The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1st Open Record Period: Applicant Comments submitted 3-21-18 · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ·· TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM March 21, 2018 DATE: Capital Hill PUD PROJECT: Eugene Hearings Official TO: Bill Kloos, PC CC: Damien Gilbert, P.E. FROM: Principal, Branch Engineering, Inc Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) RE: In response to testimony provided in the record and at the hearing, I offer the following clarifications The most important item to point out is that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required for this project Mr. Massoud Saberian, P.E. submitted a critical and clearly biased review of the voluntary traffic safety study submitted by the applicant for the subject project. In this review, he represented himself as somehow more qualified than the professional engineers at the City of Eugene to review a traffic study. It is unclear if Mr. Saberian ever visited the site or closely examined the traffic conditions himself his report merely uses the photos provided by those in opposition to the application. These photos dramatize the conditions of the roadway system and we do not know whether or not they were staged. Furthermore, nothing in those photos or review comments were related to the relevant criteria or demonstrated a standard was not met. Mr. Saberian is a full-time supervising engineer at the City of Santa Rosa, California. The address for the consulting and engineering company he listed on his review report is in Beaverton, Oregon, and is a residential apartment address. The Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) for engineers specifically prohibit an engineer from representing themselves in an office when they actually work full-time from another office. In particular, OAR 820-010-0720(1)(a) prohibits an engineering office from operating without a fulltime Oregon licensed engineer. It is questionable how an engineer can be in responsible charge of engineering work at two different engineering offices in two different states at the same HEARINGEXHIBITG 310 5 Street, Springfield, OR 97477 | 541.746.0637 www.BranchEngineering.com th Technical Memo to Hearings Official - Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) March 21, 2018 time. One might assume this is a moonlighting condition, but that is an extremely unlikely and unrealistic commute for that to be the case. Attached for information is a print from the City of Santa Rosa webpage. Mr. Saberian did not submit any engineering calculations and was unable to demonstrate that the relevant criteria. As the supervising engineer for the City of Santa Rosa, it is questionable that he is familiar with the local approval criteria in the first place. The applicant has worked diligently to meet their burden of proof, including providing a traffic study when one was not required. The analysis to ensure the application conformed to approval criteria. Their unbiased review finds the ia. It should be noted that in the second paragraph of Existing C e standard was met, there were a number of erroneous claims that the roadway width is somehow responsible for cars parked on sidewalks, delivery trucks and service vehicles making the roadway width feel narrow, neighbors piling landscaping equipment on the sidewalk, a car turning around at a garage sale, snow collecting on a high-elevation roadway, and neighbors that constructed steep driveways. I am unsure about the conditions or standards in Santa Rosa, California, but these conditions are not unusual in Eugene, Oregon and they are certainly not an example of a criterion not being met. The off-site roadway exceeds the City standard for clear lane width of 14-feet on a local street or access lane, provided the one area identified in my traffic safety study and recommended for a safety improvement is followed. This is the area where approximately four cars park on the downhill side of the street at approximately 2625 Capital Drive. This was recommended with or without the subject development application. As you witnessed in the hearing, the neighbors agree that the on-street parking is not an ideal condition. While there is still no recent known accident history on this off-site roadway, the traffic study recommends a safety improvement for that area. As stated above, Capital Drive is not a unique condition. There are narrow streets with no sidewalks all over Hendricks Park Hill, Laurel Valley, and the Fairmont neighborhood. It is the character of the neighborhood. One of the most recent reconstruction projects of a roadway in Eugene was Crest Drive. It was built to 18-feet in width. The C involvement because the neighbors wanted to slow traffic on their street. It worked. confirmed that width, and the based on the approval criteria and the standards. Page | 2 Branch Engineering, Inc. Technical Memo to Hearings Official - Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) March 21, 2018 All of the other issues noted by residents regarding the street was in reference to their neighbors speeding or parking illegally on the street. These are not issues that need to be addressed with this application. They are enforcement issues that should be raised with the City of Eugene - not the Hearings Official in reference to this application. There are some relevant, yet incorrect, items referenced in the critical review by Mr. Saberian that I will respond to for clarification: Comment 12: Branch Engineering Response: A number of test runs were performed and 15 visited the site and utilized engineering judgement to calculated sight distance. Mr. Saberian himself identified the entire roadway of having a safe operating speed of 15-20 MPH. The curve in question is the slowest operating portion of that roadway and 15 MPH is appropriate. The City of Eugene traffic engineers agreed. Comment 13: Branch Engineering Response: As indicated in the safety study, a speed study was conducted. Comment 14: Branch Engineering Response: The new data was collected to confirm conditions had not significantly change, and tdata was reliable and the city engineers agreed. It confirmed the original data was still reliable. There was one new home constructed on this street since the original data and we verified that the volumes and conditions Comment 18: Page | 3 Branch Engineering, Inc. Technical Memo to Hearings Official - Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) March 21, 2018 Branch Engineering Response: The maximum slope for an accessible pathway according to the ADA is 5-percent. The offsite portions of Capital Hill all exceed 5-percent in grade. It cannot meet ADA standards. The onsite portions will be designed to meet ADA standards where required by code. maintenance, or other items not applicable to the PUD standards. It should be noted that Mr. Saberian has submitted misleading and incorrect information in his report, which demonstrate his inability to provide an unbiased review using the applicable approval criteria. It further demonstrates that the opinion of the who independently reviewed the report should be considered as more reliable. Mr. Saberian showed further bias and unfamiliarity with the Oregon Engineering Board and professional conduct by engineers in Oregon by misleading the public about the qualifications of a civil engineer examination. There are several conditions that have been grandfathered in and third-party quasi- credentials you can obtain, but under the authority of the Oregon Board of Engineering Examiners, there is no such examination to be a traffic engineer and Mr. Saberian was misleading the public with his statements that he was somehow more qualified than a Professional Engineer (P.E.) in Oregon. Attached is the application for an engineer in Oregon to apply for another discipline of engineering. (There is no traffic engineer license listed.) The post-nominal courtesy titles used by Mr. Saberian on his critical review have no relevance in a professional capacity in the State of Oregon or rule. There is no branch or discipline regulated under the Oregon State Board of Examiners for what state he is attempting to practice in, is confused about what he is licensed to practice, is intentionally misleading the public. The proper post-nominal initials for a Professional Traffic Engineer in Oregon is PTE. These post- nominal initials are not considered by the Board as having more of a credential than a P.E.; rather, it is reserved and specifically described in the OARs as a very limited profession that cannot practice in other areas of engineering such as civil, environmental, et cetera. This title remains from decades ago when they offered a as a P.E. The board will continue the title until there are no more Traffic Engineers remaining by Page | 4 Branch Engineering, Inc. Technical Memo to Hearings Official - Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) March 21, 2018 attrition. A list of the three remaining Professional Traffic Engineers in Oregon is attached. Mr. Saberian is not one of them. There are other terms used by the Board to organize registrants. If a registrant wants to obtain interstate reciprocity, and has a specialty in traffic engineering, they will issue a P.E. license and database file. This does not give them a special credential in Oregon. It means they are listed under the branch of traffic engineering because they either passed that test when one was offered or are grandfathered in. Conversely, in Oregon, a P.E. can practice in their areas of expertise based on their individual experience. There are few areas of engineering that require a specialty title in Oregon, such as Structural Engineer, for highly specialized work such as essential facilities and structures over certain heights. The only examination offered by OSBEELS available to a qualified candidate that is pursuing a career in traffic engineering is the exam for civil engineering with a transportation emphasis. That is the exam I took and passed. In Oregon, civil engineers practice traffic engineering. As a licensed P.E. in Oregon, Mr. Saberian should be aware of this. Either Mr. Saberi experience in Oregon to understand this or he is deliberately misleading the public with false statements. Unnecessary and irrelevant post-nominal initials after a name do not demonstrate superior experience or qualification in the State of Oregon. In response to the absurd suggestion that I do not have the expertise to perform traffic engineering related work, I would reference the statements in the C review of my study submitted for the subject application. I also offer the following brief outline of my experience and qualifications for information: Damien Gilbert, P.E. has been performing professional level traffic engineering work in Lane County Oregon for 23 years and has personally authored and been in responsible charge of over 100 traffic studies throughout the State of Oregon during his career. He has been licensed to practice engineering in the State of Oregon for 14 years. He is also licensed to practice engineering in Washington. His full-time office and sole place of employment is in Springfield, Oregon, where he is a Partner and Principal Engineer at Branch Engineering, Inc., a local consulting firm employing 25 engineers and surveyors. He is recognized throughout the transportation professional community of the Lane County area as an expert in transportation related engineering planning, analysis, and design. He is currently consulting City Engineer for three local area cities (Harrisburg, Coburg, and Monroe), is an on-call traffic/transportation engineer for three local cities (Albany, Veneta, and Cottage Grove), and routinely provides engineering services to the Oregon Department of Transportation. Branch Engineering maintains current active contracts and projects with all seven of these government clients. He grew up, walks, recreates, lives, and drives in the south hills of Eugene, and is uniquely familiar with the character of the Hendricks Park and Fairmont neighborhood street and trail systems. Page | 5 Branch Engineering, Inc. rofessional Engineers Oregon P Application for Additional Branches BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING & | IiP 1 of 1 nstrut ons cage LAND SURVEYING 670 Hawthornetel. 503.362.2666 Aenue, SE Av A email: osbeels@osbeels.org Suite 220 osbeels@osbeels.org Salem, Oregon 97301eb: oregon.gov/osbeels WW W oregon.gov/osbeels PProfessional Engineers of Oregon P fo O Instir Fillih trt t uconsnge u foof AppliatiAdditial BnchEngieeri conr onraesnng The following instructions are provided to assist in completing the application. PLEASE READ the applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORSs) PLEASE NOTE: and the OregonAdministratie Rules (OARs). To locate the v This application is to be completed by ORSs and the OARs, visit our ebsite at w Oregon registered professional engineers. www.oregon.gov/osbeels Click on the “Rules & Statutes” link . in the top bar to review the relevant ORSs and OARs. It is theApplicant’s responsibility to review these requirements before applying to the Board. Purpose The purpose of this application is for Oregon PE registrants who qualify for registration in additional branches of the Board under OAR 820-010-1010. See the following OAR for detailed information: OAR 820-010-1000(6). Application Fees The application fees are located in OAR 820-080-0010.Application fees are non-refundable, in accordance with OAR 820-080-0005. Applications are Processed How GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Step 1: Complete theApplication form. Step 2: Send application package, including payment, to the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Sur eying (OSBEELS): v OSBEELS 670 Hawthorne enue, SE A AvA Suite 220 Salem, OR 97301 Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying tel. 503.362.2666 email: osbeels@osbeels.org Additional Branches, BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 670 Hawthorne Avenue, SEtel. 503.362.2666 email: osbeels@osbeels.org Suite 220 Salem, Oregon 97301Web: oregon.gov/osbeels A Oregon Professional Engineers Application for Additional Branches of Engineering Applicant Information A A AA AA A If you have a Social Security number Oregon law requires that it be used. Only use a Passport number if you don’t have a A AA A A AA A AA AA OR A AA Business name Address for public disclosure (As per Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 192) State Zip The Oregon Examiner The Oregon Examiner. Business Email Oregon Professional Engineers B Application for Additional Branches BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING & Page 2 of 4 LAND SURVEYING B Professional Engineering Branches BB B BB B BB Environmental B BB B BB Forest B BB Other B Select payment method (choose one) Debit or Credit Card Security Codes C C Answer the following questions (see OAR 820-020-0045) C CC No C CC CC No CC conviction and sentencing records, as applicable. C CC CC Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying tel. 503.362.2666 email: osbeels@osbeels.org Additional Branches, Oregon Professional Engineers D Application for Additional Branches BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING & Page 3 of 4 LAND SURVEYING D Summarize Active Oregon Registration D DD D D Summarize Additional Branch of Professional Engineering Examination D DD D D Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying tel. 503.362.2666 email: osbeels@osbeels.org Additional Branches, Oregon Professional Engineers E Application for Additional Branches BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING & P 4 of 4 age LAND SURVEYING EEE EE EE EEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEE E EEEE EEEEEEEEE E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE EE EE EE EEEEEE EE EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEE E EEE EEEEE EE E EEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE EEE EE E E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE E EEEE E EEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE E E EEEEEE EE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE E E EEE E E EEEEEEEEEEEEE E E E EEE E EE EE EEEEEEEEEEE EE E E E E E EEEEE EE EEEEEEEE EEEEEE E E EE EE vidihe followiieilywithhideli lidbove By tturto tte prongng sgna you are agreng ompguness a e, ce F Date (Mo/Day/Yr) Signature F I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided on this application is true and correct, and that the accompanying documents, if included, are genuine. I am the Applicant named in this application, I have read the contents thereof and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the foregoing statements are true and correct in every respect. F Date (Mo/Day/Yr) F F F F F Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying tel. 503.362.2666 email: osbeels@osbeels.org Additional Branches, Not according to the web site or the OSBGE Board. Lapsed as of 12.31.17 HEARING EXHIBIT H HEARING EXHIBIT I March 20, 2018 Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group 375 W. 4 Avenue, Suite 401 th Eugene, OR 97401 ʹ REG/GIR EOTECHNICALEOLOGIC NVESTIGATION EBUTTAL CHPUD APITAL ILL E,O UGENE REGON BEI.PN.14-020 RANCH NGINEERING NC ROJECT O This letter is intended to address specific comments regarding our February 6, 2017 Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation report and subsequent May 30, 2017 Addendum prepared by Gary Sandstrom, CEG and myself. I feel it should be stated that the report was intended to be a preliminary investigation for planning purposes with a concentration on the proposed roadway layout; as stated in Sections 4.0 and 5.1 of the report additional site evaluation at the time of more extensive design work and possible construction may be required. Specific comments by Gunnar Schlieder and others during the March 7, 2018 public hearing and in Mr. Suitability of Lots 18 & 19 (formerly Lots 19 & 20 in our report) The location of these lots as well as 16 & 17 are close to the mapped landslide area; however, as stated in our report a site specific foundation investigation is recommended for these and all the lots on the east side of the proposed development as a pier style foundation system or more extensive earthwork is anticipated for these lots. Our report shows the area on Figure 1 as an exclusion zone for public improvements and special consideration for residentia- Addendum. Regarding the scale on our Area Slope Hazard Map figure attached to the Addendum, Mr. Schlieder is correct that the scale is twice as large as it should be and was likely not scaled properly; however, Figure 3 in our report, which shows the similar landslide conditions is properly scaled. Slope Instability There are areas of gross land instability on the east side and those were field mapped to the best of our ability with no ground reconnaissance of the site. The supposed landslide features that appear to encroach onto the northeast portion of the site are just as likely to be erosional in nature if they exist at all. sandstone -vs- volcanic rock. While true that our test pits did predominately encounter sandstone, the north- northeastern portion of the site is mapped as intrusive volcanic rock in the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industies (DOGAMI) Open File Report (OFR) 0-03-11 and OFR 0-10-03 Map of the Geology of the Southern Willamette Valley. Our site reconnaissance indicated the presence of this volcanic rock EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER 310 5 Street, Springfield, OR 97477 | p: 541.746.0637 | www.branchengineering.com th Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation Rebuttal Capital Hill PUD Eugene, Oregon although no test pits were conducted in that area. The ridge line of the site is a linear extension of the same volcanic rock intrusion that is visible in the road cut along Franklin Blvd north of the site. The intrusion of this volcanic rock through the sedimentary rock deposits is suspect to be a primary cause of the slope dip in the sedimentary rock that Mr. Schlieder discussed. Bedding strikes in OFR 0-10-03 show an 11° dip to the northeast in the area of the subject site. Biased Assessment The location selection of our test pits was based on the proposed roadway alignments and accessibility to equipment without extensive vegetation removal or earthwork. The entire site was walked by Gary Sandstrom CEG. It seems contradictory to me that Mr. Schlieder would accuse us of being bias when he brought up a landslide on 30 Avenue about ½-mile south of the site; which according to the June 4, 1985 report for Lane County th prepared by L.R. Squire Assoicates Inc. indicating that the landslide that occurred in 1984 was categorized as an earthflow resulting seepage pressures due to fill placement by the County in 1982 over fill placed in 1964. Placement of Level Spreaders Little I can say on this topic, it is not the best idea in my opinion. Three claims I would like to be able to make are: 1) we are not removing the resisting force at the toe of any slide area by removing soil, 2) we are not increasing the driving force at the top of any slide area by placing soil, and 3) we are not adding water into the slide area but actually reducing the water by conveyance to a more suitable point of disposal. I am not sure where that more suitable point of disposal is but it would be nice to find one. Soil Creep Soil creep is the downhill movement of near surface soil (usually the upper 2- to 3-feet) due to gravity, freeze/thaw, and shrink/swell effects. The slow creep may cause a pistol-butting of tree trunks during their early growth phase until substantial root mass and trunk strength is developed. Creep is common on most hillsides and does not indicate gross landslide movement. Creep movement is generally mitigated by modern foundation systems and control of soil moisture and temperature under and around the residence to where the slow movement is unnoticeable over the typical lifespan of a residence. Sincerely, Branch Engineering Inc., Ronald J. Derrick, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer HEARINGEXHIBITJ 2 Branch Engineering, Inc. March 21, 2018 HEARING EXHIBIT K March 20, 2018 Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group 375 W. 4 Avenue, Suite 401 th Eugene, OR 97401 ʹ REG/GIR EOTECHNICALEOLOGIC NVESTIGATION EBUTTAL CHPUD APITAL ILL E,O UGENE REGON BEI.PN.14-020 RANCH NGINEERING NC ROJECT O Soil Creep Soil creep is the downhill movement of near surface soil (usually the upper 2- to 3-feet) due to gravity, freeze/thaw, and shrink/swell effects. The slow creep may cause a pistol-butting of tree trunks during their early growth phase until substantial root mass and trunk strength is developed. Creep is common on most hillsides and does not indicate gross landslide movement. Creep movement is generally mitigated by modern foundation systems and control of soil moisture and temperature under and around the residence to where the slow movement is unnoticeable over the typical lifespan of a residence. Sincerely, Branch Engineering Inc., Ronald J. Derrick, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer HEARINGEXHIBITL EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER 310 5 Street, Springfield, OR 97477 | p: 541.746.0637 | www.branchengineering.com th Soasnottobe“anexerciseinguessingwithnocriterionuponwhichtoobjectivelyevaluate thesubmittedimages,”theApplicationshouldatleastcontainbestcase/worstcase“broad brush”scenariosusingthecoderequirements.Withouttheseaids,thecommunityliterally hasnothingtouseto“envision”theproposedproject. However,theResponseCommitteeitselfhascreatedsomevisualreferencesthataretelling: Thetworenderingsbelow(#1-fromcentralEugenelookingtotheeasttowardtheridgeline andtheproposedprojectand#2-fromLaurelHillValleylookingtothewesttowardthe ridgelineandtheproposedproject)aretelling.Becauseofthelargenumberoftreesonthe projectsitethatcouldbefelledandthepossibleheightofsomeresidences,especiallyonthe easternsideoftheproject,themassoftheprojectatbuildoutcouldeasilyovertakethe hillside,foreverruiningthedistantviewtowardthetopofCapitalHill. 43 HEARING EXHIBIT M HEARING EXHIBIT P Form 2 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST RESPONSE CITY IS NOT CUSTODIAN OF REQUESTED RECORDS $ ³¤ ®¥ 2¤²¯®²¤Ȁ 2/2/2018 Request 2¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ¡¸ #¨³¸ 2¤¢®±£¤±Ȍ² /¥¥¨¢¤ ®± 0´¡«¨¢ 2¤¢®±£² #®®±£¨ ³®±Ȁ 01/30/2018 . ¬¤ ®¥ 2¤°´¤²³®±Ȁ "¨«« +«®®² - ¨«¨¦ !££±¤²²Ȁ , ¶ /¥¥¨¢¤ "¨«« +«®®² 0#Ǿ ΒΖΔ 7ȁ Γ !µ¤Ǿ 3´¨³¤ ΑΏΓǾ %´¦¤¤ ΘΖΓΏΐ th %¬ ¨« !££±¤²²: billkloos@landuseoregon.com / * ´ ±¸ ΒΏǾ ΑΏΐΗǾ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ %´¦¤¤ received ¸®´± 0´¡«¨¢ 2¤¢®±£² 2¤°´¤²³ ¥®±Ȁ ȏ#®¯¸ ®¥ ¥®±¬ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ´²¤² ¨ ¢®©´¢³¨® ¶¨³§ ¯¯«¸¨¦ %# ΘȁΗΒΑΏȨΖȩȨ¢ȩǾ ¶§¨¢§ ² ¸²Ȁ ȏ! ¶±¨³³¤ ¢®¬¬¨³¬¤³ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³ ®± ®³§¤± ¯ ±³¸ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¥®± ®¥¥²¤³³¨¦ «« ££¤£ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¢®²³² ®± ¤ ±«¸ ¢®¬¬¨³¬¤³ ®¥ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¥´£² ¬ £¤ ¤¢¤²² ±¸ ¡¸ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³Ǿ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ® ¥®±¬ ¢¢¤¯³ ¡«¤ ³® ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ ¬ ¦¤±ȁ” #¨³¸ ²³ ¥¥ § µ¤ ±¤µ¨¤¶¤£ ¸®´± ±¤°´¤²³ £ § µ¤ £¤³¤±¬¨¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¨² ®³ ³§¤ ¢´²³®£¨ ®¥ ¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¢®±£² ¸®´ ±¤°´¤²³¤£ǿ ³§¤±¤¥®±¤Ǿ ® ±¤¢®±£² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ³® ¸®´ȁ 9®´ ¬ ¸ ²¤¤ª ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² £¤¢¨²¨® ® ¸®´± ¯´¡«¨¢ ±¤¢®±£² ±¤°´¤²³ ¯´±²´ ³ ³® /23 ΐΘΑȁΓΕΏȁ 0´¡«¨¢ 2¤¢®±£² #®®±£¨ ³®± ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¨¦ ³§¤ ±¤²¯®²¤ ³® ³§¨² ±¤°´¤²³Ȁ . ¬¤ 4 ¬ ± 2¨¢§ ±£² Phone (541)682-8817 Email tamara.n.richards@ci.eugene.or.us 0«¤ ²¤ ¢®³ ¢³ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ 2¤¢®±£² #®®±£¨ ³®± ¨¥ ¸®´ § µ¤ ¸ °´¤²³¨®²ȁ HEARING EXHIBIT Q HEARING EXHIBIT R HEARING EXHIBIT S HEARING EXHIBIT xxx BROWN Daren M From:MCCULLOUGH Wallace <Wallace.McCullough@EWEB.ORG> Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:52 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:KLOOS Bill (SMTP) Capital Hill PUD, PDT 17-1; Owner Commitment to Fund Water Infrastructure Subject: Attachments:Capital Hill Owner Commitment re Water Infrastructure 3.6.2018.pdf bźĭƉͲ 99.ŷğƭƩĻǝźĻǞĻķƷŷĻğƷƷğĭŷĻķhǞƓĻƩ/ƚƒƒźƷƒĻƓƷƷƚCǒƓķğƷĻƩLƓŅƩğƭƷƩǒĭƷǒƩĻğƓķŅźƓķźƷğĭĭĻƦƷğĬƌĻ͵ tƌĻğƭĻĭƚƓƷğĭƷƒĻźŅǤƚǒŷğǝĻğƓǤƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭƚƩƩĻƨǒźƩĻğƓǤŅǒƩƷŷĻƩźƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ͵ ŷğƓƉƭ ğƌƌǤaĭ/ǒƌƌƚǒŭŷ ğƷĻƩ9ƓŭźƓĻĻƩźƓŭ{ǒƦĻƩǝźƭƚƩ΋9ǒŭĻƓĻğƷĻƩε9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭ.ƚğƩķ ЍЋЉЉwƚƚƭĻǝĻƌƷ.ƌǝķ΋9ǒŭĻƓĻͲhwВАЍЉЋ΋ƚƩƉΉCğǣʹЎЍЊЏБЎАЍЌЎ 1