Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch CGIOELLO Nick Nick, Please add me to the list of "Interested Parties" to receive public notices for PDT 17-1 (Capital Hill). Also would you please document the revised deadlines for: a) Public Hearing Notice b) Staff report c) Public Hearing d) HO Decision Schirmer did not actually request a specific "longer time period" after the application was deemed complete to schedule the public hearing, per EC 9.7310. H Nick: Please postpone the sche;ulpd January 10 he2dng plus a tirne out from the 120 day cluck With a 70 day time out. We anticipate the next hearing date would he PA arch 711, 018. Instead, she seemed to agree to an additional extension to the deadline for the "Final Action" per ORS 227.178(1) and (5). Those are not the same deadlines, and EC 9.7310 requires a written agreement by the applicant for a longer time period for the hearing. If Schirmer agrees to a "longer time period" that is 60 days plus the sum of her requested extensions (170 days), then, by my calculation, she would be agreeing to a hearing as late as April 16, 2017. However, the record is not clear on this. In any case, staff needs to make sure timeline adjustments are clear and conform to EC 9.7310 et seq and ORS 227.178(1) and (5) and ORS requirements for notices. Thanks, Paul 1 I- IT Nick From: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 9:10 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Cathy Johnson; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Tom Bruno; Susan Hoffman Subject: Code Compliance Complaint # 14-00246 Hi Nick, I received a call back from Mark Tritt in Code Compliance yesterday, regarding the enforcement order 914- 00246 for Tom Dreyer's property at 2855 Capital Drive. He could not give me any information, said that the person that might be able to help me is the Supervisor, Rachelle Nicholas, who is out of the office until the first of January. He suggested that I fill out the Record Search Application, submit it and call her January 2nd or 3rd. Phillip Hubbard, also in Code Compliance, had been quite helpful a few weeks ago, and told me to call back about this time to find out how the case has been resolved. He told me that a couple of the codes used to determine the outcome are EC 9.1230 and 9.1245. I plan to submit the Record Search Application in the next day or so. I'm wondering whether you have information that you could share with us regarding the enforcement order. Was there a fine involved or just a warning ? Can you possibly send us any of the written reports regarding the meetings, phone calls, inspection and the order to correct that was mailed on 12/13/17 ? I don't exactly know what the protocol is, but I guess that I should ask that this question be entered into the record. Thank you for your help and patience with us ! Cathy L Nick From: Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:17 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Re: Inadequate Mailing of Hearing Notice to Spring Blvd. Hi Thanks for your additions and recognition that arbitrary short boundary may not fit for particular individual cases. Hope you have a pleasant holiday season. Cheers Nate On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 10:02 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Hi Nathaniel, The code requires us to send notice to everyone within 500 feet of the property boundary. The area you describe is beyond 500 feet. Anyone can request to added to the list as an interested party. In the past few days, I just went through the testimony and other emails and started adding people like yourself who are beyond the 500 foot mark but did not actually request to be on the Interested Parties list, so that you and others will start receiving future notices. 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 From: Nathaniel Teich [mailto:nateich2@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:30 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci_eugene.or.us> Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com> Subject: Inadequate Mailing of Hearing Notice to Spring Blvd. Hi Nick - I've been out of the country and without internet access from 6-17 Dec. Upon return and looking at the mailing list posted for the Hearing Notice, I do not find any addresses in the 2200 to 2500 blocks of Spring Boulevard. As you know this is the only and crucial main route to the CHPUD. Thus, it seems to me Notice would be as appropriate to these residences as to any other locations on Spring Boulevard. I hope that this omission would be corrected. Thanks very much. 1 Nathaniel Teich 2350 Spring Blvd. I L Nick Hi Nick. Sorry Ii didn't get to this earlier. Sorry to be such a pest here but in the middle of the first page of the December list is "Curtis-Underriner Family Living Trust" at 2362 Malabar. (John Curtis & Janne Underriner are on our Response Committee.) Their house is approx. two blocks north (2 blocks further away from) of Cathy Johnson's house and my house. (I doubt that John Curtis or Janne Underriner specifically requested to be on the list, but maybe.) It just doesn't seem consistent. And why was Schirmer's list much more inclusive when the notice requirements for Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting and Notice of Hearing seem so similar?. Given the controversy surrounding this proposed project, it just seems that the City should go out of its way to notify every one potentially impacted by this proposed project. Thanks as always for your help. PS. Kathleen Masterson is on Spring Blvd. a few houses north of Nate Teich (i.e., further away from the project). On Friday, December 15,2017, 4:52:55 PM PST, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Susan, Your property is over 600 feet from the closet point of the subject property and not with in the 500 foot area. 1 have no idea why a previous owner would have gotten on the list. Cathy Johnson and Nate Teich are also beyond 500 feet. I will add you and them to the list. I'll have to check Kathleen Masterson, not sure where she lives. i Nicholas R. Cioello, 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 From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Seat: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:14 AM To: GiOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Jason Brown <brownj1l@uoregon.edu>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail. com>; Brent Lorscheider <Iorsch2728@pacbell.net>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org> John Curtis <jc65lotus@gmail. com>; Becky Dorsey<rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>, Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu>; Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Subject: CHPUD City's Official Mailing List for Notices Hi Nick. I saw the City's official mailing list for notices posted on the planning website for the project and was surprised to find that I am not on it. Neither is Cathy Johnson, my neighbors on Spring or down Woodlawn, or Nate Teich or Kathleen Masterson- A quick counts shows the City mailed to about 140 people, with some duplicates. The Schirmer mailing list (for the Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting) from February of this year (Exhibit to the 3/3/17 Application) has 346 names, although the last 100 or so are "Current Occupant" and many are duplicates. It appears that the notice requirements for the Neighborhood/Applicant meeting and for notice of the January 10, 2018 Public Hearing are pretty much the same. The February Schirmer list was extracted from the Lane County Dept. of Assessment and Taxation. I closed escrow on my house about Dec. 7, 2016. 1 didn't get the February notice but the previous owner at this address was on the February list. My neighbors on Spring have lived there for many years, as have Cathy and Dave Johnson, who are across the street with a Malabar St. address. I don't think it's a distance "thing because other members of our Response Committee are further from the subject property than Cathy Johnson & 1, yet are on the December 2017 mailing list. (But I doubt that they requested to be on it.) 2 What gives?? C"'HIL0 Tick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 4:53 PM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Cc: Tom Bruno; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Nathaniel Teich; Jason Brown; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Brent Lorscheider; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP),- John Curtis; Becky Dorsey; Cathy Johnson; Sheryl Kelly; Jamie Harper; Paul Conte Subject: RE: CHPUD City's Official Mailing List for Notices Susan, Your property is over 600 feet from the closet point of the subject property and not with in the 500 foot area. I have no idea why a previous owner would have gotten on the list. Cathy Johnson and Nate Teich are also beyond 500 feet. I will add you and them to the list. I'll have to check Kathleen Masterson, not sure where she lives. Thanks, Nick From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:14 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; John Curtis <jc65lotus @gmaiLcom>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu>; Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Subject: CHPUD City's Official Mailing List for Notices Hi Nick. I saw the City's official mailing list for notices posted on the planning website for the project and was surprised to find that I am not on it. Neither is Cathy Johnson, my neighbors on Spring or down Woodlawn, or Nate Teich or Kathleen Masterson. A quick counts shows the City mailed to about 140 people, with some duplicates. The Schirmer mailing list (for the Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting) from February of this year (Exhibit to the 3/3/17 Application) has 346 names, although the last 100 or so are "Current Occupant and many are 1 I don't think it's a distance "thing" because other members of our Response Committee are further from the subject property than Cathy Johnson & I, yet are on the December 2017 mailing list. (But I doubt that they requested to be on it.) What gives?? I L Nick Fro : Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:51 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; Jason Brown; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Nathaniel Teich; Cathy Johnson; Sheryl Kelly; Becky Dorsey; John Curtis; Brent Lorscheider; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Kelley Blewster; Jamie Harper; Susan Hoffman Subject: Re: On the Record RE: CHPUD -Possible Access to the Subject Property i Nick. Am cleaning up emails and realized that I did not ask you to place this email and the Applicant's response "on the record." Thanks. PS Also sent an email to you last weekend expressing my personal concerns about the project. I didn't get an acknowledgement but I know you are swamped. Will resend today and ask for acknowledgement that you place that email "on the record" also. On Friday, December 8, 2017, 12:58:37 PM PST, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Susan and Response Committee: I forwarded your request to the applicant's agent, Carol Schirmer. She spoke with Mr. Dryer and he has declined your request to access his property. 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 1 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Seat: Friday, December 08, 2017 10:00 AM To: GIOELL® Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownjl 1 @uoregon.edu>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail. com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>, Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; John Curtis <jc65lotus@gmail.com>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; W®STMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>, Kelley Blewster <kelisand@earthlink, net>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu> Subject: CHPUD -Possible Access to the Subject Property Hi Nick. i know I'm a little late with this but thought I'd get the ball rolling today if possible. The Response Committee had a meeting last night and discussed if it would be possible for some of us to have access to Tom Dreyer's property. Those interested include me, Cathy Johnson & Sheryl Kelly and possibly Jason Brown (as a group) to respond to issues raised in the Application. Tom Bruno also thought that our forester, James Mehrwein, would likely want access and he would be accompanied by one or two members of our group. These two small groups (and perhaps one more after we poll our entire committee) would probably visit the site at different times ...could be sometime next week?? We would not inconvenience Mr. or Mrs. Dreyer and, of course, would not alter anything on the property. How can we make this happen?? Thanks as always for your assistance. PS: Your providing the colored version of the site plan was very helpful. We used it as a handout in the Fairmount Neighbors Assn. meeting Weds. evening, which was attended by about 100 people, including the Applicant. e-® LI Nick From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:49 AM To: GIOELLO NickR Cc: Tom Bruno; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Sheryl Kelly; Nathaniel Teich; Jason Brown; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP),- Brent Lorscheider; Paul Conte; Becky Dorsey; Dick Ragatz; John Curtis; Charlie Ogle Subject: CHPUD - Possible City Subsidies Hi Nick. One of the Response Committee members requested that I ask the following: New Eugene Policy ...We need to ask the City if they are subsidizing any infrastructure or offering incentives for this PUD. Thanks. GIOELLO Nick From: MCKERROW Mike J Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:42 AM To: shortgamesue@yahoo.com Cc: GIOELLO Nick R; MCKERROW Mike J Subject: FW: REVISED CHPUD - Possible Building Height Hi Susan, Nick asked if I could respond to your questions on building height since I review building permits and address this standard on a regular basis at the permit center. You and the Committee have really done your homework. You provide good analysis and well-informed questions below. The basic answer is, Yes, you analysis is correct. A way to summarize the definition: which attempts to provide some relief for steep lets is, you always measure building height from the lowest point of the perimeter of the building at a distance S' from the wall. If the difference is 10' or greater from that lowest point on the perimeter to the highest point you get 40' instead of 30'. If a house design shows only a 9' difference from lowest point to highest, it is more challenging for the designer since you still measure from the lowest point but only get 30'. Glad you identified the extra 7' allowed for 6 in 12 roof pitches or greater. Council viewed steeper roof pitches as being more aesthetic and create less bulk or mass for a house. I would say most houses have at least this standard so most houses get 37' or 47' on a steep slope for the maximum height. Just let me know if you have any follow up questions. Thanks for asking. 'like MCKerrzow Land Use Analyst From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:13 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nicl<.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Jason Brown <browni11(@uoregon.edu>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617Omsn.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2 _ yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subject: REVISED CHPUD - Possible Building Height Hi Nick. Guess I need some more coffee!! Please disregard the email sent a few minutes ago at 10:03 AM and use this one instead. Thanks. 1 Hi Nick. The Response Committee is trying to determine the possible height of buildings that could be built on the proposed project, especially at the back of the lots on the east side of the property where the land slopes drastically down to the Ribbon Trail. If you recall (seems like years ago!% we touched on this briefly when I met with you in your office last spring. I also stopped by the "building permit area" and briefly spoke to a lady who pointed me to some areas in the EC. What is more than a little confusing is the definition of "Building Height" EC 9.0500 (page 9.0 - 9). There is also a schematic Building Height Calculation sheet Figure 9.0500 and the Table at 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards. The standards table indicates a max height for a "main building" in R-1 as 30 ft. Got it. That max. 30 ft. height pertains to all of the lots in the proposed CHPUD. Below is the area we are having some difficulty with. Can you please confirm that we have this right? The schematic at EC 9.0500 interprets the two scenarios for building height calculations (discussed at Building Height definition). One is for a relatively minor slope situation. A measurement is taken 5 feet horizontally from the higher side of the proposed house and the lower side of the proposed house. Measure the vertical distance between those 2 grade levels. If it is 10 feet or less, use the point (grade level) at the lower side of the house as the point of reference from which to measure 30 feet up for your max. building height. Say that difference is 8 feet. Then 8 plus 22 gets you to 30. Max height under this scenario is 30 feet all in. Right?? Steep slope situation. Again, a measurement is taken of grade level 5 feet horizontally from the higher side of the proposed house and the lower side of the proposed house. If the vertical distance between these 2 grade levels is greater than 10 feet ...say 15 feet ...the point of reference from which to measure the allowable 30 foot building height is from a point 10 feet higher than the lowest grade at the back of the house. Looking at a "cross section," you'd have 10 feet vertical at the bottom, plus 5 feet vertical to get even with the grade level at the front of house plus 25 feet vertical from there for a max of 40 feet when viewed from the back of the house. Right?? Additionally, EC 9.6720 provides for an additional 7 feet in height for some architectural features and roof structures provided the roof slope is 6:12 or greater. Clear as mud?? Wow. Whoever wrote the definition for "Building Height" and all of its permutations must have been in a really, really bad mood that day!! Can you please confirm that I have correctly stated the two possible scenarios?? Thanks as always for your assistance. I ELL icr_ - H Fro : GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:57 AM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Cc: Tom Bruno; Cathy Johnson; Kathleen and Mike Masterson Subject: RE: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential Hi Susan, The "change" in the site plan you mention below must have occurred prior to first submittal. The first submitted site plan showed Cupola in the current proposed location. My guess is they investigated the road configuration in Figure 1 and then decided (probably for good reason) to eliminate the section that cut across the southeast lots where it is very steep and no previous vehicular pathway existed. This is addressed in the same Geothecnicai Report as follows (page 3, February 6, 2017): Preliminary layouts provided to 6El in March 2016 included thirty-six individual lots and an additional access road traversing the steep southeastern slopes on the property (see Figure-1) which has since been removed following site reconnaissance and meetings with the project design team. So, to answer your question, it was NOT a City driven decision. Also, since all the site plans and revision we have received showed Cupola Drive virtually in the same configuration as shown in Figure 2 of the Geotech, there is no other documentation that I can provide. Since the site plan shown in the Geotech Figure 1 was never submitted as an actual site plan, I would have to say it was included in the Geotech Report only for informational purposes and not a, "change to the site plan" as you stated. Thanks, Nick ~ z~ ri From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:38 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com> Subject: Fw: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential Hi Nick. I still show this email in the "unanswered" column. If your answer got by me, I apologize. Please resend it if that is the case. 1 PS: I think that°s it for "unanswered emails" that I know about. We have one new email from just this AM from Faris re: public works. I also have a couple of questions out to Faris & CW on some older inquiries. When I hear back from them, I'll forward to you or file in the "answered" column at this end. Thanks as always for your help. As we are all busy getting our thoughts on paper, it seems like a good time to recap - before we get into the holidays when people could be harder to track down. Talk with you soon. Forwarded Message From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue(d~yahoo.com> Toe GIOELLO Nick R. <nick.r.gioello ,ci.euaene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uore on.edu>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson017 c-)rnsn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgarnesue yahoo.corn>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2 ahoo.com> Seat: Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 9:29:53 AM PST Subject: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential Hi Nick. The Geotech Report prepared by Branch Engineering dated 2/6/17 (and the three page letter update dated May 30, 2017) discuss landslide potential in the southeast area of the proposed project. The site plan labeled Figure 1 in the report shows an original routing for the private drive (Cupola Drive) as traversing the steep lots #15 through 20 (old site plan) and terminating at Capital at the most southerly end of the PUD. Figure 2 in the report shows a revised site plan eliminating this routing for Cupola and leaving a singular loop road connecting to Capital. This revised Cupola route is to the north of the existing house and 3 unit apartment. The Figure 2 site plan also shows an rectangular open space between Lots 18 & 19 where none existed on Figure 1. (Note that Figure 2 is also somewhat dated and has incorrect lot numbers compared to the current site plan in the 8/22/17 application.) The 5/30/17 three page supplement to the Geotech Report indicates at the bottom of page one "one location in the southeast portion of the site was mapped as the upper section of a landslide area; subsequent site design omitted development in this area." Was the site plan change "city driven"? Does your department and/or the city have any documentation that you could provide to our committee regarding this change to the site plan?? Another member of our committee may have some more specific questions for you in this regard over the coming days. Thanks as always for your assistance. Sorry that this question is a little past the 9 AM guideline. Took me awhile to "pen it." Susan Hoffman 541-654-5458 (home) GIOELLO Nick From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan, GIOELLO Nick R Friday, December 08, 20171:37 PM 'Susan Hoffman' FW: CHPUD -Possible Access to the Subject Property One other thought, you can always contact the applicant directly, but I think the answer will likely still be no. Thanks, Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 12:59 PM To: 'Susan Hoffman' <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; John Curtis <jc65lotus@gmail.com>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; Kelley Blewster <kellsand@earthlink.net>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu> Subject: RE: CHPUD -Possible Access to the Subject Property Susan and Response Committee: I forwarded your request to the applicant's agent, Carol Schirmer. She spoke with Mr. Dryer and he has declined your request to access his property. Thanks, Nick W", A i Division E32, 5 4, 5 3 y~i.?I+~~.w ~T nick.r.gioello,6 ci.eugene.or.us From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 10:00 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> 1 Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.corn>; Jason Brown <brown'11Puoregon.edu>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Cathy Johnson <cd1ohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkeil@comcast.net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey @uoregon.edu>; John Curtis <)c65lotus@mail.com>; Brent Lorscheider <Iorsch2728@pacbe11.net>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.or Kelley Blewster <kellsand@earthlink.net>; Jamie Harper <harneri@uoregon.edu> Subject: CHPUD -Possible Access to the Subject Property Hi Nick. I know I'm a little late with this but thought I'd get the ball rolling today if possible. The Response Committee had a meeting last night and discussed if it would be possible for some of us to have access to Tom Dreyer's property. Those interested include me, Cathy Johnson & Sheryl Kelly and possibly Jason Brown (as a group) to respond to issues raised in the Application. Tom Bruno also thought that our forester, James Nlehrwein, would likely want access and he would be accompanied by one or two members of our group. These two small groups (and perhaps one more after we poll our entire committee) would probably visit the site at different times...could be sometime next week?? We would not inconvenience Mr. or Mrs. Dreyer and, of course, would not alter anything on the property. Flow can we make this happen?? Thanks as always for your assistance. PS: Your providing the colored version of the site plan was very helpful. We used it as a handout in the Fairmount Neighbors Assn. meeting Weds. evening, which was attended by about 100 people, including the Applicant. Z GIOELLO Nick Fro : GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 12:59 PM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Cc: Tom Bruno; Jason Brown; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Nathaniel Teich; Cathy Johnson; Sheryl Kelly; Becky Dorsey; John Curtis; Brent Lorscheider; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Kelley Blewster; Jamie Harper Subject: RE: CHPUD -Possible Access to the Subject Property Susan and Response Committee: I forwarded your request to the applicant's agent, Carol Schirmer. She spoke with Mr. Dryer and he has declined your request to access his property. Thanks, Nick D' vision From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 10:00 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; John Curtis <jc65lotus@gmail.com>;Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; Kelley Blewster <kellsand@earthlink.net>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu> Subject: CHPUD -Possible Access to the Subject Property Hi Nick. I know I'm a little late with this but thought I'd get the ball rolling today if possible. The Response Committee had a meeting last night and discussed if it would be possible for some of us to have access to Tom Dreyer's property. Those interested include me, Cathy Johnson & Sheryl Kelly and possibly Jason Brown (as a group) to respond to issues raised in the Application. Tom Bruno also thought that our forester, James Niehrwein, would likely want access and he would be accompanied by one or two members of our 1 group. These two small groups (and perhaps one more after we poll our entire committee) would probably visit the site at different times ...could be sometime next week?? We would not inconvenience Mr. or Mrs. Dreyer and, of course, would not alter anything on the property. Now can we make this happen?? Thanks as always for your assistance. PS: Your providing the colored version of the site plan was very helpful. We used it as a handout in the Fairmount Neighbors Assn. meeting Weds. evening, which was attended by about 100 people, including the Applicant. GIOELLO Nick From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 9:35 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Nathaniel Teich; Brent Lorscheider; Becky Dorsey; Sheryl Kelly; John Curtis; Jason Brown Subject: Fw: On the Record CHPUD Second Request Color Version of Applicant's 11/27/17 Site Plan Hi Nick. Sorry to be the "night owl" but several members of our committee have volunteered to go to Kinkos tomorrow to get large wall size copies of the new site plan if they can be posted in color. We have already obtained a wall size copy of the black & white version dated 11/27/17 that is on the website. The Response Committee would like to be as clear as possible with the Fairmount Neighbors tomorrow in their meeting. We anticipate that the Applicant will be there (they usually are) plus other community leaders and perhaps the press. We want to eliminate any opportunity for confusion. Please place this request "on the record." Thanks as always for your assistance. If the Applicant has not yet provided color copies of the revised site plan, please let us know. Thanks again. You can always contact me by phone at 541-654-5458. Forwarded Message From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> To: "Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us" <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: David and Catherine Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; "brunoassoc@aol.com" <brunoassoc@aoi.com>; "brownj1 1 @uoregon.edu" <brownj11@uoregon.edu>; "fcassel I @com cast. net" <fcassell@comcast.net>; "sherylkell@comcast.net" <sherylkell@comcast.net>; "cwmurchison@gmail.com" <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>, "kcmasterson@gmail.com" <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; "jc65lotus@gmail.com" <jc65lotus@gmail. com> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017, 10:04:51 AM PST Subject: CHPUD Applicant's 11127/17 Site Plan Hi Nick. Just a quick request. Fairmount Neighbors Assn. is meeting tomorrow evening and the CHPUD Response Committee is going to update everyone. Would it be possible to post on the Planning Dept. website for the project a color version of the most recent site plan? That way, we can download it to a thumb drive and take it to Kinkos and get a large size to post on the wall of our meeting room. The color version will be much more readable. Thanks. Sent from my iPad 1 Hi Susan, Please forward this response to Mr Lorschieder. It is the same response to the previous question about class 5 counts dated sent to Nick Gioello on 11/20. The City followed its design standards and the structure of Capital Drive is 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. Public Works staff has spent a significant amount of time answering a number of very detailed technical questions regarding the design of Capital Drive outside the proposed Capital Drive development. I have attached the pavement calculations for your reference. Our responses have been followed up with appreciation but also with an increasing number of more detailed questions. It is clear that my responses are not satisfactorily addressing your concerns. We have answered numerous questions and re-assured neighbors that standards are met. I am not convinced that any level of Public Works Engineering response will satisfy your concerns. I would recommend your group consult with a civil or geotechnical engineer to review the report and help your group develop conclusions in response to the proposed development. Thank you, Scott Gillespie, PE Public Works Engineering 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 541-682-2706 From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:19 AM To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: FW: Another Road questions And another one. From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:52 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.corn>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbel1.net>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson6172msn.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmaii.com>; Susan Hoffman <short.Qamesue@Yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Another Road questions Here is another quick question from Brent that came in over the weekend. Thanks. Forwarded Message From: Brent Lorscheider <iorsch2728 c pacbell.net> To: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesuegyahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017, 8:03:43 PM PST Subject: Another Road questions During the analysis of Capital Drive and Spring Blvd roadway pavement adequacy study, what type of roadway was assumed: A two way roadway width or A one-way roadway width Thx Brent 2 ELL Nick From: GILLESPIE Scott N Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:09 PM To: shortgamesue@yahoo.com Cc: GIOELLO Nick R; FAVREAU Eric J Subject: FW: Clarification on Class 5 truck count. Attachments: CapitalACP ESAL and Design Tool.pdf; SpringACP ESAL and Design Tool.pdf Hi Susan, The City followed its design standards and the structure of Capital Drive is 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. Public Works staff has spent a significant amount of time answering a number of very detailed technical questions regarding the design of Capital Drive outside the proposed Capital Drive development. I see that Mr Lorschieder has been copied on your email string. I have attached the pavement calculations for your reference. Our responses have been followed up with appreciation but also with an increasing number of more detailed questions. It is clear that my responses are not satisfactorily addressing your concerns. We have answered numerous questions and re-assured neighbors that standards are met. I am not convinced that any level of Public Works Engineering response will satisfy your concerns. I would recommend your group consult with a civil or geotechnical engineer to review the report and help your group develop conclusions in response to the proposed development. Thanks, Scott Gillespie, PE Public Works Engineering 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 541-682-2706 From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:18 AM To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: FW: Clarification on Class 5 truck count. See below. From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:short amesue ahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:50 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson6l7@msn.com>; Brent Lorscheider <1orsch2728C@pacbel1.net>; Susan Hoffman <shortgarnesue@yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcrnasterson ,fzmail.com> Subject: Fw: Clarification on Class 5 truck count. Hi Nick. Sorry these are a little late today. Got guys here installing a much needed heat pump ...yeah!! This email from Brent arrived late on Friday. I assume you were copied on the 9/25/17 Scott Gillispe email referenced below. I don't believe I have a copy. If I don't hear otherwise I'll assume you're OK on that issue. If you need a copy of the 9/25 email, let me know and I'll contact Brent ASAP. Thanks. I have another question from Brent coming your way in a second. Forwarded Message From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsoh2728 a~,pacoell.net> To: Susan Hoffman <shortgaamesueayahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017, 8:52:05 PM PST Subject: Clarification on Class 5 truck count. A Sept 25, 2017 email from Scott Gillispe stated: " Class counts are typically an average 24 volume. 5.6 Class 5 vehicles would not be unexpected for a residential area like Capital Drive." Questions: Are the 5.6 Class 5 truck trips per day one way trips or round trips? Thx, Brent 2 I ELL Nick Susan, The deadline got postponed along with the time extensions. 1 anticipate Public Works comments coming in around December V. I do not know What the Fire Department will do yet, but they have committed to providing additional comments soon. I have received comment from 4J School District, which will be posted later today. I'll be out two different single days in December for personal issues. I'll be away for Christmas and off the 22 a through 26t". That's it for me. I do not know other's schedules. I will put into the record the emails from neighbors that talked directly about the project and their opinion about it. There were only a few of those emails so far. I would encourage everyone with any concern to send emails that express their concerns or issues with the project and whether they are supportive or opposed to the project. It is important to have individuals as well as the Neighborhood Association weigh in with testimony. The emails where you and others have asked questions or clarification on issues are not typical testimony. A number of those items discussed will be assessed in the staff report. However, if there are any emails that for whatever reason you or others think should be included, just forward those back to me with a note to please enter it into the record. You could also compile or collate the pertinent information. I don't think questions about timelines and the process, or for example the three question you have asked below, add anything to the discussion as far as the Hearings Official making a decision. Thanks, Nick From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 9:22 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Faris Cassell <fcasselI@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Brenttorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org> Subject: CHPUD - A Couple of Questions that Came Up in our Nov 16th Meeting Hi again Nick. Here are a couple of questions that came up last night in our meeting 1) Do you have a specific deadline for your receipt of referral comments from other departments? We are trying to coordinate our calendars for the January 10, 2018 hearing, especially with the holiday season coming up. Thus far we have only seen the EWEB referral comments on the project's planning website. We know that the Planning Department's staff report should be available 1 to the public at least due 7 days ahead of January 10th, which puts us at about Jan 3rd. How far ahead of that Jan 3rd date do you anticipate receiving other department's referral comments and posting them on the website?? 2) Are you or any of the other important people we are dealing with on the city's staff scheduled to be out of the office between now and the January 10th hearing date? In a matter unrelated to "timing": 3) Can you expand a little more on your response to Brent yesterday about what correspondence goes into "the record" and what does not? A few of our team members thought that ALL correspondence goes into the record, but perhaps that is not the case. We just want to be aware so that the Hearing Official has the benefit of access to all of the results of our research. Thank you once again. Have a great weekend. PS Speaking of vacations, guess we'll all need one once this is over!! C ELL Nick Fro Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:52 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; Brent Lorscheider; Cathy Johnson; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Susan Hoffman Subject: Fw: Another Road questions Here is another quick question from Brent that came in over the weekend. Thanks. Forwarded Message From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@P2cbell.net> To: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Seat: Saturday, November 18, 2017, 8:03:43 PM PST Subject: Another Road questions During the analysis of Capital Drive and Spring Blvd roadway pavement adequacy study, what type of roadway was assumed: A two way roadway width or A one-way roadway width Thx Brent 1 I ELL Nick From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:50 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; Cathy Johnson; Brent Lorscheider; Susan Hoffman; Kathleen and Mike Masterson Subject: Fw: Clarification on Class 5 truck count. Hi Nick. Sorry these are a little late today. Got guys here installing a much needed heat pump ...yeah!! This email from Brent arrived late on Friday. I assume you were copied on the 9/25/17 Scott Gillispe email referenced below. I don't believe I have a copy. If I don't hear otherwise I'll assume you're OK on that issue. If you need a copy of the 9/25 email, let me know and I'll contact Brent ASAP. Thanks. I have another question from Brent coming your way in a second. Forwarded Message From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net> To: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday; November 17, 2017, 8:52:05 PM PST Subject: Clarification on Cass 5 truck count. A Sept 25, 2017 email from Scott Gillispe stated: " Class counts are typically an average 24 volume. 5.6 Class 5 vehicles would not be unexpected for a residential area like Capital Drive." Questions: Are the 5.6 Class 5 truck trips per day one way trips or round trips? Thx, Brent 1 to LL Nick R From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> :'g n t: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:38 AM To. GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Susan Hoffman; Cathy Johnson; Tom Bruno; Brent Lorscheider; Kathleen and Mike Masterson Subject: Fw: Posting emails Hi Nick. Here a request from Brent about "on the record." Please acknowledge so he's aware. Thanks. Forwarded Message From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net> Toe Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Seat: Friday, November 17, 2017, 9:11:23 PM PST Subject: Posting emails I request the City post the various emails, related to the Capital Hill PUD, from myself to various City staff and to myself from various City staff, on the Planning Development Department's "Land Use Application Search" system Thank you, Brent Lorscheider 1 ELL Nick From: GILLESPIE Scott N Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 11:09 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: RE: Question for Nick of Stormwater Hi Nick, Please see my responses below. 1. EC 9.6791(3)(B)(2) Allows it. EC 9.6793 requires it. EC 9.6792(1) supports it. The City's current NPDES MS4 permit supports it through establishing a green BMP hierarchy that is implemented though EC 9.6792 requiring prioritization of on-site infiltration and the mimicking pre-development hydrology. It is also consistent with state drainage law (civil law doctrine of drainage). 2. The 80% is not a goal. Capturing and treating the 80% of average annual rainfall is a requirement of our current NPDES MS4 permit. This is implemented through EC 9.6792 and the stormwater management manual. Flood Control (9.6791), Water Quality (9.6792) and Flow Control (9.6793) do not supersede each other. They are all applicable to this application. However, one criteria or design standard can be used to support another one. For example, a water quality facility can be built larger enough to infiltrate the flood control design event therefore complying with the flood control design criteria. The stormwater standards are designed to intentionally accompany and complement each other and provide flexibility in solutions. 3. No, 9.6790 does not require anything. It authorizes the Stormwater Management Manual and the implementation of it according to the criteria in 9.6791 through 9.6797. EC 9.6791, EC 9.6792 and EC 9.6793 apply to new and replaced impervious surfaces. Thanks, Scott Gillespie, PE Public Works Engineering 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 541-682-2706 From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 9:21 AM To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: FW: Question for Nick of Stormwater See questions at the bottom. From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 2:57 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com> Subject: Fw: Question for Nick of Stormwater Hi Nicki. I won't be home tomorrow at 9 AM so thought I would get these questions out to you today while I'm thinking about it. If any other questions come in to me today, I'll forward them to you this evening if that is ®K. Also I have a couple of real simple questions of my oven which I'll send along in a minute. Thanks as always. Forwarded Message From: Brent Lorscheider <1orsch2728pacbe11.net> To: Susan Hoffman <short amesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017, 10:17:05 AM PST Subject: Question for Nick of Stormwater Please forward the following question to Nick: The Application Stormwater Plan and Drainage Study (SW Plan) states "The primary goal for stromwater management on Capital Drive is to match existing drainage patterns and peak discharge rates through the design storm. (pg3). The SW Plan makes several more references about matching pre-developed levels. 1. What code sections support this goal of matching post development drainage patterns and flow levels with pre development drainage patterns and flow levels? 2. Does the goal of capturing and treating approximately 80% of the average annual rainfall (EC 9.6790) supercede the goal statement of matching pre and post development flows? 3. Does EC 9.6790 apply to existing impervious and pervious surfaces that become incorporated into a new development, land application or PUD? If EC 9.6790 does not apply then what code section would apply? GIOELLO Nick From: GILLESPIE Scott N Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 9:02 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R; FAVREAU Eric J Subject: RE: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential The site plan on this project has evolved. It is not uncommon for a supplemental technical report to have figures from previous iterations. It strikes me as a question of what is current and less about technical merits. I would ask the applicant to address this. They should update the figures and recommendations in the geotech report if they do not reflect the current site plan. That way we all know what the current and proposed for review. Most importantly, that it's all consistent. Hope that helps, Scott From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:13 PM To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>; FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: FW: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential Scott, Eric, I'm not sure what to do with these questions. Perhaps we say at this point the analysis of the Geotech report will be addressed in the staff report. I'm guessing they have someone who can read a Geotech Like Gunnar coming up with these questions, it just doesn't seem like something the average citizen would be looking at. Perhaps your referral comments can discuss (or dismiss) if they are valid or not? Nick From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:29 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@Ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Becky Dorsey <rdorseV@uoregon.edu>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson6172msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@Vahoo.com> Subject: CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential Hi Nick. The Geotech Report prepared by Branch Engineering dated 2/6/17 (and the three page letter update dated May 30, 2017) discuss landslide potential in the southeast area of the proposed project. The site plan labeled Figure 1 in the report shows an original routing for the private drive (Cupola Drive) as traversing the steep lots #15 through #20 (old site plan) and terminating at Capital at the most southerly end of the PUD. Figure 2 in the report shows a revised site plan eliminating this routing for Cupola and leaving a singular loop road connecting to Capital. This revised Cupola route is to the north of the existing house and 3 unit apartment. The Figure 2 site plan also shows an rectangular open space between Lots 18 & 19 where none existed on Figure 1. (Note that Figure 2 is also somewhat dated and has incorrect lot numbers compared to the current site plan in the 8/22/17 application.) The 5/30/17 three page supplement to the Geotech Report indicates at the bottom of page one "one location in the southeast portion of the site was mapped as the upper section of a landslide area; subsequent site design omitted development in this area." Was the site plan change "city driven"? Does your department and/or the city have any documentation that you could provide to our committee regarding this change to the site plan?? Another member of our committee may have some more specific questions for you in this regard over the coming days. Thanks as always for your assistance. Sorry that this question is a little past the 9 Aft guideline. Took me awhile to "pen it." Susan Hoffman 541-654-5458 (home) ELL Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:23 PM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: FW: Questions Brent, in my response below i left out a critical word. It should have read: We do not "read' them into the record... My apology for any confusion I may have caused. Thanks, Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:57 PM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' <lorsch2728@pacbe11.net> Subject: RE: Questions Brent, I'll only be putting in items you (or anyone else) request specifically be included in the record. I will also put into the record correspondence that expressed an opinion about the development proposal. We do "read' them into the record, we add them to the online archive and the Hearings Official is given access to that archive and will read the contents. Thanks, Nick From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 1:08 PIM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@Ci.euRene.or.us> Subject: Questions Will all of the questions, and your respective answers, (via email) be read into the record for the Cap Hill PUD? brent 1 ELLS Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:41 AM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Subject: RE: CHPUD Follow Up Question on Requirement for an Arborist Susan, There is no written waiver. The issue of the Director's ability to waive the requirement will be addressed in the staff report. Thanks, Nick n From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:05 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subject: CHPUD Follow Up Question on Requirement for an Arborist Good Morning Nick. Just a quick followup question to yesterday's email about the applicant's need for an Oregon licensed arborist on their Professional Design Team and your reply that the Planning Director has the ability to "waive" the need for having any one of the "professionals" per EC 9.8310 (2). If the Planning Director waived the requirement for an Oregon licensed arborist, was that "waiver" done in writing?? And if so, could you please provide to our committee (via me) a copy of that written waiver?? I think that's it for today. Going to take one last look at my emails before I can say for sure. Many thanks as always. 1 C8ZALL Kc From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:59 AM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Subject: RE: Email to city with question on arborist. Susan, Carol is a Registered Landscape Architect. Her seal that you referenced is an attest of her professional qualifications. Her status is listed as active on the Oregon.gov website. http://osiab.orregistrants.org/search.php The Planning Director was willing to accept the Tree Preservation Plans submitted by the applicant, which according to EC 9.8310(2) gives the Planning Director the ability to waive any of the listed Design Team professionals. See the following: (2) Project Coordinator and Professional; Design Team. The tentative PUD application shall identify the PUD project coordinator and the professional design team and certify compliance with the following: (a) Project Coordinator. The project coordinator shall: 1. Be the liaison between the applicant and the city. 2. Ensure that the required plans are prepared and executed according to any required conditions. 3. Either be a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners or licensed in the state of Oregon to practice architecture, civil engineering, or landscape architecture. The project coordinator, or at least one design team member, shall attend all public meetings at which the proposal is discussed. (b) Professional Desiqn Team Designation. Unless waived by the planning director, the professional design team shall consist of at least the following professionals: 1. Oregon licensed arborist. 2. Oregon licensed architect. 3. Oregon licensed civil engineer. 4. Oregon licensed landscape architect. 5. Oregon licensed land surveyor. @ Plan Certification. Certification of the services of the professionals responsible for particular drawings shall appear on those drawings. To ensure comprehensive review of all plans for compliance with the PUD provisions by the professional design team, the cover sheet shall contain a statement of review endorsed with the signatures of all designated members of the professional design team stating that the portion of the project in which he or she was involved complies with the following: 1. Meets the standards of his or her profession. 2. Complies with the tentative PUD criteria. Thanks Nick From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 9:16 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Email to city with question on arborist. Please also provide documentation of Carol Schirmer's professional status, whether it be registered landscape architect, certified arborist or both. Thanks again. Forwarded Message From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue(aLahoo.com> To: GIOELLO Nick R. <nick.r. ioq ellogci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc(u-)aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownil1Quoregon.edu>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617 anmsn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesuegyahoo.com> Seat: Wednesday, November 8, 2017, 9:11:16 AM PST Subject: Fw: Email to city with question on arborist. Hi Nick. Here is the first email using our "new" procedure. Request for more information on Carol Schirmer's professional status. We know she is a registered landscape architect (according to her seal on the landscape plans), but is she an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as required by Form F-213? If so, is all of her continuing education up-to-date? The link below in Tom's email takes you to Form F-213. Thanks. Please be sure to include all of those copied on this email (and me) in your response. Forwarded Message From: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc(c~aol.com> To: "shortgamesue(cr yahoo.com" <shortgamesue(c)vahoo.com> Cc: "cdiohnson617@msn.com" <cdiohnson6176c msn.com>; "brownj11(c)uoregon.edu" <browni11@uore oG n.edu>; " outermark(5)_gmail.com" <outermark d)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017, 11:51:15 AM PST Subject: Email to city with question on arborist.... something to this effect Nick, We noted the tree Document was signed by shummer a landscape artist. Is she a current licensed arborist and all of her continuing education up to date. City code requires a licensed arborist. " An arborist's report, prepared by an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, for diseased, dying, and unsafe trees: " We request documentation of Shummer??? Certification documentation https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/9598 Sent from my iPhone LL Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Subject: RE: A Couple of Quick Questions CHPUD Susan, Question 1: It appears to me based on using a scale that the proposed unimproved portion of Capital Drive is approximately 125 feet long. Question 2: That is actually our Code language and it refers to Supreme Court cases that affects municipalities when they require a "taking' or "exaction" of property. In this case the requirement of an easement is a "taking" of the applicant's property, so the City has to demonstrate and justify the need for the taking. Nollan and Dolan were two famous Supreme Court cases that established the rules that municipalities need to follow. Just google "Nollan Dolan findings and land use law". It's far too complicated for me to try and explain any further. Thanks, Nick ion From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:18 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com> Subject: A Couple of Quick Questions CHPUD Hi Nick. Again, sorry this is coming to you on a Sunday afternoon, but I won't be home tomorrow AM so thought it would OK to send it now rather than wait until Tuesday AM. I know we traded emails in early October about the gravel end of Capital Drive. I referenced that is was to be 40 ft. long. Can't remember where I got that number, but looking at my site plan yesterday it has to be over 100 ft. It goes the full length of the western edge of Lot 1 (which is 97.1 feet) and about half way along the western edge of Lot 2. My estimation is that it will be about 118 ft. in length. Can you please confirm that (or correct it) for me from the full size set of plans in your office?? Thanks. 1 2nd Question. On page 51 of 67 of the 8/22/17 application, first paragraph addressing 9.8320 (10) (h) in a discussion of 9.6500 Easements (1) end of third line down there is a reference to "constitutional requirements." ®o you know what that reference means?? Thanks again. 2 C!OELLO Nick., MEN= From: Sent: 1,0: Cc: Subject: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:29 AM GIOELLO Nick R Tom Bruno; Becky Dorsey; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman; Nathaniel Teich CHPUD Re-Routing of Cupola Drive due to Landslide Potential Hi Nick. The Geotech Report prepared by Branch Engineering dated 216/17 (and the three page letter update dated May 30, 2017) discuss landslide potential in the southeast area of the proposed project. The site plan labeled Figure 1 in the report shows an original routing for the private drive (Cupola Drive) as traversing the steep lots x#15 through ##20 (old site plan) and terminating at Capital at the most southerly end of the PUD. Figure 2 in the report shows a revised site plan eliminating this routing for Cupola and leaving a singular loop road connecting to Capital. This revised Cupola route is to the north of the existing house and 3 unit apartment. The Figure 2 site plan also shows an rectangular open space between Lots 18 & 19 where none existed on Figure 1. (Note that Figure 2 is also somewhat dated and has incorrect lot numbers compared to the current site plan in the 8/22/17 application.) The 5/30/17 three page supplement to the Geotech Report indicates at the bottom of page one "one location in the southeast portion of the site was mapped as the upper section of a landslide area; subsequent site design omitted development in this area." Was the site plan change "city driven"? Does your department and/or the city have any documentation that you could provide to our committee regarding this change to the site plan?? Another member of our committee may have some more specific questions for you in this regard over the coming days. Thanks as always for your assistance. Sorry that this question is a little past the 9 AM guideline. Took me awhile to "pen it." Susan Hoffman 541-654-5458 (home) 1 GIOELLO Nick Fro : Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 12:39 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman Subject: Fw: Re: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Hi Nick. As I just mentioned in my voice-mail, sorry for "breaking the rules" of our newly established email communication procedures, but these questions from Faris appear to be complicated and thought you would like to have them sooner rather than later. If I had received them on a Monday or Tuesday, they could probably wait until 9 AM the next day, but didn't want to "hit you" with these on a Friday AM. Hope this is OK. Will try to stick to the procedures going forward. Thanks as always for your assistance. Forwarded Message From: "fcassell@comcast. net" <fcassell@comcast.net> To: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Murchison, CW <cwmurchison@gmaii.com> Cc: johnson, cathy and david <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Bruno, Tom <brunoassoc@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017, 11:19:37 AM PST Subject: Re: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. hi susan would you please forward the follow-up questions to nick? hi nick thank you so much for your help. it's much appreciated. we have some followup questions. 1. who all in public works is consulting on the issues surrounding emergency access? we would like to have a conversation with someone in public works who has been part of the emergency access conversation. would that be scott gillespie? as i mentioned to you on the phone, a conversation allows for some give and take so both public works and we can understand at one time the issues that concern us. sometimes email questions get lost or string out needlessly over a long time. 2. about emails, the assistant fire marshall told me a month or so ago that you told the fire department not to talk to us and that all questions about chpud should go through you. i do understand how important it is that you know what all the departments are telling us. then you told us that the fire department told you they wanted questions only through email. that system has not worked. we sent mark dahl a few questions weeks ago and have not heard back. it's starting to feel like we are pestering city departments, rather than asking for an information exchange. we understand as you pointed out, that you cannot order anyone to talk with us, but since you have told us you are the hub now of all communications, do you have any suggestions about how to improve the situation? right now, i don't understand how i can talk to different people without causing a problem. we are hoping that routing all planning questions through susan is one step to help lessen the confusion of information for everyone. would a short meeting with the most knowledgeable person in public works, you, cw murchison, and me, and also the same thing for mark dahl be a solution? that puts a burden on you but i don't see another option. best, saris Fro : "GIOELLO Nick R'° <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Ton "Susan Hoffman" <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Cc: "Faris Cassell" <fcasseII@corn cast.net>, "CW Murchison" <cwmurchison@gmail. com>, "Cathy Johnson" <cdjohnson617@msn.com>, "Tam Bruno" <brunoassoc@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 9:47:12 AM Subject: RE: Fwd: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Answers to your questions: Q1 - The Fire Department indicated there is a current issue with access along Capital Drive leading up to this site. That is the essence of the discussion between the Fire Department and Public Works. Separately, as part of the review for the Capital Hill PUD, Public Works will assess the potential traffic generated from the proposed project. Q2 - To my knowledge at this point in time Capital Drive is the only road being reviewed. The Fire Department has indicated that the other route that accesses the site via Cresta De Ruta is not a route they would normally take, unless Capital Drive was temporarily inaccessible for some reason. Q3 - To my knowledge at this point in time, Public Works is reviewing the access issue raised in the 3-27-17 letter from the Fire Marshal's Office. No changes have been proposed at this time. Q4 - Public Works will submit referral comments prior to the hearing that will provide details on the various criteria used to assess the proposal. The criteria in Eugene Code 9.8320 will apply and this code section also lists other sections of the code that will be used to assess the proposal. Q5 - There are a number of Public Works team members assisting in review of this project. The point of contact for all communications is through the Planning Department (me). Thanks, Nick 2 Nicholas R. ioello, 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 From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 9:14 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>; DAHL Mark H <Mark.H.Dahl@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmait.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Fwd: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Hi Nick. Here is the 2nd email for today. This is also from Faris Cassell and CW Murchison from mid-October. I have included Mark Dahl in the distribution (as CW did in his original inquiry) but not Eric from Public Works. Could you please coordinate with Eric as CW requested in the body of his email?? Your response(s) should be back to Faris, CW, Tom, Cathy and me. Thanks!! Forwarded Message From: CW Murchison <cwmurchison(dr~.gmail. com> To: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc c-.aol.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue(@yahoo`com> Cc: Faris <fcassell@comcast. net> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 9:55:44 AM PDT Subject: Fwd: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Dear Tom and Susan, 3 Below is an email that I sent Nick and Mark Dahl a couple weeks ago that I have yet to receive a response to. Faris asked that I forward to you for centralized management. Thanks so much, CW Murchison Forwarded message From- C Murchison <cwmurchisonagmail. com> Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM Subject: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.GioelloP_ci.eugene.or.us>, mark.h.dahl(dci.eugene.or.us Cc: Faris <fcassell(@comcast.net> Good Afternoon, I'm writing concerning a few questions that we, the CHPUD Response Team, have about the current and possible future emergency access routes to the CHPUD site. If this message could be forwarded to Eric Favreau in Public Works, that would be very much appreciated. Nick, in your earlier emails with Faris, you indicated that the Fire Department and Public Works were discussing the safety problems of the emergency access routes to the top of Capital Hill, as noted in Mark Dahl's 3/27/17 letter in response to the CHPUD application_ Q1. Are the current discussions between the Fire Department and Public works only concerning current safety problems, or are they also discussing how those safety problems would be exacerbated by additional traffic created by the addition of over 30 homes at the top of Capital Hill? (Simply is there more to the discussions than just current safety issues that have been identified in the 3-27-17 letter?) Q2. What roads have been included in these discussions surrounding safety issues for emergency access to Capital Hill? (The 3-27-17 letter discussed multiple routes, and roads, and safety issues with each of them. The entire route and alternates from the fire station to the top of Capital Hill could present many safety issues.) Q3. Are the discussions including possible changes to the current (or future) road access to address the safety issues raised in the 3-27-17 letter? and if so, what changes? Q4. What criteria are being used to determine if the emergency access routes to the top of capital hill are safe now and in the future with any possible changes to improve or through increased traffic of 30+ houses? Q5. Who in Public Works is working on this or involved in the discussions? 4 Thanks so much for your assistance, CW Murchison 2835 Capital Dr. 541/543-7127 5 I ELL Nick From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Answers to your questions: GIOELLO Nick R Thursday, November 09, 2017 9:47 AM 'Susan Hoffman' Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Cathy Johnson; Tom Bruno RE: Fwd: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Q1-The Fire Department indicated there is a current issue with access along Capital Drive leading up to this site. That is the essence of the discussion between the Fire Department and Public Works. Separately, as part of the review for the Capital Hill PUD, Public Works will assess the potential traffic generated from the proposed project. Q2 -To my knowledge at this point in time Capital Drive is the only road being reviewed. The Fire Department has indicated that the other route that accesses the site via Cresta De Ruta is not a route they would normally take, unless Capital Drive was temporarily inaccessible for some reason. Q3 -To my knowledge at this point in time, Public Works is reviewing the access issue raised in the 3-27-17 letter from the Fire Marshal's Office. No changes have been proposed at this time. Q4 - Public Works will submit referral comments prior to the hearing that will provide details on the various criteria used to assess the proposal. The criteria in Eugene Code 9.8320 will apply and this code section also lists other sections of the code that will be used to assess the proposal. Q5 -There are a number of Public Works team members assisting in review of this project. The point of contact for all communications is through the Planning Department (me). Thanks, Nick Di r -ion _d From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 9:14 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>; DAHL Mark H <Mark.H.Dahl@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Fwd` CHPUD Questions about emergency access. 1 Hi Nick. Here is the 2nd email for today. This is also from Faris Cassell and CW Murchison from mid-October. I have included Mark Dahl in the distribution (as CW did in his original inquiry) but not Eric from Public Works. Could you please coordinate with Eric as CW requested in the body of his email?? Your response(s) should be back to Faris, CW, Tom, Cathy and me. Thanks!! -----Forwarded Message 'rorn: CW Murchison <cwmurchison a,gmail.com> To: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc()aol.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesuep_yahoo.com> Cc: Faris <fcassell(a comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 9:55:44 AM PDT Subject: Fwd: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Dear Tom and Susan, Below is an email that I sent dick and Mark Dahl a couple weeks ago that I have yet to receive a response to. Faris asked that I forward to you for centralized management. Thanks so much, CW Murchison Forwarded message From: C Murchison <cwmurchisonCq)_qmaiI.com> Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM Subject: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(aci.eugene.or.us>, mark. h.dahl(d,)ci.eugene.or.us Cc: Faris <fcassell @..comcast. net> Good Afternoon, I'm writing concerning a few questions that we, the CHPUD Response Team, have about the current and possible future emergency access routes to the CHPUD site. If this message could be forwarded to Eric Favreau in Public Works, that would be very much appreciated. Nick, in your earlier emails with Faris, you indicated that the Fire Department and Public Works were discussing the safety problems of the emergency access routes to the top of Capital Hill, as noted in Mark Dahl's 3/27/17 letter in response to the CHPUD application. Q1. Are the current discussions between the Fire Department and Public works only concerning current safety problems, or are they also discussing how those safety problems would be exacerbated by additional traffic created by the addition of over 30 homes at the top of Capital Hill? (Simply is there more to the discussions than just current safety issues that have been identified in the 3-27-17 letter?) Q2. What roads have been included in these discussions surrounding safety issues for emergency access to Capital Hill? (The 3-27-17 letter discussed multiple routes, and roads, and safety issues with each of them. The entire route and alternates from the fire station to the top of Capital Hill could present many safety issues.) Q3. Are the discussions including possible changes to the current (or future) road access to address the safety issues raised in the 3-27-17 letter? and if so, what changes? Q4. What criteria are being used to determine if the emergency access routes to the top of capital hill are safe now and in the future with any possible changes to improve or through increased traffic of 30+ houses? Q5. Who in Public Works is working on this or involved in the discussions? Thanks so much for your assistance, CW Murchison 2835 Capital Dr. 541/543-7127 GIOELLO Nick Fri : Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 9:14 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R; DAHL Mark H Cc: Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Cathy Johnson; Tom Bruno; Susan Hoffman Subject: Fw: Fwd: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Hi Nick. Here is the 2nd email for today. This is also from Faris Cassell and CW Murchison from mid-October. I have included Mark Dahl in the distribution (as CW did in his original inquiry) but not Eric from Public Works. Could you please coordinate with Eric as CW requested in the body of his email?? Your response(s) should be back to Faris, CW, Tom, Cathy and me. Thanks!! Forwarded Message From: CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail. com> To: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Cc: Faris <fcasseil@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 9:55:44 AM PDT Subject: Fwd: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. Dear Tom and Susan, Below is an email that I sent Nick and Mark Dahl a couple weeks ago that I have yet to receive a response to. Faris asked that I forward to you for centralized management. Thanks so much, CW Murchison Forwarded message From: C Murchison <cwmurchison(Dgmail.com> Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM Subject: CHPUD Questions about emergency access. To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(cZci.eugene.or.us>, mark. h.dahl(a.ci.eugene.or.us Cc: Faris <fcassell .comcast.net> Good Afternoon, I'm writing concerning a few questions that we, the CHPUD Response Team, have about the current and possible future emergency access routes to the CHPUD site. If this message could be forwarded to Eric Favreau in Public Works, that would be very much appreciated. Nick, in your earlier emails with Faris, you indicated that the Fire Department and Public Works were discussing the safety problems of the emergency access routes to the top of Capital Hill, as noted in Mark Dahl's 3/27/17 letter in response to the CHPUD application. Q1. Are the current discussions between the Fire Department and Public works only concerning current safety problems, or are they also discussing how those safety problems would be exacerbated by additional traffic created by the addition of over 30 homes at the top of Capital Hill? (Simply is there more to the discussions than just current safety issues that have been identified in the 3-27-17 letter?) Q2. What roads have been included in these discussions surrounding safety issues for emergency access to Capital Hill? (The 3-27-17 letter discussed multiple routes, and roads, and safety issues with each of them. The entire route and alternates from the fire station to the top of Capital Hill could present many safety issues.) Q3. Are the discussions including possible changes to the current (or future) road access to address the safety issues raised in the 3-27-17 letter? and if so, what changes? 04. What criteria are being used to determine if the emergency access routes to the top of capital hill are safe now and in the future with any possible changes to improve or through increased traffic of 33+ houses? Q5. Who in Public Works is working on this or involved in the discussions? Thanks so much for your assistance, CW Murchison 2835 Capital Dr. 541/543-7127 C ELL Nick..' From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 9:04 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: CW Murchison; Faris Cassell; Cathy Johnson; Tom Bruno Subject: Fw: Fwd: Quick Process of PUD Questions... Hi Nick. Here is a short email from one of our committee members that may have gotten by you. It is from mid-October. I believe that when I asked you about referral comments a few weeks ago, you advised that you would post them on the documents portion of the planning website for Capital Hill PUD. You also indicated that you would do so immediately upon your receipt from each dept. rather than waiting for all departments to submit their comments. Just checking to see if any others have arrived?? The only one on the website to-date are the Sept 12th EWEB comments. Please confirm. The 2nd question is all yours!! Thanks as always. PS. Second email to be forwarded to you in a few minutes. Also from Faris Cassell & CW Murchison. Forwarded Message From: CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com> To: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Susan Hoffman<shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Cc: Faris <fcassell@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 10:01:55 AM PDT Subject: Fwd: Quick Process of PUD Questions... 1 more that went just to Nick G that I did not get a response to. Thanks! CW Murchison Forwarded message From: Coil Murchison <cwmurchison6~gmail.com> Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:48 PM Subject: Quick Process of PUD Questions... To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(Qci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Faris <fcassell(Qcomcast.net> Good Afternoon Nick, I have a couple of quick questions about the CHPUD process. 01. When are the department reports due to you? and Can you forward them to us as you receive them from each department? 02. When will you start writing your report for the CHPUD? Thanks again Nick, and have a great afternoon, CW Murchison 2835 Capital Dr 541/543-7127 N Nick: I am a licensed landscape architect with the State of Oregon. We also got permission from city staff before we traipsed through the woods to evaluate the trees The city waived the certified arborist requirement. I am not sure what else there is to say about this. Thanks carol Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists 375 West 4th Suite 201 Eugene; OR 97401 www.schirmersatre.com PH: (541) 580-4540 x1 Fax: (541) 585-4577 From: GIOELLO Nick R [mailto:Nick. R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 9:30 AM To: Carol Schirmer <carol@schirmersatre.com> Subject: FW: Email to city with question on arborist. Hi Carol, See the info request below. If you want to respond back to me with something, I will forward it on to the neighbors unless you want to do that directly. Kind of funny - the link in.the email is to our Tree Removal Permit, which is totally not applicable to the PUD application. As an FYI, which I will also point out to the neigbors - EC 9.8310(2) allows the Director to waive the requirement for an Oregon licensed arborist. Thanks, Nick Nicholas R. ioello, M. Aden, ~s .late Planner j Planning Division e 1 nick. r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 9:11 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownilI@uoregon.edu>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@vahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Email to city with question on arborist. Hi Nick. Here is the first email using our "new" procedure. Request for more information on Carol Schirmer's professional status. We know she is a registered landscape architect (according to her seal on the landscape plans), but is she an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as required by Form ##F-213? If so, is all of her continuing education up-to-date? The link below in Tom's email takes you to Form F-213. Thanks. Please be sure to include all of those copied on this email (and me) in your response. Forwarded Message From: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc(@aoI.com> To: "shortgamesue~yahoo.com" <shortgamesue .yahoo.com> Cc: "cdjohnson617@msn.com" <cdiohnson617@msn.com>; "browni11 uoregon.edu" <brownil I (O-),uoregon.edu>, "outermark a~gmail.com" <outermarkC~gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017, 11:51:15 AM PST Subject: Email to city with question on arborist.... something to this effect Nick, We noted the tree Document was signed by shummer a landscape artist. Is she a current licensed arborist and all of her continuing education up to date. City code requires a licensed arborist. " An arborist's report, prepared by an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, for diseased, dying, and unsafe trees: " We request documentation of Shummer??? Certification documentation. https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/9598 Sent from my iPhone GIOELLO Nick From GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 8:23 AM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Cc: Tom Bruno; Sheryl Kelly; Nathaniel Teich; Faris Cassell; Jason Brown; Brent Lorscheider; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); John Curtis; Cathy Johnson; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; CW - Murchison,- Becky Dorsey; Charlie Ogle,- Jamie Harper, Dick Ragatz Subject: RE: System to Monitor Inquiries to Nick Gioello about Capital Hill PUD Thank you Susan, that sounds like a good plan and I appreciate your willingness to do this. It will certainly make this process more manageable on my end. Thanks, Nick 'a l P' r From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:08 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> . Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Faris Cassell <fcassell @comcast. net>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; John Curtis <jc65lotus @gmaiLcom>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; Charlie Ogle <pud@charlieogle.com>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Dick Ragatz <richard.ragatz@ragatzassociates.com> Subject: System to Monitor Inquiries to Nick Gioello about Capital Hill PUD Hi Nick. The citizen's Response Committee for the Capital Hill PUD has established a method to monitor our inquiries to you. We are hoping to assist you (and ourselves) so that you are only dealing with one person at approximately the same time each day, rather than receiving emails throughout the day from various folks. We are proposing that I send to you daily by around 9 AM any inquiries about the project from our various Response Committee members. Hopefully, this will provide some structure to our inquiries and facilitate your responses to pending issues. 1 Beginning tomorrow, November 6th, any new questions being directed toward you (or others at the city such as Eric in Public Works) will bee ails to e by the inquiring Response Committee ern era INQUIRIES SHOULD T T DIRECTLY T YOU. I will get all new Response Committee inquiries to you every work day by 9 AM, and will "cc" the committee member(s) making the inquiry so that they know their question is "at the city." if you could direct your reply back to me (at anytime during the day) with a "cc" to the inquiring Response Committee member(s) that would be very much appreciated. This way, your reply to the committee member(s) will not be held up by me but I'll know that the inquiry has been handled. I'll also see to it that anyone else on our committee that could use-the data in your reply is "in the loop." We are currently putting together a list of outstanding questions/issues that remain pending your response. When we finish that compilation (within a few days), we'll send it along to you for your follow up. Hope this helps all of us over the next several busy weeks. If you have any comments/questions please let me know at shortqamesue@vahoo.com or call at 541-654- 5,458. Thanks as always for your assistance. Susan Hoffman G_ _ ELL Nick Brent, Attached are the As-Construct information obtained through our GIS database for the roadways. After reviewing that for the information you need feel free to email with additional questions. From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbe11.net] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:31 PM To: Eugene PWE PIC <CEWEPIC@ci.eugene.or.us>; GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Roadway width, Capital Drive and spring blvd Hi, I was referred to you by Nick Gioello. Does the City have asbuilt drawings, survey results or any other information that would show, or could be used to calculate, any or all of the actual roadway width (curb face to curb face) for the following reaches: 1. Spring Blvd from intersection of Spring and Fairmount to Spring and Capital. 2. Capital Drive from intersection of Spring and Capital to Capital and Cresta da Ruta. Pls feel free to call me if it will help. Thank you, Brent Lorscheider Ph: 6266275049 Add: 2625 capital Drive GIOELLO Nick Fro : GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 3:51 PM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: RE: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud Brent, see below for response to #2 & 3 from Scott Gillespie: The applicant is proposing flow control for all lots and roads within the subdivision and to maintain existing drainage patterns. This means that post development flows will be equal to or less than pre- development flows. Calculation of post development flow from lots is not necessary or relevant at the subdivision stage since all lots will have to implement flow control at the time of building permit. This means that post development flow rates will never exceed the pre-development flow rates regardless of the amount of impervious area on each lot. The report calculates the pre-development flows (which also equal or exceed post development flows) and that is used for design purposes to satisfy Flood Control criteria in EC 9.6791. Thanks, Scott Gillespie, PE Public Works Engineering 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 541-682-2706 Regarding question #1, it is not my role to agree with answers from the other staff or the applicant, my role is to provide professional analysis as a Planner regarding compliance with the approval criteria, gathering input from other professionals/experts/agencies (such as Public Works, Fire Department, EWEB, etc.) and making recommendations to the Hearings Official. This project is still in the review stage, a full analysis will be available as a staff report one week before the scheduled hearing date. Thanks, Nick Nicholas R. C" oelllo, M. Ad . ?°,sst J ie P nc -I.: i..ning Division 5' o ig e. n e or u 1 From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:30 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or:us> Subject: Re: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud Nick, 1. Does the Planning Development Department, as the lead enforcement agency for this subject, agree with this answer? 2. The consultant answer refererences section 3.1.3, paragraph 2 for the civil engineers specific language, which states the bound lots will discharge onto the new roadways. 2A. Please direct me to the portion of the stormwater analysis that accounts for the runoff/flow from these lots onto the new roadway... Specifically: the maps, diagrams, illustrations, assumed impervious surface areas, modelling and calculations that account for the runoff? 2B - Does Table 2 (pg 6) included the future impervious and pervious areas of the bound lots? I ask this question because the Basin Summary appears to omit some, or all, of the bound lots impervious and pervious areas. Thx, Brent From: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick. R.Gioello(c)ci.eugene.or.up To: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728(cDpacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:42 PM Subject: FW: Question on stormwater plan for a Chpud Brent, See the responses below that carne from the applicant's Engineering consultant. Thanks, Nick nick. r.gioello(c)ci.eugene.or.us From: Brent Lorscheider (mailto:lorsch2728(a~pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 7:10 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(c 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. 2 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] dater is accounted for this run off. The lots will need to retain the runoff to exist pre-development flaws. 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. 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 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 <Nick. R.Gioello(o.ci.eugene.or.us> To: Brent Lorscheider <1orsch272865pacbell.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(cracbell.net], 3 Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:21 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioelloci.cugene.or.us> Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617 rr,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 4 GIOELLO Nick R ® m From: GIOELLO Nick R Seat: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:11 PM To: 'Brent Lorscheider' Subject: RE: Capital Drive and Spring Blvd Roadway width Brent, The as-constructs that we have are available at the PIC (ground floor at the Atrium Building, 99 West loth Ave) for free. It can also be done via email request to the following address and the technician on duty should respond within a day or less. cewepic(@ci.eugene.or.us Thanks, [Nick g *rg sion From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 11:57 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.GioeIlo@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com> Subject: Capital Drive and Spring Blvd Roadway width Hi Nick, Does the City have asbuilt drawings, survey results or any other information that would show, or could be used to calculate, any or all of the roadway width (curb face to curb face) for the following reaches: 1. Spring Blvd from intersection of Spring and Fairmount to Spring and Capital. 2. Capital Drive from intersection of Spring and Capital to Capital and Cresta da Ruta. As always, thx for your help. brent 1