HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch BGIOELLO Nick
Fro : Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 7:10 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan
hi Nick,
1 How are the implied future restrictions (meeting flow control and water quality requirements for lots 21 thru 32) memorialized and
enforced by the City?
2 Can you direct me to the portion of the stormwater analysis that accounts for the runoff/flow from these lots?
3 Does said analysis of runoff from lots 21 - 32 apply EC 9.6793 (3) (b) as a minimum standard, since the application has not
demonstrated otherwise?
4. Does EC9.6794 apply since the CHPUD will result in over 100 or more offstreet parking spaces in the form of driveways and
designated parking?
thx, brent
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Question on stormwater plan fora Chpud
Brent I got this from the applicant:
Those are the lots at the top of the hill between the two roadways. Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32. Those lots, upon meeting flow control and water quality requirements,
will not be able to release into their own level spreader because they are cut off from those
open spaces and park areas by the roadway improvements. Therefore they will have to
release into the public and private roadways (via weep hole or some other method). The
existing runoff from those lots was accounted for in the storm analysis.
Hope that answers your question,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:21 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Page 5 of the Stormwater plan and drainage study refers to "the lots bound by the new roadway
improvements" in the second paragraph. Could you please ask the applicant to identify the lot
numbers being referenced in this paragraph to avoid any ambiguity thank you Brent
Sent from my Phone
ELL ick-
From:
GIOELLO Nick R
Sent:
Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:42 PM
To:
'Brent Lorscheider'
Subject:
FW: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Brent,
See the responses below that came from the applicant's Engineering consultant.
Thanks,
Nick
t
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 7:10 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
hi Nick,
1 How are the implied future restrictions (meeting flow control and water quality requirements for lots 21 thru 32) memorialized and
enforced by the City?
[ces] The stormwater requirements are memorialized in the final PUD documents. It is a documents that is signed and
notarized by both the city and the client. The document is then recorded with Lane County. Those documents (plans and
recorded conditions of approval) are then use as part of the building permit review.
The proposed stormwater solution for that individual lot will have to adhere to the conditions of approval and the approved
stormwater management plan for the PUD. It will also have to adhere to the stormwater requirements for individual lots.
Public works staff reviews and approves (or doesn't approve) solutions proposed during the building permit phase.
2 Can you direct me to the portion of the stormwater analysis that accounts for the runoff/flow from these lots?
[ces] Water is accounted for this run off. The lots will need to retain the runoff to exist pre-development flows.
The storage container under the road is designed to handle a particular peak rate,
The lots in questions all flow to those roads and then to those containers.
The containers are only required to accommodate a 10 year storm.
Once a larger storm event happens the overflow is directed to either the level spreader whose destinations is the forest to
the east and then to the park property to the east.
Or to the ditch along the gravel road to the north in Hendricks Park.
All of this is designed so that the stormwater flowing down Capital Drive is no greater than it currently is.
Peak rates are designed to snatch existing.
1
You can also say here is less water is flowing along the road than before this designed solution
See section 3.1.3, paragraph 2 for the civil engineers specific language.
3 Does said analysis of runoff from lots 21 - 32 apply EC 9.6793 (3) (b) as a minimum standard, since the application has not
demonstrated otherwise?
[ces] We are in a headwaters area by definition but we do not draining directly into a headwaters stream.
We are however, meeting flow control requirements therefore we meet this standard.
4. Does EC9.6794 apply since the CHPUD will result in over 100 or more offstreet parking spaces in the form of driveways and
designated parking?
[ces] No it doesn't apply. We potentially have 31 additional units as a result of the development. At 1 car per unit required
parking we are parking less than 100 cars. Parked cars are determined by unit count per the parking requirements in the
land use code. They are not determined by how large a driveway is and how many cars can fit on those driveways.
thx, brent
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Mick. R.Gioello(c)ci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <Iorsch2728 a pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Brent I got this from the applicant:
Those are the lots at the top of the hill between the two roadways. Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32. Those lots, upon meeting flow control and water quality requirements,
will not be able to release into their own level spreader because they are cut off from those
open spaces and park areas by the roadway improvements. Therefore they will have to
release into the public and private roadways (via weep hole or some other method). The
existing runoff from those lots was accounted for in the storm analysis.
Hope that answers your question,
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728CcDpacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:21 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(@ci.eugene.or.up
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617(.msn.com>
Subject: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Page 5 of the Stormwater plan and drainage study refers to "the lots bound by the new roadway
improvements" in the second paragraph. Could you please ask the applicant to identify the lot
numbers being referenced in this paragraph to avoid any ambiguity thank you Brent
Sent from my iPhone
' JELL is 'e _
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brent,
GIOELLO Nick R
Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:42 PM
'Brent Lorscheider'
FW: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
See the responses below that came from the applicant's Engineering consultant.
Thanks,
Nick
dhel as Po C ei=^
A:,s~b i ne j
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 7:10 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
hi Nick,
1 How are the implied future restrictions (meeting flow control and water quality requirements for lots 21 thru 32) memorialized and
enforced by the City?
[ces] The stormwater requirements are memorialized in the final PUD documents. It is a documents that is signed and
notarized by both the city and the client. The document is then recorded with Lane County. Those documents (plans and
recorded conditions of approval) are then use as part of the building permit review.
The proposed stormwater solution for that individual lot will have to adhere to the conditions of approval and the approved
stormwater management plan for the PUD. It will also have to adhere to the stormwater requirements for individual lots.
Public works staff reviews and approves (or doesn't approve) solutions proposed during the building permit phase.
2 Can you direct me to the portion of the stormwater analysis that accounts for the runoff/flow from these lots?
[ces] Water is accounted for this run off. The lots will need to retain the runoff to exist pre-development flows.
The storage container under the road is designed to handle a particular peak rate.
The lots in questions all flow to those roads and then to those containers.
The containers are only required to accommodate a 10 year storm.
Once a larger storm event happens the overflow is directed to either the level spreader whose destinations is the forest to
the east and then to the park property to the east.
Or to the ditch along the gravel road to the north in Hendricks Park
All of this is designed so that the stormwater flowing down Capital Drive is no greater than it currently is.
Peak rates are designed to match existing.
1
You can also say there is less water is flowing along the road than before this designed solution.
See section 3.1.3, paragraph 2 for the civil engineers specific language.
3 Does said analysis of runoff from lots 21 - 32 apply EC 9.6793 (3) (b) as a minimum standard, since the application has not
demonstrated otherwise?
[ces] We are in a headwaters area by definition but we do not draining directly into a headwaters stream.
We are however, meeting flour control requirements therefore we meet this standard.
4. Does EC9.6794 apply since the CHPITD will result in over 100 or more offstreet parking spaces in the form of driveways and
designated parking?
[ees] No it doesn't apply. We potentially have 31 additional units as a result of the development. At 1 car per unit required
parking we are parking less than 100 cars. Parked cars are determined by unit count per the parking requirements in the
land use code. They are not determined by how large a driveway is and how many cars can fit on those driveways.
thx, brent
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.GioelloCcDci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728(a pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Brent I got this from the applicant:
Those are the lots at the top of the hill between the two roadways. Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32. Those lots, upon meeting flow control and water quality requirements,
will not be able to release into their own level spreader because they are cut off from those
open spaces and park areas by the roadway improvements. Therefore they will have to
release into the public and private roadways (via weep hole or some other method). The
existing runoff from those lots was accounted for in the storm analysis.
Hope that answers your question,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:1orsch2728Ca~pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:21 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.up
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617(a)_msn.com>
Subject: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Page 5 of the Stormwater plan and drainage study refers to "the lots bound by the new roadway
improvements" in the second paragraph. Could you please ask the applicant to identify the lot
numbers being referenced in this paragraph to avoid any ambiguity thank you Brent
Sent from my iPhone
2
GIOELLO Nick
From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 7:10 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan
hi Nick,
1 How are the implied future restrictions (meeting flow control and water quality requirements for lots 21 thru 32) memorialized and
enforced by the City?
2 Can you direct me to the portion of the stormwater analysis that accounts for the runoff/flow from these lots?
3 Does said analysis of runoff from lots 21 - 32 apply EC 9.6793 (3) (b) as a minimum standard, since the application has not
demonstrated otherwise?
4. Does EC9.6794 apply since the CHPUD will result in over 100 or more offstreet parking spaces in the form of driveways and
designated parking?
thx, Brent
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Brent I got this from the applicant:
Those are the lots at the top of the hill between the two roadways. Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32. Those lots, upon meeting flow control and water quality requirements,
will not be able to release into their own level spreader because they are cut off from those
open spaces and park areas by the roadway improvements. Therefore they will have to
release into the public and private roadways (via weep hole or some other method). The
existing runoff from those lots was accounted for in the storm analysis.
Hope that answers your question,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:21 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Page 5 of the Stormwater plan and drainage study refers to "the lots bound by the new roadway
improvements" in the second paragraph. Could you please ask the applicant to identify the lot
numbers being referenced in this paragraph to avoid any ambiguity thank you Brent
Sent from my Phone
GIOELLO Nick
Thank you Nick.
The applicant representative appears to speak for the City on a number of issues related to the planning/development process, future
building permits, etc. Is she correct on each of her statements and if not could you please provide corrections where appropriate?
Also, the applicant rep makes this statement:
And there isn't any situation where the owner of the lot can't meet the criteria.
Sometimes it costs more than they want but we have never met a project/building/road etc. where there wasn't a
solution.
Money solves everything.
For example, underground storage tanks that slowly release the water. No one wants to pay for those but they
might have to.
Or flow through planters. Constructed, typically concrete planters built around the house. Those aren't cheap
solutions but they are a solution. Etc. Etc.
Yet, the application makes a number of statements in the Stormwater Mgmt Plan and Drainage Study requesting waivers from EC
9.6790 to EC 9.6796, due to cost or land (space) requirements...
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Brent,
The following is the applicant's response:
I am here to help in any way I can.
1
Does that help?
Thanks
carol
Carol Schirmer
Schirmer Satre Group
Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:51 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Can u pls ask applicant exactly where the storm water plan addresses the flow from the bound lots?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2017, at 4:36 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
Brent I got this from the applicant:
Those are the lots at the top of the hill between the two roadways. Lots 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32. Those lots, upon meeting flow control
and water quality requirements, will not be able to release into their own level
spreader because they are cut off from those open spaces and park areas by the
roadway improvements. Therefore they will have to release into the public and
private roadways (via weep hole or some other method). The existing runoff from
those lots was accounted for in the storm analysis.
Hope that answers your question,
Nick
Page 5 of the Stormwater plan and drainage study refers to "the lots bound by the new
roadway improvements" in the second paragraph. Could you please ask the applicant
to identify the lot numbers being referenced in this paragraph to avoid any ambiguity
thank you Brent
Sent from my iPhone
3
GIOELLO Nick
From:
GILLESPIE Scott N
Sent:
Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:02 AM
To:
Brent Lorscheider; GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:
FAVREAU Eric J
Subject:
RE: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Brent,
I understand you are unhappy with the prospect of a new development in your neighborhood. This is the last
communication I will be sending on the design of Capital Drive.
The City followed its design standards and the structure of Capital Drive thick enough to accommodate twice
the expected traffic in the area over its design life. Heavy vehicles included. The City has no evidence that the
structure of the roadway network is incapable of accommodating the expected traffic from Capital Hill
PUD. The roadway network is structurally capable of accommodating the development.
Thank you,
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: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:14 PM
To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Re: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Scott, thx for your responses.. Can u clarify your statement: "The 20 year ESAL is 247,488".
Does 247, 7,488 represent the projected total ESAL count on Spring over the next 20 years, and if so, then why is
it so much greater that the projected ESAL count on Capital (13,917)?
Also, your statement: "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
Logically, the "construction traffic from a specific project" in this case is the construction traffic from the Cap
Hill PUD. Therefore, please tell me what is the estimated or assumed ESAL count, from the Cap Hill PUD
construction related activities, that was utilized to arrive at the conclusion that 5.6 heavy vehicles on daily basis
over 30 years has a larger impact on ESAL's than construction traffic from the Cap Hill PUD?
Thx, Brent
From: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; GIOELLO Nick R
<Nick. R.Gioello@.ci.eugene.or. us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617().msn.com>; FAVREAU Eric J
<Eric.J.Favreau ,ci.eugene.or.us>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 2:14 P
Subject: RE: -Road Load on Capital and Spring
Hi Brent,
Please see responses to your questions below.
® The 24 hour count is the 24 hour volume of the day counted. The growth factors account for impacts over
the 365 day year throughout the design life of the pavement.
® ESAL growth factors. include heavy vehicles. Growth factors are based. upon highway data in
Oregon. They tend to overestimate heavy vehicles when applied to a local street. We use this as a built in
factor of safety for pavement design. We have no evidence suggesting the structural section of Capital Drive is
inadequate for the proposed development, construction activity included. Our engineers have verified the
structural section is greater than the minimum pavements required to serve the existing neighborhood and the
proposed development.
® You are correct. Eugene Code does not preclude the consideration of construction in the PUD approval
criteria. Eugene Code also does not identify or address construction activity in the approval criteria.
Thanks,
Scott Gillespie, PE
Public Works Engineering
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-2706
From: Brent Lorscheider rmailto:lorsch2728 cDPacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:40 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(c ci.eugene.or.us>; GILLESPIE Scott N
<Scott. N.Gillespie0_ci.eugene.or. us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Scott and Nick, Thx for your patience with my questions. May I please just get clarification on a couple of your
responses?
In Scott' response no. 2 he states "Class counts are typically an average 24 volume".
I assume we are talking about 24 hour volume and this applies to each day of the year, 365 days in all?
In Scott's response no. 3 he states: "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."
Does this statement not imply your current ESAL growth factor should include all future, or anticipated,
construction activity, including the construction activity from the PUD? and from the resulting approximately 35
dwelling units? Does your ESAL growth factor include the anticipated construction activity related to the PUD,
which will result in numerous trips by Class 7 and 8 vehicles?
In closing Scott states "...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.
2
Please cite the section of the code that precludes the consideration of construction related activities as it
applies to the approval criterion below?
(11) The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including such impacts as
traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality.
As always, thank you for your assistance. Brent
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(_ci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728 apacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:45 AM
Subject: FW: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Brent,
See below from Scott Gillespie.
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. ioq ello(c ci.eugene.or.us
From: GILLESPIE Scott N
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:35 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello cr.ci.eugene.or.up
Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau a.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 PIDS
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 Eric J <Eric. J. Favreau(5-~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 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
4
From: Brent Lorscheider [maiIto: lorsch2728(@_pacbell.net]
Seat: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:41 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Faris Cassell <fcasselI6E~comcast. net>
Subject: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Nick,
I have some follow up questions:
1. 1 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 in the ESAL's from the
heavy 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 SIN 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 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,
5
From: "fcassellQcomcast.net" <fcassell@comcast.net>
To: "lorscheider, Brent" <lorsch2728(a 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@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 Planning Division
City of Eugene
Planning & Development
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene Oregon 97401
p 541.682.5453
f 541.682.5572
nick. r.gioelloC@ci. eugene.or. us
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:55 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(o-)-ci.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 22,237 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 AfVI
To: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.FavreauO-ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau'
Sure do
6
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 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 21St
t.
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:43 AM
To: HIGGINS Teri L <Teri. L.HigginsCa-ci.eugene.or.us>
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: F : Email for E.Favreau
From: CW Murchison [mailto:cwmurchisonna.gmail.coml
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 10:35 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(cDci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: faris cassell <fcassell(cr~,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 21st along the
likely traffic routes to the CHPUD.
Thanks so much once again,
CW Murchison
541/543-7127
2835 Capital Dr.
GIOELLO Nick
Nick,
Is the following statement from Scott correct: „ Eugene Code does not preclude the consideration of construction in
the PUD approval criteria. Eugene Code also does not identify or address construction activity in the approval
criteria. "
Thx, Brent
Forwarded Message
From: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie d)ci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch27286c pacbell.net>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello6a ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617Qrnsn.com>; FAVREAU Eric J <Eric. J.Favreau(g.ci.eugene.or.us>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 20172;14 PM
Subject: RE: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Hi Brent,
Please see responses to your questions below.
The 24 hour count is the 24 hour volume of the day counted. The growth factors account for impacts over
the 365 day year throughout the design life of the pavement.
® ESAL growth factors include heavy vehicles. Growth factors are based upon highway data. in
Oregon. They tend to overestimate heavy vehicles when applied to a local street. We use this as a built in
factor of safety for pavement design. We have no evidence suggesting the structural section of Capital Drive is
inadequate for the proposed development, construction activity included. Our engineers have verified the
structural section is greater than the minimum pavements required to serve the existing neighborhood and the
proposed development.
® You are correct. Eugene: Code does not preclude the consideration. of construction in the PUD approval
criteria. Eugene Code also does not identify or address construction activity in the approval criteria.
i
Thanks,
Scott Gillespie, PE
Public Works Engineering
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-2706
From: Brent Lorscheider (mailto:lorsch2728 cx,pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:40 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(a.ci.eugene.or.us>; GILLESPIE Scott IN
<Scott.N.Gillespie(a ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Scott and Nick, Thx for your patience with my questions. May I please just get clarification on a couple of your
responses?
In Scott' response no. 2 he states "Class counts are typically an average 24 volume".
I assume we are talking about 24 hour volume and this applies to each day of the year, 365 days in all?
In Scott's response no. 3 he states: "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."
Does this statement not imply your current ESAL growth factor should include all future, or anticipated,
construction activity, including the construction activity from the PUD? and from the resulting approximately 35
dwelling units? Does your ESAL growth factor include the anticipated construction activity related to the PUD,
which will result in numerous trips by Class 7 and 8 vehicles?
In closing Scott states "...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.
Please cite the section of the code that precludes the consideration of construction related activities as it
applies to the approval criterion below?
(11) The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including such impacts as
traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality.
As always, thank you for your assistance. Brent
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(@ci:eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch27286a pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:45 AM
Subject: FW: Road Load on Capital and Spring
Brent,
See below from Scott Gillespie
2
ELL Nick R
I
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:30 PM
To: ROBINSON Melissa A
Subject: FW: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
In this exchange I am clarifying the info with Scott about PW Maintenance. I don't see any subsequent emails that Scott
ever responded back on this.
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 11:31 AM
To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>; FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us>; Eugene
Public Records Requests <PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>; BROWN Kristie A <Kristie.A.Brown @ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: RE: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
Hey Scott,
So, just to clarify, Public Works Maintenance will field the answers to questions 1 & 3 through 6? Will that be included
with Public Works Engineering referral comments or a stand-alone response? If not with the referral comments, any
idea when it might be available?
Nick
From: GILLESPIE Scott N
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:41 AM
To: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us>; Eugene Public Records Requests
<PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau @ci.eugene.or.us>; BROWN Kristie A <Kristie.A.Brown @ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: RE: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
I am not having a good email day. Links are below.
® Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
® Public Infrastructure Desian Standards
Scott Gillespie, PE
Public Works Engineering
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-2706
From: GILLESPIE Scott N
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:38 AM
To: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eug_ene.or.us>; Eugene Public Records Requests
<PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us> GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>; BROWN Kristie A <Kristie.A.Brown@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: RE: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
i
My apologies, PWM can field #'s 1 and 3-6
Scott Gillespie, PE
Public Works Engineering
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-2706
From: GILLESPIE Scott N
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:29 AM
To: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.FlocLEci.euEene.or.us>; Eugene Public Records Requests
<PUBLICRECORDSREgUESTS@ci.euf2ene.or.us>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nicl<.R.Gioello _ ci.eu~zene.or.us>
Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>; BROWN Kristie A <Kristie.A.Brown ci.eggene.or.us>
Subject: RE: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
Hi Rawson,
This is a very time intensive request. Some of it may not be available or may not be a standard maintenance
practice we perform. Public Works Maintenance would be able to answer #"s 1 and 2-6. Public Works
Engineering will provide a written statement in the form of a staff referral once the PUD application is deemed
complete. Mr. Lorscheider can review the staff referral as part of the project record at that time. To clarify Mr.
Lorscheider's last question. Our records indicate the sewers leading up the proposed development are
publically owned and maintained.
For #2. Please follow these links. These are the documents that establish sanitary sewer design and analyses
in Eugene.
® Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
® Public Infrastructure Design Standards
Mr. Lorscheider can also access available as-constructs and GIS data for free during business hours at the
Permit and Information Center (PIC) 99 West 10th Ave Eugene, OR 97401.
Thanks,
Scott Gillespie, PE
Public Works Engineering
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-2706
From: FLOCK Gabriel
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:02 AM
To: Eugene Public Records Requests <PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.euRene.or.us>; GIOELLO Nick R
<Nick.R.Gioelio ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>; FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.euFene.or.us>; BROWN
Kristie A <Kristie.A.Brown ci..eugene.or.us>
Subject: RE: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
Hi Rawson,
2
I spoke briefly with Nick about this request (and the prior one related to fire flow). This is not information that the
Planning Division would have and probably best directed to Public Works and the Fire Department (or EWEB). I'm
copying Public Works staff to see if they can assist. GF
From: Eugene Public Records Requests
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:56 PM
To: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabrief.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello f? ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
Second request...
Rawson Baylor-Pino I City Council Program Coordinator
City of Eugene I City Manager's Office
2.25 E. 8d' Avenue, 2`1 Floor
Lane County Public Service Building
Eugene OR 97402
Phone 542.682.8497
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbel1.net]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 12:08 PM
To: Eugene Public Records Requests <PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Brent Lorscheider <Iorsch2728@pacbel1.net>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>; David and
Catherine Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: SEWER INFORMATION RELATEDTO THE CAPITAL HILL PUD (PDT-17-0001)
REQUESTOR: Brent Lorscheider, 2625 Capital Drive, Ph: 6266275049
I am requesting this information as part of the Fairmount Neighborhood/Laural Hill Valley Joint Response Committee to the proposed
Capital Hill PUD. We would like a written statement regarding the availability and adequacy of the current sewer system with respect
to the subject PUD. It is our understanding that the existing sewer system is designated to accept the additional sewer flow, and the
accompanying rainfall inflow, from the 37 homes being proposed in the subject PUD. The PUD proposes two connections, one at MH
located at Capital Drive and Cresta de Ruta, and a second at MH on Capital Drive roughly 100 feet west of the property line. Below
is a request for public records as they relate to the existing sewer system downstream from the proposed PUD connections,
specifically downstream to the next larger sewer line(s).
1 The age and material of the sewer pipes.
2. The sewer analysis used to determine that sufficient capacity exist in the existing public sewer system to accept the additional
sewage and inflow from the proposed PUD.
3. The condition of the sewer.
4. The maintenance and cleaning history of the sewer.
5. A summary of any CCTV inspections of the sewer.
6. The history of any sewer spills or overflow records for the sewer.
Also, the Civil Drawings in the application indicate the existing sewers in Capital Drive (the sewers the PUD proposes connection to)
could be private sewers based on the legend. Please verify if these are public or private sewers?
Thank you,
3
Brent Lorscheider/
Brent Lorscheider
4
GI ELL Nick
From:
Seat:
To:
Cc:
bjo :
Jason,
@-
Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Monday, October 02, 2017 6:23 PM
Jason Brown
Becky Dorsey; GIOELLO Nick R; Tom Bruno; Cathy Johnson,- Faris Cassell; C W
Murchison; Nate Teich; Susan Hoffman; Sheryl Kelly
Re: Capital Hill PUD delays
Welcome to the utterly corrupt Eugene Planning Division.
All of you are experiencing the lack of integrity and accountability that I've witnessed all over the
City Oakleigh Lane, South Willamette, Coburg Road, I could go on an on.
If Nick stands up to it at all, he'll be overridden by Gabe Flock, and the pathetic excuses we have
for Planning Director and City Manager will stand by Flock.
But you can beat these suckers on appeal to LUBA and the Court of Appeals. I've done it numerous
times.
Keep up the fight!
Paul
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Jason Brown <outermark2cgmail.com> wrote:
I sent an email as well and expressed the concern that at a certain point the idea an application being
"complete" and there being a 120-day timeline no longer had any meaning at all. The parameters of the process
exist, in part, to insure our rights as citizens. If the process means the applicant can simply spitball until they
push this through without regard to the process, then our rights are abrogated.
However, I already know the answer to our questions. There IS a process, and part of the process is that the
process does not have to be followed. An application is deemed complete, but then the applicant can add
whatever they want along the way and call up the planning department and ask what is going to be said in their
report. And I am sure there is language that allows the city/planning people to offer as many extensions as they
want to.
My understanding of the process is that for every seeming boundary in the application process ("completeness"
and 120 clocks) there is a backdoor or contradiction that allows the breaking of that boundary.
1
Schirmer, the planners, the councilors--they have all been drinking the same pro-growth at any costs Kool-Aid.
Many of them are in fact graduates of the same classes/programs in planning at the UO. They are not bad
people--most cities are run the same way, as far as I can tell.
We have to get good at fighting them on their own turf. It's a learning curve for me. Much of what makes the
process unfair and even corrupt is hidden from the public. That's one 'way we can approach this. The other is to
be careful about sharing our information with them. I think we need a deliberate strategy with regard to this.
Yes, we want to influence the planning report. But everything we give to planning then allows the applicant to
ask for more time so they can-zebut it.
This may give us time to do what we need to do now--raise money to pay a lawyer to poke holes in this
process.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.contekgMail.com> wrote:
The Eugene Code addresses this kind of issue:
9.7015 Application Completeness Review. The city shall review an application and, within 30
days of its receipt, notify the applicant as to whether the application is complete. If the city
determines that the application contains sufficient information for review, the city shall advise the
applicant in writing that the application is deemed complete and begin the application review
process. If the city determines that the application is incomplete, the city shall advise the applicant
in writing of the necessary missing information. The city shall begin review of the application either:
(1) Upon receipt of all of the missing information requested by the city, or
(2) Upon receipt of some of the missing information and a written statement from the applicant
indicating that none of the other missing information will be provided; or
(3) Upon receipt of a written statement from the applicant indicating that none of the missing
information will be provided.
On the 181stday after being first submitted, the application will be void if the applicant has been
notified of the missing information and has not complied with (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Once the application is deemed "complete," the applicant can submit additional information to
support the application, but the City cannot approve an application that is significantly different than
the original (i.e., "complete") application without providing the full hearing procedure for a modified
application. (I won a remand on this over the City's objections in the Capstone case.)
Although I don't know whether there's been a case decided, I believe there is some question as to
whether an applicant can provide information that was "missing" at the time the applicant "forced"
completeness under (2) or (3), above. I think this would be considered a "significant difference" from
the original application.
The City would be well advised to not consider any application changes or supplying of "missing
information" by the applicant within the 30 days prior to the public hearing.
Paul
1A
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Becky Dorsey <rdorsey~uoregon.edu> wrote:
Dear Nick,
1 would like to second Tom Bruno's request for information about this process. The new lengthy delay in
the hearing date does not appear to serve the community very well, and we are increasingly concerned about
the review process. Many of us have invested a large amount of time and cost trying to understand the
constantly shifting parameters of the proposed Capital Hill PUD that, if approved, would have major
negative impacts on our neighborhood that we believe are unacceptable.
Can the applicant keep delaying a hearing every time they get close to a review date? Are they allowed an
unspecified number and length of delays? What are the rules on this? Do the rules not define a point at
which the applicant must either appear for a hearing on a given date, or start over and submit a new
application?
We are concerned about this timeline, and will appreciate an explanation.
thank you,
Becky Dorsey
On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Tom Bruno <brunoassoc(a]aol.com> wrote:
Thank you for the quick response, I am a little confused about the city PUD time frame. I thought
the applicant deemed the PUD complete in late September and the time frame clock started. It
appears the applicant has requested a total of 100 days in delay.
Did the applicant give a reason for the two delays totaling about 100 days.
Can the applicant now add new or change his application? If so, it appears the application was
not complete in late September and the city should ask the applicant to resubmit a new
application.
Thank you for your timely updates.
Tom Bruno
Co-chair Laurel Hill Valley Response Team with the other Co-Chait, Sheryl Kelly.
Sent from my Phone
On Oct 2, 2017, at 9:01 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(c-)-ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
Cathy,
The applicant requested an additional 70 day extension. There was a previous
request for 30 days extension as you may recall. We have tentatively scheduled a
new hearing date of January 10, 2018.
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas R. Gic llo; r . A r
r~ so _te Planner !arming Division
99 West 10`Y _;e
p 541.682.5453
541.682.5572
nick.r.gioello9 ci.eugene.or.us
From: Cathy Johnson [mailto:cdiohnson617@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:39 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; C W Murchison
<cwmurchison@gmaii.com>; Nate Teich <nateich2@vahoo.com>; Susan Hoffman
<shortgamesue@vahoo.com>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>
Subject: Re: University Area Protection Measures
Thank you Nick.
Is there any information regarding the cancelled hearing date that you can
share with us?
Any idea about when a new hearing might be scheduled ? We need to revise
our response timeline.
Rebecca J. Dorsey
Department of Earth Sciences
1272 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR, 97403-1272
Voice: (541) 346-4431 Fax: (541) 346-4692
Email: rdorsev auoregon.edu
http://ivww.uoregon.edu/-rdorsey/rjd.html
4
I ELL Nick
Brent,
Public Works staff indicates that the Stormwater Management Plan and [drainage Study submitted by the applicant
(submitted 8-22-17) is'still under review and will be addressed in the referral comments, therefore these questions
cannot be adequately addressed at this time.
=r , I r rD'v sin
s
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:16 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: Storm water ?
More ? Thx brent
ize
ti 0
ere
the
J& a
b 't S d e,...ey c
J
Y [
jf-
2
Brent Lorsr_"e ce
Storm water ?
To GME LO Nick. ,
You QU M this message on W3.i?W 9:28 AK
~:,~.;I,1 . i?a ~ _ «<~~EG i~SEhl 5';~E~ ~.tt,,."I;'i1S:~c?Clf ~_,;r ~ l:s ~ l ~ 1• ,~l~i'.r,i „
~I ~~pliF~sto I ,tMOM Ain, t_hemnAvi ntt7 h n r„
w , onsih lOtetmWentcurb
g
] 11f)W ~~Jt~. r-~St F:~lf1S.3t .tFEi'!,yt E`h Or t ~.i ~
3JIl~C' -"Ji
Sent from my Thone
Mu wwMV *5 M
Storm ve a ter ?
To Gi _aE_t Nick R
You repliers w CA n-iesmge on 9 2.4; 017 124 AM.
Pls see attached
-LPN and ' umn i at^e M i <aa;o€tumtt M.tttu&
It the c€ w, (-!I ~I`klU r.iC71+'E11
di .'UD .'tai=2€tL [7C'tFtl7T
?h Does wuhnumup (a) or (11 Apply to the Cip LAW 10D
111 0; (1) ar ldy a o hn i ) sTH R .D
t{), 1( ht) ,.f<< ;!'.t.,Einahl ,4
!C'
Sentfrom my iPhone
MELLO ic.._
Nick:
I am racing to get out of here.
I was supposed to leave at 3:00 but that isn't looking too good here at 4:15.
1 cannot find the email I sent extending the deadline by 30 days so not sure I have the language right.
If I do not then please correct me and I will resend.
So, Please stop the clock for 70 more days on the Capital Hill PUD application.. Those will be in addition to the 30 days
already requested.
Thanks
carol
Carol Schirmer
Schirmer Satre Group
Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists
375 West 4th
Suite 201
Eugene; OR 97401
www. sch irmersa're.com
PH: (541) 686-4540 x1
Fax: (541) 686-4577
From: GIOELLO Nick R [mailto:Nick. R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:09 PM
To: Carol Schirmer <carol@schirmersatre.com>
Subject: RE: Capital Hill: Help
Yes Carol, since we are moving the hearing back 70 days, you should ask for an additional 70 days to be added to your
last request of 30 days. You are still technically in that time out mode, which does not expire until October 8", therefore
your request language should mention adding the new 70 days to the existing 30day request.
N° s IF'
Ac i°vrsion
is _ ; .v, 1 .6 8 _ _
1 6S .SS7-
n ck.._r gioeIlo@ci..eu.Qene.or:.us
From: Carol Schirmer [mailto:carol@schirmersatre.com1
Seat: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:22 PM
Toe GIOELLO Nick R <Dick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject. Capital Hill: Help
Nick:
I have not had a chance to talk to the client yet but am running out of time.
I would like to schedule the public hearing for January 10th
Could you please tell me how many more days we need to add on to the 30 we already have
Are we adding 70 more?
Please confirm my math and I will send you confirmation that we will do this.
Thanks
Carol
Carol Schirmer
Schirmer Satre Group
Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists
375 West 4th
Suite 201
Eugene, OR 97401
www.schirmersai.re.com
PH: (541) 686-4540 x1
Fax: (541) 686-4577
2
I ELL Nick R
a,
Fri :
GIOELLO Nick R
Seat:
Thursday, September 28, 2017~1200 PM
To:
'Brent Lorscheider'
Subject:
RE: Application checklist
Brent,
We are still under review and I'll be evaluating that in the staff report. Also, application requirements are a catch-all and
only a starting point and not criteria that is evaluated.
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: Friday, September 22, 2017 1:35 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: Application checklist
Nick page 4 the application checklist - prominent topographical features such as ridgelines her rock outcrops ...why does
this application not identify Capitol Hill as a topographic feature? Does the city not consider Capitol Hill to be such a
feature?
Sent from my iPhone
1
Gi LL Nick
0_
From: Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 12:10 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Subject: Tree questions for record CHPUD
Dear Nick: i have what is more a note than a question. When the applicant discusses Tree Preservation, they discuss unhealthy
trees and "critical root" zones in support of their argument. However, I see no reference to a "certified arborist" or a forester
in reference to their technical details. They do not define unhealthy in any quantV4able or scientific way and offer no
expertise. Chapter 9 of the Eugene code clearly outlines the necessity of the expertise of a "certified aborist" and to
substantiate claims. Best, Jason
Jason Brown
Associate Professor of Creative Writing
University of Oregon
(917) 767-5386
I ELL Nick
Fro : Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Seat: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:41 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Cc: Faris Cassell
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 Manrial 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 (GV4' R of 8 to 20 tons) were observed
(registered) during 2105...That seems like an extremely low number'?'??
3. The statement "so the existin ACP thickness meet the 30 year design." factor in the ESAL's from the heavy° truck.
loads that will be generated during construction of the P !D, 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 FSA_I.. of 13,917, and a 30 year of
22,)'7
. 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
form 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 ESAL, is 24 7,488. 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 tender
the design loadings, and is probably sufficient to handle an increase volume of traffic.
From: "fcassell@comcast. net" <fcassell@comcast.net>
To: "lorscheider, Brent" <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Seat: 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@ci.eugene.or.us>
T: fcassell@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:11:32 PM
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
See below
Frown: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:55 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.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 22,237 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@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.
2
That teeing said, the existing structure of Capital was 7" to 3" of .ACP on clay with the top 2 inches
delaminated. The Class counts conducted in 2015 only registered 5.5 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.
PW has not done any work or research on Fairmount or 21st,
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:43 AM
To: HIGGINS Teri L <Teri.L.Hi gq insQci.eugene.or.us>
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.GioelloP_ci.eugene.or.us>
Date: September 8, 2017 at 8:14:34 AM PDT
To: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: F : Email for E.Favreau
From: CW Murchison [mailto:cwmurchison aagmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 10:35 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(@,ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: faris cassell <fcasse I I (Dcom cast. 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 21st along the
likely traffic routes to the CHPUD.
Thanks so much once again,
CW Murchison
541/543-7127
2835 Capital Dr.
GIOELLO Nick
Fro :
GIOELLO Nick R
Sent:
Monday, September 25, 2017 9:23 AM
To:
'Jason Brown'
Subject:
RE: Questions re: tree preservation plan Capital Hill PUD
Jason,
We are still assessing the tree preservation plan. Thanks for your input and we will consider the issues you raise and we
will have some conditions as part of the approval to deal with some of the issues. The PUD conditions can potentially
negate the need for future tree removal permits so, we want to be careful and thorough as we assess this project and
craft conditions of approval.
I believe the applicant's intent with the private conservation areas on the eastern lots was to leave those areas alone,
i.e. no tree removals (except diseased or dead), no construction of sheds, fences, patios, swing sets, etc, so I foresee
some conditions of approval that will ensure that.
We are still assessing the proposed discretionary area. I previously had comments back to the applicant about the
possibility of saving some of those trees that were straddling property lines or in the rear of the lot and would likely not
be in the area of potential buildings. The applicant did not respond with any proposed additional tree preservation in
those areas.
Thanks,
Nick
From: Jason Brown [mailto:brownjll@uoregon.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 10:17 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Questions re: tree preservation plan Capital Hill PUD
Hello Nick, I have a few questions with regard to the tree preservation plan for the Capital Hill PUD. I am part of the response
team responding to the proposed PUD on Capital Hill Drive.
At this point I have a few questions about how tree preservation works with regard to this PUD and PUDs in general.
The applicant proposes to remove the trees in the ROW for construction of roads, etc.
Then there are trees in the Discretionary Trees area.
Question 1) 1 assume that trees in the Discretionary Area can be removed for the purpose of construction of homes on sites.
Would future lot owners have to apply for permits to cut down trees in this area? Or, as seems to be the case in Chapter 6 of
1
the Eugene Code, would they not have to apply but could cut down trees in this area because doing so was part of a approved
PUD plan? How does tree removal work in the Discretionary Area if the PUD is approved?
Question 2) The applicant has identified trees in "Conservation Areas" on private property. 401 trees, to be specific.
Subsequent to an approval of the PUD, what code or regulation regulates the cutting of the trees in the Conservation Areas
that are on private property? Property owners could cut five trees a year in this area? Would they need to obtain permits
from the city to cut one or more trees? If so, would the Tree Preservation Plan and Conservation Plan determine approval or
denial of a permit to cut trees in a Conservation Area? Or would these areas be treated as normal private property by the city?
In other words, what is to prevent trees in the Conservation Area from being cut by future lot owners?
Thanks for your help. Best, Jason
Jason Brown
Associate Professor of Creative Writing
University of Oregon
(917) 767-5386
GIOELLO Nick
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
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 PIDS 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.
1
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.Giilespie@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Road Load on Capital and Spring
FYI
From: GIOELL0 Nick R
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 8:31 AM
To: FAVREAU Eric J <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
N h
A d Difit`£ Eion
nick. r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Seat: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:41 AM
2
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Faris Cassell <fcassel I @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)?
1 I interpret the reading of the into below to mean that only 6 Class 5 trucks (C1zv'WR of 8 to 20 tons) were observed
(registered) during 2105...That seems like an extremely low number":1?
3. The statement "so the existing ACP thickness meet the 30 year design." factor in the ESAL`s from the heave truck
loads that will be generated during construction of the PUD, loads from Class 6; 7 and 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 7T`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 AC.P thickness ineets 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 designs 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 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.
From: "fcassell comcast.net" <fcassellC@comcast.net>
To: "lorscheider, brent" <lorsch2728(a)pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 201710:37 PM
Subject Fwd: Email from E.Favreau
is this of any use to you?
Fro : "GIOELLO Nick R" <Nick.R.Gioellogci.eugene.or.us>
To: fcassellp_comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:11:32 PM
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
See below
nick. r.gioelloCa)ci.eugene. or. us
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:55 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(a)ci.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 22,237 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.FavreauQ-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, so the existing ACP thickness meets a 30 year
design.
4
The treatment for the street was a 2` to 4" cold plane pavement removal followed by 2" to 4" of ACP.
With 7" to 3" of ACP, the traffic count could more than double and the street would meet the design
requirements.
PWE has not done any work or research on Fairmount or 21St.
From: FAVREAU Eric J
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:43 AM
To: HIGGINS Teri L <Teri.L.Higgins ci.eugene.or.us>
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(c.ci.eugene.or.us>
Date: September 8, 2017 at 8:14:34 AM PDT
To: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau(aD_ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
From: CW Murchison [maiIto: cwmurchison( gmail. com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 10:35 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(Qci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: faris cassell <fcassell(d 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,
CW Murchison
541/543-7127
2835 Capital Dr.
GIOELLO Nick
If referral comments are automatically posted to the project's Land Use website then I guess my
request below is redundant. Sorry for the confusion. I would request that the comments be posted by
Planning ASAP upon receipt as the Response Committee's time line is naturally being compressed
as we get nearer to Nov. 1 st.
Thanks once again.
Forwarded Message
From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>
To: GIOELLO Nick R. <nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>
Sort: Friday, September 22, 2017, 4:35:19 PM PDT
Subject: Referral Comments - Capital Hill PUD
Hi Nick. Am wondering if any referral comments have come in yet from the Fire Dept., LTD, etc.
regarding the pending Capital Hill PUD project.
When they start coming in, our committee would like you to begin sending them out to us right away
as you receive them ...rather than waiting for all reports to arrive and combining them in one big
transmission. OK?? You can e-mail each to me and I'll get them out to all of the interested parties
on our response team. If e-mail isn't the usual form of transmission, let me know and we can arrange
something else.
Thanks as usual for your help.
Susan Hoffman
2510 Spring Blvd.
shortgamesue@yahoo.com
1-541-654-5458
1
GIOELLO Nick
From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 4:35 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Cc: Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman
Subject: Referral Comments - Capital Hill PUD
Hi Nick. Am wondering if any referral comments have come in yet from the Fire Dept., LTD, etc.
regarding the pending Capital Hill PUD project.
When they start coming in, our committee would like you to begin sending them out to us right away
as you receive them ...rather than waiting for all reports to arrive and combining them in one big
transmission. OK?? You can e-mail each to me and I'll get them out to all of the interested parties
on our response team. If e-mail isn't the usual form of transmission, let me know and we can arrange
something else.
Thanks as usual for your help.
Susan Hoffman
2510 Spring Blvd.
shortgamesue@yahoo.com
1-541-654-5458
I LL Nick
Thanks so much. And also thanks for getting the 3/31/17 CR back on the website so quickly. Hope you have a great
weekend,
CW Murchison
5415437127
2835 Capital Dr
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: 9/22/2017 3:45 PM
To: Murchison, CW
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
Mr. Murchison, my apology, I spoke to Faris today and told her I had sent you this response. After reviewing it and
forwarding her a copy, I now realize I actually never sent it to you.
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:12 PM
To:'fcassell@comcast.net' <fcassell@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
See below
Nicholas R. Gioello, . Ad m.
Associ3 ; P',',-. -,er ; Planning Division
1. '.-5 7 2
i --I<,r.gioeIIo@ci.eugene.or.us
1
From: FAVREAU EricJ
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:55 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.euRene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Email for E.Favreau
Hi Tick,
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 22,237 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 EricJ <Eric.J.Favreau(@ci.euene.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, 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 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 21S'
t.
[The entire original message is not included.]
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:36 PM
To: 'Brent Lorscheider'
Subject: RE: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Brent,
The following is the applicant's response:
I am here to help in any way I can.
We do not specifically address the stormwater from each of the lots whether they are bound or not.
There is no way to speculate the actual stormwater run-off from each lot because no impervious surfaces are
proposed on the lots yet.
What if the lot isn't developed at all.
Why make up specific solutions for future development?
Typically, in a subdivision or land division situation the evaluation of the stormwater for individual lots is done at
time of building permit.
When the actual impervious surface is proposed and known.
Public works will review each building permit as it come in and review it for compliance with the PUD.
Basically the PUD is tasked with limiting stormwater to pre-development flows whether it is from the proposed
streets, drives, sidewalks, driveways, homes, etc. (in other words, impervious surfaces).
The proposed streets and sidewalks are a known quantity so we address those with specific solutions.
The vacant lots are not so PW reviews those at time of building permit submittal.
The standards are no different at time of submittal for building permit.
And if the design of the lot can't meet the stormwater requirements then they don't get a building permit until
they come up with a solution that works.
And there isn't any situation where the owner of the lot can't meet the criteria.
Sometimes it costs more than they want but we have never met a project/building/road etc. where there wasn't
a solution.
Money solves everything.
For example, underground storage tanks that slowly release the water. No one wants to pay for those but they
might have to.
Or flow through planters. Constructed, typically concrete planters built around the house. Those aren't cheap
solutions but they are a solution. Etc. Etc.
Does that help?
Thanks
carol
Carol Schirmer
Schirmer Satre Group
Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists
From: Brent Lorscheider [maiito:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:51 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Can u pis ask applicant exactly where the storm water plan addresses the flow from the bound lots?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2017, at 4:36 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nicl<.R.Gioeilo@ci.euRene.or.us> wrote:
Brent I got this from the applicant:
Those are the lots at the top of the hill between the two roadways. Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32. Those lots, upon meeting flow control and water quality requirements,
will not be able to release into their own level spreader because they are cut off from those
open spaces and park areas by the roadway improvements. Therefore they will have to release
into the public and private roadways (via weep hole or some other method). The existing runoff
from those lots was accounted for in the storm analysis.
Hope that answers your question,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lorscheider [rnaiIto- lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:21 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdlohnson617C}msn.com>
Subject: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Page 5 of the Stormwater plan and drainage study refers to "the lots bound by the new roadway
improvements" in the second paragraph. Could you please ask the applicant to identify the lot numbers
being referenced in this paragraph to avoid any ambiguity thank you Brent
Sent from my iPhone
2
3 L Nick
From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:5.1 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Can u pis ask applicant exactly where the storm water plan addresses the flow from the bound lots?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2017, at 4:36 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
Brent I got this from the applicant:
Those are the lots at the top of the hill between the two roadways. Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32. Those lots, upon meeting flow control and water quality requirements,
will not be able to release into their own level spreader because they are cut off from those
open spaces and park areas by the roadway improvements. Therefore they will have to release
into the public and private roadways (via weep hole or some other method). The existing runoff
from those lots was accounted for in the storm analysis.
Hope that answers your question,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto.lorsch272pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:21 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(fci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617@rnsn.com>
Subject: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud
Page 5 of the Stormwater plan and drainage study refers to "the lots bound by the new roadway
improvements" in the second paragraph. Could you please ask the applicant to identify the lot numbers
being referenced in this paragraph to avoid any ambiguity thank you Brent
Sent from my iPhone
Brent,
So, i am told that your request could be time intensive; therefore you should amend or add this to your previous public
records request so that it can also be assessed for how much time may be required. I think you have to pay for the time
it takes to gather the information.
Mick
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 12:04 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: David and Catherine Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Subject: Sewer Info for Cap Hill PUD
Hi Nick,
Can a also request, on our behalf, PW Engineering to provide any flow metering data and inflow/infiltration information related to the
sewers downstream from the Capital Hill PUD?
Thx, Brent
1
GI ELL Nick
From: GILLESPIE Scott N
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:39 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R; Eugene Public Records Requests
Cc: FAVREAU EricJ
Subject: RE: Sewer Info for Cap Hill PUD
Hi Nick,
This is a very broad and time intensive request. This information is not kept or available to Team Central. I
would suggest that Mr. Lorschieder expand his records request. PWM could provide any flow metering data
that may be available.
Approved assumption for I&I rates are located in the Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Links to that
documents have been provided in the previous records request response.
Thanks,
Scott Gillespie, PE
Public Works Engineering
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-2706
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:16 PM
To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>; FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: FW: Sewer Info for Cap Hill PUD
See additional info request below.
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 12:04 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello ci.eugene.or.us>
Cc: David and Catherine Johnson <cdiohnson617 _ msn.com>
Subject: Sewer Info for Cap Hill PUD
Hi Nick,
Can u also request, on our behalf, PW Engineering to provide any flow metering data and inflow/infiltration information related to the
sewers downstream from the Capital Hill PUD?
Thx, Brent
1
GIOELLO Nick
From: GIOELLO Nick R
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 11:37 AM
To: 'Brent Lorscheider'
Subject: RE: Permit and Info Center
Brent,
Yes, here at 99 West 10th Avenue.
Questions 1 & 3 - 6 will require time intensive work.
To answer #2, you can review these documents and information with the fallowing links:
Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
® Public Infrastructure Desicin Standards
Hope that helps for now,
Nick
= E l
iS
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbel1.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:40 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Permit and Info Center
Nick, is the Permoit and Information Center located in the Planning and Development Division, or at Public Work Office on
Roosevelt?
FYI, below is a copy of the Request for Public Information I sent to the City:
I am requesting this information as pant of the Fairmount Neighborhood/Laural Hill Valley Joint Response Committee to the proposed
Capital Hill PUD. We would like a written statement regarding the availability and adequacy of the current sewer system with
respect to the subject PUD. It is our understanding that the existing sewer system is designated to accept the additional sewer flow;
and the accompanying rainfall inflow, from the 37 homes being proposed in the subject PUD. The PUD proposes two connections,
one at MH located at Capital Drive and Cresta de Ruta, and a second at MH on Capital Drive roughly 100 feet west of the property
line. Below is a request for public records as they relate to the existing sewer system downstream from the proposed PUD
connections, specifically downstream to the next larger sewer line(s).
1 The age and material of the sewer pipes.
1
2. The sewer analysis used to determine that sufficient capacity exist in the existing public sewer system to accept the additional
sewage and inflow from the proposed PUD.
3. The condition of the sewer
4. The maintenance and cleaning history of the sewer
5. A summary of any CCTV inspections of the sewer.
6. The history of any sewer spills or overflow records for these wer.
Also, the Civil Drawings in the application indicate the existing sewers in Capital Drive (the sewers the PUD proposes connection to)
could be private sewers based on the legend. Please verb if these are public or private sewers?
From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728n.pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:32 AM
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
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.gioelio ,ci.eugene.or.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728(7pacbell.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
2
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 18, 2017, at 3:12 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioelio@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
3