Attachment C <br />Attachment B <br />Furthermore, a qualified traffic engineer would know that "multi-modal" does not in any way mean <br />"unsegregated pedestrian an motorized." Not Mr. Gillespie, apparently. <br />It's pathetic that a PWD staff member would demonstrate such clueless disregard for pedestrian <br />safety. <br />In any case, the Hearings Official must disregard this and any further comments of a similar nature <br />from Mr. Gillespie as unreliable evidence upon which no findings can be based. <br />Paul ConLU <br />14651 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97402 <br />541.344.2552 <br />paul.t.conte@gmail.com <br />From: GILLESPIE Scott N <br />Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 11:54 AM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Subject: RE: follow up questions <br />Hi Nick. Responses are below. <br />1A. Please see the Design Standards and Guidelines for For Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways <br />(AKA Exhibit A- November 1999, adopted by Council Resolution 4806). They are the City's adopted street design <br />standards. The queuing street standard is set in this document for streets with a local designation. 2016 PIDS manual <br />adopts this document as the design standards for all public improvements (By Administrative Order of the City Engineer <br />15-16-01). Please note that EC 9 dos not governs existing public street but rather governs "development" as defined <br />therein. Capital Hill PUD's proposed and abutting street are designed consistent with the standards in Exhibit A <br />referenced above. EC 6505(3) requires improvements to proposed and abutting streets is also refers to EC 9.6870 and <br />Exhibit A for consistency. EC 9.6870 requires street width, ROW and Paving width. EC 9.6870 refers to Exhibit A for <br />Page 264 <br />