The evidence we have provided in writing, video and photographically has clearly established <br />that Spring Boulovard and Capital Drive are inadequate and incapable of safely serving the <br />proposed development sight. We have also submitted a report on traffic safety completed by <br />Massoud Saberian, a Licensed Traffic Engineer, as opposed to the applicant who did not use <br />a licensed traffic engineer to produce their report on traffic safety. Massoud found numerous <br />issues with the substandard report submitted by the applicant that undercut the primary <br />evidence that Mr. Gillespie has used to support his conclusions that the necessarry roads and <br />infastracture was in place to adequately and safely serve the development sight. I would also <br />like to remind once again of the Fire Department's comments as well, which also refute Mr. <br />Gillespie's conclusions about safe access to the development sights. We disagree <br />vehemently with the conclusions of Mr. Gillespie, which were based on faulty underlying <br />EC 9.8320 <br />evidence. Due to all of these reasons the proposed CHPUD does not meet <br />Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 <br />and should be denied. <br />th <br />Uphill on Spring from the North side of Capital. Spring approaching the 5way from 27. <br />In both of these photos of Spring Blvd on each side of the Capital Dr intersection, Spring is <br />below the required 20ft in width. It is clear that impediments to traffic are common. It is tough <br />th <br />for a 10ft wide firetruck to even make it through the portion of Spring from 27 shown on the <br />right. It is very clear just from these photographs that there is inadequate access and <br />emergency access to safely meet the needs of the proposed development, also countering <br />Mr. Gillespie. It must also be pointed out that the applicant's traffic study did not address <br />traffic issues beyond the 5way intersection. The two photos above are outside the area of <br />their traffic study. Numerous safety and access issues were made about the 5way <br />intersection, Capital Dr and the Madrona-Highland-CrestaDeRuta route in the CHPUD <br />Response Group's report and presentation as well as Massoud Saberian's report and other <br />testimony beyond the issues pointed out about Spring here. (Safe access issues also exist at <br />st <br />Fairmount-Spring intersection, along Fairmount Blvd, and down the short part of 21 St from <br /> EC <br />Fairmount to Agate.) For all these reasons the proposed development does not meet <br />9.8320 Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 <br />and should be denied. <br />“In summary, after spending long hours studying the Tentative PUD application and <br />attempting to learn as much as possible about the relevant sections of the Eugene Code, it <br />was disappointing to read the staff report. I held out hope that the planning department might <br /> <br />