Additional Public Comments as of 3-23-18

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