application because it fails to comply with approval criteria EC 9.6800-9.6875, EC9.6500, and EC 9.6500-9.6505. The developers of CHPUD portray the Capital Hill neighborhood as charming, quiet, quaint, and unaccustomed to change. I’ve lived at 2843 Capital since 1982, when a portion of the proposed PUD property was rented to a cult that drew police visits and arrests for suspected murder. There have been a number of new homes built--a recent new home construction \[2705 Capital\] lasted approximately 18-months and included a porta-potty obstructing the sidewalk for the entire time, a landslide, lines of concrete trucks on multiple occasions, frequent pickups parking in one traffic lane and on the 4’ wide sidewalk. Homes on Capital Hill have become rentals to multiple families, traditional and nontraditional families, college students who created party houses, and elite athletes who threw knives at nearby trees for target practice. Airbnb has brought numerous new occupants, congestion, and parking problems. This neighborhood does not see itself as a world unto itself as implied by developer. We have seen as much change as any, and accommodated it with \[mostly\] good grace. Despite this neighborhood’s extraordinarily steep, narrow, and winding streets \[Capital Drive has at least 5 blind curves\] and almost nonexistent sidewalks, local traffic has accommodated heavy trucks, pickups, motorcycles, bicycles, mini-electric cars, cars that require groups of helpful neighbors to push them up icy blind curves and driveways, day and night. Capital Hill sees more walkers, hikers, bikers, dog walkers, and families out for a walk than most, because of its proximity to Hendricks Park and lovely city and sunset views. We have lived with frequent change, respected property rights, and helped each to accommodate difficulties caused by Capital Hill’s unique terrain and history of poor street planning decisions. However, this CHPUD plan is not a small nor a single property issue that neighbors can accommodate and manage simply with a willing attitude. The proposed 34 new lots would throw more than 5x the traffic onto Capital Drive from the dead end to the dangerous, intersection with Cresta de Ruta, and 3x more traffic past the breathtakingly steep, no-sight distance intersection with Alta Vista Dr. to the 5-way intersection. Both of these street segments are within one quarter mile of PUD boundaries. The sheer density of this final version of CHPUD is an assault on neighbors’ continued safe and adequate use of city services, public streets, and our own private property—a collision, if you will, of the proposed plans’ inappropriate density, Capital Hill’s topography, and streets not designed or able to handle that amount of increased use. Roads now often clogged and requiring patience, will become impassable. Schirmer-Satre and the property owners have wrestled with the inherent physical realities of their site. They have attempted to solve the many problems through various designs (rejected by the city twice, then “forced complete”). They have searched every possible direction, including invading the neighboring Hendricks Park, to find a feasible, required secondary access and improve existing roads. Despite their significant financial resources and repeated meetings with city departments over some seven years, the developers and city departments could not identify any secondary access or possibility for improving existing roads. The developer’s only solution to the problem of approval for this unsuitable PUD plan: their current request for the codes to simply go away. The petition begs for approval of ignoring the law. On 2/13/18 Scott Gillespie, PE, Public Works Engineering, responded by email to a neighbor’s question concerning the city’s assessment of needed improvements to Capital Drive if CHPUD is approved. Gillespie responded: “Public Works staff does not believe there is code criteria to support public improvements to the access roads off site. Code does not require a comprehensive traffic study and the scope of our review does not go out that far from the development site….it would be extremely difficult to make constitutional findings to require an offsite improvement.” There are three legal problems here. First, Gillespie seems to rely on the Branch Engineering traffic study to determine that a “comprehensive study’’ is not required. Yet, Traffic Engineer, Massoud Saberian \[report submitted by neighborhood response group\] finds Branch’s study misleading, flawed, and inadequate. Second, Gillespie seems to contend that his review need not consider CHPUD access “off site.” Yet code requires safe and adequate access to the PUD. Even if his highly focused interpretation of “access” would be legitimate, that the city is only required to provide safe and adequate access “on site,” code explicitly requires Public Works to consider impacts within ¼ mile of PUD property. Third, Gillespie also seems to argue here that there is no way to determine that access will be made unsafe with the expected increase of traffic. Yet, based on the number of increased dwellings, CHPUD will generate 30% to about 50% greater traffic 1) at the dangerous Cresta de Ruta intersection \[0 sight distance\], 2) at the steep, blind hairpin turn at CHPUD’s southernmost private driveway access, and 3) at the blind Alta Vista intersection (0 sight distance). Public Works erred by not considering those affected points, explicitly required by code. It also erred by not including CHPUD’s full access route, which includes Capital Drive to Spring Blvd. to Fairmount Blvd. Gillespie also writes: “The developer’s engineer did conduct a traffic study to address Capital Drive and a portion of Spring. The measured volumes and speeds were appropriate and consistent with statutory and posted speeds for local streets. Even if a deficiency was present and there was clear code criteria, it would be extremely difficult to make constitutional findings to require an offsite improvement.” Gillespie seems to be saying there are no clear code criteria regarding safe and adequate access. However, while some code criteria regarding traffic and access are subjective, others are explicit and relevant. Gillespie also appears to rely overly heavily on the flawed Branch Engineering study, which was not conducted by a certified traffic engineer. Despite acknowledging serious concerns about the access roads’ deficiencies, NO traffic engineer was consulted by Public Works or the Planning Department, yet Gillespie believes it would be “extremely difficult” to determine whether there is a need for offsite improvement to the single access road that he admits is nowhere close to current standards and “obsolete.” The Branch Traffic Study bases its arguments about safety and adequacy of Capital Drive primarily on its survey and projected CHPUD traffic numbers. Branch uses an estimate of 5 peak trips per household and up to 49 average daily trips as the projected PUD traffic increase. Gillespie appears to accept this finding. However, in a June, 2014 meeting with myself and Josh Reckord, a neighbor, Gillespie stated that 10 is the accepted standard for the number of trips per day generated per household. Gillespie does not mention this relevant number anywhere in his evaluation, nor does he mention the realities of the often blocked traffic lanes on Capital Drive along its full access and within ¼ mile. Vehicles, including bikes, and pedestrians are frequently required to stop and wait behind parked vehicles or other obstructions in order for oncoming traffic to pass. Public Works engineer Eric Favreau referred to these Capital Hill obstructions as “helpful calming,” and “queuing” safety features. As density on the hill has increased, these “calming” moments have increased dramatically, already causing delays. Recently, a fire truck on a test drive up Capital Hill had a “calming” moment. Faced with parked cars and a garbage truck just below the five-way intersection, it was forced to back down the hill, around a blind curve, then back around a 90 degree corner onto another street \[Fairmount Blvd\], a process requiring about 10 minutes, then the garbage truck completed its run down the same distance. This is a clear existing impact on emergency services access to CHPUD property, and will only worsen with the increased traffic and time required by not only sanitation trucks, but many other service trucks. It is not a simple task to assess safety of the unique street situation and topography from city offices or even a one-time drive-around. Understanding typical daily use of CHPUD’s unique and “obsolete” \[Gillespie’s description\] access requires a reality-based view. Attached photos illustrate the topography, street traffic, and daily use that pose the real threats to safe and adequate access to CHPUD. This proposal must be analyzed using accepted traffic standards and city codes. Developer or city convenience is no legal basis for setting aside and providing variances to those codes and standards. Ignoring them will result in unsafe, unworkable access to current and future residents of Capital Hill. This CHPUD proposal does not meet clear city codes. It lacks credible proof of safe and adequate access. It should be redesigned to a more compatible density. This plan must be denied. Respectfully, Faris Cassell REAL LIFE ON CHPUD ACCESS STREETS NOTE THAT, AS CHPUD DEVELOPER ARGUES, TRAFFIC IS NOT HEAVY ALONG CHPUD ACCESS, BUT OBSOLETE ROADS ON DIFFICULT TERAIN ALREADY RENDER CONDITIONS DIFFICULT. DRAMATICALLY INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM CURRENT VERSION OF CHPUD PLAN WOULD CAUSE UNSAFE, INADEQUATE ACCESS FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES. MOST OF PHOTOS THAT FOLLOW WERE TAKEN IN A SHORT TIME SPAN, ABOUT A WEEK, TO DEMONSTRATE DAILY LIFE USING CAPITAL HILL ROADS. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN IN WORDS HOW DECADES OF STREET PLANNING DECISIONS AND UNIQUE TERRAIN HAVE LED TO THIS UNUSUALLY PRECARIOUS SITUATION. 1 OF 4 PHOTOS: 2385 SPRING BLVD. 2.12.2018 BIRTHDAY PARTY. CARS PARKED TIGHTLY STILL EXTEND INTO TRAFFIC LANE. I WAS ON MY REGULAR WALK, NO SIDEWALKS, ALWAYS MUST WALK IN TRAFFIC LANE. THIS DAY WALKING AROUND THIS PROTRUDING CAR. I HAPPENED TO WITNESS A DANGEROUS EPISODE. 2 OF 4 PHOTOS: 2385 SPRING BLVD. CARS IN TRAFFIC LANE. NOTE CHILD APPROACHING FROM 5-WAY INTERSECTION ON SKATE BOARD 3 OF 4 PHOTOS: 2385 SPRING BLVD. CHILD MUST TRAVEL IN CENTER OF STREET TO AVOID PARKED CAR. \[AT LEAST HE REMEMBERED HIS HELMET.\] 4 OF 4 PHOTOS: 2385 SPRING BLVD. LOOKING DOWNHILL. NOTE: CHILD AND CAR SEE EACH OTHER AND TRY TO AVOID DISASTROUS COLLISION. CAR TRAVELING AROUND BLIND CURVE ON WRONG SIDE OF STREET. CARELESS DRIVER APPROACHING ALTA VISTA INTERSECTION: BLIND CORNER AND NO-SIGHT DISTANCE STEEP SIDE STREET ACCESS. ABOUT ½ MILE FROM CHPUD PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO CAPITAL DRIVE. . ABOUT 2780 CAPITAL DR. TYPICAL ACTIVITY. BREATHTAKINGLY STEEP DRIVEWAY FORCES WORKERS TO PARK ON STREET, CAUSING DANGEROUS CONGESTION FOR PEDESTRIANS, BIKES, EMERGENCY AND OTHER TRAFFIC. NEIGHBORS VISITING AT 5-WAY INTERSECTION. NUMEROUS PEOPLE FROM THE ENTIRE HILLSIDE WALK THEIR DOGS TO TOP OF HILL FOR VIEWS. MISSING OR INADEQUATE SIDEWALK TO HANDLE PEOPLE WITH PETS. TYPICAL DAY. WALKERS. HIKER TRAINING WITH BACKPACK. LARGE VEHICLES BLOCKING TRAFFIC LANE AT HAIR PIN CURVE ON CAPITAL DRIVE SOUTH OF ALTA VISTA. 2808 CAPITAL: DRIVEWAYS ON THIS BLIND CURVE DO NOT ACCOMMODATE PARKING FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE USE. CHPUD PRIVATE DRIVEWAY BORDERS THIS CURVE. ABOUT 2770 CAPITAL DR. 4’ SIDEWALK.NO SIDE PROTECTION FROM STEEP DROPOFF. FRIGHTENING FOR MANY WALKERS. MOST USE THE STREET. AGAIN, NO ROOM FOR NORMAL STREET ACTIVITIES ON CAPITAL HILL ROADS. IMAGINE EMERGENCY VEHICLES NEEDING ACCESS ACCESS? SAFE TRAVEL? NIGHT TRAVEL ON CAPITAL DRIVE EWEB TRUCK. WRONG SIDE OF STREET AT BLIND CURVE. DEAD END OF CAPITAL DRIVE AT CHPUD BOUNDARY W HENDRICKS PARK. GARBAGE TRUCK WILL CONTINUE TO BACK OUT OF GRAVEL LANE UNDER CURRENT CHPUD PLAN BUT WILL SERVE 3 NEW RESIDENCES ON THIS DEAD END THUS BLOCKING ACCESS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE TIME. HOPE NO ONE NEEDS EMERGENCY SERVICES, ACCESS TO HENDRICKS PARK., OR ENTRY/EXIT FROM HOME. . WALKING ON SPRING BLVD BETWEEN E 27TH AND THE 5 WAY INTERSECTION. AS PICTURE WAS SNAPPED, CAR CAME THROUGH INTERSECTION. ALL WERE FORCED TO STOP, PULL OVER, AND FIGURE OUT WHO SHOULD PROCEED AND HOW. THANK YOU FOR JOURNEYING ON CAPITAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH US.