Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch DGIC ILL Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:32 PM To: 'Jan Wostmann' Cc: Susan Hoffman; Cathy Johnson Subject: RE: PDT 17-1 Hello Jan, Replies are embedded below in red font. Thanks, N 3 -----Original Message---- From: Jan Wostmann [mailto:jw@efn.org] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:41 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com> Subject: PDT 17-1 Hi Nick, At a recent meeting of the Capital Hill PUD Response Committee two questions came up that I was asked to forward to you. Hopefully, there is a short answer to each. 1. Has the Fire Department turned in their Referral Comments for PDT 17-1? If so, could you email me a copy? No comments have been received yet. 2. When the Planning Staff Report is publically available, could you email a copy to me and the two people listed on the CC: line above? I can, but just to be sure, please email me on February 28 and ask again for a copy. Thanks for attention to these matters, 1 Jan Wostmann Laurel Hill Valley Citizens P.S. I am attaching below two question from a recent email that are still outstanding. 1. I'm attaching the Notice to Correct dated January 23, 2018 from Phillip Hubbard, Code Compliance Inspector, regarding 2855 Capital Drive. Please enter it into the record for PDT 17-1. The question is how does this Notice to Correct affect the current state of the Capitol Hill PUD application? It is a separate action that has no bearing on the PUD application, except that in the staff report I briefly discuss it and there will be a condition of approval that all code requirements regarding this structure and its use must be satisfied prior to approval of the final PUD. 2. The Title Report that is part of the application is about a year old. A committee member mentioned that in real estate matters, title reports that are more than 90 days old must be refreshed. The question: How long does the City consider a title report to be valid? For instance, the Notice to Correct is surely an encumbrance on that particular lot, but does not appear in the title report. In the Eugene Code EC 9.8310 General Application Requirements, the criteria for (1) Ownership includes, "The application shall include all contiguous property under the some ownership or development control, shall be signed by the owner of the property, and include such related information as prescribed by the planning director." We require a title report in order to verify ownership and any encumbrances on the property. This information is required to be submitted at the time of application. As is typical with other Tentative DUDS, the process can take many months before any public hearing or decision is made, However, the Eugene Code does not describe needing updates to this information throughout the process. Our applications for Tentative Planned Unit Development and Tentative Subdivision both require just a preliminary title report, while Final Subdivision application requires the official current title report verifying ownership. The Final Planned Unit Development application does not require a new preliminary report. 2 Thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Best, Sarah On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:48 AM GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello2ci.eugene.or.us> wrote Hi Sarah, On the plans, Tract A is identified as 50 feet wide where it runs the entire length of the east boarder of the PUD and the City owned property with the Ribbon Trail. The Ribbon Trail varies in distance from this shared property line from 50 to 120 feet. In addition, the individual lots that border the east side of the PUD have preservation areas that vary in depth on each lot, from 14 feet at the north potion to 188 feet toward the south. In other words, with the combined distances of the Ribbon Trail from the shared property line, Tract A and individual lot preservation areas, the closest buildable area on a lot (Lot #5) to the Ribbon Trail would be approximately 155 feet. The largest buffer is between the Ribbon Trail and lot #17, approximately 290 feet. It looks like to me that the average combined buffer distance is a little over 200 feet. So, there is buffer protection of the trail with the City owned property that the trail is on. Tract A will be owned by the HOA and they will have control of that area. The individual lots will have preservation areas on the approved PUD plan set (of course that's assuming this project is approved). Whenever anyone comes in to build on their lot, they must go through a building permit process and the City will check the approved plan set so that nothing will be built in those preservation areas or in Tract A. There are examples throughout the City where lot preservation areas and conservation areas like Tract A have been successful. Of course there are occasions where an individual lot owner does something illegal (sometimes unwittingly, sometimes not). We will do enforcement action in those cases once we become aware of a violation. I hope that answers your questions. Thanks,, 1 N 99 West 10 nick. r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Sarah Mazze [mailto:simazze@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 8:47 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Capitol Hill PUD Nick Gioello, I'm writing to ask a couple of questions related to my concern about the impact of the proposed Capital Hill PUD on the Ribbon Trail and Hendricks Park. While I certainly support increasing the housing stock in Eugene to address the housing shortage, I also believe that it's crucial that we protect those slivers of open space that are left within the City where people can recharge and where native species have even the possibility of thriving. It's challenging for me to see just how much of a buffer is given to the Ribbon Trail and Hendricks Park from the site plans, and I'll admit that I didn't make my way completely through the 188 page application. I see that there is proposed preservation area on each tax lot and wonder how it is that this preservation area would be enforced on an individual lot. It seems to me that there would be the greatest likelihood of that land being protected if it were owned by the City, and that it's next best shot would be if the land were protected by the HOA. Thank you for getting back to me about this, as I'd like to submit public comment in a bit more detail. Best, z Sarah 3 GIOELLO Nick Fro : GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 8:55 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: FW: Capital Hill PUD MKuhn From: amcivor@comcast.net [mailto:amcivor@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 6:41 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Capital Hill PUD Thanks. ACM From: "GIOELLO Nick R" <Nick.R.Gioello ci.eu eor.us> To: "amcivor" <amcivor@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 10:29:00 AM Subject: RE: Capital Hill PUD Hi Andy, We are tentatively scheduled for public hearing on January 10, 2018 starting at 5:30 PM in Harris Hall. There might be another item on the agenda, so we might start at 5:00 PM and have that item first. If that's the case the Capital Hill PUD hearing would start after the first item and I cannot guarantee when it will start, probably after 5:30 PM. Thanks, Nick From: amcivor@comcast.net [ma iito:amcivor@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 6:26 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Capital Hill PUD Hi Nick, Thanks for remembering. Yes, I would like to include this email in the testimony. When is there a formal hearing on this? Andy From: "GIOELLO Nick R" <Nick.R.Gioelloci.euoene.or.us> To: "amcivor" <amcivorcomcast.net> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:15:34 PM Subject: RE: Capital Hill PUD Hello Andy, 1 I just want to know if you want the email below included in the record as testimony? Also, you can add additional testimony if you'd like, or you could revise this one if you want to add additional comments. Just let me know. Thanks, Nick nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: amcivor@comcast.net [mailto:amcivor@corncast.net] Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 11:39 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nicls.R.Gioello(@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Iorsch27282pacbell.net; John Terhes (iaterhes gmail.com) <jaterhes@gmail.com>; conlon-mcivor, maura <maurapiano(@i7maiLcom>; David and Catherine Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com> Subject: Capital Hill PUD Hi Mr. Gioello, The neighbors are very opposed to the Capital Hill PUD proposed by Dr Dreyer. The roads are too narrow. Pedestrians and bicyclists use Spring St, a narrow road with no sidewalks, all the time. I have heard an estimate of 100,000 to 200,000 truckloads of building material/removal of trees and debris going up and down this road as this project is built. The project is too big, destroys habitat, and impacts on Hendricks Park, the best park in Eugene. Enclosed are a couple of photos I took this morning on Spring St. I recently saw a Comcast van parked in the road by the phone pole, and traffic backed up trying to get around it. Imagine a large dump truck. You'll notice the anti-PUDD signs. They line the neighborhood. I'm sure you will get more input from the neighborhood associations soon. Andy Mclvor 2460 Malabar Drive Eugene 2 I rack n From: Jan Wostmann <jw@efn.org> Sera: Thursday, February 01, 2018 10:51 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Susan Hoffman; Kathleen Masterson Subject: PDT 17-1 Attachments: Notice to Correct 012318 pdf Hi Nick, The Capital Hill PUD Response Committee met this evening and they asked that I send the following questions to you. 1. I'm attaching the Notice to Correct dated January 23, 2018 from Phillip Hubbard, Code Compliance Inspector, regarding 2855 Capital Drive. Please enter it into the record for PDT 17-1. The question is how does this Notice to Correct affect the current state of the Capitol Hill PUD application? 2. The Title Report that is part of the application is about a year old. A committee member mentioned that in real estate matters, title reports that are more than 90 days old must be refreshed. The question: How long does the City consider a title report to be valid? For instance, the Notice to Correct is surely an encumbrance on that particular lot, but does not appear in the title report. 3. This last point is more statement than question. Paul Conte is NOT a member of the Capital Hill PUD Response Committee. As an interested party, he may of course enter anything he wishes into the record for PDT 17-1. However, his tone and general lack of civility toward City staff is not shared by any member of the Response Committee. Feel free to share this last point with Scott Gillespie. Thanks, Jan wostmann Laurel Hill Valley Citizens S 1 LL Nick Fro : Sarah Mazze <sjmazze@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 3:28 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Re: Capitol Hill PUD Thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Best, Sarah On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:48 AM GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello kci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Hi Sarah, Can the plans, Tract A is identified as 50 feet wide where it runs the entire length of the east boarder of the PUD and the City owned property with the Ribbon Trail. The Ribbon Trail varies in distance from this shared property line from 50 to 120 feet. In addition, the individual lots that border the east side of the PUD have preservation areas that vary in depth on each lot, from 14 feet at the north potion to 188 feet toward the south. In other words, with the combined distances of the Ribbon Trail from the shared property line, Tract A and individual lot preservation areas, the closest buildable area on a lot (Lot #5) to the Ribbon Trail would be approximately 155 feet. The largest buffer is between the Ribbon Trail and lot #17, approximately 290 feet. It looks like to me that the average combined buffer distance is a little over 200 feet. So, there is buffer protection of the trail with the City owned property that the trail is on. Tract A will be owned by the HOA and they will have control of that area. The individual lots will have preservation areas on the approved PUD plan set (of course that's assuming this project is approved). Whenever anyone comes in to build on their lot, they must go through a building permit process , and the City will check the approved plan set so that nothing will be built in those preservation areas or in Tract A. There are examples throughout the City where lot preservation areas and conservation areas like Tract A have been successful. Of course there are occasions where an individual lot owner does something illegal (sometimes unwittingly, sometimes not). We will do enforcement action in those cases once we become aware of a violation. I hope that answers your questions. Thanks, 1 99 West 10 nick.r.gioeIIo@ci.eugene.or.us From: Sarah Mazze [mailto:simazze@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 8:47 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioeilo@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Capitol Hill PUD Nick Gioello, I'm writing to ask a couple of questions related to my concern about the impact of the proposed Capital Hill PUD on the Ribbon Trail and Hendricks Park. While I certainly support increasing the housing stock in Eugene to address the housing shortage, I also believe that it's crucial that we protect those slivers of open space that are left within the City where people can recharge and where native species have even the possibility of thriving. It's challenging for me to see just how much of a buffer is given to the Ribbon Trail and Hendricks Park from the site plans, and I'll admit that I didn't make my way completely through the 188 page application. I see that there is proposed preservation area on each tax lot and wonder how it is that this preservation area would be enforced on an individual lot. It seems to me that there would be the greatest likelihood of that land being protected if it were owned by the City, and that it's next best shot would be if the land were protected by the H®A. Thank you for getting back to me about this, as I'd like to submit public comment in a bit more detail. Best, z Sarah 3 GIOELLO Nick Frog : Jan Wostmann <jw@efn.org> Seat: Thursday, February 01, 2018 10:51 PM To: GIOELLO {dick R Cc: Susan Hoffman; Katfileen Masterson Subject: PDT 17-1 Attachments: Notice to Correct 012318 pdf Hi Nick, The Capital Hill PUD Response Committee met this evening and they asked that I send the following questions to you. 1. I'm attaching the Notice to Correct dated January 23, 2018 from Phillip Hubbard, Code Compliance Inspector, regarding 2855 Capital Drive. Please enter it into the record for PDT 17-1. The question is how does this Notice to Correct affect the current state of the Capitol Hill PUD application? 2. The Title Report that is part of the application is about a year old. A committee member mentioned that in real estate matters, title reports that are more than 90 days old must be refreshed. The question: How long does the City consider a title report to be valid? For instance, the Notice to Correct is surely an encumbrance on that particular lot, but does not appear in the title report. 3. This last point is more statement than question. Paul Conte is NOT a member of the Capital Hill PUD Response Committee. As an interested party, he may of course enter anything he wishes into the record for PDT 17-1. However, his tone and general lack of civility toward City staff is not shared by any member of the Response Committee. Feel free to share this last point with Scott Gillespie. Thanks, Jan wostmann Laurel Hill Valley Citizens 1 I ELL Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:43 PM To: 'Susan Hoffman'; Brent Lorscheider; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) Subject: FW: follow up questions Brent, Susan, Jan: Please see the response below from Scott Gillespie, PE, Public Works Engineering. Thanks, C ,i0From: GILLESPIE Scott N Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 11:54 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: RE: follow up questions Hi Nick. Responses are below 1A. Please see the Design Standards and Guidelines for For Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways (AKA Exhibit A - November 1999, adopted by Council Resolution 4806). They are the City's adopted street design standards. The queuing street standard is set in this document for streets with a local designation. 2016 PIDS manual adopts this document as the design standards for all public improvements (By Administrative Order of the City Engineer 15-16-01). Please note that EC 9 dos not governs existing public street but rather governs "development as defined therein. Capital Hill PUD's proposed and abutting street are designed consistent with the standards in Exhibit A referenced above. EC 6505(3) requires improvements to proposed and abutting streets is also refers to EC 9.6870 and ExhibitA for consistency. EC 9.6870 requires street width, ROW and Paving width. EC 9.6870 refers to Exhibit A for consistency with those standards. Table 9.6870 is consistent with the tables for local, collector and arterial streets as adopted in Exhibit A. The City of Eugene has been using a queuing street standard for design since 1999. That was ahead of its time for Oregon and more City's are adopting this practice as they grow and desire to meet multi -modal/safety expectations. Queuing streets are the state of practice for transportation planning on local streets. We are 1 currently updating our street standards and have received praise from consultants regarding the City's vision to adopt this in 1999. 1 would encourage Brent and Paul to research queuing and multi-modal street design practice. PHWA, NCHRP, FACTO, AASHTO, iTE, DOT's, Planning associations, Bike/ped groups, etc all have publication that discuss an tout the benefits of queuing street from built in traffic calming and accommodating multimodal & vision 0 goals. 1 B. I am uncertain about what access street they are talking about? Many streets of various character access the Capital drive area. I would encourage Brent and Paul to research queuing streets and other design concepts for traffic calming and multi modal street design. Generally speaking, introducing more conflict into a low speed and low volume environment has a positive effect on traffic calming, safety, livability and reducing fatality injuries. The ideal scenario is a low speed environment where all users acknowledge each other's place on the roadway and coexist safely. Wider streets (or channelization of lanes) and removing bike/peds creates an environment that facilitates higher speeds and prioritized vehicular based mobility. The City adopted plans and polices to counter to that. The queuing street accomplishes this without regulation and enforcement. It meets the communities goals/standards except the desire for some motorists to drive faster. Thanks, Scott Gillespie, PE Public Works Engineering 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 541-682-2706 From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 10:02 AM To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scott.N.Gillespie@ci.eugene.or.us>; FAVREAU EricJ <Eric.J.Favreau(cDci.eugene,or.us> Subject: FW: follow up questions Scott, Brent Lorscheider has two follow up questions, see below. Thanks, N" q 03 Adm. An n i I n nick,r,gioello@ci.eugene.or.us -----Original Message----- From: Jan Wostmann [mailto:P] 2 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 9:23 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <dick.R.Gioe3iocci.euene,or.us> Cc: Susan Hoffman <short,-amesueC?yahoo,co> Subject: Hi Nick, I'm temporarily filling in for Susan Hoffman as conduit for questions from the Capital Hill PUD Response Committee to City staff. The following questions are from Brent Lorscheider. They are clarifying questions for Public Works staff regarding a previous question, quoted here below: 1. Since they share the same travel lane, will the increase in vehicle, pedestrian and other non-motorized users, generated from the PUD, present more conflict and risk on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, versus scenarios where pedestrians and others are separated, e..g., by having a sidewalk to use? (Paul asked this question) Yes. This applies to all local streets in the City with and without sidewalks. An increase in vehicles inherently creates more opportunity for conflict with all users. Purposefully, that is the intent and purpose of the queuing street standard. The increased points of conflicts requires motorized users to slow down and acknowledge other users with increased frequency. Queuing streets work better with an increase in traffic.&#8203; Brent's followup questions are: 1A. Which part of the Eugene Code speaks to the "the queuing street standard", and is there evidence that creating more conflict between pedestrians, cyclist, and motorist on a subject street is "better" meaning, presumably, safer? 1B. What about sections of the access street where queuing is not typically encountered, how does creating more conflict in those sections, between pedestrians, cyclist, and motorist, make the street "better" ? Would you kindly forward these to whomever in Public Work is working in this PUD evaluation? Thanks, Jan Wostmann Laurel Hill Valley Citizens 3 C! Nick R 1 From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:05 AM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Subject: RE: CHPUD "On the Record" Correspondence Sent to City Susan, I'll try to do that this week. Keep in mind that there is no requirement by City code or State statute that requires the City to post anything online. It's done as a courtesy service. All materials are available for review here at the City upon request, which is a requirement. We really try to get everything posted online to make it easy for everyone to review, but with the sheer volume of emails (both incoming and our responses) and letters sent in, it is possible that something does not get posted online. If you think anything else is missing, please let me know and I'll try to get on our website. Thanks, Mann From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 5:59 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbe11.net>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkelI@comcast.net>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Faris Cassell <fcasselI@comcast. net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; John Curtis <jc65lotus@gmail.com>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu>; Charlie Ogle <pud@charlieogle.com>; Dick Ragatz <richard.ragatz@ragatzassociates.com>; Kelley Blewster <kellsand@earthlink.net>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subject: CHPUD "On the Record" Correspondence Sent to City Hi Nick. Got lots to do tomorrow so want to get this off to you while I have a chance. The CHPUD Response Committee is wondering when the December resolutions from the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens and the Fairmount Neighbors Association recommending denial of the Capital Hill PUD will be posted on the City Planning's website page for the project?? Also Cathy and I know personally of several well-written "opposition" letters that were sent to you "for the record" which have never found their way to the Public Comments section for CHPUD. Can you give us a time frame for 1 City Planning having these items posted so that they are available to the public?? We would like to get some communication out to our supporters soon and want them to be able to access these docs. Thanks as always for your help. 2 ( 9 iZLLI m6. a 0 Sc.-:e an ~ )edded b6lowv. Red foir t 11 Thanks, rt D k// s i o ii q :V 'T P 5 s E k C my response, From: GILLESPIE Scott N Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 8:37 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>; FAVREAU Eric J <Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: RE: CHPUD Questions from a Response Committee Member & Referral Comments Status Hi Nick, Please see responses below. I have accounted for the revisions you sent over. Thanks, From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 8:08 AM To: GILLESPIE Scott N <Scotti N FAVREAU EricJ < rk Mai _ ,)r,ui > Subject: FW: CHPUD Questions from a Response Committee Member & Referral Comments Status More a regarding Capital Hffl PUD. 1 u From: Susan Hoffman I,. Sent: Saturday, January 20,r,wl Hope this is not a repeat from yesterday AM. (Sorry Nick - I know it's Saturday.) I sent this email out but a couple of people have not received, so am re-sending now. If you received this yesterday Friday Jan. 19th around 9:25 please toss this one. I haven't changed anything, a just re-sending. Thanks. Forwarded Message 1. Since they share the same travel lane, will the increase in vehicle, pedestrian and other non- motorized users, generated from the PUD, present more conflict and risk on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, versus scenarios where pedestrians and others are separated, e..g., by having a sidewalk to use? (Paul asked this question) III II v Nick indicated he would explore, as possible condition of any possible approval, requiring the developer to perform and record a road condition assessment survey before construction begins, in the interest of holding the developer responsible for restoring the roads to pre-construction conditions. 2 ~t . is the current roadway designed and constructed for 30,000 vehicles per the Eugene Fire Code? (Paul) Also, as you know, we are awaiting the referral comments from Public Work and the Fire Dept. Do you have any idea when we might be receiving them and any other referral comments that may still be outstanding?? Thanks as always for your assistance. 3 GIOELLO Nick From: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 4:51 PM To: Susan Hoffman; GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; Jason Brown; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Paul Conte; Nathaniel Teich; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Sheryl Kelly; Cathy Johnson Subject: Re: CHPUD Questions from a Response Committee Member & Referral Comments Status Nick, Allow me to correct two typos on questions 3 and 5 (see below), which I missed when I submitted the questions to Susan. My apologies. Brent 3. Is the current roadway designed and constructed for 80,000 is vehicles per the Eugene Fire Code? (Paul) 5. What is the assumed distance used to define and study "offsite`° (not "adjacent and nearby") as referenced in Criteria 11 ? ( not 5(b) ) What is the assumed distance used to define and study "offsite" as referenced in Criteria 11 ? From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> To: GIOELLO Nick R. <nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownjl 1 @uoregon.edu>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail. com>; Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 3:40 PM Subject: Fw: CHPUD Questions from a Response Committee Member & Referral Comments Status Hope this is not a repeat from yesterday AM. (Sorry Nick - I know it's Saturday.) I sent this email out but a couple of people have not received, so am re-sending now. If you received this yesterday Friday Jan. 19th around 9:25 AM please toss this one. I haven't changed anything, am just re-sending. Thanks. Forwarded Message From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> To: GIOELLO Nick R. <nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownj1l@uoregon.edu>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Paul Conte <pau1.t.conte@gmail. com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail. com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018, 9:26:32 AM PST Subject: CHPUD Questions from a Response Committee Member & Referral Comments Status Hi Nick. Below are 5 questions that one of our Response Committee members has for you. Some of them emanate from the 9/1/17 meeting in your office with you, Eric from Public Works, Nate, Faris, CW, Cathy, Paul Conte, our traffic engineer Massoud (on the phone) and me. 1. Since they share the same travel lane, will the increase in vehicle, pedestrian and other non- motorized users, generated from the PUD, present more conflict and risk on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, versus scenarios where pedestrians and others are separated, e..g., by having a sidewalk to use? (Paul asked this question) 2. Nick indicated he would explore, as possible condition of any possible approval, requiring the developer to perform and record a road condition assessment survey before construction begins, in the interest of holding the developer responsible for restoring the roads to pre-construction conditions. 3. Is the current roadway designed and constructed for 80,000 vehicles per the Eugene Fire Code? (Paul) 4. Will the City include, as a condition of any possible approval, that Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, need to be kept open to traffic at all times during construction of the PUD? (Massoud) 5. What is the assumed distance used to define and study "adjacent and nearby" as referenced in Cirteria 5, (b). ? I believe that Faris & CW were going to send to you "for the record" an audio copy of our 9/1/17 meeting minutes plus a hard copy with various questions highlighted in blue ink. If you still need these copies please let me know and Cathy Johnson or i will see that you get them ASAP. Also, as you know, we are awaiting the referral comments from Public Works and the Fire Dept. Do you have any idea when we might be receiving them and any other referral comments that may still be outstanding?? Thanks as always for your assistance. 2 ELL Nick From: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 4:11 PM To: Cathy Johnson; shortgamesue@yahoo.com; lorsch2728@pacbell.net Cc: Susan Hoffman; GIOELLO Nick R; Brent Lorscheider; Jason Brown; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Nathaniel Teich; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Sheryl Kelly; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) Subject: Re: CHPUD Questions from a Response Committee Member & Referral Comments Status Recommend we not put Paul Conte on emails going to city. Paul has issues with city over a number of years. Jan has warned us more than once to let Paul be is own identity and not affiliated with response committee. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 21, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com> wrote: Excellent, Susan - thank you ! Sent from my iPhone On Jan 20, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue(-&,yahoo.com> wrote: Hope this is not a repeat from yesterday AM. (Sorry Nick - I know it's Saturday.) I sent this email out but a couple of people have not received, so am re- sending now. If you received this yesterday Friday Jan. 19th around 9:25 AM please toss this one. I haven't changed anything, am just re- sending. Thanks. Forwarded Message From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue(cr_yahoo.com> To: GIOELLO Nick R. <nick. r.gioello(c)ci.eugene. or.us> Cc: Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728(c)pacbell.net>; Tom Bruno <brunoassoc(d)aol.com>; Jason Brown <brownil 1 Cc)uoregon.edu>; Faris Cassell <fcasseII cc comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison(a)gmail.com>; Paul Conte <paul.t.conte(c~gmail. com>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2 @yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson(@gmail. com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell((Dcomcast.net>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617Qmsn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018, 9:26:32 AM PST Subject: CHPUD Questions from a Response Committee Member & Referral Comments Status Hi Nick. Below are 5 questions that one of our Response Committee members has for you. Some of them emanate from.the 9!1117 meeting in 1 your office with you, Eric from Public Works, Nate, Faris, CW, Cathy, Paul Conte, our traffic engineer Massoud (on the phone) and me. 1. Since they share the same travel lane, will the increase in vehicle, pedestrian and other non-motorized users, generated from the PUD, present more conflict and risk on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, versus scenarios where pedestrians and others are separated, e..g., by having a sidewalk to use? (Paul asked this question) 2. Nick indicated he would explore, as possible condition of any possible approval, requiring the developer to perform and record a road condition assessment survey before construction begins, in the interest of holding the developer responsible for restoring the roads to pre-construction conditions. 3. Is the current roadway designed and constructed for 80,000 vehicles per the Eugene Fire Code? (Paul) 4. Will the City include, as a condition of any possible approval, that Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, need to be kept open to traffic at all times during construction of the PUD? (Massoud) 5. What is the assumed distance used to define and study "adjacent and nearby" as referenced in Cirteria 5, (b). ? I believe that Faris & CW were going to send to you "for the record" an audio copy of our 9/1/17 meeting minutes plus a hard copy with various questions highlighted in blue ink. If you still need these copies please let me know and Cathy Johnson or 1 will see that you get them ASAP. Also, as you know, we are awaiting the referral comments from Public Works and the Fire Dept. Do you have any idea when we might be receiving them and any other referral comments that may still be outstanding?? Thanks as always for your assistance. 2 GICELLO Nick 7~ 1 ® OEM= I Fri : GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:36 PM To: 'Susan Hoffman' Cc: Tom Bruno; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Cathy Johnson; Brent Lorscheider Subject: RE: Capital Hill PUD -A Couple of Questions about Easements Susan, I asked the applicant's agent to review your questions and received the following: It is private stormwater so therefore not a Public Utility Easement. It will be maintained by the HOA. Buildings and other structures cannot be built on top of the utility easement. The slope easement is created only where the public road grades go across the property/right of way line. This allows a public road to disturb the grades of a private property in order to be installed. It does not prevent the private land owner from doing anything in that area. It is so the public road grading can wander outside the right of way without creating a legal issue. I will add that at the time of building permits for individual home sites, the City reviews the approved plan set to ensure (among a number of things) that proposed buildings and structures are not located within these private easements and setbacks are observed. Also, the slope easements become necessary because of the grade changes and allows for things like cut and fill or retaining walls beyond the right-of-way. That is not to say any or all of these will have to happen but if they are needed (which gets figured out sometimes in the field during road construction) the easement is in place to allow it. Hope that answers your questions, Nq.~. G i _ , Div ion From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:38 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmaii.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>; Brent Lorscheider 1 <Iorsch2728@pacbel1.net> Subject: Capital Hill PUD -A Couple of Questions about Easements Hi Nick. Thanks for the answer this AM from an earlier email from our group. I had these two questions drafted earlier today but just got back to finishing them up. Know it is past 5 but thought I'd send them anyway so you'll have them in the AM. I have the following two questions about easements- A portion of Tract A of the Common Preservation Area lies between Lots 13 & 14. It has a storm water runoff drainage pipe through its entire length from Cupola Drive to the east to a point where Tract A abuts the city owned forested area paralleling the Ribbon Trail. The Application indicates on page 56 of 67 that "all stormwater management measures on the development site are private improvements." I guess that means that this strip of land is NOT a public utility easement?? Please confirm. If this strip of land is not a public utility easement, will the Applicant be required to follow similar measures as the city regarding accessibility to the stormwater drainage equipment for repairs and maintenance? Will the entire 40 foot width of this piece of land be a complete "set aside" for access to the under ground utility?? I believe that EC 9.6500 requires that "no building, structure or tree be placed or located on or in a public utility easement." Will the Applicant be held to the same standard and where would I find that in writing?? Additionally, I cannot find anywhere in EC Section 9.0500 Definitions a definition for slope easement. I know there are a few areas on the 11/27/17 site plan that are notated "slope easement." What are the City's guidelines/limitations for the handling of a slope easement within a development? Or does this issue also fall into a "private improvement" category which would put it out of the purview of city regs?? If slope easements are out of the city regs world, what is the typical handling of this type of easement?? Will homeowners and/or the HOA be prevented from generally accessing this land?? Where would I find that in writing? Thanks as always for your help. Will send along another question in the AM. ELL Nick I: S A From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Seat: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:38 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman; Brent Lorscheider Subject: Capital Hill PUD -A Couple of Questions about Easements Hi Nick. Thanks for the answer this AM from an earlier email from our group. I had these two questions drafted earlier today but just got back to finishing them up. Know it is past 5 but thought I'd send them anyway so you'll have them in the AM. I have the following two questions about easements: A portion of Tract A of the Common Preservation Area lies between Lots 13 & 14. It has a storm water runoff drainage pipe through its entire length from Cupola Drive to the east to a point where Tract A abuts the city owned forested area paralleling the Ribbon Trail. The Application indicates on page 56 of 67 that "all stormwater management measures on the development site are private improvements." I guess that means that this strip of land is NOT a public utility easement?? Please confirm. If this strip of land is not a public utility easement, will the Applicant be required to follow similar measures as the city regarding accessibility to the stormwater drainage equipment for repairs and maintenance? Will the entire 40 foot width of this piece of land be a complete "set aside" for access to the under ground utility?? I believe that EC 9.6500 requires that "no building, structure or tree be placed or located on or in a public utility easement." Will the Applicant be held to the same standard and where would I find that in writing?? Additionally, I cannot find anywhere in EC Section 9.0500 Definitions a definition for slope easement. I know there are a few areas on the 11/27/17 site plan that are notated "slope easement." What are the City's guidelines/limitations for the handling of a slope easement within a development? Or does this issue also fall into a "private improvement" category which would put it out of the purview of city regs?? If slope easements are out of the city regs world, what is the typical handling of this type of easement?? Will homeowners and/or the HOA be prevented from generally accessing this land?? Where would I find that in writing? Thanks as always for your help. Will send along another question in the AM. GIOELLO Nick Fro Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good afternoon, Nick. Eugene Internet PWE Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:02 PM GIOELLO Nick R FW: Hazardous Conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd Petition Capital and Spring Hazards.pdf; Airbnbrental Accident.pdf; Truck accidnt.png; bentley accident.pdf I am forwarding this message for your review/response. Thank you, Dee Kramer Administrative Specialist Public Works, Engineering 541-682-5291 From: Brent Lorscheider [mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:30 PM To: Eugene Internet PWE <PWEngineering@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Gyl Elliott <gyllie96@yahoo.com> Subject: Hazardous Conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd Attention: PW Engineering - Safe Street Design I would like to following up and document concerns over hazardous roads conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, and over hazardous street parking in the 2600 block of Capital Drive. Enclosed are two petitions of concern, from neighbors that regularly use this street and sidewalk, asking the City to investigate and address the hazardous conditions and incidents that have occurred. The first petition is from July 2017 and the second petition is from Dec 2017. In between those times the following first two accidents occurred: Aug 28, 2017: Airbnb guests and/or renters were involved with a collision at 2635 Capital Drive. Enclosed is a picture. Sept 29, 2017: Hit & Run accident occurred between Red Truck and Bentley at CAPITAL DR & SPRING BLVD. The was reported to, and responded by, Eugene Police Department (Event number: 17240266) ID: 17240266 with a Priority 3. Later, the Bentley was deemed a total loss. Sept 22, 2016: (Approximately) A van belonging to Brent Lorscheider at 2625 Capital Drive was hit by a truck traveling south on Capital. Erik Stolle, a Project Manager for Ordell Construction, and myself, each reported the incident to PWinerinC3 zci.euene.or.~s. Sincerely, Brent Lorscheider 2625 Capital Drive, Eugene OR Ph: 626 6275049 Encl: Two petitions Pic of Airbnb/Rental Accident Pic of Truck accident Pic of Bentley (truck accident) I Nick From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:43 AM To: 'Susan Hoffman` Subject: RE: Capital Hill PUD Hearing Date Timing Hello Susan, This is in response to an older question I've not answered. I'm not sure I can provide an adequate response to the questions below. What I can say is the applicant provided a revised plan showing the additional lot in response to the City's inquiry into the existing triplex. I think this was an attempt to limit the eviction of all the tenants in the structure, which as you know was started by your group's request to look into the issue with how this building was allowed to be used in the way it has been over the past few years. Planning sees the addition of one lot and the option of another lot having up to three units as a minor change in the plans since it does not trigger, for example a traffic impact analysis nor did it propose a new building site in an area previously shown as a conservation area. Also, the revised plan was submitted before the 30 day notice, so there was ample time for all to see the change and provide comment on it. I also believe there will be no additional changes to this plan, so with the hearing delay, there should be ample time for all to review this change. I do not understand the question about how does forced completion protect the citizens against the applicant's PUD? I do think it is not unusual for minor plan changes to occur on other projects I have worked on. Also, staff will suggest conditions of approval and the Hearings Official's decision can impose their own conditions of approval, which can cause minor changes in a site plan. Things like additional landscaping, preservation of additional trees, a different storm drainage facility, changes to driveway locations, etc. are just some of the things that can change in this process. I do not think the request by the applicant to deem a project complete means there are no changes whatsoever to a plan set after that. Yes, It is correct there are 75 additional days remaining for a possible extension. I have no idea if those days will be used by the applicant. If used, they would start after the last extension request expires which is March 1, 2018. At that point the 120 day clock starts again, which is currently at 15 days. Between March 1 and the hearing date the applicant could choose to request another time extension and we would count it from that date forward. Assuming they do not ask for another extension, on the hearing date of March 7 there will be 22 days used of the 120 day clock (the total days used since being deemed complete and no time extension invoked). I believe at this point that the applicant does intend to keep the new hearing date, with no additional time extensions, but of course I cannot guarantee that. Thanks, Nick From: Susan Hoffman [maiito:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 10:45 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Sheryl Kelly<sherylkell@comcast.net>; Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; 1 Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmaii.com>; Kelley Slewster <kellsand@earthlink.net>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; John Curtis <jc65lotus @gmail.com>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; Dick Ragatz <richard.ragatz@ragatzassociates.com>; Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>; petercraycroft@me.com; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Subjects Capital Hill PUD Hearing Date Timing Hi Nick. Your Jan 2nd response to my question about the language in Carol Schirmer's 12/21/17 email to you plus a timeout from the 120 day clock with a 70 day time out") was very helpful. Thanks! Your response prompted the following questions from one of the Response Committee members On 8/29/17, the application was "forced complete" by the applicant. On 8//29/17 (at the time of this "forced completion"), the application indicated "x" number of lots and "y" number of units, including a specific number of "attached" unit possibilities. (These numbers had been changed from those contained in the original 3/3/17 application.) In November 2017, the applicant again changed this basic project data contained in the 8/29/17 "forced complete" application to "x + 1" and "y + 2." On March 7, 2018 (what we are assuming is the now revised hearing date), can the applicant again change this data from a "forced complete" application to revise the number of lots (x) and the number of units (y) and, potentially, the number of "attached" unit possibilities? What is the purpose of and how does a "forced completion" protect the citizens against the applicant's PUD? It appears that the "forced completion" is meaningless. It is very difficult for citizens to prepare an appropriate response to these continuous major changes after a "forced completion" of an application. It appears that the city needs a base time line in order to do a complete and thorough application review to ensure that the applicant "conforms" to the engineering, geotechnical, hydrology, safety, traffic, tree preservation and other PUD "requirements" of various and numerous city codes; county codes; state laws and federal laws. How can / does the city attend a hearing (as I understand it, the same as a court of law) if changes are made by the applicant (after a "forced competition" by the applicant) the same day of the hearing; a week before the hearing; or even 30 days before the hearing? Bottom line as I read Nick's email (Nick ...i.e., your 112/18 email), based upon applicant's already requested 170 extension days, if the applicant requests more than 75 additional extension days (i.e., more than 245 total days of requested extensions), the applicant has to resubmit his application and pay a new filing fee. Does the possible 75 additional extension days available start from the now revised 3/7/18 hearing date or some other date? Please 1) confirm that the applicant may request 75 additional extension days and what date would mark the end of the 245 day maximum extension period; and, 2) please expand upon the parameters and limitations of this process. Thanks as usual for your assistance. I ELL Nick Thanks Nick. Your follow-up clears things up. Staff might want to create a simple form that uses the ORS and EC language to be filled in, signed and submitted by an applicant. This would ensure clarity and conformance. Regards, Paul On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:48 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioellonci.eugene.onus> wrote: Paul, See the attached email exchange with the applicant's agent. I think it clarifies what you brought up. I do believe what I previously wrote which you quoted below is still accurate and I think you are correct that the deadline for a final decision (including appeal) is June 15, 2018. We should have a public notice in the mail no later than February 5, 2018. A staff report should be published no later than February 28, 2018. Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for March 7, 2018. Assuming the record will be left open as typically follows: 7 days Open Record (March 14) 1 0 7 days Response (March 21) 7 days Final Rebuttal - (optional)(March 28) 15 days for Hearings Official decision (April 12) Hope that answers your questions, Thank, Nick 541 .682.5453 541 .682.5572 nick.r.aioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Paul Conte [mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 7:47 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.euRene.or.us> Subject: Re: Please document revised timeline for PDT 17-1 (Capital Hill) ~~ic , Could you please provide me the information requested in my previous e-mail. 2 I received a copy of your e-mail with the following statements: Therefore, a total of 1 days against the 120-day clock has been used, and the total of requested days of extension is now 170 days." I think this doesn't correctly reflect local code and ORS. According to ORS, all that has changed is that the deadline for a decision is now 8/29/17 + 120 + 170 or June 15, 2018. The applicant does not appear to have requested, per Eugene code, in writing a specific "longer period" after the application was deemed complete until the public hearing. As it stands, the deadline for the public hearing (and notices) remains ambiguous. Could you please clarify, as requested. Thank you, Paul IHI On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.contenu,gmail.com> wrote: Nick, 3 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. 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 4 Forwarded message From: "SCHIRMER Carol (SMTP)" <Carol(i schi -mersatre.com> To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioelloaci.eu6ene.or.us> Cc: Bcc: Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 21:24:53 +0000 Subject: RE: Capital Hill Understood. Thanks Nick Thanks carol Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists 375 'R'est 4th Suite 201 Eugene; OR 97401 www.schirmersatre.com PH: (541) 686-4540 x1 Fax: (541) 686-4577 From: GIOELLO Nick R [mailto:Nick. R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 11:16 AM To: Carol Schirmer<carol@schirmersatre.com> Subject: RE: Capital Hill Thanks Carol, 5 I need to clarify in my 1-2-18 email I incorrectly cited ORS 227.175(5), instead that citation should be 227,178(5). For the record, please confirm knack your acceptance of this correction. Thank you, Nick ie...~, r r;. 541 .682.5453 541.682.5572 nick. r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Carol Schirmer [mailto:carol@schirmersatre_com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 9:00 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: RE: Capital Hill Nick: So sorry to hear you had the flu! I hope you managed to have some holiday days where you weren't sick. Thank you for this email. Yes. You understood my email correctly and thank you for taking care of this. 6 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) 686-4540 x1 Fax: (541) 686-4577 From: GIOELLO Nick R [mailto:Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:23 AM To: Carol Schirmer <carol@schirmersatre.com> Subject: RE: Capital Hill Hello Carol, Sorry to take so long to respond, I came back from vacation with the flu and was only in the office on Friday for a couple of hours. I received your email dated December 21, 2017, requesting a 70 day time extension and a new hearing date for the Capital Hill PUD application. I want to confirm that the applicant has requested a 70 day extension of the 120 day final decision deadline pursuant to ORS 227.175(5), and consequently, the applicant also agrees to extend the hearing deadline in EC 9.7310 until March 7, 2018. Please email me back to confirm that my understanding is accurate or to let me know if I misunderstood your December 21st email. .Thanks, Nick Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. A sL Dcia`e finer I Planning Division 7 541.682.5453 541.682.5572 nick. r.gioeIIo@ci.eugene.or.us From: Carol Schirmer [mailto:carol@schirmersatre.comj Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:57 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us>; JANISCH Amy C <Amy.CJanisch@ci.eugene.or.us>; DRAGOVICH Jenessa L<Jenessa.L.Dragovich@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: RE: Capital Hill Hi Nick: Please postpone the scheduled January 101h hearing plus a time out from the 120 day clock with a 70 day time out. We anticipate the next hearing date would be March 7,,'; 2018. h carol Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group Planner, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists 375 blest 4th Suite 201 Eugene; OR 97401 - www.schirmersatre.com _PH: (541)686-4540x1 Fax: (541) 686-4577 8 From: GIOELLO Nick R [mailto:Nick. R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:10 PM To: Carol Schirmer<carol@schirmersatre.com> Subject: Capital Hill Hi Carol, If you decide to request a time extension, please send the email request to me and the following: FLOCK Gabriel Gabriel. Flock@ci.eugene.or.us JANISCH Amy C Amy.C.Janisch@d.eugene.or.us DRAGOVICH Jenessa L Jenessa.L.Dra2ovich@ci.eugene.or.us As I said previously, I'm out starting tomorrow the 22nd and back in the office the 271h. Gabe is out and not back until the 26th. Amy and Jenessa are both here, during this time and that way someone can go out and pull the signs and send out a courtesy notice, if you do decide to postpone. Thanks, Nick Nicholas R. f ell , M. Adm. Associate Planner ( Planning Division :-v, o f uge ` } L~ 7 A _ -011 p 541.682.5453 9 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us I ELL Nick Susan, please thank Nick for the insightful information. I would like you to ask the following questions. The application was a'"forced" completion by the applicant. When application was forced by applicant the applicant had x number of lots and y number of dwellings. In November, the applicant changed a "force completion" to x + 1 and y + 2. On seven March can the applicant change a "forced" application to change the number of lots (x) and dwellings (Y) ? What is the purpose and how does a "forced completion" protect the citizens against the applicant's PUD. It appears the "forced completion is meaningless. It is very difficult for citizen's to write a response and prepare an appropriate response to continuous major changes to a "forced completion." It appears to me, the city needs a base line (time) in order to do a complete and thorough review to ensure the applicant "conforms" to the engineering, Geotechnical, hydrology, safety, traffic, Tree and other PUD "requirements" to city codes; county codes; state laws and federal laws. How can / does the city attend a hearing (as I understand same as a court of law) if changes are made by applicant with a "forced competition" by the applicant the same day of the hearing; week before hearing; or even 30 days before a hearing? Bottom line as I read Nick's email, if applicant extends more than 70 days past 7 March 2018, the applicant has to resubmit his application and pay a new filing fee. Tom Bruno Co-chair LHVC Response Committee Sent from my iPhone On Jan 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello'&,ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Susan, So sorry to take so long to respond, came back from my holiday vacation sick with the flu, I was only in the office on Friday the 29th for several hours. I confirmed today that the postponement was to request a 70 day time postponement and to set a new hearing date. What is being referred to by the "120 clock" is regarding ORS 227.178 (Oregon Revised Statues), there is a requirement that the City shall take final action including all appeals within 120 days of being deemed complete (I refer to this as the 120-day clock). This part of the ORS also provides for written extension of the 120-day period by the applicant. The total of all extensions shall not exceed 245 days. As it stands, the application was deemed complete on 8-29-17. First extension was made for 30 days on 9-8-17, with 10 days on the 120 clock. A second extension was requested before the 30 days was up, to add 70 more days of extension on 9- 28-17. These two extension ran out on 12-17-17. A third extension was requested on 12-21-17 for 70 additional days of extension, a new hearing date of March 7, 2018 with 5 more days added to the 120 clock. Therefore, a total of 15 days against the 120-day clock has been used, and the total of requested days of extension is now 170 days. I hope that makes it clear, Nick Nice nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@yahoo.comJ Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 11:05 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.egg,ene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkellpcomcast.net>; Jason Brown <brownill@uore og n edu>; Brent Lorscheider <Iorsch2728(Tpacbell net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorse uore on.edu>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson mail.com>; Kelley Blewster <kellsand@earthlink.net>; Faris Cassell <fcassell comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison mail.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617 msn.com>; John Curtis <ic65lotus@ mg ail.com>; Jamie Harper <harperi@uoregon.edu>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <iw r efn.org>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue ahoo.com>; Dick Ragatz <richard.ra atz ra atzassociates.corn> Subject: CHPUD Public Hearing Date - Language in Schirmer's 12/21/17 Email Hi Nick. Several of the members of our committee are wondering what exactly is meant by Schirmer's language in her 12/21/17 "postponement" email to you "plus a time out from the 120 day clock with a 70 day time out." Also wanted to point out to you that the Public Meeting Schedule on the Planning website still reads that the CHPUD is scheduled for the Jan 10, 2018 agenda. Hope you had a nice couple of days off. I am back from So Cal. Questions/answers to and from the Response Committee and your office should be coming through me from here on out. Thanks as always for your help. z I ELL Nick From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 6:20 PM To: Tom Bruno Cc: Susan Hoffman; Sheryl Kelly; Jason Brown; Brent Lorscheider; Becky Dorsey; Nathaniel Teich; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Kelley Blewster; Faris Cassell; CW Murchison; Cathy Johnson; John Curtis; Jamie Harper; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Dick Ragatz; petercraycroft@me.com; GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Re: CHPUD Public Hearing Date - Language in Schirmer's 12/21/17 Email Minor correction Should have said: "...or risk an appeal on the Hearings Official approving the revised application (not the "EK") Paul T On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.contemail.com> wrote: Friends, It may be informative to read what LUBA said in an appeal I brought successfully: "We generally agree with petitioner that the parties to a land use proceeding have the right to review and respond to any formal changes in the application that occurs during the proceedings below, including the opportunity to submit responsive testimony and, potentially, new evidence, regarding whether given the nature of the change the remaining elements of the application continue to comply with applicable approval criteria. If such a change in the application occurs late in the proceedings, the local government may be required to re-open the record to allow other parties a reasonable opportunity to submit responsive testimony and evidence. See Baker v. City of Garibaldi, 49 Or LUBA 437, 446 (2005) (where the applicant submits a revised planned unit development plan the day before the appeal hearing, the city is obligated to allow the parties an opportunity to review and respond to the revision). Failure to provide such an opportunity can be procedural error and a basis for remand, if the petitioner demonstrates that the procedural error prejudiced his substantial rights. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). "We understand respondents to argue that petitioner had an adequate 1 opportunity to respond to the changed application during the seven-day open record period for all parties to provide argument, and in fact did so in a May 7, 2012 letter to the city. Respondents are - correct that petitioner submitted argument that addresses the change in the application. Record 100-102. As noted above, petitioner framed his response almost entirely as a request for the city to re-notice the decision and provide another hearing or evidentiary proceeding to allow petitioner to address the "new evidence." However, petitioner also argued in relevant part that the withdrawal of the request to vacate Willamette Alley might 1 conflict with bicycle and pedestrian use of the replacement pathway, because the northern portion of Willamette Alley, if unvacated, would remain open to vehicular traffic. Record 101. That is essentially the same argument petitioner presents on appeal. Continued vehicular use of Willamette Alley could conceivably conflict with the replacement pathway, and such conflicts could conceivably have bearing on the question of whether the vacation of West 12th Avenue, in isolation from the vacation of Willamette Alley, is in the public interest. Petitioner arguably had an adequate opportunity to present responsive argument during the second seven-day open record period, and exercised that opportunity. However, that even-day period was closed to new evidence, and the city rejected his request for the opportunity to present new evidence. It is not clear to us what kind of evidence responding to the withdrawal could be presented that would have a bearing on whether the vacation of West 12th Avenue is in the public interest, but we cannot say that no such evidence exists. We conclude that the city committed procedural error in accepting a revised application without providing a reasonable opportunity for parties to submit responsive evidence, and that petitioner has adequately demonstrated that the 24 city's procedural error prejudiced his substantial rights. The third assignment of error is sustained." The "net" on this is that an opponent must be provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to the application that is noticed and any changes that may occur afterward. So I would expect you might have a hard time arguing that your substantial rights were prejudiced if the application were changed prior to the hearing notice. However, I believe the City must serve a new notice after an application has been changed and that the hearing must be at least 30 days after the notice. The notice should indicate that the application has been modified. I would suggest you press Nick to observe this protocol or risk an appeal on the EPC approving the revised application without providing adequate notice that provided a reasonable opportunity for parties to submit evidence that responds to the modified application. Paul On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Tom Bruno <brunoassoegaol.com> wrote: Susan, please thank Nick for the insightful information. I would like you to ask the following questions. The application was a "forced" completion by the applicant. When application was forced by applicant the applicant had x number of lots and y number of dwellings. In November, the applicant changed a "force completion" to x + 1 and y + 2. On seven March can the applicant change a "forced application to change the number of lots (x) and dwellings (y) What is the purpose and how does a "forced completion" protect the citizens against the applicant's PUD. It appears the "forced completion is meaningless. It is very difficult for citizen's to write a response and prepare an appropriate response to continuous major changes to a "forced completion." It appears to me, the city needs a base line (time) in order to do a complete and thorough review to ensure the applicant "conforms" to the engineering, Geotechnical, hydrology, safety, traffic, Tree and other PUD "requirements" to city codes; county codes; state laws and federal laws. How can / does the city attend a hearing (as I understand same as a court of law) if changes are made by applicant with a "forced competition" by the applicant the same day of the hearing; week before hearing; or even 30 days before a hearing? Bottom line as I read Nick's email, if applicant extends more than 70 days past 7 March 2018, the applicant has to resubmit his application and pay a new filing fee. Tom Bruno Co-chair LHVC Response Committee Sent from my iPhone On Jan 2 2018, at 4:22 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello~,ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Susan, So sorry to take so long to respond, came back from my holiday vacation sick with the flu, I was only in the office on Friday the 29`h for several hours. I confirmed today that the postponement was to request a 70 day time postponement and to set a new hearing date. What is being referred to by the "120 clock" is regarding ORS 227.178 (Oregon Revised Statues), there is a requirement that the City shall take final action including all appeals within 120 days of being deemed complete (I refer to this as the 120-day clock). This part of the ORS also provides for written extension of the 120-day period by the applicant. The total of all extensions shall not exceed 245 days. As it stands, the application was deemed complete on 8-29-17. First extension was made for 30 days on 9-8-17, with 10 days on the 120 clock. A second extension was requested before the 30 days was up, to add 70 more days of extension on 9- 28-17. These two extension ran out on 12-17-7. A third extension was requested on 12-21-17 for 70 additional days of extension, a new hearing date of March 7, 2018 with 5 more days added to the 120 clock. 3 Therefore, a total of 15 days against the 120-day clock has been used, and the total of requested days of extension is now 170 days. I hope that makes it clear, Nick Nichola,s R. 99 West 10 541 .682.5453 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioeIIo@ci.eugene.or.us From: Susan Hoffman [mailto:shortgamesue@vahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 11:05 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Sheryl Kelly <sherylkell@comcast.net>; Jason Brown <brownjI1@uoregon.edu>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uore og n.edu>; Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>; Kelley Blewster <kellsand@earthlink. net>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Cathy Johnson <cdiohnson617@msn.com>; John Curtis <jc65lotus@gmail.com>; Jamie Harper <harperi@uoregon.edu>; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@vahoo.com>; Dick Ragatz <richard.ragatz@ragatzassociates.com> Subject: CHPUD Public Hearing Date - Language in Schirmer's 12/21/17 Email Hi Nick. Several of the members of our committee are wondering what exactly is meant by Schirmer's language in her 12/21/17 "postponement" email to you "plus a time out from the 120 day clock with a 70 day time out." 4 Also wanted to point out to you that the Public Meeting Schedule on the Planning website still reads that the CHPUD is scheduled for the Jan 10, 2018 agenda. Hope you had a nice couple of days off. I am back from So Cal. Questions/answers to and from the Response Committee and your office should be coming through me from here on out. Thanks as always for your help.