Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1st Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-7-18 to 3-19-18)GIOELLO Nick R From: Deborah Skell <deborahskella@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:58 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: PUD Typical sight, 2PM, you can't see the oncoming SUV... 5- way stop Add if it makes sense, please. Deborah ail. ~c r~a ~ ~ s. i,. P ~•~t .;k{ u, ~ [ ;ray1 .w i Owen" Sent from my Whone Deborah Skell, GCFP GIOELLO Nick R From: GIOELLO Nick R Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 8:35 AM To: 'Deborah Skell' Subject: RE: PUD Hi Deborah, Received and entered into the record. Thanks, Nhe4 G Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. Associate Planner ( Planning Division City of Eugene Planning & Development 99 West 1011' Avenue Eugene Oregon 97401 p 541 .682.5453 f 541.6£32.5572 iiici<.r.gioellot~>ci.eugene.or.us -----Original Message----- From: Deborah Skell [mailto:deborahskella@icloud.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:39 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: PUD Dear Mr. Gioello, Since the public hearing, on the 7th of April, I have driven, multiple times a day, up and down Spring Boulevard. Without exception, not once during daylight hours, was it without cars and trucks parked in the street, resulting in route obstruction. This reality would prevent the passage of emergency vehicles. It underscores the concerns expressed in my last letter to you. Permitting this proposed development is authorization of nothing short of mayhem, it is not if, but, when and how bad! Please don't let this happen. Deborah Skell (PS) I would appreciate it if you would confirm receipt of, and, adding it to the record. Deborah Sent from my iPhone Deborah Skell, GCFP GIOELLO Nick R From: Chris Ogle <ogle.chris@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 5:42 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Capital Drive PUD comment Hi Nick, I want to comment regarding the proposed Capital Drive PUD. I live at 2505 Capital Drive and have for close to twenty years. No doubt that the street signs have it right "It's not safe." That is the best but not the only valid objection. In any case I know from long experience that all of the access roads are throttled when it comes to passing traffic. There is no access up the hill, other than 27th as far as Spring, where two passing cars and a pedestrian can safely be on the road. There are no sidewalks in many areas and particularly on the primary access, Spring and Capital Drive from Fairmont to the top of Capital, no easy way for a pedestrian to step off the street or out of the way. There are many blind corners also. I fear for pedestrians who walk on the blind side of curves and often only luck and low volume gets them safe passage. When I first moved here I thought this is a recipe for many accidents. I've been surprised but I have come to realize that many accidents are avoided only because many drivers here are long experienced with the roads and exercise the abundance of caution that compensates for those who drive unaware, not an insubstantial number. And, the moderate volume of traffic mitigates the danger. Never-the-less I have been hit in my car on two occasions on Spring, and I am an experienced driver on these streets who is very cautious. On one occasion my car was totaled. Sincerely, Christopher M. Ogle GIOELLO Nick R From: Tiffany Edwards <tiffanye@eugenechamber.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:52 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Official submission of testimony for Capital Hill Attachments: Capital Hill Testiomony 3.7.18.docx Attention Virginia Gustafson-Lucker, Please see attached testimony to be entered into the official record for the Capital Hill (Eugene) project on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. Kind regards, Tiffany Tiffany Edwards Director of Business Advocacy (541) 242-2352 w (541) 678-3370 m Website I Facebook I Twitter Eugene Area Chcal p 1401 Willamette Street I Eugene, OR 97401 1 GIOELLO Nick R From: Tiffany Edwards <tiffanye@eugenechamber.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:48 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Request to rescind testimony Attention Virginia Gustafson Lucker, I would like to make a request to withdraw testimony that was submitted on 3/7/18 on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, in regards to the Capitol Hill Project. Testimony in the form of a letter was inadvertently submitted by email that included a series of forwarded emails unrelated to the statements that the Chamber CEO, Brittany Quick-Warner, had intended to submit. If you could please notify me of your decision, I would greatly appreciate it. I will be resubmitting just the letter for your consideration, as official testimony from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for your consideration, Tiffs ny Tiffany Edwards Director of Business Advocacy (541) 242-2352 w (541) 678-3370 m Website I Facebook I Twitter Eugene Area Chamberof y coo, r a r c'4 1401 Willamette Street I Eugene, OR 97401 March 7, 2018 Virginia Gustafson-Lucker, Eugene Hearing Official c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner Planning Division Eugene Area Chamberof City of Eugene Commerce 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 RE: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker: The Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce believes that a healthy business environment is essential to the livability of Eugene residents and businesses. The City of Eugene is home to several large employers, including PeaceHealth and the University of Oregon, and has a vibrant small business community. With a fast-growing technology sector and the addition of the University of Oregon Knight Science Campus, these employers are recruiting individuals and their families to move to our community, as well as providing greaterjob opportunities for community members who already live here. However, our housing market makes it difficult for these businesses to retain talented employees. We have one of the most constrained markets in the country - only Seattle is worse. Those interested in working here often struggle to find housing priced at levels that they can afford. As a result, they are forced to choose between housing that may be too expensive, living far from where they work, or simply accepting a job elsewhere because they are unable to find a place to live. We need more housing. Not somewhere else or tomorrow. We need it today, here and now. We need single family housing provided through projects like the Capital Hill PUD. We also need missing middle housing, secondary dwelling units, riverfront and downtown development, and.apartments. We do not have enough housing, let alone enough types of housing, to sustain our diverse workforce. Providing a greater supply of housing will relieve our tight housing market and lower overall prices, as well as provide more opportunities for employees at different stages of their careers. This includes employees starting families and in need of a single- family home or emerging professionals who are looking to live in a secondary dwelling unit or apartment. The proposed Capital Hill PUD provides more opportunities for single family housing and will positively contribute to our community. It will also provide over thirty new places for people to live, which will help relieve our tight housing market. We urge you to approve this application and support housing in our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brittany Quick-Warner President and CEO, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce 1401 Willamette Street P.O. Box 1107 Eugene, OR 97440-1107 Tel: 541.484.1314 Fax: 541.484.4942 eugenechamber.com GIOELLO Nick R From: Deborah Skell <deborahskella@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:59 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Capital Hill PUD Dear Mr Gioello, As you are aware there is passionate opposition to the Capital Hill PUD on many points. One being the gross inaccuracies in the geotechnical `field testing' results, where sandstone became igneous rock, nothing short of a `miracle,' and, factually inaccurate. Setting all of that aside, how can the Planning Department consider approval of the project when there is absolutely no remedy for the width of Spring Street. That 18 -foot-fact creates a physical bottle neck that cannot be remedied other than by condemning property and bulldozing homes to widen the the road. Please stand away from this death trap of a plan. No sprinkler system, or, five foot side walks along the proposed loop will right the harm proposed here. There is gross negligence reflected in this proposed project. The pro-ported rights of two individuals weighed in the balance against the irreparable harm to wildlife, neighbors, and enviromnent. In closing there are grave safety issues involved for over 95 homes who have no alternative to traveling through the 5 way stop in order to leave the hill, including mine. None of the 5-way stop roads have sidewalks or parking. All are all under 18 feet wide. This subdivision should not be approved. Sincerely, Deborah Skell 2400 Malabar Drive Sent from my Whone Deborah Skell, GCFP GIOELLO Nick R From: Betsy Schultz <betsy@pnwstrategies.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:28 AM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Testimony on the Capitol Hill Project Attachments: Capitol Hill Itr.pdf Hi Nick, Attached is a letter from my clients, the Eugene Association of Realtors regarding the Capitol Hill project. Thanks so much! Betsy Betsy Schultz Government Affairs I Consulting PNW Strategies 541.520.7997 1 betsy(a)pnwstrategies.com Mr. Nick Gioello Hearings Official, Ms. Ginny Gustafson-Lucker March 9, 2018 Re: Comments on the Proposed Capitol Hill Project Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker and Mr. Gioello; As an association, the Eugene Realtors hesitate to weigh in on pros and cons of specific housing developments in our community. I am writing to you now however, because our community is facing a serious crisis of housing choice and affordability. Just last year, the City Council passed an ordinance adopting our Urban Growth Boundary as it sits right now, assuring citizens and the state that Eugene has enough available land within the UGB to support the community's needs for the next 20 years. For this to be a valid position, residents need to be able to build on properly zoned parcels within the UGB. Ensuring that everyone has access to housing that is affordable is a priority for our association, and increasing the number of dwelling units within the UGB is one piece of solving this crisis of affordability. For this reason, the Eugene Association of Realtors@ supports the thoughtful development of land that is properly zoned within our Urban Growth Boundary. Sincerely, /s/ Isaac Judd 2018 President GIOELLO Nick R From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Nick Gioello, Associate Planner Keli Yerian <yerian@uoregon.edu> Monday, March 12, 2018 5:29 PM GIOELLO Nick R Robert Elliott; David and Catherine Johnson Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17 - 01) City of Eugene Planning and Development, 99 West 10th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Mr. Gioello, I am writing to add our neighborhood voices to the many who have urged the city to reject the current PUD proposal on Capitol Hill. I would like my letter to be entered into the record and that receipt be confirmed. My husband and I live on 2410 Spring Blvd. We have two children who walk or bike to school each day (usually around 8:30am and coming home between 3:30 and 5pm depending on afterschool activities). Our main concern is safety with the increased traffic. We are already nervous currently as it is with current traffic, but with 30% more traffic we will want to find other ways for them to come home. Without buses on the hill and a two-parent working family, this is not easy and it is simply not neighborhood friendly if our streets do not have safe ways for children to come home. I'd like to share this clip with you that my son filmed last year as I biked up the first blind curve on Spring Blvd below our house. Note that the delivery truck coming up behind me is fully on the wrong side of the street as it passed me going into the blind curve. We were lucky that no other car was coming the other way. The Subaru that followed also probably had a limited view. This is a very common occurrence on Spring. https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB7v4zT9QRyWIaXFkQOJsS01 OTmc/view?usp=sharing 1 also have had the experience several times on that same curve of hearing a car come up behind me to pass blindly while another car was approaching down the hill unbeknownst to them, and having to wave to the cars to warn them of the danger and slow down or stop until they could see each other. I cannot rely on my sons or any children to be so proactive as I can be. Thank you for your attention, Keli Yerian and Robert Elliott 2410 Spring Blvd. Eugene OR 97403 GIOELLO Nick R From: Hugh Paterson III <sil.linguist@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 4:16 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Capital Hill PUD Testimony Nick, I hope it is not too late to add something to to official record for the testimony on the capital hill PUD hearing. 1 gave oral testimony about the relevance of OR SB 1051. In essence I said that I do not see that the current plan actually took into account the additional and state mandated changes to the Eugene City Code. In thoughtful reflection I thought it might be clearer if I mailed my concerns. SB 1051 requires significant adjustment to the Eugene City land use code, and must be implemented by July 1 2018. For a very thorough brief of what sections of Eugene City Code need to be updated I refer you to Bill Kloos's memo.to the Eugene planning commission for the march 6th meeting (pg. 21-39). https://www.eufzene- or.gov/AgendaCenter/Vie,,,vFile/Agenda/ 03062018-869 Section 6 of SB 1051 requires that every place where a house can be built on Rl, must allow for a second UN- attached ADU. This means that every parcel on Capital hill can essentially have a duplex on it, and some lots can have more... that may not be the kind of buildings that the PUD planers anticipate buyers are going to build, but it is important as we consider what the true population density of the area under consideration is and then the applicability of the commissioned safety analysis, and utility requirements. What I am saying is that Eugene city code can not legally stop ADUs from being build on these lots, as Zoned R-1, and therefore the possible housing density - even with a reduced lot count from what is allowable under R- 1 is not accurately reported in the PUD proposal, nor is it reflected in the safety and traffic analysis, nor water consumption/waste water estimations. It is my hope that the city perform due diligence in actually considering the proposal under the required changes pursuant to SB 1051. I want a better Eugene for today and tomorrow. I would hate for our children to bear a tax burden for in adequate/inappropriate planning now. all the best, Thank you for your service to our community - Hugh Paterson III p, Gregory G. Foote Senior Judge State of Oregon Virginia Gustafson-Lucker, Eugene Hearing Officer City, of Eugene 99 West 10" Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 RE: Capital Hill PUD March 9, 2018 Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker: 2930 Capital Drive Eugene, OR 97403 (541) 485-6259 ,Received MAR 12 2018 City of Eugene Planning Division I have lived on Capital Drive, directly across from the "pink house" owned by Tom and Cynthia Dreyer for nearly 30 years, and have closely followed the progress of their proposed PUD. T have not stated a public position on this issue and do not intend to do so. I do, however, wish to express displeasure at what I see as the demonization of the Dreyers, whom I know to be good neighbors. I have always assumed that the Dreyer property (formerly owned by the late Charmian Byers- Jones) would someday be developed, and was pleased to learn that it would be my neighbors who did so, rather than some disinterested out-of-town developer. I believe Tom and Cindy have listened to city planning staff, landscape experts, traffic engineers, and, most importantly, their neighbors, in an effort to take into consideration their input for the project, which is now the result of many compromises and changes. They have been nothing but open-minded and approachable, and do not deserve the personal attacks I have seen coming from some who oppose the project. Tom Dreyer has made an exhaustive study of the sociological ramifications of land use planning, and has an admittedly idealistic vision for this PUD. Rather than people living in isolated McMansions, he wants a vibrant neighborhood of families who know each other, look out for each other's kids, and watch each other's houses when they are away. He wants kids trick-or- treating and selling Girl Scout cookies and riding their bikes, and a mix of young and old. Reasonable minds can differ (and I hope respectfully) as to whether this ambitious vision is realistic or can be reflected in this PUD. But I suggest that it is not that of an unscrupulous developer, but rather someone who earnestly desires the best for his neighborhood. Sincer , Gregory Foote GIOELLO Nick R From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:44 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Testimony re PDT 17-1 (Capital Hill PUD) Attachments: ResponseToGillespie08Mar2Ol8.pdf 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 i March 8, 2018 MAR 0 8 2018 Hearings Official City of Eugene Capital Hill Tentative PUD (PDT 17-1) Planning Division Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker, Regarding EC 9.7085 Quasi-Judicial Hearings-Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant. A decision to resolve the issues presented shall be based upon reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record. Under multiple approval criteria in EC 9.8320 etseq, the Planning Division Staff Report relies on the March 1, 2018 memo from Scott Gillespie. This memo is found in Attachment F of the Agenda for the March 7, 2018 Public Hearing, and is attached to this testimony as Exhibit A. The memo itself makes no reference to any Tentative PUD approval criteria, and appears to clearly not be directed at EC 9.8320(6), which requires unimpeded emergency response access to the PUD. ("Public Works staff defers to Eugene-Springfield Fire for a specific evaluation of Fire Codes and First Responder operations.") The Staff Report explicitly cites this memo under EC 9.8320(5)(c), which addresses requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis. The Staff Report also cites this memo under EC 9.8320(6), which appears to be an error on the part of staff (based on the memo's own deference to Eugene-Springfield Fire), and which I've also addressed in prior testimony regarding EC 9.8320(6). The Staff Report cites to the memo under EC 9.8320(7), which addresses adequate public services; but it's completely unclear for what reason. Finally, the staff report cites to the memo under EC 9.8320(11), which addresses minimal off-site impacts; here again, the connection seem tenuous. In any case, there is nothing at all in the Gillespie memo that the Hearings Official can rely upon as substantial, reliable and probative evidence. Exhibit B provides a list of questions and requests for clarifications that I provided to Mr. Gillespie, to which he responded: "I am comfortable with the content of the memo and don't have corrections or clarifications for the record at this time." In Exhibit B I've added (in blue typeface) my follow-up comments that demonstrate that the memo throughout is fraught with deficiencies. This would not be the first memo written by Mr. Gillespie that is a rambling collection of unsupported claims, erroneous statements and irrelevant points. In the recent Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing PUD (PDT 13-1) remand, after the Planning Division staff solicited testimony to bolster their defense of the City's approval, Gillespie's one-page memo was so filled with errors that the Planning Commission entirely ignored it in their revised findings and final order. See Exhibit C. I'm respectfully arguing that the Hearings Official reject, or in any case ignore, all references to the Gillespie memo in the Staff Report because any reliance on the Gillespie memo would not conform to the requirements of EC 9.7085. Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte Further, as I'm sure the Hearings Official is aware, the City's decision must explain the evidence and reasoning for findings of conformance with approval criteria. I believe, as capable as the Hearings Official appear to be, she would be hard pressed to explain how any of Mr. Gillespie's statements provide an reaonable basis for findings. Submitted this 8th day of March, 2018 P6~ t cPaul Conte March 8, 2018 P a g e 12 EXHIBIT A Attachment F Memorandum Date: December 8, 2017 To: Nick Gioello From: Scott Gillespie, PE Subject: PDT 17-1 Capital Hill PUD - Capital Drive Roadway Review The purpose of this memo is to review Capital Drive and Spring Blvd in the context of the Capital Hill PUD application (PDT 17-1). The applicant has submitted a traffic safety and street connectivity study prepared by Branch Engineering dated August 8th 2017. A traffic engineering study is not explicitly required per City code but the applicant has provided a study to address capacity, safety and operational concerns expressed by citizens and to better address PUD approval criteria. The study was prepared by a licensed civil Engineer with specific experience and expertise in traffic engineering. Public Works Engineering staff review and recommendation is specific to the roadway capacity, operations and safety as the department with jurisdiction over the roadway. Public Works staff defers to Eugene-Springfield Fire for a specific evaluation of Fire Codes and First Responder operations. Existing Conditions The development site is primarily accessed via Spring Blvd and Capital Drive. Cresta De Ruta also provides an alternate route to Capital Drive but it is not the most direct route. There are a number of connections available to the Spring Blvd and Capital Drive area including: • Columbia to Fairmount • East 27th to Spring • East 27th to Woodlawn (via Central & 26th) • Agate to Columbia (via 22nd Ave) • Agate to Fairmount (via 21St) • 19th to Fairmount (via Moss, Villard, or Orchard) This memo will focus on the primary access section of Spring Blvd and Capital Drive as those roadways have garnered the most comment and provide the most commonly used and direct point of access to the development site. An evaluation of other roadways servicing Spring Blvd and Capital Drive is not warranted at this time. The roadways listed above make multiple street connections into the area and the potential for routes to access the development site multiply exponentially as proximity to the site increases. All streets listed above that serve and surround the development site are classified as local streets on the city of Eugene's adopted Street Classification Map. All existing streets in areas were constructed prior to any City council adopted street standards. A number of the roadways and corresponding rights of way were dedicated in Lane County and then subsequently annexed into the City of Eugene at a later date. Spring Blvd begins at the intersection of Fairmont Blvd. Spring continues past the intersection of Capital Drive and that section will not be reviewed as it is not part of the primary network serving the development site. The intersection of Spring Blvd. & Fairmount is a partially controlled intersection due to Fairmont to Spring Blvd being the predominant vehicular movement. Spring Blvd is a local street Page 386 Attachment F improved with travel lanes, curbs and stormwater controls. The paving width was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face. No sidewalks are present on either side. Parking is restricted on both sides of the roadway. No parking signs are present but intermittently spaced. The spacing does not meet current no-parking sign spacing standards but the presence of signage legally establishes the restriction throughout its length. Horizontal alignment, warning and advisory speed signs are present where site distance is limited at the statutory speed (25 mph). A speed sign is present on the downhill portion of the roadways. The posted speed is equal to the statutory speed. Capital Drive begins at the intersection of Spring Blvd (along with Woodlawn and Madrona). The intersection is fully controlled due to the awkward geometry and site distance. Capital Drive is a local street improved with travel lanes, curbs and stormwater controls. The paving width was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face. A 2 foot wide sidewalk exists on the downhill side of the roadway ending at the intersection of Alta Vista Ct. Parking is restricted on the uphill side of the roadway. Signage is present at what appears to be standard spacing. Both curbs are painted yellow restricting parking on Capital Drive from the intersection of Alta Vista Court through the 180 degree turn near the top of Capital Dr. approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Cresta De Ruta. The 200 foot section from the end of the 180 degree curve to Cresta De Ruta appears to have a faded yellow curb painted on the downhill side of the road. Parking patterns in this section are less pronounced. Capital Drive from Cresta De Ruta through the development site does not allow parking on either side of the roadway. This is established by no parking signs on both sides of the road. Horizontal alignment, warning and advisory speed signs are present where site distance is limited at the statutory speed (25 mph). Review & Recommendation The applicant's engineer performed a comprehensive traffic safety and street connectivity study. The applicant collected data and analyzed a number of safety and performance parameters and made recommendation based upon evidence, engineering analyses and professional judgement. The study goes above and beyond what is typically expected to justify an existing local roadway. The engineer prepared volume and speed study calculations in additional to a number of other geomatres and operational calculations. Volumes and speed were well within expected standards for local streets. The engineer properly estimated trips impacts from the development site per ITE standards. The applicant estimated construction traffic from the development site even thought is not considered best practice to do so. The engineer analyzed intersections for safety and operations. The applicant's engineer demonstrated that no crash reducing measures are necessary, recorded traffic speeds are within acceptable percentages for the posted and statutory speed, Capital Drive & Spring Blvd have adequate capacity to serve the development site and no measureable congestion from an engineering standpoint will result from the proposed development. The City of Eugene re-paved Spring Blvd and Capital Drive in 2014. The pavement structural sections were designed to City standards and City Engineering staff has confirmed the new pavements have the capacity to serve the existing neighborhood and the proposed development site. The pavement design factored in heavy vehicles in daily operations. The pavement section is adequate to accommodate construction traffic from the development site. City Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning staff perform a comprehensive review of the roadway operation at the time of rehabilitation projects. It should be noted that no parking, geometric, safety or operational changes were made to the roadway at the time of the pavement project. The roadways were reconstructed to existing historical lines, grades, widths, traffic controls and parking patterns. The City of Eugene would not have knowingly reconstructed an unsafe condition. The narrow roadway and topography create a self-regulating condition consistent with the City of Eugene queuing street design standards and appropriate for the topography, speeds and volumes in the surround neighborhoods. Spring Blvd and Capital Drive do not have a crash history. This further justifies the Page 387 Attachment F adequacy to safety serve motorists pedestrians and cyclists. Measured speeds are consistent with the statutory and posted speeds. The measured speeds do not warrant an increase or reduction in the posted speed. The measured speeds and lack of crash history indicate the roadway is operating as intended. Warning, direction and advisory speed signs are present in areas with limited site distance and geometry. The signage is adequate and proper given the topographic/geometric limitations and statutory speeds. Intersection controls are appropriate for the multi legged intersection at Spring/Capital. The intersection controls at Spring/Fairmont are appropriate given the limited site distance the predominance of the vehicular movement from Spring to Fairmount. Engineering staff finds no evidence that suggest the existing roadway network is unsafe or incapable of accommodating the traffic impacts from the proposed development. The existing roadways that lead to the Capital Hill PUD site have been in existence for over a century. They have been fully improved with curbs and gutters since the 1950's. The city did not have a council adopted street design standard at that time. The streets were designed to standards and exceptions of the design engineer and City/County engineers at the time of their construction. The narrow character for the existing roadways is consistent with the intent of the current City design standards for queuing streets. This situation happens all throughout the City of Eugene and other communities on Oregon. City design standards evolve and it is not implied that older streets designed under older standard are inadequate or inherently unsafe. The roadways are merely suffering from functional obsolescence. Functional obsolescence does not imply that older streets are unsafe, perform poorly or do not have the capacity to serve growth. Functional obsolescence simply means there is a reduction in the usefulness or desirability of a roadway because of an outdated design feature, usually one that cannot be easily changed. From an Engineering operations and safety perspective, there is no appreciable difference between an 18 foot wide road and a 20 foot wide road. The utilization of on street parking is sparse and the portions that are being used support traffic calming in the area. The roadway has historically performed well and there is no engineering evidence to the contrary. Three separate engineering evaluations were performed to address the safety, operation & capacity of the existing roadways system serving the development site. City staff re-paved the street systems serving the site prior to the PUD application. The evaluation and conclusions for re-paving were made independent of the PUD application. Multiple City of Eugene transportation professionals reviewed the rehabilitation plan and the plan was approved to reconstruct to historical grades, controls and parking patterns. The applicant's engineer provided a robust traffic study and concluded the existing roadway system is safe and adequate to serve. I have also reviewed the roadway system and conclude there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. Therefore, City staff concurs with the applicant's engineer and recommends the existing transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no offsite mitigation is required. Page 388 EXHIBIT B Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte The following questions and comments were provided to Scott Gillespie on March 1, 2018, regarding Gillespie's memo of December 8, 2017 to Nick Gioello in which Gillespie provide a "review" of Capital Drive Roadway. I requested that Gillespie correct and/or clarify several items (enumerated below) prior to my submitting comments as testimony in the Capital Hill Tentative PUD proceedings. Gillespie responded on March 2, 2018: "1 am comfortable with the content of the memo and don't have corrections or clarifications for the record at this time." 1. RE: "The purpose of this memo is to review Capital Drive and Spring Blvd in the context of the Capital Hill PUD application (PDT 17-1)." To which section(s) of Eugene Code is your "review" relevant? Specifically, for which of the following code sections is your review probative: EC 9.8320(5)(a), (b), (6), (7), (10)(b) and/or (11)? Comment: Gillespie provides no references at all to Tentative PUD approval criteria or any other Eugene Code. It is therefore impossible to ascertain to which approval criterion(a) (if any) he is applying his evaluation. Gillespie's comments, therefore do not meet the standard for probative evidence with sufficient specificity to enable the Hearings Official or other parties to respond with respect to the Tentative PUD approval criteria, as required by the Public Hearing Notice: "failure to provide statements or evidence with sufficient specificity to enable the Hearings Official to respond to the issue, precludes an appeal based on that issue." 2. RE: "Public Works Engineering staff review and recommendation is [sic] specific to the roadway capacity, operations and safety as the department with jurisdiction over the roadway." Comment: Although the Hearings Official might infer which approval criterion(a) this review addresses, there are numerous adopted comprehensive plan policies and Tentative PUD approval criteria to which this review might be directed. "Public Works staff defers to Eugene-Springfield Fire for a specific evaluation of Fire Codes and First Responder operations." Since the Eugene City Council has adopted local street standards, Oregon Statutes state that these standards are applicable rather than the Eugene Fire Code standards for "Fire Apparatus Access Roads" (FAAR). Are you "deferring" evaluation of the adequacy of Capital Drive and Spring Blvd. to meet the effective FAAR standards, which are the adopted Eugene Street Standards? Comment: The presumed answer to this is "yes," which eliminates EC 9.8320(6) as an approval criterion which this review addresses. It also eliminates issues related to the adequacy of a FAAR to enable adequate Fire and Emergency Service, as required under EC 9.8320(7). 4. RE: "Cresta De Ruta also provides an alternate route to Capital Drive but it is not the most direct route." and "This memo will focus on the primary access section of Spring Blvd and Capital Drive There is no review of Cresta De Ruta. Does that mean that PWD considers Capital Drive and Spring Blvd. to be the only access roads that are considered to handle the total projected access to and from the PUD by all modes of transportation? For example, for purposes of your review and conclusions, have you assumed that all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, wheelchair, etc. access to and from the PUD will be on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd.? March 8, 2018 Page 13 Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte Comment: There are only two possible responses: "Yes," which appears to be the implication; or "No," in which case, all the following analysis is skewed and incomplete because it doesn't apportion the usage and doesn't describe Cresta De Ruta's features and capacity. RE: "...the potential for routes to access the development site multiply exponentially as proximity to the site increases." "Proximity" means "nearness." I think your statement has the exact opposite of what you are claiming. The are more connections to streets as the distance from the site increases. Please correct. Could you provide the easily identified data on which you based the claim that "potential for routes multiple exponentially"? In analytic terms, "exponential" refers to an equation in which the dependent variable (e.g., "routes") increases by some power (the exponent) of the independent variable (e.g., "miles from the site").So, for example, if the number of routes was the square of the miles from the site, then at 1 mile, there would be 1 route, at 2 miles there would be 4 routes, at 3 miles there would be 9 routes. What equation were you citing? Comment: Although Gillespie appears to be trying to make a point, this statement isn't reliable or probative because it's technically incorrect, and Gillespie has declined to correct and clarify it. 6. For my [Conte] purposes, the critical access segment to and from the PUD is Capital Drive from its intersection with Spring Blvd. What is the exact distance from this intersection to the nearest point where Capital drive (first) is adjacent to some portion of the proposed development site? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine this important fact. My (Conte) approximate measurement is about % mile. What is the exact distance from this intersection to the furthest point where Capital Drive (last) is adjacent to some portion of the proposed development site? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine this important fact. I (Conte) have not measured it. 7. RE: "Capital Drive is a local street improved with travel lanes, curbs and stormwater controls." a) What is the current subclassification (based on ADT), e.g. "Low Volume Residential"; of Capital Drive from its origin to Alta Vista Court? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine this important fact. Other sources appear to place the current traffic volume in the Low Volume Residential classification. b) What is the current subclassification (based on ADT) of Capital Drive from Alta Vista Court to Cresta De Ruta St. ? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine this important fact. Other sources appear to place the current traffic volume in the Low Volume Residential classification. c) What is the current subclassification (based on ADT) of Capital Drive from Crests De Ruta St to nearest point where Capital drive (first) is adjacent to some portion of the d) proposed development site? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine this important fact. March 8, 2018 P a g e 14 Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte What is the projected subclassification (based on ADT) of Capital Drive segments (a), (b), (c) and (d) when the proposed PUD is fully developed and occupied? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine these important facts. From other sources, I believe (a) and (b) would be Low Volume Residential. 8. RE: "The paving width [of Capital Drive] was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face." Has Public Works verified that the entire paving width of Capital Drive actually at least 18 feet wide from it's beginning to the furthest point where Capital Drive (last) is adjacent to some portion of the proposed development site? If there are segments with a lesser width, what are their location(s) and actual paving width(s)? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine these important facts. I don't know of any complete survey of Capital Drive pavement width in the record. 9. RE: "A 2 foot wide sidewalk exists on the downhill side of the roadway ending at the intersection of Alta Vista Ct." Where is the other terminus of this sidewalk? Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine this important fact. I don't know of any complete survey of Capital Drive sidewalks in the record. 10. RE: "Parking is restricted on the uphill side of the roadway. Signage is present at what appears to be standard spacing. Both curbs are painted yellow restricting parking on Capital Drive from the intersection of Alta Vista Court through the 180 degree turn near the top of Capital Dr. approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Cresta De Ruta. The 200 foot section from the end of the 180 degree curve to Cresta De Ruta appears to have a faded yellow curb painted on the downhill side of the road. Parking patterns in this section are less pronounced. Capital Drive from Cresta De Ruta through the development site does not allow parking on either side of the roadway. This is established by no parking signs on both sides of the road. Horizontal alignment, warning and advisory speed signs are present where site distance is limited at the statutory speed (25 mph)." This section is incomplete and unclear as to some of the extents. Please provide the current parking restrictions, signage, curb painting, parking patterns and signage for each segment of Capital Drive. Comment: Gillespie declined to identify the various extents, which are important to assessing the capacity and safety over the entire length of Capital Drive. 11. RE: "The [applicant's] study goes above and beyond what is typically expected to justify an existing local roadway. What is "typically expected"? What 'justification" are you using as a reference point, i.e., to what agency and purpose? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statements are neither reliable nor probative. 12. RE: "Volumes and speed were well within expected standards for local streets." What are the "expected standards"? What were the reported volumes and speeds? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statements are neither reliable nor probative. 13. RE: "The engineer properly estimated trips impacts from the development site per ITE standards." March 8, 2018 P a g e 15 Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte What were the values of those estimates? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statement is neither reliable nor probative. 14. RE: "The engineer analyzed intersections for safety and operations." What were the probative results that the applicant's engineer claimed? Comment: Gillespie provided no description of the results; accordingly, his statement isn't probative. 15. RE: "The applicant's engineer demonstrated that no crash reducing measures are necessary, recorded traffic speeds are within acceptable percentages for the posted and statutory speed, Capital Drive & Spring Blvd have adequate capacity to serve the development site and no measureable congestion from an engineering standpoint will result from the proposed development." What were the specific data and analysis submitted by the applicant's engineer that you are relying upon for the following conclusions: a) no crash reducing measures are necessary b) recorded traffic speeds are within acceptable percentages for the posted and statutory speed c) Capital Drive & Spring Blvd have adequate capacity to serve the development site d) no measureable congestion from an engineering standpoint will result from the proposed development." Comment: Gillespie provided no explanations; accordingly, his conclusory statements are neither reliable nor probative. 16. RE: "City Engineering staff has confirmed the new pavements have the capacity to serve the existing neighborhood and the proposed development site" What measure of "capacity" are you referring to e.g., volume, Gross Vehicle Weight, other? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statement is neither reliable nor probative. 17. RE: "The City of Eugene would not have knowingly reconstructed an unsafe condition." Are you claiming that this is reliable and probative evidence upon which the Hearings Official should base his conclusions, or is this just speculation? On what concrete evidence do you base this statement? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statements are neither reliable nor probative. 18. RE: "The narrow roadway and topography create a self-regulating condition and appropriate for the topography, speeds and volumes in the surround neighborhoods." What is the meaning of "self-regulating" in standard, professional lexicon? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statement is neither reliable nor probative. March 8, 2018 Page 16 Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte Because, as you know, the City's "queuing street" standard requires 21 foot wide paving, please explain professional language how an 18 foot paved roadway is "consistent with the City of Eugene queuing street design standards." Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation of the conflict between his statement and the actual standards for a "queuing street." Gillespie's statement is false. 19. RE: "This further justifies the adequacy to safety serve motorists pedestrians and cyclists." Please correct the typo: "safely" is the correct word. 20. RE: "Spring Blvd and Capital Drive do not have a crash history. This further justifies the adequacy to safe[ly] serve motorists pedestrians and cyclists." Please explain your basis for making this conclusion without taking into account the significant increase in all modes of travel over Capital Drive. Comment: Gillespie declined to address the potential impacts on safety from the substantial increased in motorized and non-motorized use of Capital Drive. In particular, Gillespie has not addressed the substantial increase in the probability of vehicle and pedestrian encounters. The conclusion is unsupported and unreliable. 21. RE: "The measured speeds and lack of crash history indicate the roadway is operating as intended." Please explain why the review does not address whether or not the roadway can operate as intended" with the significant increase in all modes of travel over Capital Drive. Comment: Gillespie declined to address the potential impacts on safety from the substantial increased in motorized and non-motorized use of Capital Drive. In particular, Gillespie has not addressed the substantial increase in the probability of vehicle and pedestrian encounters. The conclusion is unsupported and unreliable. 22. RE: "Engineering staff finds no evidence that suggest the existing roadway network is unsafe or incapable of accommodating the traffic impacts from the proposed development." Please explain the basis for this sweeping conclusion when the review did not appear to analyze the potential increase in risk from the significant increase in all modes of travel over Capital Drive; did not do any projection of potential risks from the substandard street configuration and did not even acknowledge the much higher safety standard that must be met to conform to the City Council's adopted "Vision Zero" policy (which isn't even mentioned in this review). Comment: Gillespie declined to address the evidence and factors that conflict with his conclusory statement. Gillespie provided no evidence or other basis for his conclusory statement. This statement is unsupported and unreliable. 23. RE: "The existing roadways that lead to the Capital Hill PUD site have been in existence for over a century. They have been fully improved with curbs and gutters since the 1950's. The city did not have a council adopted street design standard at that time. The streets were designed to standards and exceptions of the design engineer and City/County engineers at the time of their construction." While this is information that would be appropriate under "Existing Conditions," please explain what relevance it has under the "review" analysis to the current capacity and safety of the access roads? Gillespie declined to provide any explanation. These statements aren't probative to evaluating any approval criteria with respect to projected use. March 8, 2018 P a g e 17 Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte 24. RE: "The narrow character for the existing roadways is consistent with the intent of the current City design standards for queuing streets." Please answer the question under #18. Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation or support for his conclusory statement; accordingly, his statement is neither reliable nor probative. 25. RE: "This situation happens all throughout the City of Eugene and other communities on Oregon. City design standards evolve and it is not implied that older streets designed under older standard are inadequate or inherently unsafe." Are you implying that "older streets designed under older standard are" necessarily adequate and safe? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation for the relevance or implications ofthis statement. The fact that older streets may not be inadequate or unsafe provides no evidence that Capital Drive is adequate and safe. This statement is not probative. 26. RE: "The roadways are merely suffering from functional obsolescence. Functional obsolescence does not imply that older streets are unsafe, perform poorly or do not have the capacity to serve growth. Functional obsolescence simply means there is a reduction in the usefulness or desirability of a roadway because of an outdated design feature, usually one that cannot be easily changed." What does 'functional obsolescence" comprise? Does 'functional" encompass "safe"? Is a street that is 'functionally obsolescent" necessarily safe? If a street is unsafe because of an "outdated" design feature, does that allow an exception to EC 9.8320(5) and (6), which require safe access to the PUD? Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation for the relevance or implications of his statements. The fact that older streets may not be inadequate or unsafe provides no evidence that Capital Drive is adequate and safe. This statement is not probative. 27. RE: "...there is no appreciable difference between an 18 foot wide road and a 20 foot wide road." Please explain this conclusion when two 10-foot-wide fire trucks are unable to physically pass one another on an 18-foot-wide road and can physically pass one another on a 20-foot-wide road. Please cite to accepted professional standards and/or practices upon which this conclusion is based. Comment: Gillespie declined to explain his statement, which is, on the face of it, false. His statement is erroneous and unreliable. 28. RE: "The utilization of on street parking is sparse and the portions that are being used support traffic calming in the area." Please identify documentation in the City's records for Capital Drive that street parking is "being used" to "support" traffic calming in the area. Comment: Gillespie provided no facts to back up his statement, appears to be made up out of thin air. His statement is unsupported and unreliable. 29. RE: "The roadway has historically performed well and there is no engineering evidence to the contrary." Please explain this as requested for question #23. March 8, 2018 P a g e (8 Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte Comment: See comment under question #23. 30. RE: "City staff re-paved the street systems serving the site prior to the PUD application. The evaluation and conclusions for re-paving were made independent of the PUD application. Multiple City of Eugene transportation professionals reviewed the rehabilitation plan and the plan was approved to reconstruct to historical grades, controls and parking patterns." Please explain how these historical events and decisions, made in the absence of any consideration of the proposed PUD's impacts, are probative the current PUD approval process. Comment: Gillespie declined to explain his statement. His statement is not probative. 31. "The applicant's engineer provided a robust traffic study and concluded the existing roadway system is safe and adequate to serve. I have also reviewed the roadway system and conclude there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. Therefore, City staff concurs with the applicant's engineer and recommends the existing transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no offsite mitigation is required." Correct me if I'm wrong. This is your summary and contains no additional supporting evidence or analysis. Comment: Gillespie did not indicate my (Conte) understanding was incorrect. Obviously, this paragraph adds no reliable or probative evidence or relevant argument. March 8, 2018 P a g e 19 EXHIBIT C Report by Traffic Engineer Evaluation of City staff testimony regarding O akleigh Lane This report evaluates the testimony of Scott Gillespie of the Eugene Public Works Department and Mark H. Dahl of the Eugene Springfield Fire Marshal's Office. Report Conclusion "Based on the review of the Nemariam Report and the two documents cited above, it is my professional opinion that neither document provides relevant, substantial evidence that would contradict the conclusions in the Nemarion Report. Providing additional housing for a community is a priority for many cities and counties to meet the growing demand. That, however, must be done in a responsible way so the safety and well-being of the existing and future residents of an established community is not compromised. It is also my independent, professional opinion that the Nemarion Report provides reliable, substantial evidence and expert analysis that supports the conclusions in the report. ' CONTE - EXHIBIT Al 5640 SW Ivfurray Blvd. #20 Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553 MASSOUD G. SABERMN, PE, PTOE P.O. Box 9511 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 sabaces100@gmai1. corn PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS Principal Transportation Engineer, Supervisor, Project Manager skilled in State and Local projects, QA/QC 28+ years. Consulting Engineer (1981 to 82, 1985 to 90, 2002-03) 7+ years, SABA Consulting & Engineering Services since 1988 Proficient Manager, proven leadership skills, knowledgeable transportation engineer and excellent consensus builder, 27 years Expertise with the latest standards and design guideline (i.e. MUTCD, AASHTO, HCM, ODOT, and other public agencies, 27+ years PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Supervising Engineer - City of Santa Rosa Public Works - Santa Rosa, CA - Since Dec 2013 Provided supervision, mentorship and leadership to transportation engineering section, provided detailed engineering including but not limited to Safety Projects, Neighborhood Traffic Calming, Traffic Control Plan and related programs, Project Management, Corridor Studies, School Zone safety, Work Zone safety, Development Review, and various other capital projects. Principal Engineer - SABA, Consulting and Engineering Services (SABA, C.E.S.), Beaverton, OR - Since July 1988 Provided services as a civil engineering consulting engineer in charge of preparing Traffic Impact Statements, traffic analysis, safety audits, acted as an expert witness in litigated matters, prepared work zone safety plans, civil engineering, project management, contract documents, budget preparation and review, development review, school zone safety, traffic management for public and private clients and over 100 projects in Oregon and Washington, etc. Transportation Engineer - City of Pasco, Public Works/Engineering, Pasco, WA - Sept. 2011 to May 2012 Managed City's Traffic Engineering, Signals, Safety Projects, Street Lighting, Neighborhood Traffic Calming, Traffic Control Plan and related programs, Project Management, Signing and Striping standards, etc. Principal Transportation Engineer - City of Lake Oswego, Public Works/Engineering, Lake Oswego, OR - July 2006 to Sept. 2011 Led City's Traffic Engineering, Signals, Safety Projects, Neighborhood Traffic Calming, Traffic Control Plan and related programs, Project Management, Corridor Studies, School Zone safety, Work Zone safety, Development Review, etc. Senior Traffic/Signal Engineer - Oregon Department of Transportation Headquarters, Salem, OR - July 2003 to July 2006 Established Statewide Signal Approval Procedure and List on all State Highways, Updated the Statewide Signal Policy and Guidelines, Managed Signal Operation Group (6-8 staff) overseeing statewide periodic signal timing updates and Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrow Signal Implementation in the State. Multiple legislative updates In Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes as related to Traffic Control Devices in general and Signals in particular. MASSOUD G. SABERIAN, PE, PTOE 5640 SW Murray Blvd. #20 Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553 P.O. Box 9511 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 sabaces100@gm ail. com Transportation Manager - Berger/ABAM Engineers Inc.; Portland, OR - July 2002 to July 2003 Recruited to develop and expand a Transportation Section in the Portland Office. The primary efforts included but not limited to intensive marketing with public agencies throughout the State, team building and networking in the Oregon market. Also, supported transportation needs in other national and international market (Dubai) for variety of transportation related efforts. In addition, the work included project management, and related report preparation and QA/QC efforts. Senior Traffic Engineer, Traffic Analyst - Washington County Dept. of Land use and Transportation, Hillsboro, OR - 1990 to 2002 Responsible for leading the Traffic Operations Section (13-19 Staff). Managed Traffic Calming Program, ITS inception, Project Management, Signal, Subdivision and Street Lighting review, School Zone Safety Program, Crossing Guard Training Program, day to day signal timing and traffic safety and analysis, Night Road Log Program, Intersection Safety Ranking, provided strong and frequent support for County's short and long term Planning, Land Development and Construction Management of multiple Private and Public project including dozens of large subdivisions, major road improvements (MSTIP), and West Side MAX (Light Rail) project from Portland to Hillsboro. In addition, • Prepared technical reports: traffic analysis, cost estimates • Prepared safety analysis, recommendations and operational practices and procedures • Dealt with performance evaluations, personnel issues, disciplinary action as needed • Completed and implemented signal upgrade plans, intersection improvement, and safety projects • provided support as member of many Technical Advisory Committees, Traffic Management Teams • Expanded alternative modes of transportation including pedestrian and bike pathways • Developed and implemented many operational guidelines, signal timing upgrade plans, and School Flashers Program Civil and Traffic Engineer - Robert E. Meyer Consultants Inc., Beaverton, OR - 1988 to 1990 Responsible for transportation planning, intersection design and site design on multiple projects, Assisted in a drainage study for Heritage Creek in Tualatin, OR, Resident Engineer (start to finish) for a 5 Mil Gal. pre-stressed, post-tensioned concrete water reservoir for Oak Lodge Water District in Milwaukie, OR Civil, Design and Traffic Engineer - W-H Pacific (Wilsey and Ham), Beaverton (Portland), OR - 1985 to 1988 • Prepared technical reports: traffic analysis, Traffic Impact Statement, data collection and cost estimates • Prepared safety analysis, recommendations and operational practices and procedures • CAD Design and site design, contour maps, structural analysis and design • Site inspection, project inspection, site assessment, surveys. MASSOUD G. SABERMN, PE, PTOE 5640 SW Murray Blvd. #20 Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553 P.O. Box 9511 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 sabaces100@gn: ail. coin EDUCATION Master of Science, Civil/Transportation Engineering, Minor Statistics - Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR Completed additional 45+ credit hours advanced engineering classes. Bachelor of Science, Civil/Structural Engineering, Minor: Transportation - Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR Completed 210+ credit hours undergraduate core engineering classes. CERTIFICATIONS Professional Engineer (PE), Civil and Traffic Engineer, State of Oregon -1989/1995 Professional Traffic Engineer (TE), State of California - 2014 Professional Engineer (PE), Civil Engineer, State of Washington - 2003 Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE), National ITE - 2006 AFFILIATIONS Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), member since 1990. City of Beaverton's Visioning Advisory Committee - Appointed by City Council, 2012-2013 Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee member since 2007, Vice Chair 2009-10, Chair 2010-11 ITE Technical Committee Chair, Western District 2007, Technical Committee Chair, ITE Quad Conference, 2004 ITE Oregon Section Past President, President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer (2003 to 2007) Oregon Commission on Asian Affairs (Vice Chair) - Appointed by Governor Kulongaski for a 3 year term, 2003-2006 Oregon Commission on Asian Affairs - Appointed by Governor Kitzhaber for two 3 year terms, 1998-2003 Iranian-American Professional Society of Oregon - member, officer, 1995 - 2006, volunteer 2006 to present REFERENCES Gladly provided upon request (Washington County, ODOT, other private and public agencies, personal references). Oakleigh Lane. Eugene, Oregon CONTE - EXHIBIT A2 April 18, 2017 Page: 1 of 5 Date: April 18, 2017 To: Mr. Paul Conte From: Massoud Saberian, PE, PTOE Principal Transportation Engineer SABA Consulting & Engineering Services RE: Oakleigh Lane 250-foot Segment Assessment Dear Mr. Conte, You have requested that I review and provide my expert opinion on the comments in three documents: • April 10, 2017 memo from Scott Gillespie of the Eugene Public Works Department (Exhibit A) • April 12, 2017 comments from Mark H. Dahl of the Eugene Springfield Fire Marshal's Office (Exhibit B) • April 5, 2017 Report prepared by Nemariam Engineering Associates, LLC (Exhibit C Nemariam Report) In review of these three documents, I have summarized my findings in no particular order as follow: The Nemariam Report provided a traffic assessment regarding a 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane in Eugene, Oregon. Nemariam Report, page 1. The Nemariam Report presented substantial evidence, including from the traffic engineer's visit to the site, and concluded that "the 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane, as approved in the City's 'Final Order,' cannot reasonably be relied upon as a'queuing street'that would provide unimpeded emergency response to the proposed PUD." Nemariam Report, page 14. Memo from Scott Gillespie In the first paragraph of Mr. Gillespie's memo, he provides some basic description of the dedication, history and configuration of Oakleigh Lane. The statements that are relevant to the Nemariam Report's assessment, include: • "The Roadway was improved to an approximate continuous width of 20 feet. • "The road] is constructed to Lane County LAR standards." • "The roadway has no curbs." • "Photographic evidence and testimony shows intermittent parking on gravel shoulders." The first statement is inaccurate, and could inadvertently be misunderstood by others as a 20 feet wide roadway. The roadway is improved to only 14 feet (average), more-or-less within the 20-foot right-of- way of the 250-foot segment that the Nemariam Report's assessment covered. Nemariam Report, pages 2, 4, 11 (Table I) and Exhibits C & G.1. This narrow paving was a critical factor in the Nemariam Report's conclusions. The second statement does not provide any data on which segment(s) of the road are City street and which are County road. The statement doesn't describe the "Lane County LAR standards" or the right-of- SABA, C.E.S. - Beaverton, OR 503-888-7553 sabaces100@gmail.com Oakleigh Lane. Eugene, Oregon April 18, 2017 Page: 2 of 5 way and paving configuration where those standards are applicable. Thus, it is impossible to verify this assertion from the information provided. The third statement is accurate and is a factor that was addressed in the Nemariam Report's assessment. While the fourth statement is accurate, it is incomplete. The photographic evidence and statements from the City, which were included as exhibits in the Nemariam Report establish that: a) Parking is legal on the paving within the right-of-way, and b) Parking occurs on the paved area within the right-of-way. Nemariam Report, pages 1, 2, 4 (Table I), page 9 and Exhibits D.1, E.1 & E.2. Such parking, although legal, would create a potential impediment to emergency access via 14-foot-wide paving along the 250-foot segment that the Nemariam Report assessed. There are no Parking prohibitions anywhere along the road segment. The second paragraph of Mr. Gillespie's memo provides the following assertions. My response follows each, in turn. • "[T]he applicant's engineer submitted testimony that identifies the trip impacts from the proposed development site." Response: "trip impacts" appears to refer to the projection of Average Daily Trips (ADT), which were considered in the Nemariam Report's assessment. The ADT across the 250-foot, narrow segment would more than triple from approximately 67 vehicles per day to approximately 235 vehicles per day. Nemariam Report, page 2. "The applicant dedicated the appropriate width of right of way along the frontage of the development site." Response: This "frontage" segment of Oakleigh Lane is east of the 250-foot, narrow segment that must be traversed by all vehicles entering or leaving the proposed PUD site. Nemariam Report, page 2 and Exhibit C. As such, this would have no effect on the analysis or conclusions. • "Oakleigh Lane is a local rural road in Lane County jurisdiction and not located within the City of Eugene." Response: The Nemariam Report did not address which local body(ies) have jurisdiction over Oakleigh Lane, and that factor would not affect the report's assessment of the actual conditions, capacity, safety or potential impediments present on Oakleigh Lane. The Eugene Planning Commission is the local decision making body regarding the proposed PUD. Appropriately, the Nemariam Report's assessment considered for reference those street standards that Eugene's elected officials have adopted. • "The roadway was dedicated and improved as a rural access way to LAR standards." Response: This statement doesn't describe the "LAR standards" or the right-of-way and paving configuration where those standards are applicable. Thus, it is impossible to verify this assertion from the information provided. "The roadway has existed and functioned in its currently capacity for the entirety of its existence." Response: This statement doesn't consider the roadway's "capacity" for a proposed development of 29 new dwellings at its terminus, and is not a factor that would affect the SABA, C.E.S. - Beaverton, OR 503-888-7553 sabaces100@gmail.com Oakleigh Lane. Eugene, Oregon April 18, 2017 Page: 3 of 5 Nemariam Report's assessment addressing future conditions. Nemariam Report, pages 1 and 2. Furthermore, there is no indication of the compromised safety due to an emergency to all residents (existing and future) due to limited width of roadway and added traffic and future need for on street parking. • "There is no indication the roadway is substandard because it currently meets the rural LAR standards of Lane County." Response: This statement again doesn't describe the "LAR standards" or the right-of-way and paving configuration where those standards are applicable. Thus, it is impossible to verify this assertion from the information provided. The third paragraph of Mr. Gillespie's memo provides the following assertions. My response follows each, in turn. "Intermittent parking is a common feature City wide and acts as a built-in traffic calming feature on most local urban roadways." Response: This statement does not distinguish between roadways configured with parking lanes, and those - like Oakleigh Lane - without a parking lanes. Nemariam Report. Pages 4 (Table 1), 6 and 9. This statement does not address the impediment arising from legal parking that occurs on the paving within the right-of-way, thus obstructing the 14-foot paving that's available for emergency response. As a general statement, that does not seem to take into account the specific conditions on Oakleigh Lane. This statement would have no effect on the Nemariam Report's analysis or conclusions. "The applicant's engineer has provided testimony and analyses for roadway operations and safety, including evidence and analyses demonstrating the roadway has adequate capacity to serve existing and proposed development also provided discussion and evidence supporting the roadways adequacy for basic ingress and egress to the development site, for all modes of travel [also] indicated the lack of the urban features should not be interpreted as being unsafe or inadequate." Response: These statements do not provide any specific citation to the evidence or conclusions provided in testimony of the applicant's engineer. Thus, it is impossible to verify the various assertions from the information provided. I note that "adequacy for basic ingress and egress" does not address the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles. In addition, "lack of urban features" is irrelevant and, appropriately, was not a factor in the Nemariam Report's assessment. The Nemariam Report's analysis, based on a site visit and extensive evidence, concluded the following: "As shown on the photos near the fire hydrant, the available roadway width of less than 20-foot will not provide enough room for firefighters to efficiently set up and use their equipment." Page 8. This can be further complicated during inclement weather conditions or unforeseen emergencies. "This 1,000-foot long dead-end street lacks connectivity to other city streets to efficiently and safely accommodate access to proposed PUD site by emergency fire and medical services vehicles." Page 10. SABA, C.E.S. - Beaverton, OR 503-888-7553 sabaces100@gmail.com Oakleigh Lane. Eugene, Oregon April 18, 2017 Page: 4 of 5 "The safe and unimpeded ability of emergency response vehicles to traverse this extensive length of substandard roadway cannot be ensured without improvements identified elsewhere in this report." Page 10. "The 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane has a pavement width within the public right- of-way of only 14 feet, more-or-less. This narrow pavement width cannot provide safe and unimpeded two-way travel for emergency vehicles attempting to reach the proposed PUD site and/or transit from the PUD site to a hospital." Page 11. - This can be further complicated with random parked vehicles of various sizes, and manner of parking along the way "The 250-foot segment has a right-of-way of 20 feet and a pavement width, exclusive of shoulders, of approximately 14 feet. Due to the limited right-of-way it would be impossible to provide the required 26 feet road width at the fire hydrant unless additional areas were dedicated or an easement provided." Page 11. "Oakleigh Lane, in the configuration approved by the EPC, cannot safely accommodate emergency response vehicles because of the potential for parked vehicles to obstruct the travel lane." Page 14. Mr. Gillespie's memo provides no specific evidence or analysis that would contradict these conclusions. • "The applicant examined the crash history of the entire roadway and concluded there is no evidence that would indicate a safety issue." Response: While this evidence would be relevant to determining how Oakleigh Lane can perform under existing conditions, it does not address future conditions under which fire trucks and other emergency response vehicles would be forced to traverse a potentially obstructed, 250-foot segment of 14-foot-wide paving within the 20-foot right-of-way in order to protect 29 new dwellings at the end of the road. • "City staff concurs with the applicant's engineer and finds the existing Oakleigh Lane to be adequate to serve the development site." Response: This conclusion is supported only by other non-specific statements within Mr. Gillespie's memo; and, as noted earlier, the memo provides no actual data or analysis from the referenced applicant engineer's report. As such, it does not provide any independent testimony that would warrant any revision to the Nemariam Report's analysis or conclusions. Comments by Mark H. Dahl Mr. Dahl makes two assertions, which I address in turns: "1. The existing Oakleigh Lane in and of itself does not exhibit si ni icant risk to emergency response actions." (italics and underlining in original) Mr. Dahl provides only two assertions in support of this conclusion: • An existing fire hydrant provides the required water supply for firefighting capability. • Current fire code requirements for width could not be imposed for the lane itself. The first bullet item does not address the safety of Oakleigh Lane, and the Nemariam Report's assessment did not address the sufficiency of water supply. SABA, C.E.S. - Beaverton, OR 503-888-7553 sabaces100@gmall.com Oakleigh Lane. Eugene, Oregon April 18, 2017 Page: 5 of 5 The second bullet item addresses a legal question, which, appropriately, the Nemariam Report did not address in its assessment. Neither of these statements address the actual conditions, capacity, safety or potential impediments present on Oakleigh Lane. Note that the "existing fire hydrant" mention in Mr. Dahl's comments is actually inside the right-of-way and constitutes a physical obstruction that may impede emergency access. Nemariam Report, pages 5 (Table I), 8,12 and Exhibits C, D.1 and F.1. "2. The proposed development accounts for actual safety improvements regarding emergency response for both fire related and medical related responses." (italics and underlining in original) In support of this conclusion, Mr. Dahl provides three assertions, all regarding provisions for improvements entirely on the proposed development site: An on-site "hammerhead" turnaround for used by emergency vehicles An on-site fire access lane • Sprinkler systems within the proposed dwellings on the site While all of these items provide safety features on the development site, none of them address conditions on Oakleigh Lane. In conclusion, there is nothing in Mr. Dahl's comments that would warrant any revision to the Nemariam Report's analysis or conclusions. Summary Based on the review of the Nemariam Report and the two documents cited above, it is my professional opinion that neither document provides relevant, substantial evidence that would contradict the conclusions in the Nemarian Report. Providing additional housing for a community is a priority for many cities and counties to meet the growing demand. That, however, must be done in a responsible way so the safety and well being of the existing and future residents of an established community is not compromised. It is also my independent, professional opinion that the Nemarian Report provides reliable, substantial evidence and expert analysis that supports the conclusions in the report. SABA, C.E.S. - Beaverton, OR 503-888-7553 sabaces100@gmail.com EXP: June 2018