Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch AI mL Kc From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:32 AM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: RE: Pw enr sewers Hi Brent, See this from Public Works staff: "Yes, he's welcome to come down to the Permit and Information Center to look up as-built drawings and GIS maps. One of the Permit Techs should be able to help him out with that." I hope that answers your question, Nick -----Original Message----- From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 8:47 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Pw enr sewers Ok but does city have public records like as built drawings or sewer maps? Thx brent Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 18, 2017, at 3:12 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: > Brent, > Forward your questions to me and I will see if I can get them answered. Engineering prefers questions regarding Capital Hill go through me first. If it's regarding the information request you filed, I can say that Public Works is working on it. They say is it time intensive and they will provide whatever they are capable of answering with the referral comments that will come in several weeks. To answer one of your questions, the sewers leading up the proposed development are publically owned and maintained. > Thanks, > Nick > Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. > Associate Planner I Planning Division > City of Eugene > Planning & Development > 99 West 10th Avenue > Eugene Oregon 97401 > p 541.682.5453 > f 541.682.5572 > nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:35 AM > To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> > Subject: Pw enr sewers > Nick can I get the name of the sewer person or a contact in public works engineering I think name is Ericthanks Brent > Sent from my iPhone z C---- _7L N'ck From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: fcassell@comcast.net Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:50 PM GIOELLO Nick R Murchison, CW fire marsal's office Hello Nick Nate said that you're out of the office this week. Hope that means you're getting a well-deserved break. I'm writing to ask about comments made to me today by Assistant Fire Marshal Amy Linder. At our meeting of 9/1, you suggested that I contact the Fire Marshal to ask certain questions. I called their office shortly after the meeting and left a message with Cathy that several of our group would like to meet with the Marshal to ask a few questions about CHPU® relating emergency responses. I didn't hear back so i called again today and left the same message with Robin. Amy returned the call promptly but said that in a meeting last Thursday you advised the Fire Marshall's office that they should not speak with us directly, that all contact must go through you. Is this a misunderstanding? You and Eric had specifically said that several of my questions were better answered by the Fire Marshall and I should call that office. Could you please explain the change and help me and the Fire Marshal understand your position? Thanks, Faris Cassell GIOELLO Nick R Nick As applicant's representative I am granting the city 30 days off of the 120 day decision clock effective today. carol Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists 375 West 4th Suite 201 Eugene, OR 97401 www.sch irmersatre.com PH: (541) 686-4540 x1 Fax: (541) 686-4577 1 ELL Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 1:59 PM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Cc: David and Catherine Johnson Subject: RE: Request for Fire Hydrant Flow Information related to Capital Hill PUD (PDT-17-0001) Brent, I can give you the following from an email from the Fire Marshal's Office: Appendix B of the Fire Code "Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings" Section B105.2 One and two family dwellings Minimum fire flow for dwellings having a fire flow calculation area that does not exceed 3600 square ft shall be a 1000 gpm for one hour. As I understand there was no way to meet that so Exception #1 was invoked which allows for a 50% reduction in the minimum fire flow if dwellings are provided with on approved automatic sprinkler system. Thus sprinklers required. I don't know about the other existing hydrants. I would assume that they operate currently at some acceptable level and that whatever improvements are made to the overall system may also improve the flow rate to those existing hydrants. However, I am guessing on this. I will defer to our experts who review these issues. Nick D' From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 11:02 AM. To: Eugene Public Records Requests <PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: David and Catherine Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Request for Fire Hydrant Flow Information related to Capital Hill PUD (PDT-17-0001) FUTURE WATER SUPPLY FOR PROPOSED CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001) REQUESTOR: Brent Lorscheider, 2625 Capital Drive, Eugene Ph: 6266275049 I am requesting information as part of the Fairmount Neighborhood/Laurel Hill Valley Joint Response Committee for the subject PUD. If is our understanding that the current water supply system does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 37 1 additional homes being proposed. EWEB staff has indicated the determining factor in analyzing future water flow requirements for the proposed PUD is the flow required for the two additional proposed fire hydrants. What are the estimated flow requirements for the two new hydrants being proposed in the PUD? Will the existing fire hydrants in the immediate vicinity require any additional improvements, or will the flow capacity, or availability, to these existing hydrants need to be increased? Thank you, Brent Lorscheider/ Brent Lorscheider Ph: 6266275049 LL Nick FUTURE WATER SUPPLY FOR PROPOSED CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001) REQUESTOR: Brent Lorscheider, 2625 Capital Drive, Eugene Ph: 6266275049 I am requesting information as part of the Fairmount Neighborhood/Laurel Hill Valley Joint Response Committee for the subject PUD. It is our understanding that the current water supply system does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 37 additional homes being proposed. EWEB staff has indicated the determining factor in analyzing future water flow requirements for the proposed PUD is the flow required for the two additional proposed fire hydrants. What are the estimated flow requirements for the two new hydrants being proposed in the PUD? Will the existing fire hydrants in the immediate vicinity require any additional improvements, or will the flow capacity, or availability, to these existing hydrants need to be increased? Thank you, /Brent Lorscheider/ Brent Lorscheider Ph: 6266275049 G ELL Nick Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net> Monday, September 04, 2017 10:18 AM Records Custodian Brent Lorscheider; GIOELLO Nick R Public Information Request to EWEB EWEB Req Water Avail.pdf Enclosed please find a request for information as it relates to the proposed Capital Hill PUD (PDT-17-0001) Thank you, Brent Lorscheider Address: 2625 Capital Drive, Eugene Ph: 6266275049 1 Name. Brent Lorseheider, Fairmount Neighbor Association, Response Comm, Address: 2625 Capital Drive, Eugene 974o3 Phone: 626-627-5049 Email: lorsch2 28 pa li.n Specific records requested: (continue on back of form if neces_,... ' FUTURE WATER SUPPLY FOR PROPOSED CAPITAL HILL PUD (P- The application indicates that EWEB utilities are available for the propasu I dwelling units, mostly single family homes, E 1, Does the currant water supply system have sufficient capacity and pressure (o accommodate all or the 37 new homes being I proposed? 2, Will EWE B's review of the proposed PUD identify the current system capacity and limitations vis-a-vis the proposed PUD. 3_ Mould a bond be required to insure the applicant completes any "system upgrades or expansions" than might be required? Requestor asks toe lnspect < eive a cagey inspect and make a copy In accor r°ce with Oregon Public Records Law and EWEB's Inspection of Public Records Policy, Requestor agrees to pay EWE' for all fees reasonably calculated to reimburse EWEB for its actual costs in making records available, before the recc - r - will be released for inspection. Regue Requests that fees be waived ~ c 2s not request that fees be waived if requesting a waiver of fees, please state each basis for the waiver request; Fairmount Neighborhood Association is requesting a foe waiver to,part cipate in the Planning Process. Sept 3, 2017 Date , tg.nature of r~eq.e_ :7 For E'K'ES L se: Request is granted Request is denied in whale or in part (see attached) Req, -_,st Z ELL Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:05 AM To: JANISCH Amy C Subject: FW: Capital Hill PUD Please add this to Ontrack for Capital Hill PUD per Mr. Conte's request From: Paul Conte [mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 12:55 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Capital Hill PUD Nick, Please enter the entire contents of this message into the record for PDT 17-1 (Capital Drive). The earlier documents appear to be cleared up. If I understand correctly: ® The initial PWD referral was solely the checklist. There was no narrative analysis (other than in comments on the checklist) ® The initial Fire Marshal referral was the multi-page document, including citations to Eugene Fire Code. ® PWD submitted brief comments which you paraphrased in the completeness letter. More recently: ® As I understand it, PWD has not submitted any further documents or had further discussions regarding the plans. ® Based on some discussions, the applicant has submitted revised plans. The street plans are in L6.0, dated 8-22-17. Could you please confirm the above? I have some questions regarding the discussion with the Deputy Fire Marshal and the revised plans: Is there any written record of the revised analysis supporting the two changes you identified? If not, why are the explanations of these changes not publicly documented i ® What is the precise extent of "last section of Capital Drive" that was determined could "remain unimproved"? ® Drawing L6.0 identifies "Proposed Road Widening Pervious Pavement." What is the spec for "pervious pavement," and specifically does it support the loads necessary to meet the Eugene Fire Code requirements for a "fire apparatus access road"? ® The earlier comments that you paraphrased from PWD indicated the sections of Capital Drive that would have to be improved would have to be reconstructed, not just a strip of pavement added. Is this still the position of PWD and Planning staff? ® On page 3 of the most recent narrative, it states: "See attached and revised Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study." The revised "Tentative PUD Application" indicates a revised "Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study submitted with this Revised Written Statement August 22, 2017." 1 didn't find the revised study on-line. ® On page 5, same document. A 20-foot pavement meets LVR standard without parking on either side. To meet the standard, the segment would have to be signed with "no parking" and enforced. Thank you for the additional information. Paul IHI On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:28 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioelloa.ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Paul, I'm not sure if you are having problems viewing documents from the web site. It is true that the folder titled "Application Completeness Review Letter (3/31/2017)" does not initially show up like all other documents but there is a hyper link that lets you download it. That letter was the first round of review and includes the Planning checklist, Public Works checklist and Fire Department comments. I have attached it in case you could not view it or download it. The second review was my letter dated 6-26-17, and as I explained in another email to you, I took Public Works comments that came from Eric Favreau via email and cut/pasted them into this letter. There were no additional written Fire Department comments for the second review. We did have a meeting with the applicant and Deputy Fire Marshal Mark Dahl to talk about the proposed hammerhead turnaround at the end of Capital Drive; it was determined that the turnaround could be eliminated and the last section of Capital Drive remain unimproved. This is what the third submittal by the applicant now shows. Does that clear up this issue? Nick Assoc ia, a-, r 1 _ s 541.682.5453 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Paul Conte [mailto:paul.t.conte@gmaii.com] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 7:12 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Capital Hill PUD Nick, I looked at the documents posted on the city's website and didn't find referral comments from Public Works or the Fire Marshall. (I see the brief statement on page 2.of your June 26 letter.) Could you please post or provide those comments. 3 Thank you. Pau! On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:34 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.GioelloLa ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: The Capital Hilt PUD (PDT 17-1) was resubmitted late yesterday. You can view all submitted documents here: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/Land Use/ApplicationDetails?file=PDT-17-0001 Click on the "Documents" tab in the upper right corner. The applicant has requested that we deem the application complete as of next Tuesday, August 29, 2017. Therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled within 60 days of that date. You will be notified of that date once it has been determined. You can submit comments, questions or testimony directly to me. Nicholas R. Gloello, M. Adm. Associate i •anner 1 Pla.nnin Division Ca 4 541.682.54 5 3 541.682.5572 nick. r.gioellogci.eugene.or.us ELL Nick From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.corn> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:12 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject Re: Capital Hill PUD Thanks Nick, very helpful. Re the "No Parking" signage and enforcement question Without digging back into the documents, weren't some of the existin segments of road going to remain with 20' pavement width? Those are the ones that would need "no parking" (in addition to one side of a 21-foot pavement. Also, as a note for the staff report to the HO PWD should be involved with careful wording of any condition of approval re street and associated improvements (curbs, sidewalks, etc.) For example, 21' is NOT adequate without signage, pavement marking and enforcement to provide adequate "pullout" areas. I haven't found a spec on the min length of, and max spacing of, the pullout areas. But somewhere I've seen a 20-foot pullout every 150 feet. You need to be sure that this requirement is expressed, either in precise figures or by reference to a standard. We are currently appealing the approval of PDT 13-1 and one of our AoEs will be that the EPC's condition of "widening the pavement to 20"' in a 20' ROW is ambiguous and the EPC did not explain how it was even feasible. (if there has to be curb and gutter improvements where the pavement is widened, then you can't get 20' of paving in 20' of ROW.) Staff has never bothered to learn the appropriate way to deal with EC 9.8320(6) and similar or related criteria (e.g., EC 9.8320(7)). There is a difference between requiring the developer to improve a public street and requiring the public street to be improved to a certain spec without stating who will do it. It's very simple and is directly elucidated in Butte Conservancy LUBA decision. You can read my testimony in PDT 13-1 (or Trautman) in the first remand for the details and copies of the decision.I would be happy to explain it if you want to discuss by phone. Paul On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:18 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(cr ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Paul; 1 My answers (in blue font) and Public Works answers (in red font)are imbedded below. Thanks, Nick C 541.682.5453 541.682.5572 nick. r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Paul Conte [mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 12:55 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Capital Hill PUD Dick, Please enter the entire contents of this message into the record for PDT 17-1 (Capital Drive). The earlier documents appear to be cleared up. If I understand correctly: z ® The initial PWD referral was solely the checklist There was no narrative analysis (other than in comments on the checklist) ® The initial Fire Marshal referral was the multi-page document, including citations to Eugene Fire Code. ® PWD submitted brief comments which you paraphrased in the completeness letter. More recently: ® As I understand it, PWD has not submitted any further documents or had further discussions regarding the plans. ® Based on some discussions, the applicant has submitted revised plans. The street plans are in L6.0, dated 8-22-17. Could you please confirm the above? I have some questions regarding the discussion with the Deputy Fire Marshal and the revised plans: ® Is there any written record of the revised analysis supporting the two changes you identified? If not, why are the explanations of these changes not publicly documented 3 The earlier comments that you paraphrased from PWD indicated the sections of Capital Drive that would have to be improved would have to be reconstructed, not just a strip of pavement added. Is this still the position of PWD and Planning staff? Corrects On page 3 of the most recent narrative, it states: "See attached and revised Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study." The revised "Tentative PUD ,Application" indicates a revised "Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study submitted with this Revised Written Statement August 22, 2017." I didn't find the revised study on-line. On page 5, same document. A 20-foot pavement meets LVR standard without parking on either side. To meet the standard, the segment would have to be signed with "no parking" and enforced. They are proposing a 2 ' wide street, is allows for parking o one side of the road. Location of "No Parking" signs is determined during the PEPI process. Thank you for the additional information. Paul A On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:28 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.GioelloCa)ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Paul, I'm not sure if you are having problems viewing documents from the web site. It is true that the folder titled "Application Completeness Review Letter (3/31/2017)" does not initially show up like all other documents but there is a hyper link that lets you download it. That letter was the first round of review and includes the Planning checklist, Public Works checklist and Fire Department comments. I have attached it in case you could not view it or download it. The second review was my letter dated 6-26-17, and as I explained in another email to you, I took Public Works comments that came from Eric Favreau via email and cut/pasted them into this letter. There were no additional written Fire Department comments for the second review. 4 We did have a meeting with the applicant and Deputy Fire Marshal Mark Dahl to talk about the proposed hammerhead turnaround at the end of Capital Drive; it was determined that the turnaround could be eliminated and the last section of Capital Drive remain unimproved. This is what the third submittal by the applicant now shows. Does that clear up this issue? Nick 541.682.5453 541 .682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Paul Conte [mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.comj Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 7:12 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Capital Hill PUD Nick, I looked at the documents posted on the city's website and didn't find referral comments from Public Works or the Fire Marshall. (I see the brief statement on page 2 of your June 26 letter.) 5 Could you please post or provide those comments. Thank you. Pau[ PI On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:34 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Giocllo c ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: The Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) was resubmitted late yesterday. You can view all submitted documents here: htt :Lpdd.eu ene-or.gov/Land se/AgglicationDetails?file=PDT-17-0001 Click on the "Documents" tab in the upper right corner. The applicant has requested that we deem the application complete as of next Tuesday, August 29, 2017. Therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled within 60 days of that date. You will be notified of that date once it has been determined. You can submit comments, questions or testimony directly to me. Nicholas R. ioell , Associa.t-~ Planner' Planning Division 3 6 541.682 5453 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us I ELL Nick The Public Works comments in the letter are the referral comments, there is nothing additional like the typical check list. The check list was used for the first submittal. For the second submittal we (Planning and Public Works) just focused on the outstanding remaining issues. I received an email from Eric Favreau with those comments and then pasted them into y letter. I tweaked a few words to make it more formal such as changing "I do not believe that they adequately address" to "The applicant has not adequately addressed". I can forward you the email if you want it. The informational item regarding the reconstruction of Capital Drive was solely in reference to the portion adjacent to. the PUD between Cresta De Ruta and Hendricks Park. The applicant's plan showed adding asphalt to widen the street to the required 21 feet between Cresta De Ruta and the terminus at Hendricks Park, which the Public Works comment was in reference to. You are correct I did reference the wrong number. Thanks for pointing that out, although I really dislike making simple mistakes like that, I need to be aware of them. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me; Nick rr~, Nichols R. ioe lo, M. From: Paul Conte [mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com] Sera: Wednesday, August 09, 2017,8:44 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Request for information re PDT 17-1 (Capital Drive PUD) Nick, In your June 26, 2017 letter to Carol Schirmer, you wrote: "Informational Items by Public Works ® Capital Drive will need to be fully reconstructed to meet City standards. Simply adding additional asphalt to widen will not be accepted as Capital Drive is in poor condition and likely does not meet the City's standards for AC or base thickness. That means that a full 21' wide street reconstruct will be necessary." I would appreciate some clarification and follow-up. 1. Could you please provide me (or post on-line) a copy of the referral comments from Public Works in reference to the item, above. 2 (BTW, I think-you wrote the incorrect file number. s/b PDT 17-1, not PDT 17-3) Thank you, Paul Conte 541.344.2552 I L Nick On Tuesday, August 1, 2017, 11:38:18 AM PDT, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Hello Susan, Given the depth of your comments and questions, I think either phone or in person would be the most beneficial. Which do you prefer? Thank you, Nick Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. Associate Planner ( Planning Division City of Eugene Planning & Development 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene Oregon 97401 p 541.682.5453 f 541.682.5572 1 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Seat: Monday, July 31, 2017 6:32 PM T: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioelio@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subject. Capital Hill PUD - Questions requirements for multi-family units and his/her tenants' compliance with the cRs, community rules res, etc.? As far as I know, no (potential) elevations have been provided giving interested parties some insight as to the visual impact of 30' foot structures, 6 foot high fences, etc. which could potentially be allowed under the city's -1 code. How will the project control architectural style, siding color, roof material, etc. so that there is some design uniformity? Guest parking. Done? Again, I realize that the request as presented is for lot development only; however, the ultimate goal is home building and creation of a cohesive community. At this point, at least to e, the path forward to that end needs some clarification. Hope you can help. Thanks for reading through this. Please advise by return e-mail what would be a good time over the next week or so to discuss these (and potentially other) issues with you. Susan Hoffman (shortgamesue@yahoo.com) Spring Blvd. Eugene 3 I m L IWme Z ® 0 From: Eugene Internet PWE Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:53 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R ,Subject: FW: Parking problems on Capital Drive Good morning, Nick. I have been advised that questions/comments regarding the upcoming work on Capital Drive should be forwarded to you. As such, I am forwarding this message which came to PWE. Thank you, Dee Kremer Administrative Specialist Public Works, Engineering 541-682-5291 From: Gyl Elliott [mailto:gyllie96@yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:47 PM To: Eugene Internet PWE <PWEngineering@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Parking problems on Capital Drive We live next to an Air Bnb on 2635 Capital Drive. There are several cars (3 or more) parked on our street every day and night through the summer. This summer, cars have begun to park facing the wrong way and encroaching on the yellow painted curb. This means that we cannot make the turn into our driveway. We have called Parking compliance and Police with no results. We understand that a proposed PUD on Capital Hill will only exacerbate this problem and so we want you to be aware that it is already untenable. What can be done to reduce illegal parking on Capital Drive? Please advise. Sincerely, Cyl Elliott 2625 Capital Drive Eugene, OR 97403 I L Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:34 AM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: RE: South Hills Study Hi Brent, The Capital Hill PUD resubmittal is in and posted online. I'm assuming you can navigate our website easily by now. If not here's a link to the search pager http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/ApplicationSearch Thanks, Dick Nil' s ir:-,er ; r From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:12 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: South Hills Study Thanks Nick you're available to talk this afternoon by phone Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2017, at 9:31 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello (z-ci.eLi.C3ene.or.us> wrote: Brent, take a look at this portion of a previous staff report as an example of what parts of the South Hills Study {SHS} are considered in the review. As per the SHS resolution that adopted the policies as land use regulations, it also clarifies the SHS only applies to property over 500 feet in elevation and south of 18th Avenue, which this site obviously is. When providing opposing testimony, you can make an argument if you think there are other applicable policies in the SHS that should apply. Thanks, dick 1 Fromm Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728 acbell.net] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:27 AM Toe GIOELLO Nick R <Tick.R.Gioelio2ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Jason Brown <brownill uoregon.edu> Subject: South Hills Study Nick, I know you mentioned this before, but I could use additional clarification on the applicability of the South Hills Study. Which portions of the SHS does the Planning Department considers in a PUD review? And I believe that the City authorized the restriction to said portions in a later Council Action, sometime around 2000?, do you know the Council File number for that action? Thx, Brent <Aerie Park portion staff report SHS.pdf> 2 Ga ELL Nark . From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:31 AM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: RE: South Hills Study Attachments: Aerie Park portion staff report SHS.pdf Brent, take a look at this portion of a previous staff report as an example of what parts of the South Hills Study (SHS) are considered in the review. As per the SHS resolution that adopted the policies as land use regulations, it also clarifies the SHS only applies to property over 500 feet in elevation and south of 18th Avenue, which this site obviously is. When providing opposing testimony, you can make an argument if you think there are other applicable policies in the SHS that should apply. Thanks, Nick From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:27 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu> Subject: South Hills Study Nick, I know you mentioned this before, but I could use additional clarification on the applicability of the South Hills Study. Which portions of the SHS does the Planning Department considers in a PUD review? And I believe that the City authorized the restriction to said portions in a later Council Action, sometime around 2000?, do you know the Council File number for that action? Thx, Brent 1 GIOELLO Nick R won= From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:00 PM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: RE: Criteria 7 Brent, We will get a referral letter from Public Works that will give us information regarding wastewater, storm/drainage, streets, and traffic. EWEB will give us a referral letter with conceptual comments for water, electricity and their right of way/easement issues. I assume they will provide something that indicates significant improvements or upgrades will need to be made to existing infrastructure. Not sure if they limit it to specific lots being developed or a blanket no further development until upgrades are made, as there could possibly be some capacity available for several more homes there (I don't think there is based on my phone conversation and them saying there was barely enough pressure now for the existing homes). The city has a requirement that prior to issuing a building permit, the developer needs to provide a water service availability letter from EWEB. I don't know if we can or will require a bond for water service, we only do that type of thing for large public infrastructure that a developer will be building and then turning over to the City. I'll have to ask senior staff about that. Nick From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 201712:20 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Criteria 7 I assume each of the agencies that provide the Public Facilities and Services Elements issue a letter of intention, or something to that effect, for water, wastewater, storm/drainage, streets (transportation), electricity, solid waste (which is private), schools, we also consider Fire. I am particularly interested in water, Fire Department, sewer, streets, and stormdrainage. Will EWEB identify the system improvements required to be performed by the developer, and in this case, since the improvements are so costly, will the developer be required to submit bond or sign an agreement to do the work as a condition of final PUD approval? On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:04 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Brent, take a look at the Metro Plan: https://www.eugene-or.gov/848/Studies-Adopted-Plans-and-Archives Look at section G. Public Facilities and Services Element. 1 It generally includes: water, wastewater, storm/drainage, streets (transportation), electricity, solid waste (which is private), schools, we also consider Fire and Police services as public facilities/service. Hope this helps, Nick Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. Associate Planner Planning Division City of Eugene Planning & Development 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene Oregon 97401 p 541.682.5453 f 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Brent Lorscheider fmailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:59 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.GioelloQci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Criteria 7 Nick, What are the "Public Services" referenced in EC 9.8320 (7) ? Thx, Brent PS: Can u give me a call tomorrow? 626-627-5049 2 GIOELLO Nick From: GILLESPIE Scott N Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:56 AM To: Brent Lorscheider Cc: GIOELLO Nick R; FAVREAU Eric J Subject: RE: Cap Hill PUD - Utilities Hi Brent, Sorry for the late reply. All development proposals are reviewed for sewer service against sewer basin master plans and engineering design standards. Each individual development is not required to submit an engineering study to confirm capacity. Consistency with basin master planning and providing minimum collection main sizing serves as confirmation of capacity under City sewer service policies. The proposed points of connection and main extensions are consistent with engineering standards and have been confirmed with our sewer planning engineers. Thanks, Scott Gillespie, PE Public Works Engineering 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 541-682-2706 From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 2:31 PM To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Fw: Cap Hill PUD - Utilities Hi Scott, Regarding my request for information pertaining to the Capital Hill PUD: 1. I assume your department must conduct some type of sewer capacity analysis to determine if an existing sewer has sufficient capacity for a proposed development tie-in. I believe the Cap Hill Pud proposes to connect up to 44 dwelling units to an existing 8 inch public sewer, does/will that sewer have capacity for the additional flow from the development? On Monday, April 10, 2017 2:08 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello a( ,ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Hi Brent, I received the following from Scott Gillespie, Civil Engineer II and Development Review Manager, after I asked him for clarification why part of your request triggered a formal Public Information Request: Hi Nick, The justification is on the PIR request form. His request is extensive (likely a Level 1) requiring many previous years, multiple divisions, multiple staff, multiple databases, multiple archives and multiple pages. A request of this nature would also typically trigger a review from the City Attorney's Office due to its size and breadth. This information is not typically reviewed by PW staff during a land use application as there are not criteria that directly speak to asset management and maintenance operations. We keep basic information at the PIC so people can easily see the design of their street or where (or how big) their utilities are. This information is available through GIS and is easily queried. It generally includes these items from his list: ® Location ® As-constructs ® Age The remaining items on his list can be provided with a Public Records Request from the City Recorder's Office. Thanks, Scott Gillespie, PE Public Works Engineering 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 I hope this clarifies the issue for you, Nick Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. Associate Planner I Planning Division City of Eugene Planning & Development 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene Oregon 97401 p 541.682.5453 f 541.682.5572 nick. r. iq oello )ci.eugene.or.us From: Brent Lorscheider fmailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 10:40 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R. Gioello(a_ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassocaaol.com>; Kelley Blewster <kel Isand(o)earthlink. net> Subject: Re: Cap Hill PUD - Utilities Nick, Regarding my request for information related to sewer availablity and road suitability for the Cap Hill PUD, pis note: Criteria 7 of the PUD evaluation (9.8320) requires the PUD demonstrate adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, which would include sewers and roads. The stated purpose of the land use code is to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and to preserve and enhance the economic, social, and environmental qualities of the community. (9.0020). The stated goal of the Planning Department, according to their website is to: Facilitate community dialogue and understanding of land use planning issues Taken together, the above three objectives/codes imply that 1, as a member of the public, should be able to dialogue and ask questions of the Planning Department about land use planning issues that could affect public, health, safety and 2 general welfare of the public. The information that I requested in my prior email is very reasonable and pertinent to the topic, and should have been done already, assuming the City is duly conducting a review to determine if "public services" are available for the subject PUD. Furthermore, this information should be readily available to the public in order to assuage the public and neighbors, whom have every right to be concerned, about maintaining the protection of health, safety and general welfare with respect to the subject PUD application In view of the above, it is incumbent upon the Planning Department to field questions and request for information from the public, seek out the answers from the respective departments within the City, and then provide those answers, all of which should be done in a timely manner so as to allow the public to review the answers and have an opportunity to incorporate the sought after information within the PUD review deadlines for public input. It is unfair to place the burden of.obtaining the request for information on the requester with the directive to "make a records request" as this is not a records request, it is a request for pertinent information pertaining to a pending land use application. Therefore, I respectfully repeat my request of my prior email of April 5 and ask that the Planning Department abide by its stated goal to "facilitate community dialogue" by "corralling the requested information" and responding to me in a timely manner. Nick, I appreciate your assistance on the initial request and realize this repeated request may not be within your authority to grant, in which case I hereby ask that you refer this request for information, pertinent to the Capital Hill PUD application, to the management of the Planning Department. Thx again, Brent Lorscheider, Leader of the Fairmount Neighbors Association PUD Response Effort Request for the following information regarding the public sewer reaches that will receive the sewer discharge from the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., the 8 inch sewer at the point of connection and all downstream reaches: Location Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Condition Maintenance and cleaning history Spill or overflow records On Thursday, April 6, 2017 2:32 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioeilo(a,ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Brent, I am told by Public Works staff that some of the information you are requesting is available at the Building Permit counter, "mostly location and as-builts°. You can walk in any time and request to see them. 3 The depth and detail of the other parts of your request will require staff time to retrieve and organize. This must be requested as a records request through the City Recorder's Office: https://www.eugene-or.gov/519/Public-Records I have attached a form for you. Thanks, Nick From: Brent Lorscheider rmailto:lorsch2728(a,pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 11:57 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(a7ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc(@aol.com> Subject: Cap Hill PUD - Utilities Hi Nick, Can u pls forward this request to the appropriate department within the City: Request for the following information regarding the public sewer reaches that will receive the sewer discharge from the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., the 8 inch sewer at the point of connection and all downstream reaches: Location Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Condition Maintenance and cleaning history Spill or overflow records Request for the following information regarding the streets that will bear the traffic burden during construction and post construction of the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., Capital Drive, Spring Street and Fairmount: Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Maintenance history Thank you, Brent 4 I LL Nick From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:49 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Re: Needed Housing Thx Nick, Interesting info. Do you know of any other HO decisions, or appeals that address PUD applications wherein Needed Housing was a consideration in the review and/or appeal process ? If so, could I get a copy of those decision(s). Phx, Brent On Monday, April 10, 2017 8:55 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Brent, i have attached several documents that should give you a better understanding of needed housing and answer your questions. I copied the Oregon Revised Statutes that cover needed housing and the Goal 10 language. I have also given you a discussion (see Attachment A of the Chamotee Trails PUD memorandum) from our City Attorney's office that provides a comprehensive overview of "needed housing" for a very recent project that went through public hearing, and I also included the portion of the Hearings Official's decision that rules on the needed housing issue. Thank you, Nick From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 4:34 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Needed Housing What constitutes needed housing, pricewise? how much housing is needed? and by when? what are the enabling city ordinances? On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 4:01 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(@c;i.eugene.or.us> wrote: Brent, There is no point person on needed housing. I can field your questions, If I don't have an answer I can find someone who can answer it. Nick From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728(o-)_pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 8:07 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello a(7.ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Needed Housing Hi Nick, I would like to learn more about "needed housing" in Eugene. Can you direct me to the point person or guru for the City on this topic? 1 Tnx, Brent 2 T L Nick From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 11:57 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno Subject: Cap Hill PUD - Utilities Hi Mick, Can u pls forward this request to the appropriate department within the City: Request for the following information regarding the public sewer reaches that will receive the sewer discharge from the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., the 8 inch sewer at the point of connection and all downstream reaches: Location Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Condition Maintenance and cleaning history Spill or overflow records Request for the following information regarding the streets that will bear the traffic burden during construction and post construction of the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., Capital Drive, Spring Street and Fairmount: Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Maintenance history Thank you, Brent 1 GIOELLO Nick Fri : pfisher <pfisher@continet.com> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:06 PM Tai: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Capital Hill PUD Conversation Nick, it was a pleasure talking with you today RE: Eweb Water Distribution System, the Transportation. problems with fire, etc on hill, & also, the Time line for PUD Response. Thank you for all of your help. Please feel free to call me at: 541-687-0651 or email me at: pfisher@continet.com. f Rest Regards, Peggy Fisehr GIOELLO Nick i Brent, I've had more time to go over the application. I have also talked to a few more knowledgeable staff, and there is no criteria in the code that allows us to ask how much construction traffic or limit construction traffic to a site. Since its not in the code, there is no code reference I can give you. There are some things that limit construction activity, such as when construction can start and end (time of day) and Erosion Control has limits on the slope integrity, dirt and debris aspect related to construction and making sure that kind of stuff does not leave the site (for more info on Erosion, contact Ed Fredette - Erosion Control Specialist, 541-501-0358, or ed.w.fredette@ci.eugene.or.us). We do know the number of trees proposed for removal, it is shown in a table on sheet L4.0 of the plans; 312 trees to be removed. I talked to one of our engineers and it seems typical at this stage that there is no quantifiable way to know exactly in cubic yardage how much cut and fill will be required. That is not known until the full grading plans are finished. For the improvements to Capital Drive, which is City owned, they would submit the full grading plans when applying for the Privately Engineered Public Improvement permit (you'll hear referred to as a PEPI permit by most staff). The private street, driveways, stromwater and other utility work and associated grading is looked at through the Building Permit. You can talk to more knowledgeable staff than I by calling Public Works Engineering at 682-8400. I'm sorry, I do not know the code sections that these areas I've described are located in. I believe that the staff I've directed you too should be able to give you the code references you are asking. Hope this helps, Dick From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:47 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: another question Hi Nick, Another question on PUD process. In the neighborhood meeting of November 2017, I asked a number of questions related to estimated construction activities, like how much excavation, how much fill, how many trees removed, how many truck trips, etc will be required for: (1) land development work, and (2) home construction. The developers agent has declined to answer these questions and has taken the position that this pertinent information is not part of the PUD application and approval process--further claiming these questions will not be answered until the building permit phase of the development process. Can you please direct me to the code section(s) that supports this position? Thx, Brent 1 G--'4 ALL is From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:31 AM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: RE: road standards Attachments: Design Standards for Streets.pdf Hey Brent, It's in EC 9.6870, which also references the attached document. I highly suggest discussing these standards with someone in Public Works (682-8400) to fully understand how they are applied. Nick From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:10 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: road standards Nick, I recall you mentioning road standards and how Capital does not meet the standards. I believe the current standard is 21 foot wide? Does the current standard include a sidewalk for an area like Capital Drive, Spring, and Cresta de ruta? Is this covered in land development code, or some other section of eugene code, or another set of regulations ? thx. Brent LL Nick 7~ Wm= WRIMM From: FLOCK Gabriel Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 8:20 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: FW: incident on Capital Drive FYI From: pfisher [mailto:pfisher@continet.com] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 12:07 PM To: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: incident on Capital Drive Hello Gabe. I haven't spoken to you for awhile, but I thought it best to share with you what just happened to me so you would have an example of what happens occasionally on Capital Drive regarding the 5 to 6 blinds curves stretching 1/4 mile from Spring Blvd to my house at 2808 Capital Drive just past Alta Vista Street. Best Wishes, Peggy Fisher-Capital Hill PUD Response Team IJ S ffi I ELL Nick R 1-1 Faris, you'll probably find this attachment helpful as well. r s kon From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:18 AM To: 'fcassel I @comcast. net' <fcassell@comcast.net> Subject: RE: question about capital hill pud planning process Hello Faris, The application was received on 3/7/17. We have 30 days to conduct completeness review, which means reviewing all the materials submitted and deciding if there is anything missing or additional information is needed. I'd say that 95% of the time we deem the application incomplete. It is then up to the applicant to resubmit the missing or additional information. Every applicant is different when it comes to this part, so I can't even fathom a guess on how long before they resubmit. Once we have all the information and materials, the application is deemed complete. We then solicit referral comments from agencies and City Departments, such as Public Works and the Fire Department. A staff report will be written based on those referral comments and an in-depth analysis of the applicable code criteria. A public hearing is scheduled before a Hearings Official approximately 50 to 60 days after the application is deemed complete. Public testimony on the project is accepted both before the hearing in writing and verbally during the hearing . In many cases the public record is left open for several weeks after the hearing. The Hearings Official will render a decision within 15 days following the close of record. - Hope this helps you understand the process. Contact me if you have more questions, rich-_ L s R. Gi 4 f . Adr As ori,- to Pl i n g D i=J'si n nick. r.gic., 10 >ci.eugene.or.us From: fcassellPcorncast.net [rnailto:fcassell@corncast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 9:50 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello2cLeugene.or.us> Subject: question about capital hill pud planning process hello nick I'm a capital drive neighbor and received the planning department email about the capital hill pud recent submission of its plans. could you please tell me the steps and deadlines in the planning process for this pud to win approval? thank you, faris cassell 2 l . i TYPE III APPLICATION EVENT FL The application, accompanied by a fee is submitted to 10 l ff h d f Application Submitted e Permit an In ormation Center, P anning Sta at t 99 West 10th Avenue (See EC 9.7010). The city shall review the application and, within 30 Completeness Review Completed days of its receipt, determine whether the application is complete or incomplete then notify the applicant accordingly. Application Deemed Complete Application Deemed Applicant has 180 days to resubmit complete Incomplete application materials. At least 30 days prior to the public hearing, the city Public Hearing Notice hearin to h ll il itt ti f th ubli Mailed g s a ma a wr en no ce o e p c those parties specified under EC 9.7315. A public hearing will be held within 60 days of the ® i ti th t n li ti i c m l t it ' d t Public Hearing erm na on a a app ca on s o p e e, c y s e unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period. Planning staff shall make the staff report available at least 7 days prior to the hearing (See EC 9.7320). Unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, Decision within 15 days following the close of the record, the review authority shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application (See EC 9.7330). Within 5 days after the Hearings Official or Historic Notice of Decision ® h ll il i d d d i i h i Mailed ma Rev ew Boar ren ers a ec s on, t e c ty s a notice of the decision to those parties specified in EC 9.7335. Within 12 days of the date of the mailing of the notice Appeal i l d h d h d b Submitted on may e appea e to t e of ecision, t e ecis Planning Commission on a form approved by the city manager (See EC 9.7655). Public Hearing Notice At least 10 days prior to the public hearing, the city Unless appealed, the Mailed shall mail written notice of public hearing to those decision is final on parties specified in EC 9.7665. the 13th day after the notice of Appeal The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing decision is sent. Public Hearing within 45 days of appeal receipt unless the applicant and appellant agree to a longer time period. The staff report shall be available at least 7 days prior to the public hearing (See EC 9.7660 & 9.7670). v Appeal Decision The Planning Commission shall affirm, reverse or (Final) modify any decision, determination, or requirement within 15 days of the close of the record, unless the applicant and appellant agree to a longer time period. The decision is final on the local level (See EC 9.7680). Notice of Appeal Within 5 days after a decision by the Planning Decision Mailed Commission is rendered, notice of the decision shall be Revised: 3/2014 mailed to those parties specified in EC. 9.7685. IC2 L -lick From: King Schneider <124kink_key40@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:07 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Re: Capital Hill PUD Hi Nick Thanks. I probably have more than enough to digest if I get into the documents. I'm pretty well acquainted with the drawings (although I'm not sure the ice storm left all the trees). I was in touch with Faris later on, too. I'll most likely contact you in a week or so, if I get barraged by neighbors questions. Kingsley Sent from my iPhone On Mar 10, 2017, at 2:54 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(&,,ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Hi Kingsley, I understand Matt Denberg met with you today and gave you a copy of the time frame for this project. We can certainly meet whenever you would like. The time for public input is after we have deemed the project complete, but I'm certainly not opposed to meeting prior to that to discuss initial concerns of the neighborhood. I'm always willing to pass that kind of information on to the applicant. Let me know when you would like to meet. Thanks, Nick N c l- S T-ig Division nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: 124kink key40@comcast.net [mailto:124kink key40@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 5:17 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Capital Hill PUD Hello, 1 My name is Kingsley Schneider. I am coordinating the Fairmount Neighbors response to this PUD and require some of the parameters of the response. I need a timeline for Planning to respond to the Dreyers, and whether the Dept would entertain any of our response during your initial review for completeness. I don't have your phone number, but would like to talk to you either in person or by phone to determine what (and when) should be included in our response. Icy address is: 2784 Central Blvd, Eugene OR 97403. 541 302 1569 (Cell 541 968 2445) 124kink key4@comcast.net Nick thank you very much. Faris Fro : "GIOELLO Nick R'° <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> To: fcassell@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:56:54 AM Subject: FW: question about capital hill pud planning process Faris, you'll probably find this attachment helpful as well. _1 E_ :vision From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:18 AM To: 'fcassell@comcast.net' <fcasselI@comcast. net> Subject: RE: question about capital hill pud planning process Hello Faris, The application was received on 3/7/17. We have 30 days to cond,uct completeness review, which means reviewing all the materials submitted and deciding if there is anything missing or additional information is needed. I'd say that 95% of the time we deem the application incomplete. It is then up to the applicant to resubmit the missing or additional information. Every applicant is different when it comes to this part, so I can't even fathom a guess on how long before they resubmit. Once we have all the information and materials, the application is deemed complete. We then solicit referral comments from agencies and City Departments, such as Public Works and the Fire Department. A staff report will be written based on those referral comments and an in-depth analysis of the applicable code criteria: A public hearing is scheduled before a Hearings Official approximately 50 to 60 days after the application is deemed complete. Public testimony on the project is accepted both before the hearing in writing and verbally during the hearing . In many cases the public record is left open for several weeks after the hearing. The Hearings Official will render a decision within 15 days following the close of record. 1 Hope this helps you understand the process. Contact me if you have more questions, nick.r,gioello,ci.eugene.or.us From: fcassell@comcast.net [rnailto:fcasseii@corncast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 9:50 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nici<.R.Gioelio@ci.eugene.or,us> Subject: question about capital hill pud planning process hello nick I'm a capital drive neighbor and received the planning department email about the capital hill pud recent submission of its plans. could you please tell me the steps and deadlines in the planning process for this pud to win approval? thank you, faris cassell 2