Mr. Gilbert states that Capital Dr is not a unique street condition for the area. This is correct. What is unique is <br />proposing to put a 34-38 home development at the end of that street (not to mention future possible <br />developments that could exacerbate problems at the 5-way stop). The Fire Department has been very clear <br />will not be <br />about the difficulty of accessing the proposed development site. Criteria 6 says, “The PUD a <br />significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm-water or <br />will not <br />flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response.” The criteria specifically says, the PUD <br />be <br />...an impediment to emergency response. The Fire Department has clearly said that it is an impediment to <br />emergency response, even with no parking signs on Capital Dr. The proposed PUD does not meet Criteria 6 <br />and must be denied. <br />Mr. Gilbert then states that many of the issues brought up by Mr. Saberian were issues for the City of Eugene, <br />not issues for the Hearings official. This is absurd as Criteria 6 clearly discusses impediments to emergency <br />response and says the PUD will not be one in order to meet criteria 6. These are very clearly issues for you to <br />consider. Can the city or anyone for that matter guarantee that this PUD will not be an impediment to <br />emergency response, when the fire department has determined that it very clearly will be? Criteria 7 says, <br />“Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if public services and facilities are not <br />presently available, the applicant demonstrates that the services and facilities will be available prior to need.” <br />The off-site roadway access is inadequate and so the application does not meet Criteria 7 and must be denied. <br />Criteria 5 requires compliance with EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875. EC9.6815(1)(a) says “streets are designed <br />to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles.” The proposed CHPUD <br />very clearly fails this as well and should be denied. <br />Mr. Gilbert criticizes Mr. Saberian's comments 12,13, and 14 for similar and related reasons. Mr. Saberian <br />established that the speed study was flawed and unreliable. That makes any of Mr. Gilbert's rebuttals in 12 and <br />13 irrelevant. In comment 14 Mr. Gilbert and the city engineers simply seem to have said good enough even <br />without doing a study by professional standards. They decided it was OK to accept the holiday weekend data <br />and include it even though professional practice recommends otherwise. <br />In Mr. Gilbert's criticism of comment 18, I want to highlight that Mr Gilbert said, “It \[Capital Hill\] cannot meet <br />ADA standards.” Mr. Gilbert acknowledges very clearly that this presents a dangerous situation for anyone <br />affected by ADA. This dangerous situation would very clearly be exacerbated by the addition of 34-38 new <br />homes. This clearly does not meet Criteria 5 “The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems <br />through compliance with the following: (b)Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, <br />as needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby <br />residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the <br />city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. “Nearby” means uses within <br />1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can <br />reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists,” and so the CHPUD should be denied. <br />Mr. Gilbert's statement that Mr. Saberian has submitted misleading and incorrect statements is wrong. At most <br />this would be a disagreement between professionals in the field and would imply that further investigation is <br />needed. Mr. Saberian's report is unbiased and reliable, being produced by a leader in the profession. <br />Mr. Gilbert states that all remaining comments are related to items not related to PUD criteria. This statement <br />seems to show a lack of familiarity with the PUD criteria, or a dishonesty in Mr. Gilbert's analysis. The amount <br />of information that applies directly to criteria 5, 6 , and/or 7 is tremendous. Mr. Saberian submitted 28 separate <br />comments and each one is directly related to one or more approval criteria. Just with the criteria quotations <br />cited in this rebuttal and a quick read of Mr. Saberian's comments it is very clear they are addressing safety <br />and ensuring safety and that that is the main thrust of his report. Remember again what Criteria 6 states, “The <br />will not berisk to public health and safety <br />PUD a significant , including but not limited to soil erosion, slope <br />an impediment to emergency response. <br />failure, storm-water or flood hazard, or ” And also remember this <br />from Criteria 5, “The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the <br />following: (b)Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings <br />and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, <br />neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to <br />2 <br /> <br />