HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC COMMENTS (as of 3-1-18)a
b -
cJ C tCf ;p ~ tl ~ ~
c O ° ~ N L -
v >
U y U ~ 0 a ~ ` \
vaa_ s ~ ~ o
cil y CJ
N cp c E
Z
MV(~ C T r •L i7i ~
Zix T ~ ~ 1
o` t
4.
\rN
-Zv
Jl~
Q\) 4~
0
i
Lol+
n
V
a
M
M
Vn
V J
CIS
r ~
"r
A ~
L ~ CC O p .U
3 Ux
O a. s ~ m
Cr-o
,D ~ ~ ti C ~ V
7 U C
~n L CQ DO ~J Cn
C ~O CyJ y ~ L:.7
U f1
•y Q7
u u
.0 > Q > -o Q ER,
c 'fl -o o L
L C ~ ~ e3 1(~
h
y cn oD C U U R )
Q'~ CU r V ^ R
o s
L J O 0
> U
6 ° y•c
N ti I O
U U
U = O
i-=~ ~'es
uo
p _ v N
ed OD Ong
ca cc
v a U o
_ o
_D ~ U U
O J= O
ti p -0
~ ~ vi O = C U
s- ca O o E
~ u f1. „ Z
O O
G7 L c...
rC= ~,O ci72
~ O OD U v~ 'O ~
v a ~o
U U n 0
h y 72 ^D
~ G~ Cn cC ~ U° .
ui
Q Y ~ O O ~
tom.,
a cc a
U 'm Q n Q E Z \
i
-I -N r -r-,' I
1
_ 4
RESOLUTION ON THE PROPOSED CAPITAL HILL PUD
Fairmount Neighbors Association Members
Whereas, the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) currently proposes to subdivide 5
existing lots into 35 building lots with 43 dwelling units, an increase from 20 lots proposed in 2013
during the annexation phase, and
Whereas, the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) of 20 lots, proposed in 2013, raised
many neighborhood concerns at that time, and continues to raise neighborhood concerns, and
Whereas, the proposed PUD would have only one practical access route via Spring and Capital,
and one impractical alternative route, via Spring, Madrona and Cresta de Ruta, over roadways that do
not meet the City's current design standards and are located in high landslide risk areas, and
Whereas the PUD proposes an inherently dangerous road intersection, on the only practical
route, at the existing blind curve just past 2808 Capital Drive, and
Whereas, the proposed PUD increases the risk of landslides on the steep slopes as a result of the
extensive excavation required for building roads, sewers, storm drains, and building pads, and
Whereas, the PUD proposes extensive tree removal including 42% of all trees, and
Whereas the proposed PUD is inconsistent with the South Hill Study's goal of limiting
development above 901 foot in elevation in order to insure maximum preservation of the natural
character of the south hills, and
Whereas, the proposed PUD will increase traffic on the aforementioned streets, and on streets
adjacent to the access route, which will exacerbate existing congested conditions on these streets
thereby endangering public safety for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and
Whereas, the proposed PUD could impede emergency response efforts due to the
aforementioned traffic concern and will increase the probability of emergency events that will occur
due to additional occupants, and
Whereas, the proposed PUD will increase traffic and noise, and will disrupt and degrade the
quality of the natural environment and area surrounding the site.
Now therefore be it resolved that the Fairmont Neighborhood Association Members recommend
the proposed PUD be denied, and respectively request the developer to seek creative alternatives to
land development that would allow the developer to realize a profit from the sale and/or donation of the
land for preservation and public use.
CAPITAL HILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CHPUD)
HISTORY AND APPLICATION SCHEDULE
The subject property is owned by Thomas and Cynthia Dreyer and is comprised of Tax Lots 100,
200, 201, 300, and 400 of Map 18030431. The property is located at the very top and ridgeline of
Capital Hill in Eugene.
Jan 1, 2014: Tom Dreyer announces a 20 unit development in an interview published in the
Register Guard
Jan 14, 2014: Developers meet with the City's Planning and Development Department (PDD) for
a pre-application meeting as required by EC 9.7005. The project is described as 20 lots developed
from five tax lots, with a density of 1.5 units per acre. The stated Development Objectives are: 1)
Minimize to the greatest extent practicable the additional traffic that will be utilizing the existing
roads, (2) Preserve existing mature trees with respect to views, privacy habitat, and separation
from surrounding properties, and (3) Provide greater opportunity for separation of homes for
privacy. Many neighbors express concern over the impact of the proposed development.
February 6, 2014: Developers hold a neighborhood application meeting as required by EC9.7007
and present a site plan showing 21 lots.
October 27, 2014. The City Council approves an annexation request, from the developer, for Tax
Lots 100 and 201 of Map 18030431, which total 7.78 acres.
November 9, 2016: Developers hold a second neighborhood application meeting as required by
EC9.7007. The Fairmount Neighborhood Association and Laurel Hill Valley Citizens are
invited The 20 lot development is now a 35 lot development with up to 43 dwelling units.
March 3, 2017: The city receives the application for Tentative Planned Unit Development. The
application requests to subdivide five lots into 35 lots with up to 43 dwelling units.
March 31, 2017: The PDD reviews the application, determines it incomplete and issues a
Completeness Review report.
End of May, 2017 (Estimated): PDD staff indicates the application could be deemed complete. The
Public Hearing must be held within 60 days from application completion date.
Staff Report comes out 7 days before the hearing. The 'public comment' date is 1-3 days before the
Staff Report is due. We must submit our comments well in advance of the Staff Report due date if we
wish to influence the Staff Report. Generally, the Staff Report recommendations are adopted in a
majority of PUD applications, including those applications that are appealed. Influencing the staff
recommendation in a timely manner is paramount!
GIOELLO Nick R
From: Dev Sinha <devsinha@me.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:37 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Subject: CHPUD
Dear Mr. Gioello,
I'd like to state my opposition to the Capital Hill PUD. As someone who regularly walks and bikes the road, and has a
school-age daughter who does so, I cannot imagine greater traffic on Spring Blvd. It would become unsafe. Any
development without widening that road and putting in sidewalks - which seems impossible - would be completely
irresponsible planning.
Best wishes,
Dev Sinha
2520 Woodland Dr.
Sean T. Malone
Attorney at Law
259 E. Fifth Ave.,
Suite 200-C
Eugene, OR 97401
Tel. (303) 859-0403
Fax (650) 471-7366
seanmaloneS@hotmall.com
May 15, 2017
Via Email and First Class Mail
Robin Hostick, Planning Director
Eugene Planning and Development
99 W. Broadway
Eugene, OR 97401
robin. a.hostick(-,ci.eugene.or. us
Re: Response to Applicant's March 3, 2017 letter for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD
Plan Application, PDT 17-001, Map 18030431
Please accept this letter on behalf of the Joint FNA/LHVC Capitol Hill PUD Response
Committee for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD plan application. In a March 3, 2017, letter, the
applicant's attorney concludes that the Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application cannot meet
the clear and objective approval criterial contained in Eugene Code (EC) 9.8325 (i.e., the Needed
Housing Track) for Needed Housing because of three provisions of the EC, including the (1) 30-
foot landscape buffer, see EC 9.8325(3); (2) the prohibition on grading on 20% or greater slopes,
see EC 9.8325(5); and (3) the prohibition on development over 900-feet, see EC 9.8325(12)(a).
March 3, 2017 Ltr. at 3-4. The applicant then alleges that because the applicant cannot satisfy
these three clear and objective criteria for this particular application, the Needed Housing Statute
is violated (see ORS 197.307(6)) and the City cannot apply the subjective criteria contained in
EC 9.8320 (i.e., the General Track) to the application. As explained below, the applicant
misunderstands the Needed Housing statute.
Referring to ORS 197.307(6), the applicant alleges "that under subsection (6) of the
[Needed Housing statute], the City may only apply standards that are not clear and objective if
the applicant also has the right to develop the property under clear and objective standards as
provided for in ORS 197.307(4)." March 3, 2017 letter at 2. The applicant misconstrues ORS
197.307(6) because, under that provision, the applicant must "retain[] the option of proceeding
under the approval process that [applies only clear and objective criteria]." ORS 197.307(6).
ORS 197.307(6) does not entitle the applicant to the "right to develop" (i.e., approval of an
application for development). It only requires that the applicant have the option of proceeding
under clear and objective standards. The simple fact that the property's developable area is
reduced (even significantly or entirely) because the application cannot satisfy certain clear and
I There is not dispute that the three approval criteria listed are clear and objective.
objective criteria does not allow the applicant to waive or not comply with the subjective criteria
under the alternative approval process (i.e., the General Track).
The Needed Housing statute does not require that an application for needed housing be
approved for every specific property. If the applicant cannot satisfy the clear and objective
criteria contained in the City's code, then LUBA has explained that the applicant has three
options. In Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Eugene, LUBA explained that an applicant who
cannot "avoid denial for failure to meet all clear and objective standards" has three potential
options. Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Eugene, _ OR LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2001-059 Feb.
28, 2002). The applicant can (1) "modify the application so that it meets all clear and objective
standards." Id. The applicant can (2) apply under a different procedure, if available. Id.
(discussing a discretionary adjustment procedure). Finally, the applicant can (3) do nothing and
allow the application to be denied. Id.
An applicant's failure to satisfy all clear and objective criteria as it relates to a particular
application for a unique property is not a basis for finding that the City's criteria runs afoul of
ORS 197.307(6)(a). It just means that the application, as submitted, must be modified, applied
for under the alternative track, or be denied. If, as is the case here, the applicant seeks approval
under the alternative process (here, referred to as the General Track, see EC 9.8320), then the
applicant must satisfy the subjective criteria contained therein. The applicant "retains the option
of proceeding" under the Needed Housing Track (EC 9.8325). The fact that such an option may
lead to a denial is a result of applying the City's clear and objective standards to a particular
piece of property. Some property is capable of greater development than others when it comes to
EC 9.8325(3) (30-foot landscape buffer), EC 9.8325(5) (prohibition on grading on 20% or
greater slopes); and EC 9.8325(12)(a) (prohibition on development over 900-feet). The simple
fact that these clear and objective standards result in fewer development opportunities for this
particular property does not in and of itself violate the Needed Housing statute.
However, if the particular clear and objective standard is one that could not be satisfied in
all instances (i.e., on any property), then such a clear and objective standard would violate ORS
197.307(6)(a) because the applicant for a PUD could ever satisfy the standard. Such a situation
occurred in Home Builders, slip op at 48. There, a stormwater runoff provision that was clear
and objective prohibited a PUD from creating "negative impacts on natural drainage courses."
Id. Because rain falls on all developments and all rain transports some pollutants, the standard
would be violated in all instances. See id. ("Petitioners submit that rain falls on all development,
and all water moving across ground carries some sediment, creates some turbidity, and has some
erosional component, no matter how minute, and therefore no PUD could possibly comply with
LUCU 9.8325(10)."). LUBA agreed with the petitioners in Home Builders, "at least in the
abstract, that imposing a clear and objective standard that is impossible or virtually impossible to
meet is a prohibition in the guise of a standard. -2 Even though the City had a discretionary
approval track (i.e, the General Track), LUBA found that such an "option is illusory if the clear
and objective standards are impossible to satisfy." Here, the circumstances are distinguishable
2 LUBA's conclusion was somewhat complicated by the fact that LUBA determined that "[i]t
may not be the case that LUCU 9.8325(10) is impossible to satisfy," but the city did not
"respond to [the] assignment of error at all." Slip op at 48.
because the particular application at issue cannot satisfy the particular clear and objective
standards. Here, it is not the case that the clear and.objective standards are violated in all
instances. Similar to the case in Southeast Neighbors Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Eugene, the
applicant's frustration with the needed housing track as applied to this application, "does not
convert an otherwise clear and objective standard into a standard that offends ORS 197.307(4)."
Or LUBA _ (LUBA No 2013-004 July 12, 2013).
As explained above, applying subjective criteria contained in the General Track will not
violate the Needed Housing statute because the applicant retains the option of applying only
clear and objective criteria under the Needed Housing track. The applicant's arguments to the
contrary in the March 3, 2017, letter should, therefore, be disregarded.
Sincerely,
r
Sean T. Malone
Cc:
Clients
Rebecca Dorsey
2.540 Wt357i:3land Drive
Eugene. OR, 97403
541-335-1191
Nick Gioello November 26, 2017
City of Eugene, nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
Dear Mr. Gioello,
I am writing to express my opposition to the application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) at the
top of Capital Drive in southeast Eugene. I'm very concerned about this application because of the
various ways that it is not safe and would harm our community. The proposed Capital Hill PUD:
(1) Fails Elevation Restriction. Nearly half of the proposed PUD is located above 901 feet elevation, a
zone that is clearly designated by the South Hills Study to be protected from intensive development.
The proposed PUD occupies the highest and most prominent part of the SE Eugene ridgeline south
of Hendricks Park, and is visible from many locations in central and SE Eugene. The aggressive tree
cutting plan would decimate the ridgeline view shed and harm this sensitive forest environment.
(2) Fails Expectation of Minimal Tree Impact. The "Tree Preservation Plan" is a "Tree Removal Plan".
As originally proposed, the PUD would remove 42% of existing trees on the property, with bigger
trees disproportionately targeted for removal. The August 22 revision of the application describes
the tree removal plan in more vague terms, but the potential impact is the same. This plan clearly
violates the purposes of the South Hills study through excessive tree removal. It also poses a blow-
down hazard to trees that would be left after tree removal, including trees in Hendricks Park.
(3) Fails Access and Street-Safety Requirements. Access is woefully inadequate for this development.
Capital Drive is too narrow, making it unsafe for traffic that would result from the proposed
development. Also, there is only one access route, which poses a major hazard during emergencies.
(4) Poses Landslide Hazard. The proposed PUD includes housing lots and a street at the top of a steep
unstable slope in an area of high landslide hazard as mapped by DOGAMI. The application mentions
some but not all of the slope-stability issues. The application should be denied because it does not
address the severe landslide hazard to life and property on and near the proposed development.
These and other objections will be presented in more detail in future documents related to this case.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Dorsey (rdorsey@uoregcn,edu)
GIOELLO Nick R
From:
amcivor@comcast.net
Sent:
Sunday, May 14, 2017 11:39 AM
To:
GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:
lorsch2728@pacbell.net; John Terhes Oaterhes@gmail.com); conlon-mcivor, maura;
David and Catherine Johnson
Subject:
Capital Hill PUD
Attachments:
IMG_2418.JPG; IMG_2419.JPG
Hi Mr. Gioello,
The neighbors are very opposed to the Capital Hill PUD proposed by Dr Dreyer. The roads are too
narrow. Pedestrians and bicyclists use Spring St, a narrow road with no sidewalks, all the time. I
have heard an estimate of 100,000 to 200,000 truckloads of building materiaVremoval of trees and
debris going up and down this road as this project is built.
The project is too big, destroys habitat, and impacts on Hendricks Park, the best park in Eugene.
Enclosed are a couple of photos I took this morning on Spring St. I recently saw a Comcast van
parked in the road by the phone pole, and traffic backed up trying to get around it. Imagine a large
dump truck.
You'll notice the anti-PUDD signs. They line the neighborhood.
I'm sure you will get more input from the neighborhood associations soon.
Andy Mclvor
2460 Malabar Drive
Eugene
Submitted by Andy Mclvor 5-14-2017
with associated email testimony
GIOELLO Nick R
From:
GIOELLO Nick R
Sent:
Friday, September 29, 2017 9:33 AM '
To:
'Brent Lorscheider'
Subject:
FW: Storm water ?
Brent, I forgot to add this: the answers below should be considered as tentative information only, since the application
materials are still under review. Additional information may alter the answers we have provided and City staff reserves
the right to amend these answers.
Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm.
Associate Planner Planning Division
City of Eagene
,:Vest 10' AvEl-we
-uoene C--regon 9 401
3 . L
41 ~82.
T 541.682. D5 77
ni6,...g 1'`ei;C- c=..euq''e ne.or.u's
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 9:24 AM
To: 'Brent Lorscheider' <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: Storm water ?
Brent,
EC1- this is the PEPI Permit. It comes typically after all approvals (tentative and final PUD) and either prior to or
concurrent with the building permit.
EC2 - (a) is applicable and will be discussed in the Public Works referral comments.
EC3 - Yes.
EC4 - Yes.
ECS -This is still under review. You can access the Stormwater Management Manual with this link:
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/1322
Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm.
Associate Planner I Planning Division
City of Eugene
, lann,ng & Deve opment
99 `Nest 10`" Avenue
tuct~ne Ore on 97401
p 541.682.5455
f 5-11.682.55'2
nick. r.gioello9)ci.eugene.or.us
From: Brent Lorscheider (mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.netj
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:15 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Storm water ?
Pls see attached
FP Thu 9128/2017 4:15 PM
Brent Lorscheider <1orsch2728@pacbe11.net>
Storm water ?
To GIOELLO Nick P
eYou replied to this message on 9/29/2017 9:24 AM.
Pls see attached
Questions for Nick
Questions on the Eugene Code and Stormwater Management Manual
EC1. EC 9.6792 3 c 2. The last line reads: "at the time of devoprnent permit". Is said
"development permit" the PUD development permit?
EC2. EC9.6791 2): Does subsection (a) or (b) apply to the Cap Hill PUD
EC3. Does EC 9.6793 (3) apply the Cap Hill PUD?
EC4. EC9.6794(2)(c) Is driveway parking considered "off street parking"?
Sent from myThone
ECS. The Stormwater Management Manual 1.6.3 references a Stormwater Basin Masterplan. Is the
Cap Hill PUD site included in said masterplan?
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.up
Cc: Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>
Subject: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Nick,
I have some follow up questions:
1. I found two documents that appear to cover this topic, the Administrative Order No. 58-11-11 and the Public
Improvement Standards Manual dated Oct 2007. Could yuou pls find out if these are the two documents that cover this
topic, of is it another document(s)?
2. 1 interpret the reading of the info below to mean that only 6 Class 5 trucks (GVWR of 8 to 20 tons) were observed
(registered) during 2105...That seems like an extremely low number???
3. The statement "so the existing ACP thickness meet the 30 year design." factor 111 the ESAL's from the heady truck
loads that will be generated during construction of the PUD, loads from Class 6, 7 and 8 trucks?
Thx, brent
Capital and Spring were rehabilitation projects as opposed to a. reconstructed street, the difference being that we strive for
a 20 year design if we can get it, but we wouldn't reconstruct it if we can achieve a suitable outcome otherwise. A street
slated for reconstruct is designed for 30 years.
That being said, the existing structure of Capital was 7" to 8" of ACP on clay with the top 2 inches delaminated. The
Class counts conducted in 2015 only registered 5.6 Class 5, equating to a 20 year design ESAL of 13,917, and a 30 Year of
22,237. Based on an R value of 5, the existing structural number was 2.94. The required SN is 2.0 for 20 year. and 2.2
for 30 year, so the existing ACP thickness meets a 30 year design.
The treatment for the street was a 2" to 4" cold plane pavement removal followed by 2" to 4'' of ACP.
With 7" to 8" of ACP, the traffic count could more than double and the street would meet the design requirements.
Due to the lack of as-builts a number of pavement cores were taken on Spring. The street structure was not very
consistent - some of the cores indicated 3"-4" of ACP on degraded PCC, and other were 5"-6" of ACP on aggregate. The
20 year ESAI, is 247,488. Similar to Capital, the treatment was to remove the ACP to PCC and re-pave with 4'• of
ACP. During constriction, the street did not indicate any "soft" areas.. so the re-paving is expected to perform well under
the design loadings, and is probably sufficient to handle an increase volume of traffic.
From: "fcassell(d)-comcast.net" <fcassell(a)comcast.net>
To: "lorscheider, brent" <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 10:37 PM
Subject: Fwd: Email from E.Favreau
is this of any use to you?
From: "GIOELLO Nick R" <Nick. R.Gioello(aD-ci.eugene.or.us>
To: fcassell ,comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:11:32 PM
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
See below
Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm.
Associate Planner i Planning Division
Cit of Eugene
Planning i Development
hest 1 v`" Avenue
Eugene Oregc i 97.4011
P 541.682.v=5 3
ck - lOelfc~ci.e'JQene.Or.us
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:55 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello cQci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
Hi Nick,
Here is a response from Teri Higgins, who was the project manager for the Spring/Capital Drive rehabilitation
project last year. To sum up what she's saying, Capital Drive meets a 30 year design load of 225237 lb ESAL
(Equivalent Single Axle Load). Also note Teri's comment about Capital Drive having the structural capacity to
allow traffic counts to more than double.
Teri also has shown that Spring also has adequate structural capacity. Feel free to call me with any questions.
Thanks,
Eric
From: HIGGINS Teri L
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:30 AM
To: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric. J.Favreau(a.ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
Sure do
Capital and Spring were rehabilitation projects as opposed to a reconstructed street, the difference being that
we strive for a 20 year design if we can get it, but we wouldn't reconstruct it if we can achieve a suitable
outcome otherwise. A street slated for reconstruct is designed for 30 years.
That being said, the existing structure of Capital was 7" to 8" of ACP on clay with the top 2 inches
delaminated. The Class counts conducted in 2015 only registered 5.6 Class 5, equating to a 20 year design
ESAL of 13,917, and a 30 year of 22;237. Based on an R value of 5, the existing structural number was
2.94. The required SN is 2.0 for 20 year, and 2.2 for 30 year, sb the existing ACP thickness meets a 30 year
design.
4
GIOELLO Nick R
From:
GIOELLO Nick R
Sent:
Monday, September 25, 2017 11:45 AM
To:
'Brent Lorscheider'
Subject:
FW:_ Road Load on Capital and-Spring
Brent,
See below from Scott Gillespie.
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm.
Associate Planner j Manning Division
City of Euc!ene
i u'
P7.ann -ng & Development
99 Vies1 I0"' Avenu.
uoe0 recmn 9'401
P 54 i 682.S4I _
nick,r._icial cr.us
From: GILLESPIE Scott N
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:35 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Hi Nick,
1) Pavement design for public streets is addressed in the most current City of Eugene 2016 Public
Improvement Design Standards Manual. Here is a link to the 2016 Public Improvement Design
Standards Manual. The City utilizes the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures
including the 1998 supplement, as amended by the 2016 City of Eugene PIDS. The current AO 58-16-
01 adopts the PI DS Manual and repealed AO 58-11-11.
2) Class counts are typically an average 24 volume. 5.6 Class 5 vehicles would not be unexpected for a
residential area like Capital Drive.
3) Pavement design does not directly factor in construction traffic from surrounding areas as a design
input. It's factored indirectly through empirical data. Construction traffic is temporary and nearly
impossible to directly predict. ESAL growth factors are empirical and anticipate construction activity,
seasonal fluctuations and anticipated heavy vehicles. The growth factors include averages of all
activity that can be expected on Oregon's roadways. This includes construction traffic. Practically
speaking, the 5.6 heavy vehicles on daily basis over 30 years has a larger impact on ESAL's than
construction traffic from a specific project. The existing pavement section far exceeds the require
design based upon the calculated Structural Number (SN) and can accommodate more vehicles
(including heavy vehicles) than what is minimally required for the existing neighborhood and proposed
development.
The City designed and constructed the rehabilitation of Capital Drive to exceed our design standards. The
condition or design of surrounding pavements is not part of the PUD or Subdivision approval criteria. Capital
drive is a public roadway and the City does not specifically restrict the size and type of vehicles that may use
our roadways. Construction is an unpleasant but legal activity. I can confirm with certainty that construction is
also temporary.
We appreciate Mr Lorscheider's interest and inquiries to public works standards but staff has already spent a
significant amount of time responding to technical requests that do not have applicable approval criteria as it
relates to this land use application. We would be happy to provide links to standards and gather records
requests but we will only be responding to technical requests that address the applicable land use criteria or
public improvements on the site. PWE staff will provide a written referral addressing the applicable code
criteria once the application is complete. Mr. Lorscheider is welcome to review that referral and provide his
comments during the open record period.
Thanks,
Scott Gillespie, PE
Public Works Engineering
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-2706
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 9:36 AM
To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Road Load on Capital and Spring
FYI
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 8:31 AM
To: FAVREAU EricJ <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Eric, more questions. Can you forward to Teri Higgins for comment ? Much appreciated.
Nick
Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm.
Associate Planner j Planning Division
Cite of Eugene
Planning & Development
99 West 10" Avenue
Eugene Oregon 97401
541 .682.5453
.41.682.55,'2
nick. r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:41 AM
2
The treatment for the street was a 27 to 4" cold plane pavement removal followed by 2° to 4" of ACP.
With T' to 8" of ACP, the traffic count could more than double and the street would meet the design
requirements.
Due to the lack of as-builts a number of pavement cores were taken on Spring. The street structure was not
very. consistent -some of the cores indicated Y-4" of ACP on degraded PCC, and other were Y-6,' of ACP on
aggregate. The 20 year ESAL is 247,488. Similar to Capital, the treatment was to remove the ACP to PCC
and re-pave with 4" of ACP. During construction, the street did not indicate any "soft" areas, so the re-paving
is expected to perform well under the design loadings, and is probably sufficient to handle an increase volume
of traffic.
PWE has not done any work or research on Fairmount or 21 st
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:43 AM
To: HIGGINS Teri L <Teri. L. Higgins(cDci.eugene.or.up
Subject: Fwd: Email for E.Favreau
Hi Teri,
The neighbors of Capital Hill were curious about the pavement design of Capital Drive. Do you have
that info? See email below.
Thanks,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(a-),ci.eugene.or.us>
Date: September 8, 2017 at 8:14:34 AM PDT
To: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau(a~ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
From: CW Murchison [mailto:cwmurchison(cDgmail.coml
Sent: Thursday,_ September 07, 2017 10:35 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(cbci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: faris cassell <fcasse11(5~comcast.net>
Subject: Email for E.Favreau
Nick just a quick request to Eric Favreau. Could you please forward this to him. Thanks.
What were the load estimates/assumptions used in the equations/calculations for the 20 or 30
year life of road construction standard for Capital Dr., Spring, Fairmount and 21 st along the
likely traffic routes to the CHPUD
Thanks so much once again,
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 % 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 % 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 Y2 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.
GIOELLO Nick R
From: Eugene Internet PWE
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:02 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Subject: FW: Hazardous Conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd
Attachments: Petition Capital and Spring Hazards.pdf; Airbnbrental Accident.pdf; Truck accidnt.png;
bentley accident.pdf
Good afternoon, Nick.
I am forwarding this message for your review/response.
Thank you,
-((ere-
Kramer
bee Kramer
Administrative Specialist
Public Works, Engineering
541-682-5291
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:30 PM
To: Eugene Internet PWE <PWEngineering@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Gyl Elliott <gyllie96@yahoo.com>
Subject: Hazardous Conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd
Attention: PW Engineering - Safe Street Design
I would like to following up and document concerns over hazardous roads conditions on Capital Drive and
Spring Blvd, and over hazardous street parking in the 2600 block of Capital Drive. Enclosed are two petitions
of concern, from neighbors that regularly use this street and sidewalk, asking the City to investigate and address
the hazardous conditions and incidents that have occurred. The first petition is from July 2017 and the second
petition is from Dec 2017. In between those times the following first two accidents occurred:
Aug 28, 2017: Airbnb guests and/or renters were involved with a collision at 2635 Capital Drive. Enclosed is
a picture.
Sept 29, 2017: Hit & Run accident occurred between Red Truck and Bentley at CAPITAL DR & SPRING
BLVD. The was reported to, and responded by, Eugene Police Department (Event number: 17240266) ID:
17240266 with a Priority 3. Later, the Bentley was deemed a total loss.
Sept 22, 2016: (Approximately) A van belonging to Brent Lorscheider at 2625 Capital Drive was hit by a
truck traveling south on Capital. Erik Stolle, a Project Manager for Ordell Construction, and myself, each
reported the incident to PWEngineering:: i ci.eu!2ene.or.us.
Sincerely, Brent Lorscheider 2625 Capital Drive, Eugene OR Ph: 626 6275049
Encl:
Two petitions
Pic of Airbnb/Rental Accident
Pic of Truck accident
Pic of Bentley (truck accident)