HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments submitted prior to hearings official hearing
BROWN Daren M
From:John Toner <jjt@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:22 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Additional comment on the Capital Hill PUD
DearMrGioello,
PleaseincludethisstatementinthepublicrecordforthisPUD,andconfirmtomethatyou'vedoneso.
IhavedoneanestimateofthescaleoftheproposedCapitalHillPUD.
Asatheoreticalphysicist,I'mexperiencedatdoingsuchestimates.
Theproposalisfor35housesonthesite.Eachofthemwillalmostcertainlyhaveabasement(thiswillbeneededfor
stabilityonthissteephillsidesite,aswellasfortheusualpurposes).Let'sassumeeachbasementis1080sqft(probably
anunderestimate,giventhatthesewillbeluxuryhomes,andhencequitelarge),and9feetdeep(again,probablyan
underestimate,giventhatspacewillbeneededbetweentheceilingofthebasementandthefloorofthehouse
above,andthatmanyofthehouseswillbebuiltonlotsthatarenotlevel).Thismeansavolumeofrockatleast120sq
yardstimes3yards=360cubicyardshastoberemovedforEACHhouse.Thus,justtolaythefoundationsofthe
proposed35houseswillrequiretheremovalof35times360=12,600cubicyardsofrock.
Theaveragecommercialdumptruckcancarrybetween10and14cubicyardsofmaterial.Forthesakeofround
numbers,let'suse12.6cubicyardsperdumptruck(notethatthisisactuallyonthehighsideofthejustquotedrange,
sowe'reagainprobablyunderestimatingthetotalnumberoftruckloads).Thismeans1000(onethousand!)tripsdown
oursteep,winding,narrowroadsbyfullyloadeddumptrucks.Incidentally,onecubicyardofrockweighsbetweentwo
andfourtons,soeachofthosetruckwillbecarryingbetween25and50tonsofrock,inadditiontotheweightofthe
ruckitself.Furthermore,eachtruckhastoreturnforitsnextloadofrock.
Sowe'retalkingabout2000tripsbyheavytrucks,halfofthemfullyloadeddownhilltrips,ontheseroads,justtoremove
therockexcavatedformakingthefoundations.AddinthetripsUPtheroadtobringinconcreteandasphaltfor
basementsandfoundations,andbuildingmaterials,andonecanseethatwe'retalkingaboutoforderatleast
10,000tripsbytrucksjusttobuildthehouses.Therisktopublicsafetyjustfortravelersontheseroads(whicharefullof
blind
curves)isobvious.Factorinthevirtualinevitabilityofofoneofthosethousandsofdownhilltripsencounteringan
emergencyvehicletryingtocomeupthehill(andwehavedocumentationfromthefiredepartmentthatfiretruckscan
NOTpasslargevehiclesdescendingtheseroads),andthethreattosafetygoesupevenmore.
InadditiontotheotherveryvalidobjectionsraisedbytheCapitalhillPUDresponsecommittee,thescaleoftheproject
alonearguesagainstit:it'ssimplyimpractical,andverydangerous,tomountaconstructionprojectofthisscaleina
neighborhoodwhoseroadaccessissopoor.Ifthecityisseriousaboutpublicsafety,itwillrejectthisPUD.
sincerely,
JohnToner
JohnToner
FellowoftheAmericanPhysicalSociety
ProfessorofPhysics
UniversityofOregon
1
(foridentificationpurposesonly;theopinionsIexpresshereinarenotthoseoftheUniversityofOregon).
2
BROWN Daren M
From:HARDING Terri L
Sent:Friday, March 09, 2018 1:01 PM
To:HANSEN Alissa H; GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:FW: PUD
CƩƚƒʹRUIZJonR
{ĻƓƷʹFriday,March09,201812:48PM
ƚʹkingcraftek2@comcast.net
/ĭʹHOSTICKRobinA<Robin.A.Hostick@ci.eugene.or.us>
{ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹRE:PUD
Hi Eric,
Thank you for your email. I appreciated hearing about the history of the property, and I understand your
concerns. Although the hearing was earlier this week, the public record remains open. I’ve copied the Robin Hostick, the
City’s Planning Manager, to ensure that your comments are entered into the record. Please feel free to also connect with
him directly if you have further comments or questions.
Thanks,
Jon
CƩƚƒʹkingcraftek2@comcast.net\[mailto:kingcraftek2@comcast.net\]
{ĻƓƷʹWednesday,March07,201810:59AM
ƚʹRUIZJonR<Jon.R.Ruiz@ci.eugene.or.us>
{ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹPUD
Hi Jon,
I’m writing in regard to the proposed development of the Dreyer property. I can’t make the meeting
tonight.
I actually lived on that property for over 20 years in the carriage house adjacent to the “big pink
house” at the top of the hill on Capital Drive when it was owned by the former long-time owner
Charmian Byers-Jones. She bought the 1915 Spanish Mission Revival home (known as the pink
house) and 11 acres in the 1940’s and lived there for almost 70 years. Eventually, some ill health
caused her to move back East and sell the property. She absolutely loved that property. It was
covered w/ 300-400 year old oak trees, large doug fir trees and expansive rhododendron and
azalea beds. She even had a nursery up there for a while. She expressed to me many times that
she hoped it would never be developed, so I was surprised to see that the Dreyers planned to ruin it
with over 34 houses! Maybe she had a change of heart, but I can’t imagine her selling her beloved
property to someone who was going to carve it up. That doesn’t add up. She lived there for 7
decades and during the 20 years I lived there, every year many people would knock on the door
asking if the place was going to be for sale or it they could buy it outright. Of course it never
was. She had a box filled w/ the names of prospective buyers...from builders, developers, auto
dealers, architects, and many families. You have to wonder why she would sell to a neighbor
1
unless...perhaps they told her that they planned to keep it intact. I’m speculating of course because I
wasn’t privy to their negotiations.
About 2 months ago I walked by the property w/ a friend after touring around Hendricks Park and
ran into Mr. Dreyer. At that point in time, I did not know of his exact plans for the extensive
development though I had seen the many, many signs opposing the PUD all along Capital Drive,
Cresta de Ruta, Fairmount, etc...basically on all the streets down below. During our brief
conversation, I thought it odd when he casually mentioned that back when they bought it Charmian
did not even like him...but CBJ did like his wife so eventually they were able to purchase the property
from her.
When I read the article in the Weekly and read some of the things he said I was dismayed. I quote
or paraphrase: “looking to improve the neighborhood” “looking out for the best interests of the
city” “a big advocate of the urban growth boundary” “fear expanding the UGB will contribute to sprawl
along riparian areas and the rivers”...etc. Wow...he sounds like a real environmentalist who has only
the interests of others and the city in the forefront of his mind. Funny that the Dreyers have lived on
this quiet dead end street abutting the park for maybe 40 years and now he thinks that cutting all the
trees down and putting in 34 houses will improve the quality of life for the neighborhood. To go from
living on this quiet street to a situation where there will be heavy construction equipment and homes
being built for years to come will be quite a change for the neighborhood. Just the construction
noise from materials supply trucks and worker vehicle traffic related to that site will be incredibly
detrimental to the quality of life. First they cut the trees down, then they bring in the earth moving
machines and gravel trucks to create roads and lots, then more gravel trucks to prep for the
foundations, then the concrete trucks, then the lumber supply trucks, then the endless supply trucks
for insulation, drywall, roofing, painting, electrical, plumbing, landscaping, etc. Not to mention all the
workers, inspectors, prospective homeowners and their realtors, salesmen...the list goes on. An this
improves the neighborhood how? Those low estimate I’ve seen regarding the numbers of vehicle
trips up windy Fairmount Blvd, Spring Blvd, and Capital Drive are very low...they will be MUCH
HIGHER.
After reading that the Dreyers had illegally cut down the trees the lot across the street from the big
pink house to enhance his own view of downtown, paying only a paltry fine to breaking the law, it just
confirms the suspicions surrounding the earlier misleading information as to how many homes were
going to be built. His intent seems crystal clear. This was a grand plan all along, it is plain to see. It
is about padding the wallet while taking the most money out of a piece of property before leaving
it. Hard to imagine they are going to stay around and live with all that construction noise going on.
This is a truly beautiful place and I hope that you can see fit to preserve the integrity of this property,
as the long time owner would have wanted.
Thanks, Eric Kelly (Eugene)
2
BROWN Daren M
From:Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:34 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Cathy Johnson
Fwd: letter regarding CHPUD
Subject:
Attachments:Ragatz further comments on the PUD.pdf
Hi Nick,
Could you please enter these two letters from Dick Ragatz into the record if they are not already entered ?
Thank you,
Cathy
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Richard Ragatz <richard.ragatz@ragatzassociates.com>
Subject: letter regarding CHPUD
Date:
December 11, 2017 at 11:36:20 AM PST
To:
<nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
DearMr.Gioello,
ThepurposeofthisletteristostatemyoppositiontotheproposedCapitalHillPlannedUnit
Development.MywifeandIresideat2683CrestadeRuta,andhavedonesofor19years.
Weareextremelyconcernedaboutthenegativeimpactsthedevelopmentcouldhaveontheentire
surroundingneighborhood.Asyouarewellawarefromothers,theconcernscenteraroundvehicular
andpedestriansafetyduetothenarrow,windingroads,andnegativeimpactsontheviewshedand
trees,andbeinginanareaofpotentiallandslides.Itisdifficulttofindanypositiveimpactsfromthe
proposeddevelopmentexceptforpotentialprofitforthedeveloper.IagreethattheCityneedsmore
housing,butnotinthepricerangeoftheproposeddevelopment.Potentialprofitforoneindividual,is
faroutweighedbythemanynegativeconsequences.
IalsonotethattheapplicantwasrecentlyfoundinviolationofaCityordinancepreventingclearcutting,
andwasfinedover$4,000.TheclearcuttingwasonalotbetweenourresidenceandtheğƦƦƌźĭğƓƷƭ
residence,andwasdonesimplytoimprovehisviewshed.Suchactioncertainlydemonstrateshislackof
concernfortheneighborhood,theenvironmentandthepublicregulatorysystem.Itverymuchrouses
myfearofsimilaractionsinregardtothePUD,ifeverapproved.
Thankyouforthelisteningear.
Richard L. Ragatz, Ph.D.
1
Ragatz Associates / Ragatz Realty
541.686.9335
www.ragatzassociates.com
www.ragatzrealty.com
2
From:Richard Ragatz
richard.ragatz@ragatzassociates.com
Subject:
further comments on the PUD
Date:
April 14, 2017 at 10:34 AM
To:
David and Catherine Johnsoncdjohnson617@msn.com
Cc:
Becky Dorseyrdorsey@uoregon.edu
Richard L. Ragatz, Ph.D.
Ragatz Associates / Ragatz Realty
541.686.9335
www.ragatzassociates.com
www.ragatzrealty.com
BROWN Daren M
From:Roxi Thoren <rthoren@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:28 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Objection to Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17 Ï 01)
180307-CapitalPUD.pdf; Capital Hill.pdf
Attachments:
DearMr.Gioello,
AttachedpleasefindmyobjectiontotheCapitalHillPUD(PDT1701),aswellasadiagramshowingthedangerousconditions
forpedestriansandcyclistonthehill.
I ask that both the letter and map be entered into the record and that receipt be
confirmed.
I
will also attend the meeting this evening, and make these objections in person, time permitting.
Best,
-Roxi Thoren
wƚǣźŷƚƩĻƓUniversityofOregonCollegeofDesign
AssociateDeanforAcademicAffairs
Director,TheFullerCenterforProductiveLandscapes
AssociateProfessor,DepartmentsofArchitectureandLandscapeArchitecture
1
Date: 7 March 2018
To: Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
City of Eugene Planning and Development
th
99 West 10 Ave, Eugene, OR 97401
nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us.
From: Roxi Thoren
2984 Capital Dr., Eugene, OR 97403
Re: Objection to Capital Hill PUD
This letter is in regards to the Capital Hill PUD (PDT &+ ` %&!$ 8 EWO XLEX XLMW PIXXIV FI IRXIVIH MRXS XLI
record and that receipt be confirmed.
While I am writing as a private citizen, I feel it is useful to provide the context of my professional experience
and expertise. My opinions do not represent the views of the University of Oregon, but rather my views as a
private citizen with expertise in the area of land use. I am the Associate Dean of the University of Oregon
College of Design and an Associate Professor of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. I served as the
co-chair of the Glenwood Refinement Plan Citizen Advisory Commission, which oversaw the four-year
TYFPMG TVSGIWW SJ VI\[VMXMRK XLI 2MX\] SJ ?TVMRKJMIPHdW ^Sning code for the Glenwood district; and I served as a
witness in the State of Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals process following that rewriting. At the
university, I teach land analysis, site design, urban design, and resilient neighborhood design.
Graduates of our programs in planning and landscape architecture write land use policies and design
neighborhoods that are admired and replicated around the nation for their livability, environmental
resilience, and foresight. It pains me to review this Capital Hill PUD proposal and know that it was
designed by graduates of our landscape architecture program. If it were a student project, I would not pass
it. If I were being charitable, I would call it unimaginative and backward-looking. Since my remarks are part
SJ XLI TYFPMG VIGSVH" 8dPP GEPP MX \[LEX MX MW. YRIXLMGEP" YRWEJI" ERH RSRGSQTPMERX \[MXL IMXLIV XLI PIXXIV SV
intent of local and state land use laws, as well as rife with errors, obfuscations, and outright lies (for
instance, the assertion on page 38 that bXLI WMXI GSRXEMRW RS VMHKIPMRIW RSV MW MX \[MXLMR E ZMI\[ GSVVMHSV$c 8 EQ
EWLEQIH XLEX KVEHYEXIW SJ Q\] HITEVXQIRX GERdX MHentify a ridgeline when presented with one on a
topographic map, nor understand that a hill visible from almost the entirety of the city is within a view
corridor.) The neighborhood committee has documented the various technical issues I have with this plan,
although I will summarize some of them here. But I would like to comment here primarily on the ethical
issues.
Oregon Governor Tom McCall and other visionary citizens crafted SB10 and SB100 to protect our state
from exactly the sort of development we see proposed heVI" TEVX SJ :G2EPPdW YKP\] XVMYQZMVEXI SJ bWEKIFVYWL
subdivisions, coastal condomania, and the ravenous rampages of suburbME$c 0HZSGEXMRK JSV ?1&%%" :G2EPP
argued against the "shameless threat to our environment and to the \[LSPI UYEPMX\] SJ PMJIaYRJIXXIVIH
despoiling of the land" that this proposed development exemplifies: development that destroys our
common wealth, our environment, for individual profit. SB10 and SB100 exist because our legislators knew
that once developed, farms, beaches, forests and streams almost never return. Our beaches, our Willamette
Greenway, our compact cities are admired worldwide for their beauty, but also for what they represent: our
vision to use land use policy to protect environments that enrich all our communities, provide ecosystem
services to all, and create the quality of life that continues to draw people to Oregon, for tourism, for
business, for life. While not inventoried as such, the land in this proposal, adjacent to Hendricks Park,
GSRXVMFYXIW XS QER\] SJ <VIKSRdW TPERRMRK KSEPW. 6Sal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and
Natural Resources; Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disaster and Hazards; and Goal 8: Recreational Needs.
When we host the Olympic trials in Eugene, I see athletes and spectators from around the world running
through this hilltop. The high school track team and university teams run here year-round. Daily, I see
neighbors from around the city who come here to walk their dogs, jog with friends, walk with their families.
I see university students bring their parents here the show off the best of Eugene. From around town, we
can all see this neighborhood, the evergreen ridge line visually conneGXMRK 7IRHVMGOW =EVO XS ?TIRGIVdW
Butte, encircling the city. Imagine instead thirty-eight McMansions, half the trees cut down, a gash in the
ridge line. We would impoverish the city for all, like building a development on the beach. That is not the
intent of SB10 or SB100. And that \[EW RSX XLI GMX\]dW MRXIRX MR ^SRMRK this land PUD: planned unit
development.
There is no P or U in this proposal. It is simply D: the development of a banal subdivision, at odds with the
reason the city zoned this forest to allow creative, small footprint, clustered units, allowing maximum
property rights while minimizing the development impact on the city.
I object to the public taking this proposal presents, in direct opposition XS XLI GMX\]dW ?SYXL 7MPPW ?XYH\]$ @LI
city zoned this land PUD to protect the ridgeline and comply with the South Hills Study, which exists to
TVSXIGX bE YRMUYI ERH MVVITPEGIEFPI GSQQYRMX\] EWWIX$$$CXLat provides\] a strong visual boundary or edge for
XLI GMX\]$c @LI PERH \[I GSRWMHIV XSHE\] MW bQSWX ZMWMFP\] E TEVX SJ XLI IRXMVI GSQQYRMX\]c ERH bGSRXVMFYXICWD XS
4YKIRIdW IZIVKVIIR JSVIWX IHKI$c @LI ?SYXL 7MPPW ?XYHy requires that PUD proposals demonstrate that the
proposed development is consistent with the purposes of the Ridgeline Park section quoted above. The
does not comply
Capital Hill PUD subdivision proposal with that visionary policy.
There are a number of ways the proposal does not comply with the South Hills Study, including all the
VIUYMVIQIRXW XS GPYWXIV HIZIPSTQIRX SR EVIEW SJ bPS\[IWt elevations, least amount of vegetation, \[and\] least
EQSYRX SJ ZMWYEP MQTEGXc ERH TVIWIVZI EVIEW SJ bLMKLIr elevations, significant amounts of vegetation, \[and\]
WMKRMJMGERX ZMWYEP MQTEGX$c @LI TVSTSWIH HIZIPSTQIRX LEW not been reviewed by a geologist; is not clustered,
EW VIUYMVIH/ GERdX FI VIZMI\[ed in terms of scale, bulk, and height, since there are no proposed units; and
does not ensure maximum preservation of existing vegetation.
There are also many technical problems with the plan, which the neighborhood group has described well.
The most egregious are the lack of a legitimate tree protection plan, storm water management plan
(incredibly, the bulk of the stormwater will outflow onto Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail, and the
management plan does not account for most of the houses nor some of the roads), or geotechnical analysis
(the NRCS map clearly states that soil data may not be valid at the scale shown).
Finally, in addition to problems with the proposal itself, this is not a safe context for increased
development. Its charm is also its threat. Large trucks either cannot maneuver the winding roads, or can
only do so at low speeds. Fire safety regulations assume certain driving speeds that a fire truck cannot
sustain on this hill. Two houses have burned in the neighborhood in recent years, one gutted and one
GSQTPIXIP\] HIWXVS\]IH" FIGEYWI XVYGOW GSYPHRdX EVVMZI MR XMQI$
0RH 8 \[SYPH FI VIQMWW RSX XS QIRXMSR XLI IKVIKMSYW HERKIV XLMW WYFHMZMWMSR \[SYPH GVIEXI SR XLI GMX\]dW
substandard roads, and the liability the city will open itself to by approving this subdivision.
This neighborhood does not have networked streets; there are only two routes off the hill. The proposed
subdivision would impact traffic for the entire hill. The developer has not studied pedestrian or bike traffic,
of which there is a high volume. ThI GMX\]dW VSEHW EVI WYFWXERHEVH SR XLe hill. The narrow, twisting roads
have a number of hazards for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers, including some that may be addressable, and
others that are impossible to address due to the topography. These hazards include: inadequate sight
distance; undersized roads; inadequate shoulders and sidewalks; pavement edge drop-off; poles and other
objects next to the road; insufficient guardrails; inadequate lighting; insufficient warning signs; non-existent
or faded centerlines; trees and other vegetation reducing visibility; and potholes and uneven paving. The
most egregious problem is the inadequate sight distances; for much of the hill, stopping distances exceed
sight distances at typical speeds, meaning cars are physically unable to stop in time to avoid obstructions;
they swerve into the oncoming traffic lane. A road can only sustain two of three conditions: dangerous
roads, high pedestrian traffic, and high vehicular traffic. We already have two of these conditions on the
hill.
While it would be impractical, if not impossible, to bring the roads up to current standards due to the site
topography, it would be negligent to increase traffic volumes on these sub-standard roads. This is especially
true given their city-wide appeal for walking, running, and biking. If the city permits added vehicular traffic,
they open themselves to liability when someone gets injured or killed in an accident. This proposal would
endanger cyclists and pedestrians, MR STTSWMXMSR XS XLI GMX\]dW =A3 KSEP SJ GVIEXMRK bE WYWXEMREFPI
IRZMVSRQIRX XLEX MRGPYHIW_E GSQTEXMFle mix of land uses that encourage alternatives to the use of the
EYXSQSFMPI$c
@LI ?SYXL 7MPPW ?XYH\] WXEXIW. bMR EVIEW of significant conflict which could be resolved through the use of an
EPXIVREXMZI HIZIPSTQIRX TPER" TVMQEG\] WLSYPH FI KMZIR XS XLI TYFPMG MRXIVIWX MR ER\] HIXIVQMREXMSR$c 8 EWO
the city to follow that policy, and give primacy to the public interest in their determination on this
proposal.
For noncompliance with the intent of SB10 and SB100; for noncompliance with the intent and letter of
the South Hills Study; for noncompliance with the citydW VIKYPEXMSRW VIKEVHMRK XVII TVSXIGXMSR" WXSVQ \[EXIV
management, and slope protection; for a proposal rife with untruths; and for irreversible liabilities in the
neighborhood context this proposed PUD should be denied.
Sincerely,
Roxi Thoren
Capital Hill has a high volume of bike and
This 4J policy encourages children to walk
city-wide destinations for running, hiking,
44 households egress via the hairpin turn.*
within 4JÔs designated walking distance to the eligible homes have requested bus ser-
Here, pedestrians enter Spring Blvd from
Edison Elementary School, and are there-
89 households have one means of egress 13 households have one means of egress
for not eligible for bus service. (None of
Traffic Impact of Proposed Proposal adds 250% volume to this inter-
Proposal adds 75% volume to this blind
Proposal adds 37% volume to this inter-
Hedricks Park and the Ribbon Trail are
Pedestrian and Bike Facts
*Assumes 1/2 Cresta de Ruta homes exit south and 1/2 exit north
All but 13 homes on Capital Hill are
to their neighborhood schools.
from the development area.
paths onto a blind curve.
Five-way intersection
dog walking, and biking.
Development area
pedestrian activity.
from the hilltop.
Hairpin turn
vice, to date.)
PUD proposal
intersection.
6/19/17
section.
PUD
+33
3
+3
+250%
+75%
An Accident Waiting to Happen
Capital Hill PUD:
+37%
In these areas, at these speeds, a driver leaving his lane
ignated walking distance to Edison Elementary School
Home along typical Capital Hill egress route in 4J-des-
animal, or other obstruction cannot see what is in the
Areas where stopping distance exceeds visibility for 2 Areas where stopping distance exceeds visibility for 2
oncoming lane with enough distance to stop before a
to avoid a cyclist, pedestrian, parked car, trash can,
Dashed line indicates proposed PUD sidewalk
Areas without sidewalks or pedestrian refuge
cars travelling towards each other at 25 MPHcars travelling towards each other at 30 MPH
Visibility of oncoming traffic and
Pedestrian vulnerability:
availability of sidewalks
(50 MPH combined speed)(60 MPH combined speed)
collision.
BROWN Daren M
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:15 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Testimony for PDT 17-1
Conte Testimony PDT 17-1 March 7 2018 SUBMITTED.pdf
Attachments:
Please acknowledge receipt of the attached document and include in the record for PDT 17-1
(Capital Hill PUD)
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:37 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Testimony re PDT 17-1
Z-04-19 Decision.pdf
Attachments:
Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker,
If the information I have is correct that you are the Hearings Official, I had to take this opportunity
to either than you -- or blame you -- for setting me on what has now been a 13-year path of
working with Eugene neighborhoods to ensure the residents are fairly treated in quasi-judicial land
use proceedings.
My very first attempt to engage was the "Taylor Zone Change" (Z 04-19), which you heard.
This was a case where the City staff were playing games with the density overlay to allow an R-2
(medium density zone) on a lot designated "Low Density Residential" in the comprehensive plan.
The planner in charge smugly told me after the hearing that "everybody thinks they're a planner."
But you saw through the ploy and denied the zone change. (I've attached your decision, but it
doesn't bear on the present PUD application.) BTW, the corner lot was subsequently developed with
an appropriate duplex, rather than the 3 or 4 the applicant and city staff tried to slip in.
I was pleased to see you were hearing this case because it's complex, and the city staff continue to
finesse critical approval criteria.
Best regards,
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Kim Toner <kimtoner@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 3:31 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Two more letters to be added to the CHPUD file
Letter to Register Guard reporter.pdf; Toner Letter to Zelenka 120116 .pdf
Attachments:
DearNick,
HerearetwomorecommentsfortheCHPUDfile;pleaseenterthemintothepublicrecord.
Manythanks,
KimToner
2686CrestadeRutaSt.
Eugene,OR97403
1
From:Johnson
cdjohnson617@msn.com
Subject:
Fwd: Proposed development on Capital Drive
Date:
December 1, 2016 at 8:30 AM
To:
Brent Lorscheiderlorsch2728@pacbell.net
BROWN Daren M
From:Nicholas Russo <r3designbuild@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 6:29 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1)
Capital Hill PUD.pdf
Attachments:
Please include the attached letter to the record of comments from Eugene citizens regarding this proposal.
Nick Russo
Renaissance Remodeling & Restoration
(541) 729-6117
1
March 3, 2018
City of Eugene, Planning Division
c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
Regarding; Capital Hill PUD, PDT 17-1
To Whom it may Concern;
The proposal to allow the development of 34 residential lots within the Capital Hill PUD should
be not be approved. Construction of this development will dramatically increase the volume of
traf\[c to the narrow streets in this neighborhood. The resulting traf\[c congestion presents a
clear and present danger to the local residents, their children and pets, pedestrians and
bicyclists.
I have been a builder/remodeler in the Eugene area for more than 25 years. In that time, I have
worked on residential properties and homes in most of the neighborhoods throughout the city.
Including decades of experience working speci\[cally in the Capital Hill / Laural Hill
neighborhoods. As a General Contractor, our projects often include land and systems
development on private properties and within the public right-of-way. In my experience and
without a doubt, the streets of this neighborhood are the most dangerous and dif\[cult areas in
which to build in Eugene. (And that is when we are working on only one property at a time!) The
fact that the development would occur over such a large area, involving at least 34 separate
properties and built out over such a long period of time would greatly increase the risks to
everyone traveling in or out of the area. The danger is further exacerbated by the shear size and
quantity of heavy equipment and trucks required for development within the proposed area.
The narrow streets, the steep terrain, the blind corners, and the lack of sidewalks or pull-out
opportunities make vehicular travel very unsafe, especially in the area north of Alta Vista St.
These streets are particularly dangerous for pedestrians, school children and bicyclists
attempting to navigate while sharing the street with passing cars and trucks. The large number
of planned building lots being proposed increases the risk of a serious, or fatal collision simply
by the exponential increase in the number of trips up and down these dangerous streets. Made
worse by the large size of most construction vehicles required for the size of this development.
I would ask the proposed Capital Hill PUD be denied as a danger to public health and safety.
While I do not oppose development in this area in total, in my opinion, a smaller and more
modest development with fewer building lots, while not without risk, could be less dangerous to
the public.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Russo
Renaissance Remodeling & Restoration
BROWN Daren M
From:Charlie Frazer <cfrazer@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 10:05 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Capital Hill PUD
Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
City of Eugene Planning and Development
th
.
99 West 10 Ave, Eugene, OR 97401
March 7, 2018
Mr. Gioello:
I’m writing to ask that the Capital Hill PUD application (PDT 17-01) be denied because it does not meet the
standard of EC 9.8320 (4) Minimum Impact on the Natural Environment.
The impact the project will have on Hendricks Park and the viewscape of the ridge both from the east and from
the west sides is horrifying to contemplate. This impact affects those of us in Laurel Hill Valley but also the
rest of the city who enjoy a view of the ridge.
Cutting 500 trees at the top of the ridge will result in denuding a prominent and defining view of the South Hills
of Eugene. It will also have disastrous effect on the trees that remain in Hendricks Park. Cutting the trees at the
top of the ridge and adjacent to the park is an act that will have consequences for many other than the
immediate neighbors and will have effects far into the future.
Please confirm that these comments have been received and enter them into the record.
Thank you.
1
Charles Frazer
2521 Moon Mountain Drive
Eugene, OR 97403
2
BROWN Daren M
From:Edith Roberts <hroberts@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 3:09 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Capital Hill PUD
CapHill-PUD-letter-1er.odt
Attachments:
TO:NickGioella
From:EdithRoberts
2510WoodlandDr
EugeneOR97403
PleaseseeattachedletterdatedFeb13,2018.
Thereseemtobemanyproblemswiththestaffanalysisregardingstreetuseissuesbutthereportisdifficulttosearch
andprocessbecauseofitssizeandrelevantsectionsdonotcopywelltothesoftwareonmycomputer.Butthestaff
reportdoesnotseemtoadequatelyaccountfortheamountofincreasedtrafficthatwouldresultfromthenewhousing
andhowmanymoretripswouldbecreatedfromthem.
Also,itdoesnotappeartoanalyzethechangingdemographicsoftheareabeingservedbySpringBlvdfromFairmount
BlvdtoCapitalHlllDr.Inthesmallareaaroundmefouroutofsevenhouseshavechangedhandsinthelastfewyearsall
resultinginsignificantincreasesincarsperhouseholdfromoneortwotofromtwotofourorfivereflectingincreased
numbersofchildrenandotherslivinginthehousehold.
IdidnothavetimetodetermineifresearchwasdonetoevaluatethenumberofhouseholdbeingservedbythatSpring
Blvdstretch,theirsizesandemploymentstatistics.Iwouldhazardaguessthatitistransformingfromanareaofmostly
retiredpeopleorteacherswithnonregularschedulestopeoplerequiringmoreroadtripsduringregularcommutetimes
andothertimesferryingchildrentovariousactivitiesorteenagersmakingmultipletripsforvariousreasons.Didstaff
considertheincreaseinroadtripslikelytohappenoverthisrouteevenifthenewhousingwerenotbuiltinadditionto
theincreasedtrafficiftheywerebuiltandhowthatwouldimpacttrafficproblemsonthisroute?
AllofthesequestionswouldberelevanttodeterminingwhetherthiswindingstretchofSpringBlvd,withitsblind
curves,lackofsidewalksandsignificantusebywalkersandbicycles,wouldnotbeseriouslyadverselyimpactedby35or
morehighendhousesbuiltatthetopofCapitalHill.
Sincerely,
EdithRoberts
1
PROPOSEDLANDDIVISIONFOR38HOMESONCAPITALHILLDRIVE
SafetyandEnvironmentalIssues
SouthHillsStudy
Affordability
EugeneDevelopmentCodeCompliance
BROWN Daren M
From:Dave Koester <dave.koester@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:14 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Annette Earnst
Capital Hill PUD
Subject:
Nick,
My name is Dave Koester and I live at 2845 Spring Blvd near the proposed Capital Hill planned unit
development.
We regularly exit our neighborhood using Spring Blvd north of 26th. As you are aware there are no sidewalks
on this street and two large cars can barely pass each other. At night, I commonly come to a complete stop to
allow another car safe passage (and to be clearly not at fault if the cars should scrape each other).
I am sure there are experts more qualified then I to assess emergency vehicle access to the properties served by
these access roads. My hunch is that they don't conform to any reasonable standards.
To be clear, I don't feel that adding more car traffic on this section of Spring is safe for drivers and pedestrians
and therefor I oppose additional lots being developed upstream.
Thanks for your consideration.
Dave
--
David P. Koester
541-914-1555
https://share.delorme.com/DavidKoester
The Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity, answered "Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make
money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived."
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Wayne L Harrison <n7tqi@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 5:19 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Capital Hill PUD
Mr.Gioello:
Wehavebeenresidentsforover30yearsonFircrestDriveadjacenttoHendricksPark.Wehaveseenmanytreesfall
overtheseyears,oneofwhichhitourhouse.Generallyawindstormaddstothepossibilityofafallespeciallysoifthe
landissaturatedfromrain.Ouropinionisthataddinghomestobeservicedonexistingnarrowstreetsisirresponsible
andshouldbeavoided.FiretruckscanbarelynavigateCapitalDriveatthepresenttime.Forthesesafetyreasonsthe
permitshouldbedenied.
WayneHarrisonandKarenHendricks.
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Edith Roberts <hroberts@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 3:09 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Capital Hill PUD
CapHill-PUD-letter-1er.odt
Attachments:
TO:NickGioella
From:EdithRoberts
2510WoodlandDr
EugeneOR97403
PleaseseeattachedletterdatedFeb13,2018.
Thereseemtobemanyproblemswiththestaffanalysisregardingstreetuseissuesbutthereportisdifficulttosearch
andprocessbecauseofitssizeandrelevantsectionsdonotcopywelltothesoftwareonmycomputer.Butthestaff
reportdoesnotseemtoadequatelyaccountfortheamountofincreasedtrafficthatwouldresultfromthenewhousing
andhowmanymoretripswouldbecreatedfromthem.
Also,itdoesnotappeartoanalyzethechangingdemographicsoftheareabeingservedbySpringBlvdfromFairmount
BlvdtoCapitalHlllDr.Inthesmallareaaroundmefouroutofsevenhouseshavechangedhandsinthelastfewyearsall
resultinginsignificantincreasesincarsperhouseholdfromoneortwotofromtwotofourorfivereflectingincreased
numbersofchildrenandotherslivinginthehousehold.
IdidnothavetimetodetermineifresearchwasdonetoevaluatethenumberofhouseholdbeingservedbythatSpring
Blvdstretch,theirsizesandemploymentstatistics.Iwouldhazardaguessthatitistransformingfromanareaofmostly
retiredpeopleorteacherswithnonregularschedulestopeoplerequiringmoreroadtripsduringregularcommutetimes
andothertimesferryingchildrentovariousactivitiesorteenagersmakingmultipletripsforvariousreasons.Didstaff
considertheincreaseinroadtripslikelytohappenoverthisrouteevenifthenewhousingwerenotbuiltinadditionto
theincreasedtrafficiftheywerebuiltandhowthatwouldimpacttrafficproblemsonthisroute?
AllofthesequestionswouldberelevanttodeterminingwhetherthiswindingstretchofSpringBlvd,withitsblind
curves,lackofsidewalksandsignificantusebywalkersandbicycles,wouldnotbeseriouslyadverselyimpactedby35or
morehighendhousesbuiltatthetopofCapitalHill.
Sincerely,
EdithRoberts
1
PROPOSEDLANDDIVISIONFOR38HOMESONCAPITALHILLDRIVE
SafetyandEnvironmentalIssues
SouthHillsStudy
Affordability
EugeneDevelopmentCodeCompliance
March7,2018
VirginiaGustafsonLucker,EugeneHearingOfficial
c/oNickGioello,AssociatePlanner
PlanningDivision
CityofEugene
th
99West10Avenue
Eugene,Oregon97401
RE:CapitalHillPUD(PDT171)
DearMs.GustafsonLucker:
TheEugeneAreaChamberofCommercebelievesthatahealthybusinessenvironmentisessentialtothe
livabilityofEugeneresidentsandbusinesses.TheCityofEugeneishometoseverallargeemployers,including
PeaceHealthandtheUniversityofOregon,andhasavibrantsmallbusinesscommunity.Withafastgrowing
technologysectorandtheadditionoftheUniversityofOregonKnightScienceCampus,theseemployersare
recruitingindividualsandtheirfamiliestomovetoourcommunity,aswellasprovidinggreaterjob
opportunitiesforcommunitymemberswhoalreadylivehere.
However,ourhousingmarketmakesitdifficultforthesebusinessestoretaintalentedemployees.Wehaveone
ofthemostconstrainedmarketsinthecountryΑonlySeattleisworse.Thoseinterestedinworkinghereoften
struggletofindhousingpricedatlevelsthattheycanafford.Asaresult,theyareforcedtochoosebetween
housingthatmaybetooexpensive,livingfarfromwheretheywork,orsimplyacceptingajobelsewhere
becausetheyareunabletofindaplacetolive.
Weneedmorehousing.Notsomewhereelseortomorrow.Weneedittoday,hereandnow.Weneedsingle
familyhousingprovidedthroughprojectsliketheCapitalHillPUD.Wealsoneedmissingmiddlehousing,
secondarydwellingunits,riverfrontanddowntowndevelopment,andapartments.Wedonothaveenough
housing,letaloneenoughtypesofhousing,tosustainourdiverseworkforce.Providingagreatersupplyof
housingwillrelieveourtighthousingmarketandloweroverallprices,aswellasprovidemoreopportunitiesfor
employeesatdifferentstagesoftheircareers.Thisincludesemployeesstartingfamiliesandinneedofasingle
familyhomeoremergingprofessionalswhoarelookingtoliveinasecondarydwellingunitorapartment.
TheproposedCapitalHillPUDprovidesmoreopportunitiesforsinglefamilyhousingandwillpositively
contributetoourcommunity.Itwillalsoprovideoverthirtynewplacesforpeopletolive,whichwillhelprelieve
ourtighthousingmarket.Weurgeyoutoapprovethisapplicationandsupporthousinginourcommunity.
Thankyouforyourconsideration.
Sincerely,
BrittanyQuickWarner
PresidentandCEO,EugeneAreaChamberofCommerce
1401WillametteStreetP.O.Box1107Eugene,OR974401107Tel:541.484.1314Fax:541.484.4942eugenechamber.com
BROWN Daren M
From:Janne Underriner <janneu13@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 9:26 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:CHPUD application comment letter
PUD_john_3_6_18.docx
Attachments:
Dear Nick,
1