HomeMy WebLinkAbout2nd Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-22-18 to 3-30-18)
·
·
Gmail-Public Records requestPage1 of2
CONTE EXHIBIT A1
STAFF RESPONSE TO
Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
Public Records request
Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:53
RICHARDS Tamara N
<Tamara.N.Richards@ci.eugene.or.us>
AM
To: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Cc: Eugene Public Records Requests <PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us>, SOMMERS
Lauren A <Lauren.A.Sommers@ci.eugene.or.us>
Mr. Conte,
This email responds to your public records requests:
1.Dated March 11, 2018: “Specifically in electronic form only. The FINAL form and version of
the staff report for PDT 17-1 that was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018’.
This electronic file must not be altered in any manner during production of the response to this
public records request”; and
2.Dated March 14, 2018: “Specifically in electronic form only. The e-mail received by Nick
Gioello with the attached final version of the Public Works ‘Referral Response’ for PDT 17-1 that
was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018.’ The attached file must not be
altered in any manner during production of the response to this public records request. Simply
forwarding the e-mail and attachment directly to me is the simplest and preferred response to this
request.
Although your March 11, 2018, request is for a “staff report,” based on the description of the requested
document, (i.e. that it is dated November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018), I believe you are actually
requesting the Public Works Referral Comments for the Capital Hill PUD application, and not the “staff
report” for that application. However, if you were in fact requesting the staff report, here is the link to the
staff report that was placed before the Hearings Officialhttp://pdd.eugene-
or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=PDT-17-0001&id=2171749.
The initial referral comments submitted by Public Works and dated 11-30-17 were attached to an email
sent to Nick Gioello on 12-8-17. A copy of that email with the referral comments is attached. On 2-12-18,
Nick Gioello received revised comments via email from Eric Favreau. A copy of that email and the revised
comments are attached to this response. Nick queried Eric about one section of those comments (EC
9.6815(2)(f) and received an email on 2-13-18 (see attached email) with a minor revision altering one
sentence which Nick pasted into the revised 2-12-18 Referral Comments. The 2-12-18 version of the
Referral Comments with the 2-13-18 minor revision is also attached to this email.
On 2-28-18, the day the Staff Report was due, Nick received an email from Eric Favreau with additional
language regarding “Dolan findings” for inclusion in the referral comments and the Staff Report. A copy of
that email is attached to this response. The entire text of the Referral Comments (as revised on 2-13-18)
and the Dolan findings are included in the Staff Report, which is available in the link provided above. The
two attached emails from Eric Favreau constitute “The e-mail received by Nick Gioello with the attached
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/21/2018
Gmail-Public Records requestPage2 of2
final version of the Public Works ‘Referral Response’ for PDT 17-1 that was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 –
Revised February 28, 2018.’”
Nick Gioello combined the text of the Referral Comments (as revised on 2-13-18) and the Dolan findings
into a PDF document labeled “November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018.” That document is
available online athttp://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=PDT-17-0001&id=1972166.
That document was not placed before the Hearings Official but contains information virtually identical to
that included in the Staff Report that was placed before the Hearings Official.
541.682.8817
5 attachments
Favreau email 2-13-18.pdf
75K
Favreau email and Dolan Findings 2-28-18.pdf
421K
Favreau email and Referral Comments 2-12-13.pdf
2702K
Favreau email and Referral Comments 12-8-17.pdf
2541K
PW Referral 2-12-18 with edit.pdf
2657K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/21/2018
CONTE EXHIBIT A2 -- Favreau email 2-13-18
CONTE EXHIBIT A3 -- Favreau email and Dolan Findings 2-28-18
CONTE EXHIBIT A4 -- Favreau email and Referral Comments 2-12-13 \[sic\]
(actual date is 2-12-18)
CONTE EXHIBIT A5 -- Favreau email and Referral Comments 12-8-17.pdf
CONTE EXHIBIT A6 -- PW Referral 2-12-18 with edit.pdf
(actually edited/revised on 2-13-18 by Nick Gioello)
Inaccurate revision date
CONTE EXHIBIT B -- STAFF REPORT FROM FILE _03072018-870.pdf
AGENDA
Meeting Location:
Phone: 541-682-5377 Harris Hall Ï Public Service Building
ǞǞǞ͵ĻǒŭĻƓĻƚƩ͵ŭƚǝΉŷĻğƩźƓŭƭƚŅŅźĭźğƌ
125 E. 8 Ave
th
The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you
please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM
assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for
these services, contact the Planning Division at (541)682-5481.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018
(5:30 p.m.)
I.PUBLIC HEARING ON TENETATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1)
Assessors Map: 18-03-04-31 Tax Lots: 100, 200, 201, 300 & 400
Location: Capital Drive
Request: Approval of a tentative planned unit development (PUD) to create a 34-lot
residential subdivision with public and private streets and associated
infrastructure; also designates common open space areas, conservation areas,
and unbuildable areas on 13 lots along the east and south boundaries of the site.
Applicant: Cynthia & Thomas Dreyer
Applicants
Representative: Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group
Lead City Staff: Nick Gioello,
Telephone: (541) 682-5453
E-mail: nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
Public Hearing Format:
1.Staff introduction/presentation
2.Public testimony from applicant and others in support of application.
3.Comments or questions from interested persons who neither are proponents nor opponents of the
proposal.
4.Public testimony from those in opposition to application.
5.Staff response to testimony.
6.Questions from Hearings Official.
7.Rebuttal testimony from applicant.
8.Closing of public hearing.
The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written
decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the
Hearings OfficialÔs decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as
noted above. The decision will also be posted at www.eugene-or.us/hearingsofficial.
Atrium Building
99 West 10 Avenue
th
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Phone: 541-682-5377
Fax: 541-682-5572
www.eugene-or.gov/planning
TENTATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
Application File Name (Number):
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1)
Approval of a tentative planned unit development (PUD) to create a 34-lot residential
subdivision with public and private streets and associated infrastructure; also designates
common open space areas, conservation areas, and unbuildable areas on 13 lots along the
east and south boundaries of the site.
Applicant/Owner:
Cynthia and Tom Dryer
ative(s):
Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group.
Phone: (541) 686-4540
Lead City Staff:
Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, Phone: (541) 682-5453
Subject Property/Location:
Tax Lots 100, 200, 201, 300 and 400 -- -03-04-31. Located at the end of
Capital Drive.
Existing Zoning/Acreage:
R-1 Low-Density Residential. Tax lots 201, 300 and 400 have /PD Planned Development
overlay zoning. Total of approximately 13.63 acres.
Relevant Dates:
Application submitted on March 3, 2017; supplemental materials submitted on June 19,
2017 and August 22, 2017; application deemed complete on August 29, 2017; applicant
requested a 30 day timeline extension on September 8, 2017; public hearing date initially
scheduled for November 1, 2017; supplemental video materials submitted on September
15, 2017; applicant requested an additional 70 day extension on September 28, 2017, public
hearing date re-scheduled for January 10, 2018; applicant requested an additional 70 day
extension on December 21, 2017, public hearing date re-scheduled again for March 7, 2018.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 1
Page 1
What is a Planned Unit Development (PUD)?
Similar to master plans or planned communities, Planned Unit Developments (PUD) include the
development of land through an overall site design on a single parcel of land, or multiple
properties under one or more ownerships. Planned Unit Developments are intended to provide
a high degree of flexibility and often consist of a mix of uses (such as commercial and
residential), but can also be for a residential or commercial development only. The
requirements for approval of a Planned Unit Development application include a detailed review
related to the proposed land use(s), site design, open space, access, parking, compatibility,
natural features, building size, and the arrangement of landscaping and other amenities. This
detailed review is necessary to ensure that flexibility and creative designs proposed by an
applicant are reviewed thoroughly, and approval is dependent on the quality of design and
meeting community expectations embodied in the land use code, and applicable adopted
plans.
Planned Unit Developments are reviewed in two steps. The first is a Tentative Planned Unit
Development application which includes a public hearing, and is followed by a decision made
by the Hearings Official. The second step is the Final Planned Unit Development application
which is reviewed by the Planning Director to ensure that conditions placed on the application
by the Hearings Official are met. Planned Unit Development applications can be voluntary on
the part of an applicant to gain flexibility; required based on a proposed used; or required by
the zoning of a particular site. The particular site in question has a Planned Unit Development
overlay which is intended to fulfill policy direction in the South Hills Study, and requires an
applicant to receive approval for its proposal through the Planned Unit Development process.
Purpose of Staff Report
Staff reports provide community members an opportunity to learn more about the land use
request and to review staff analysis of the application. Staff reports are available seven days
prior to the public hearing (see EC 9.7320). The staff report provides only preliminary
recommendations and information. The Hearings Official will also consider additional public
testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the
application.
--like) role to
The first step is a public hearing, during which the Hearings Official will have an opportunity to
hear from any interested parties who wish to provide testimony, including new evidence.
Following the hearing, the Hearings Official will consider the testimony and evidence before
within 15 days following close of the public record, following the public hearing (see EC
9.7330). For reference, the quasi-judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are
described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095.
Staff Role
City of Eugene Planning staff will be present at the public hearing to assist the Hearings Official.
Staff may provide advice and recommendations based on their professional expertise and
familiarity with the application and record of materials to date; the Hearings Official may
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 2
Page 2
choose whether or not to
Staff also serve as a contact for applicants, neighbors, and other interested parties. In this role,
staff often hear from the people who may be directly impacted by a particular project or
decision. When concerns are raised, staff work to help people better understand how to frame
a concern in terms of the approval criteria. Staff listen carefully to all concerns, seek to fully
understand the issues and impacts of land use applications, and attempt to provide the best
service possible to everyone involved. While all issues are important, staff also make every
effort to help our community understand that all land use decisions must be made based on
the approval criteria located in the Eugene Code an
policies.
Pre-Application Meetings, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
Consistent with EC 9.7005 Pre-application Conference, the applicant met with staff on January
7, 2014 (City File # PC 13-83), thereby meeting the initial application requirement. Since then,
discuss the project, help facilitate open communication between the parties, and share
concerns related to the proposed development. As a result of this input, the applicant made a
number of changes to the proposal in their effort to be responsive to the issues and concerns
initially raised. Staff also provided information concerning this tentative PUD application to
other appropriate City departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected
neighborhood groups, Fairmount Neighbors and Laurel Hill Valley Citizens. Relevant referral
comments are included in the application file for reference, and addressed in the following
evaluation where applicable. The City also mailed and posted notice of the public hearing in
accordance with the applicable code requirements at EC 9.7315.
The site is located within the boundaries of both the Fairmount Neighbors and Laurel Hill Valley
Citizens neighborhood associations as shown below:
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 3
Page 3
clude a more detailed representation of this boundary and its
relationship to the proposed layout of lot boundaries, streets, and other improvements (see
Sheet L2.0).
On November 9, 2016 the applicant also held a neighborhood meeting in compliance with EC
9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings. Representatives from both neighborhood
associations were in attendance, as well as approximately 40 concerned citizens. The applicant
submitted meeting notes, sign-in sheets, and presentation materials which are available in the
application file for review.
Testimony received as of this report is summarized and included as Attachment C. The
Hearings Official will receive a full copy of all written testimony received. Any written
testimony that is received after the date of this report, but prior to the public hearing, will also
be forwarded to the Hearings Official for consideration in making a decision. Public testimony,
written or otherwise, may also be presented at the public hearing on this matter.
Description of Planned Unit Development Request:
The present request is for tentative PUD approval, for a 34-lot single-family residential
subdivision with public and private streets, and associated infrastructure. The development
site includes approximately 13.63 acres of property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. For
site plans are included as
Attachments A and B to this staff report. Lots 17 and 18 are proposed as having the option to
construct up to three attached single-family units on each lot, therefore the total number
single-family homes ranges from 34 to 38. The proposed layout includes designation of
common open space areas, tree preservation areas on some individual lots, public and private
streets, and several shared access driveways.
and site plans, as well as the following staff evaluation, for further details regarding the
proposed development and existing site characteristics.
Other Preliminary Matters
This request is subject to the Type III land use application process. Relevant application
procedures for this request are addressed at EC 9.7300 through 9.7340. Relevant application
requirements and approval criteria for this request are addressed at EC 9.8300 through 9.8320.
It is further noted that the applicant has requested this application to be reviewed under the
general approval criteria at EC 9.8320, rather than the needed housing approval criteria
addressed at EC 9.8325.
Needed Housing Assertion
K
form the applicant
Staff has therefore evaluated the proposal under the general (i.e. discretionary) approval
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 4
Page 4
approval under the general approval criteria, rather than the needed housing approval criteria.
Staff agrees with the assertion that the PUD cannot be developed as proposed under the
Needed Housing approval criteria. However, staff disagrees with statements made by the
Needed Housing approval criteria are applied. Based on a review of the site plan submitted by
the applicant, staff believe that at least two additional units could be developed on the site if
the applicant chose to proceed under the needed housing approval criteria.
In addition, staff notes that ORS 197.307 requires the City to adopt clear and objective approval
criteria for needed housing. ORS 197.307 does not entitle every developer to a set of clear and
objective approval criteria that guarantee approval of every proposed needed housing
development. The City has adopted clear and objective approval criteria for PUDs as required
by ORS 197.307. When applied to this particular proposed development, those clear and
objective approval criteria would appear to prevent the developer from building his preferred
development. In this situation, the developer has two choices: the developer can either rework
the proposed development so it complies with the clear and objective approval criteria; or the
developer can choose to proceed (as the developer has done in this case) under the
discretionary General PUD approval criteria.
Staff assumes the applicant intends to preserve this argument in the event of an appeal;
however, it does not relate to any of the applicable PUD approval criteria and thus is not
addressed any further in the following staff report.
Waiver of Licensed Arborist Requirement
Trepresentative, Carol Schirmer, has requested waiver of the requirement for a
licensed arborist on the Professional Design Team for this applications agent is a
licensed landscape architect who has submitted plans on behalf of many applicants over the
years and has demonstrated professional knowledge of the Eugene Code requirements.
Pursuant to EC 9.8310(2)(b), the Planning Director has waived the requirement for a licensed
arborist on the professional design team. Otherwise, it appears that the applicable design
team requirements at EC 9.8310(2) have been met.
South Hills Study Applicability
The applicant asserts in their written statement that in order for the South Hills Study to be
applicable to the subject property (and they argue that it is not), the City must show that the
subject property is within the regulatory footprint of the South Hills Study. The following
South
Hills Study applicability.
The resolution adopting the South Hills Study (Resolution 2295, adopted June 10, 1974) states
that the policies adopted by the resolution (i.e. the South Hills Study applicable to
th
that area identified in the study as being south of 18
A review of the Summary and Recommendations of the Joint Parks Committee in the
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 5
Page 5
Preliminary Report attached to the resolution and adopted as findings indicates that the Joint
Committee looked at areas both within and outside the City limits, as well as areas north and
south of the ridgeline. According to the Summary and Recommendations, the South Hills Study
involved approximately 8,880 acres of land situated on both the north and south sides of the
Ridgeline, of which approximately 45% was within the City limits at the time. The adopted
Resolution 2295 and the South Hills Study define the study area as all the area south of 18 th
Avenue and above 500 feet. Neither the South Hills Study nor the Resolution limit the area
subject to the South Hills Study to properties located within the city limits at the time the
Resolution was adopted. Additionally, the South Hills Study and its policies are codified in EC
9.9630 and apply within the current City limits, just like the rest of Chapter 9 of the Eugene
Code. EC 9.8320 provides that this PUD must be consistent with applicable adopted refinement
plan policies. Also, Lane County adopted EC 9.9630 as part of the UTA code (Urban Transition
South
Hills Study. Therefore, staff believes the legislative history shows that the South Hills Study
policies also apply to areas outside the City limits but within the within the UGB.
South Hills Study area is limited to its footprint at
the time of adoption. Staff believes that it is reasonable to interpret the footprint of the South
th
Hills Study as encompassing all properties south of 18 Avenue and over 500 feet elevation
within the City limits (and the UGB), based on the legislative history discussed above. Prior to
2003, when the South Hills Study was only applicable within City limits because EC 9.9630 had
not yet been adopted into the UTA code, as new properties annexed to the City (including Tax
Lots 200, 300, and 400) they became subject to the South Hills Study if they were located south
of 18 th Avenue and above 500 feet elevation. After 2003, properties within the UGB located
south of 18 th and above 500 feet were subject to the South Hills Study, either directly, or via EC
9.9630 in the UTA code. By the time Tax Lots 201 and 100 annexed into the City in 2014, they
had already been subject to the South Hills Study via the UTA code.
Staff Evaluation:
As required by the Type III land use application procedures beginning at EC 9.7300, the
Hearings Official must review any planned unit development application and consider pertinent
evidence and testimony as to whether the proposal is consistent with the criteria required for
approval (shown below in bold). Based on the information available as of the date of this staff
report, the following findings and preliminary recommendations are presented.
The Hearings Official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative PUD
application with findings and conclusions. Decisions approving an application, or approving
with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following criteria at EC 9.8320:
EC 9.8320(1) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan.
The Metro Plan land use diagram designates the area of the subject property for low-density
residential use, consistent with its existing R-1 zoning. The proposed development consists of
34 residential lots with two lots (17 and 18) having the option to construct up to three units
each for a total range of 34 to 38 units on 13.63 acres and a gross density between 2.5 to 2.8
units per acre. This is consistent with the low-density residential designation as described in
Policy A.9 (page III-A-8) which indicates up to 10 dwelling units per acre.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 6
Page 6
Policy A.10 describes promoting higher residential density within the UGB while improving
efficiency of public services and utilization of existing infrastructure, and conserving rural
resource lands outside the UGB. While this policy does not constitute an approval standard for
the proposed PUD, tgross
density of .46 units per acre to 2.5 -2.8 units per acre. The proposed street improvements to
Capital Drive adjacent to the PUD site, and the addition of the private street, will provide a
street loop system that efficiently allows for fire safety and emergency services vehicles to
enter and exit the PUD and surrounding area with minimal restrictions. As discussed later in
this report, required upgrades to the water supply system will improve the water capacity to
the existing site and surrounding developed properties. Additional required fire hydrants will
also improve the efficiency of public services necessary for firefighting.
Policy A.13 describes increasing density by increasing opportunities for effectively designed in-
fill and redevelopment while considering impacts to existing and future neighborhoods. The
proposal, as previously indicated would increase the current number of existing units on the
site from 5 to a possible 38 at full build out. The proposed density is similar to the existing
density of surrounding neighborhoods and well below the maximum density allowed. The
proposal creates infill development within the UGB and encourages the redevelopment of
existing older structures as new homes are constructed on the site. To the extent relevant
under this criterion, the proposed PUD appears to meet the intent of the policy.
Policy A.17 describes providing opportunities for a full range of choice in housing types,
density, size, cost and location. The proposal is for 34 lots for single-family home development,
and two lots with the option to construct up to three attached units on each lot. As relevant
here, the proposed PUD will provide additional opportunities for a range of choice in housing
types consistent with the intent of this policy.
T
policies of the Metro Plan. To the extent that those additional findings and policies of the
Metro Plan are relevant and applicable to this request, staff generally concurs and finds that
the proposed development is consistent with the Metro Plan and the above criterion. That
said, and while they have been considered, none of the relevant Metro Plan policies appear to
directly apply as mandatory approval criteria for the PUD.
EC 9.8320(2) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plan policies.
South Hills Study
As previously discussed, the South Hills Study serves as the applicable adopted refinement plan
for the area included in this tentative PUD proposal. The applicability of the South Hills Study is
based on the location of the subject property at an elevation greater than 500 feet and south
th
of 18 Avenue. As expressed in the adopting resolution (Resolution #2295), the Purpose
Statements and Recommendations set forth in the South Hills Study are adopted as policy
statements and as a refinement of the Metro Plan, and are intended to be used in making land-
use decisions in that area. The following findings address those policies (shown in italic) of the
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 7
Page 7
South Hills Study found to be applicable to the proposed tentative PUD. These policies are
found in the Purpose Statements and Recommendations section of the South Hills Study (see
pages 2-6).
Ridgeline Park
The Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study is primarily intended for areas within the
south hills suitable as recreational parks. However, the Specific Recommendations of this
section also describe the following for all vacant property:
level of development, subject to the following exceptions:
1. Development of individual residences on existing lots: and
2. Development under planned unit development procedures when it can be
demonstrated that a proposed development is consistent with the purposes
of this section.
Staff notes that since this application is proposed as a tentative PUD and a portion of the site is
located above 901 feet elevation, the application is required to demonstrate consistency with
at least one of the purposes of the Ridgeline Park section as follows:
1.To ensure preservation of those areas most visibly a part of the entire community;
2.To protect areas of high biological value in order to provide for the continued health
of native wildlife and vegetation;
3.To ensure provision of recreational areas in close proximity to major concentrations
of population;
4.To provide connective trails between major recreational areas;
5.To provide connective passageways for wildlife between important biological
preserves;
6.
7.To provide an open space area as a buffer between the intensive level of urban
development occurring within the urban service area and the rural level of
development occurring outside the urban service area.
The proposal includes a large area of preserved land (Tract A), approximately 2.33 acres along
the entire east property line. Additionally, portions of each individual lot that borders Tract A
are also required to be preserved, totaling approximately 2.08 acres, for a combined total of
4.41 acres of preserved area along the eastern property line. The adjacent Ribbon Trail is a
th
popular trail used by the community at large as a connection from the 30 Avenue and Spring
Boulevard area to Hendricks Park. The preserved areas will help to ensure the preservation of
existing trees and vegetation while providing a continuous visual buffer between the adjacent
Ribbon Trail and the future home sites. Preservation of Tract A and the preserved areas of the
aforementioned individual lots are consistent with Policy 1.
The total preservation area of the PUD includes the aforementioned Tract A and adjacent
individual lots, plus several smaller areas of land throughout the site (Tracts B, C and D),
bringing the total preservation area of the PUD site to approximately 4.54 acres. A small area of
Tract A will be initially disturbed with the inclusion of a storm drainage feature as depicted on
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 8
Page 8
plan sheets L3.3, L3.4 and L4.0. As a result, five trees will be removed in or adjacent to Tract A
and ten replacement trees will be required as detailed in EC 9.8320(4)(b) Tree Preservation, as
discussed later in this report. These described preservations areas will be protected from any
future construction and removal of trees, therefore providing for the continued health of the
native wildlife and vegetation, which is consistent with Policy 2.
The combined preserved areas of Tract A and the preserved areas of the eastern lots also act as
an uninterrupted natural wildlife corridor, enhancing the existing wildlife corridor that the
Ribbon Trail provides from the south of the site to Hendricks Park to the north. This is
consistent with Policy 5.
The Ribbon Trail currently provides a substantial trail connection with Hendricks Park and other
recreational areas to the south. No additional trail connection is needed since there are no
other recreational areas near the subject site other than Hendricks Park.
Based on the available evidence, the applicant has demonstrated consistency with and
exceeded the recommendation by demonstrating consistency with three of the above policies.
Density
The Density section of the South Hills Study is intended to ensure the utilization of vacant
property, define the density range, ensure adequate provisions for development,
accommodate anticipated growth, and achieve a balance between the level of development
and the provisions of public services. The following Specific Recommendation is applicable:
That in the area east of Friendly Street the maximum level of new development per
gross acre be limited to 5 units per acre (the maximum figure of 5 dwelling units per
gross acre being subject to positive findings under the planned unit development
criteria).
The current proposal is located east of Friendly Street and includes the development of 34 to
38 single-family residential dwellings on property encompassing approximately 13.63 acres of
land. The proposed gross density of approximately 2.5 to 2.8 dwelling units per acre is below
the recommended maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre, and is therefore consistent
with the recommendation.
Consistent with the above recommendation, and the PUD applicability provisions at EC
9.8305(1)(a), the proposal is subject to review and approval through the PUD process due to
the elevation, size, and slope of the subject propertyranging between approximately 720 feet
and 923 feet, being 13.63 acres in size, and with slopes on the development site exceeding
20%.
Development Standards
The following policies further implement the intent of the South Hills Study as mandatory
approval criteria for the proposed PUD. For additional discussion, please also see the
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 9
Page 9
That planned unit development procedures shall be utilized for the following purposes:
1. To encourage clustering of development in areas characterized by:
a. Shallowest slopes
b. Lowest elevations
c. Least amount of vegetation
d. Least amount of visual impact.
2. To encourage preservation as open space those areas characterized by:
a. Intermediate and steep slopes
b. Higher elevations
c. Significant amounts of vegetation;
d. Significant visual impact.
in other supporting application materials, the
steepest slopes and higher percentage of vegetation occur on the eastern side of the PUD site.
The Tract A preservation area runs the entire length of the eastern border. All of the lots that
border Tract A (Lots 5, and 8 through 19) also contain varying sized preservation areas. These
combined preservation areas will locate potential building sites on these lots closer to the top
of the ridgeline that this site is located on. This will in effect provide clustering of home sites
where less trees and vegetation are located. Although contrary to the above purposes of
clustering development areas in the lowest elevations and preserving open space in the highest
elevations, the physical characteristics of the site, with the steepest slopes and higher
percentage of vegetation in the lowest elevations, preclude these purposes. The greatest
degree of previous site disturbance has occurred in the higher elevations of the site. This
includes the previous construction of three homes, a multi-unit building, a barn and grading of
a dirt vehicle trail where the proposed private road (Cupola Drive) would be located. It also
appears that a number of trees were removed over the preceding years since the number of
mature trees at the highest elevations of the site are significantly fewer than in the lower
elevations with minimal ground disturbance. Clustering of home sites in the mid to higher
elevations will limit the ground disturbance and allow for the preservation of more trees and
vegetation, which is consistent with the above policies to the extent possible, given the existing
site conditions and constraints.
Based on the available evidence, staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the policy
language above.
That adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any development by a
qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the following conditions:
1.All formations
Soil depth of 40 inches or above
Slopes of 30 percent and above
2.Basalt flows
Soil depth of 40 inches or above
Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent
3.Eugene Formation
Soil depth of 40 inches and above
Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent
4.Basalt flows
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 10
Page 10
Soil depth of 20 to 40 inches
Slopes of 30 percent and above
5.Eugene Formation
Soil depth of 20 inches to 40 inches
Slopes of 30 percent and above
The applicant has provided a geotechnical/geologic investigation (dated February 6, 2017) and
subsequent addendum (dated May 30, 2017), which included field observations, subsurface
explorations, and data analyses confirming the site contains Eugene Formation sandstone and
siltstone formation with soil depths exceeding 40 inches and slopes exceeding 30 percent,
consistent with conditions #1 and #5 listed above, requiring both on-site and off-site review of
impact.
Offunding area
to map geological surface features. Offsite landslide forms were mapped in the existing
residential areas.
development in the Capital Hill PUD is the only area on this hill that is outside of mapped
landslide hazard areas.Onsite review included the aforementioned subsurface explorations
conducted by Branch Engineering with ten (10) exploratory test pits and surface reconnaissance
of the site. This on-site review determined the majority of the development site is underlain by
stable volcanic rock material.
The off-site and on-site proposed improvements include shallow widening of Capital Drive
fronting the site, mostly occurring in up-hill cut conditions, and relatively shallow utility
construction in existing paved roadways. Other improvements include construction of a private
road along a former cleared and graded vehicle accessway, and grading associated with
stormwater facilities. The mass movement of earth materials is not expected and there is a
relatively low risk of off-site impacts due to the proposed development.
The geotechnical/geologic investigation found no significant geologic hazards that would
impede or restrict the construction on the site. The investigation does acknowledge that
shallow slide debris in the top 2.5 feet of ground material can be expected in the steeper lots.
The map included with the May 30, 2017 Geotechnical Addendum identifies the steepest areas
Landsliding Likely, Lot 5, Lots 8
through 20, and Lot 33. The geotechnical/geologic investigation also found that the site is
geologically and geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, provided that specific
recommendations described in the investigation are incorporated into the design and
construction of the project. Additional discussion of the geotechnical issues and Eugene Code
requirements are found at EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis,
later in this report. A condition of approval is recommended at EC 9.8320(6) to ensure the
future development of the site.
Based on the available information and findings above, and with the condition of approval as
recommended at EC 9.8320(6) of this report, staff concludes that the PUD is consistent with
the applicable policy language.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 11
Page 11
That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements of
different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open
space.
As previously described, the proposed PUD has located residential development away from the
eastern property boundary by utilizing common open space preservation area (Tract A) and
individual conservation areas on Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19, for the protection of significant
natural features and vegetation. The total amount of all protected areas is 4.54 acres. Adjacent
to the eastern property boundary is the City owned Ribbon Trail. The common area and
individual conservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19 will effectively act as one large
continuous open space. These areas are also relatively steep and heavily vegetated. This area is
also identified on the Geotechnical Investigation addendum (dated May 30, 2017) as any
development in this area would require significant grading and loss of vegetation. By
preserving this area the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to protecting the visual
impacts for users of the Ribbon Trail. Staff notes that the proposal also includes a preservation
area along the northeast boundary of the subject property which abuts the established public
open space of Hendricks Park, consistent with the policy language above.
That developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to ensure that
development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south
hills area.
The proposed PUD does not include specific building areas or envelopes to accommodate
development impacts on each lot. The characteristics of the site can be described as having
two distinct areas, the top of the site comprised of Lots 1 through 4, Lots 6 and 7, and Lots 20
through 34; and the eastern side comprised of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19.
Lots on the top of the ridge are characterized by a mixture of flatter terrain and typical slopes
of 20% or less with relatively few trees. Five of the seven existing structures are located in this
area. Neighboring off-site mature trees and existing homes significantly obscure the view of the
top of the ridge from lower elevations to the west. The applicant indicates the existing two-
story carriage house on Lot 24 is not visible from lower elevations to the west. The applicant
also indicates that of the 34 proposed lots, only 8 lots have the potential to be viewed from
beyond the property to the west, but it is highly unlikely given the current condition of off-site
mature trees. This will, in effect, limit the potential visual impact of the proposed single-family
residential development in the top of the ridge area. The R-1 zoning requirements limit
building heights to 30 feet, consistent with existing single-family structures both on and off site
and in the general vicinity.
Lots on the eastern side of the development are characterized by steeper slopes in excess of
20% and up to 50%. A majority of the trees and other vegetation on the site are located in this
area. All of the lots in this area have defined conservation areas that prohibit construction of
buildings. Many of these lots have close to, if not more than, half of their lot areas protected by
conservation area. This effectively acts as a type of building envelope, forcing building locations
closer to the streets that provide access to the lot, limiting grading impacts, creating a larger
natural buffer to the adjacent Ribbon Trail to the east, and preserving more of the existing
vegetation. The individual lot conservation areas, along with the previously described Tract A,
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 12
Page 12
provide a significant buffer and visual screen from lower elevations to the east of the site. This
will limit the scale and bulk of the proposed single-family residential development as viewed
from the east.
The applicant submitted a letter (September 15, 2017) describing two videos that were shot by
the applicant. The first video depicts a walk adjacent to Capital Drive from the northern part of
property to the south and looking west towards the Downtown area. The second video depicts
walking the Ribbon Trail at a point approximately in line with the southeast corner of the
development, northward to a point in line with the northeast corner of the development and
looking to the west at the development site. These videos were provided in order to show the
terrain and amount of vegetation on the development site and in the immediate vicinity of the
site that obscure the view of the development site. A third video was previously submitted that
depicts a computer animation of the site at build out with typical single-family structures. This
video is intended to depict the anticipated bulk, size and scale of the project once homes have
been constructed on the site. These videos are available for viewing with the following links:
Walk along Capital Drive https://youtu.be/dSEW_SfUgNQ
Walk along Ribbon Trail https://youtu.be/kXZahqM62cM
Computer animation https://youtu.be/oPU_G4Ld-EU
With the additional protections provided through private conservation areas on the eastern
lots, common open space (Tract A) and tree preservation, adequate parameters will be
established to ensure that the development blends with, rather than dominates, the natural
characteristics of the area. Staff notes that no request for modification of maximum height
combination with the elements described above, staff finds that the applicable residential
development standards for the R-1 zone will ensure general compatibility with the surrounding
residential area and consistency with the policy language above.
That all proposed road locations be reviewed to ensure minimum grade disturbance and
minimum cut-and-fill activity, particularly in those areas most visible due to slope,
topographic or other conditions.
The project will utilize existing Capital Drive, widening and repaving a portion of it north of the
intersection with Cresta De Ruta Street, to current City standards, with minimal shallow
grading.
The proposed private road, Cupola Drive, is located as closely as is practical within the existing
footprint of an existing vehicular accessway, previously created on site by a past property
owner. The geotechnical/geologic investigation indicates that locating the private road here will
require the least amount of grading and fill, with minor cut slopes on the uphill side. Staff has
walked this part of the site and agrees that the existing vehicular accessway, which is currently
cut into the slope, is the logical location to establish the new private road. Slopes increase to
the east of the trail and locating the new road further down the slope would require more
extensive grading and retaining walls, and result in the loss of more trees and vegetation.
Improving Capital Drive in its current location (within the existing right-of-way) and utilizing the
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 13
Page 13
existing cuts into the hillside for the new private road will ensure that the necessary cut and fill
has been minimized to the greatest extent practical.
The proposal as designed will also comply with applicable street connectivity standards and
maximum street grade requirements, as addressed later in this report.
With the first submitted site plan (March 3, 2017) additional lots were shown along the north
boundary of the site abutting Hendricks Park. In order to provide access to those lots a private
accessway was shown at the end of Capital Drive. Fire Department comments at that time
indicated that an emergency turnaround would be required near the end of Capital Drive. A
later site plan revision (June 19, 2017) depicted a hammerhead style turnaround between Lots
1 and 2 and the elimination of the private drive and several lots along the north boundary of
the site. The emergency turnaround required extensive grading into the hillside and retaining
walls due to the topography of the site. In a subsequent discussion with the Fire Department, it
was found that the elimination of the lots and private driveway along the north boundary also
eliminated the need for the emergency turnaround. With the resubmitted site plans (August
22, 2017) the emergency turnaround was eliminated. Elimination of the emergency turnaround
and the accessway and additional lots along the north property boundary will reduce the grade
disturbance and cut-and-fill activity at the end of Capital Drive and the north property
boundary, which is consistent with the policy language above.
Staff further notes that the proposed roads are designed to parallel existing topographical
contours to the extent possible and the existing topography of the subject property and
surrounding natural vegetation will generally limit visibility of the proposed roads, consistent
with the policy language above.
That planned unit development review shall be based upon a recognition of both public
and private interest. In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a
highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation
as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through the use of an
alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public interest in any
determinations.
This planned unit development proposal is required to meet the public policy direction
contained in the South Hills Study for development in areas having significant vegetation and
other sensitive characteristics such as steep slopes, wetlands, and open waterways. The
evaluation of this development proposal attempts to balance the private interest to develop
the property for low-density residential use along with the public interest for minimizing the
impact to the natural character of the site, in accordance with the South Hills Study and other
applicable PUD approval criteria.
In the context of the PUD review process, and understanding that the subject property is zoned
for low-density residential development, staff acknowledges that an appropriate level of
residential development can occur. Staff finds that the proposal provides for an appropriate
level of low-density residential development, while attempting to preserve the natural features
and qualities of the subject property as much as possible.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 14
Page 14
The applicant has attempted to cluster the developable areas of the lots in less vegetated
areas, through the use of common open space preservation area (Tract A) and individual
preservation areas on the eastern lots to provide for a larger overall preserved area on the
steepest slopes and most densely vegetated portion of the site. The applicant has attempted
to work with the constraints and opportunities of the property which have dictated the
development pattern of the proposal. This has been achieved by placing more lots in the higher
elevations where more site disturbance has occurred in the past, such as the construction of
existing structures and associated grading and the past removal of trees and vegetation.
Placing the new private road within the footprint of the existing vehicular accessway is another
example of working with the existing property constraints while limiting site disturbance.
Locating almost all of the preservation area in the steepest portion of the site where trees and
vegetation are most dense also serves the public interest by providing a larger buffer between
the publically used Ribbon Trail and the developed portion of the site while also ensuring a
significant natural wildlife corridor. Staff agrees that the public interests are met by this
development plan, and there are no significant conflicts with private interests, to the extent
contemplated or otherwise required by the above policy.
All developments shall be reviewed for potential linkage with or to the ridgeline park
system.
The applicant explored the possibility of providing a City dedicated connection trail through the
common space to the Ribbon Trial, which was shown on the first submitted plan set. Parks and
Open Space staff reviewed this proposal and declined the connection since it was located in
very steep terrain and did not meet trail standards. Since the entire eastern boundary of the
site is extremely steep, the ability to provide an adequate trail access connection to the Ribbon
Trail would result in the loss of multiple lots and possible loss of more vegetation. Also, the
geotechnical/geological investigation found that the eastern portion of the site has a high
likelihood of landslide. Construction of a trail in this area would require additional grading
measures that would have greater impacts on the surrounding vegetation then a typical trail on
flatter lands. Parks and Open Space staff noted that the Ribbon Trail has an existing access
connection to Hendricks Park immediately north of the proposal. The terminus of Capital Drive
also provides a public pedestrian access point into Hendricks Park and to the Ribbon Trail.
That all developments be reviewed to ensure maximum preservation of existing
vegetation.
The proposed PUD has been reviewed to ensure maximum preservation of existing vegetation,
consistent with the policy language above. Staff reiterates the finding that areas included in
proposed common open space and within conservation zones comprise the majority of
significant trees and vegetation which are suitable for preservation, while also accommodating
street extensions, utilities and other infrastructure in a relatively compact manner as necessary
to serve a reasonable level of low-density residential development. Additionally, relevant staff
findings and recommended conditions of approval related to tree preservation are also
included under the evaluation of EC 9.8320(4), below.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 15
Page 15
Laurel Hill Plan
The following findings address those policies (shown in italics) of the Laurel Hill Plan found to
be applicable to the proposed tentative PUD. To the extent that the findings and analysis in the
reference.
Land Use and Future Urban Design
Policy 1: Approval of Valley Development will take into consideration:
a. Density. The appropriate density for residential development shall be determined
based on 1) the provision of the Metropolitan Area General Plan \[MetroPlan\]
calling for an overall density range of one to ten units per acre; and 2) provisions of
the South Hills Study, including those limiting density to five units per acre for sites
above 500 feet in elevation.
b. Size. Large apartment complexes (over thirty-two units) are objectionable because
their dominance would alter entirely the character of the Valley. Approval of
apartment complexes larger than 32 units will depend upon the feasibility of
providing adequate urban services, streets, schools, and transportation.
c. Dispersal. Planned Unit Developments composed primarily of multiple family
dwelling units shall be separated and dispersed and not abutting.
As noted by the applicant, and under the South Hills Study density standard above, the
proposed development will result in a gross density of 2.5 to 2.8 units per acre in compliance
with policy (a) above. Neither subsections (b) or (c), apply to the project since the applicant is
proposing only 2 of the 34 lots as having a maximum of 3 attached dwellings on each lot.
Policy 5: New land divisions shall be planned to respect the existing topography and
ensure solar potential to the extent possible. Developers shall be encouraged to
investigate techniques other than grid-type division of land when planning for
development.
ite plans, the site contains challenging topography with slopes in
excess of 40% along the eastern half of the property. The proposed private road (Cupola Drive)
has been sited along an existing graded vehicular accessway, and most of the lots are either
clustered around this street or around existing Capital Drive, thereby reducing the overall
impacts to existing features. The proposed lot configuration is not a grid-type division of land,
which is appropriate given the layout of the site and surrounding properties as well as
topography. As discussed later in this report, the proposed PUD is exempt from the solar lot
standards. The steepest slopes along the eastern portion of the site have mainly been
preserved through preservation areas of common open space (Tract A) and individual
preservation areas for all lots that border the eastern boundary of the site. These combined
preservation areas will preserve approximately 33% of the entire site, which is approximately
4.54 acres. With the chosen location of Cupola Drive based on the site topography, the
clustering of lots around the road system and not in grid-type fashion, and the preservation
area located in the steepest portion of the site with the heaviest vegetation, the proposed
development is consistent with this policy.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 16
Page 16
Policy 6: The Laurel Hill Plan supports the South Hills Study Standards. In general,
alteration of land contours shall by minimized to retain views of natural features and
retain as much of the forested atmosphere as possible. Aside from purely aesthetic
considerations, these hillsides demand care in development because the topsoil is thin
and the water runoff is rapid. Proposed developments shall respect the above
considerations. The Valley hillside policy applies to all land with an average slope, from
toe to crest, of 15% or greater. (A 15-percent slope is one in which the land rises 15 feet
per 100 horizontal feet).
a. If, in the opinion of the responsible City official, an adverse conservation or
geological condition exists upon a parcel of land proposed for a subdivision, or before
any major hillside clearing, excavation, filling or construction is contemplated, the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, Excavation and Grading, and
those sections of the code relative to foundation design may be invoked.
b. Considerable latitude shall be allowed the developer in the shaping, depth, and
required street frontages of lots where it is necessary to preserve the terrain.
The previous findings in regards to the South Hills Study are incorporated herein as evidence
that the proposal does comply with this policy.
Transportation
Policy 1. No arterial or limited access road will be allowed within the boundaries of the
th
Valley which would connect the Glenwood interchange on Interstate 5 to 30 Avenue or
Spring Boulevard.
Policy 2. No arterial or limited access road will be allowed within the Valley except as
necessary to serve Valley residents, as it would physically and thus destroy the
neighborhood.
The applicant is proposing only local streets. No arterial or limited access road is proposed,
which is consistent with these policies. Staff also notes that only a portion of the site is within
the Laurel Hill Plan. The proposed improvements to Capital Drive and the new private Road
Cupola Drive appear to be located outside of the Laurel Hill Plan boundary.
Policy 4: All future construction in the Valley or East Laurel Hill shall include adequate
off-street parking to accommodate not only permanent residents but a reasonable
number of visitors. Although on-street parking should be discouraged, in some areas
pull-out facilities for parking should be developed, particularly where congestion exists.
Location and size of individual homes are unknown at this time, except for the existing homes
already constructed on the site. As each lot is developed through the building permit process,
reviewing staff will ensure that a minimum of one parking space is included for each single
family lot. Typically, new houses contain garages and one or two spaces are often provided in
front of the garage. On-street parking along one side of the street is provided on both Cupola
Drive and Capital Drive, which appears to include sufficient on-street spaces that would also
accommodate a reasonable number of visitors.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 17
Page 17
If the Hearings Official deems it appropriate as a requirement to comply with this policy,
approval of the PUD could be conditioned upon a requirement for 2 or more off-street parking
spaces per lot (above the minimum of one space per dwelling required by the R-1 zone). Given
the generally large lot sizes proposed, there would appear to be ample area to accommodate
such a requirement.
East Laurel Hill Area
Policy 6: Development and expansion of park facilities and bicycle paths is encouraged.
The South Hills ridgeline park plan shall be continued.
The East Laurel Hill area includes the east end of this development site. The site currently has a
pedestrian connection at the end of Capital Drive to the adjacent Hendricks Park and Ribbon
Trail, consistent with this policy.
Based on the available information and evidence, and the findings above, staff concludes that
the proposed PUD complies with applicable refinement plans including the South Hills Study
and Laurel Hill Plan.
EC 9.8320(3) The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties
including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height.
The property is bounded by single-family residentially developed properties on the east and
south, and Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail to the north and west. The proposed lot layout
provides for significant continuous preservation areas along the eastern boundary, which
contains a significant number of trees on the site. The proposed lot layout places the houses
along the eastern side of the site, closer to the middle of the development. Mature trees in the
proposed preservation areas and along the adjacent Ribbon trail should obscure, if not
completely screen, the view of the development from the residential properties to the east,
which are significantly lower in elevation. The adjacent residential area to the west has steep
topography, significantly sloping away from the site. The site is currently mostly obscured from
view and difficult to observe from the flatter elevations below and to the west. As depicted in
the , the photograph on page 25 shows
that the existing 3-story home on Lot 23 is barely visible at the top of the ridge.
Several properties along the highest portions of the site (Lots 4, 20, 23, 24, 33 and 34) are
currently developed with structures; it is anticipated that most of these would remain, so it is
unlikely that trees would be removed from these lots. The undeveloped lots clustered around
the highest elevation on the site have characteristically fewer trees than the eastern portion of
the site. The proposal is conditioned so that trees on individual lots cannot be removed until a
construction permit is issued. It is highly likely that these lots will develop sporadically over
time and any tree removal will also occur sporadically. This ensures that the site is not stripped
of all trees during initial infrastructure construction associated with street and utilities
construction. The PUD is also conditioned so that any trees in the buildable areas of individual
lots that are removed for development, or die for any reason, will be replaced with new trees
at a one to one ratio. This ensures that the site will remain vegetated and provide adequate
screening in the future.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 18
Page 18
There are no proposed buildings or additions explicitly included with this PUD application. Lots
will be sold to individual builders and potential homeowners for future development. The
applicant states in their narrative that private covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs)
will provide guidelines for the bulk, height, and scale of the buildings and a design review team
will review and approve proposed building plans to ensure that the intent of the CC&Rs are
met. That said, the City does not enforce private covenants or agreement between private
parties (see EC 9.1020). The applicant has not provided any specifics as to what may be
included in future CC&Rs, or similar limitations that would be enforceable requirements for the
development of individual dwellings, other than the standards afforded through the PUD
approval criteria and related development standards of the R-1 zone.
As described previously with regard to policies of the South Hills Study, the individual lot
preservation areas along with Tract A provide a significant buffer and visual screen from lower
elevations to the east of the site. The R-1 zoning requirements limit building heights to 30 feet,
lot coverage to 50%, and require typical setbacks from property lines consistent with existing
single-family development in the general vicinity. This will limit the scale and bulk of the
proposed single-family residential development and help it blend with adjacent development.
As further discussed at EC 9.8320(10) later in this report, Lots 5 and 14 through 19 exceed the
13,500 square foot limitation for the R-1 zone. Each of these lots include preservation areas of
various sizes that effectively reduce the buildable area to less than the 13,500 square feet,
except for Lots 5 and 16. In addition, Lot 22 is undeveloped but contains an existing vineyard,
fruit tree orchard, and several large trees and is proposed to exceed the 13,500 square foot
limitation. In order to provide consistency with the R-1 zone, a condition of approval is
proposed that the final site plans will show buildable areas on these three lots not to exceed
13,500 square feet.
With the finding and conditions of approval addressed elsewhere in this evaluation, no
additional requirements or conditions of approval appear to be necessary to address the above
standard, beyond the applicable residential development standards for the R-1 zone. Based on
the above findings, staff concludes the proposed tentative PUD complies with this standard.
EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural
environment by addressing the following:
(a) Protection of Natural Features.
1.
the preservation of significant natural features to the greatest degree
attainable or feasible, including:
a. Significant on-site vegetation, including rare plants (those that
are proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law),
and native plant communities.
b. All documented habitat for all rare animal species (those that
are proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law).
c. Prominent topographic features, such as ridgelines and rock
outcrops.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 19
Page 19
d. Wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors, and
riparian areas.
e. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan diagram as
-adopted
natural resource inventory.
2. 5 inventory:
a.
including but not limited to anticipated building locations, bulk
and height, location and distribution of recreation space,
parking, roads, access and other uses, will:
(1) Avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of attractive
natural features and vegetation, and
(2) Avoid conversion of natural resource areas designated in
the Metropolitan Area General Plan to urban uses when
alternative locations on the property are suitable for
development as otherwise permitted.
b. Proposed buildings, road, and other uses are designed and sited
to assure preservation of significant on-site vegetation,
topographic features, and other unique and worthwhile natural
features, and to prevent soil erosion or flood hazard.
inventory, per the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, which designates the subject site
as Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation. As such, the
provisions of EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2) are applicable to the proposed tentative PUD.
As previously described in the context of applicable South Hills Study policies, and in general,
the applicant has attempted to minimize impacts to the site by clustering residential lots and
other development impacts in areas of previous manmade impact, less steep terrain, and less
dense or otherwise less significant vegetation. The proposal includes significant conservation
areas on the steepest slopes of the site. Based on the available information, including the
tree preservation plan and the corresponding tree preservation list represented on
(sheets L3.0 through L3.4 and L4), the areas included in common open
space (Tract A) and within individual lot preservation areas comprise the majority of significant
trees, vegetation, and other natural features which are suitable for preservation; while also
accommodating street extensions, utilities, and other infrastructure in a compact manner to
serve a reasonable level of low-density residential development.
the context of the above criteria. For example, the proposal of common open space (Tracts A,
B, C, and D) along with the individual preservation areas of lot 5 and lots 8 through 19, results
in approximately 33% of the site being preserved, primarily on the eastern side of the site,
where natural vegetation is the heaviest. Also, the proposed placement of Cupola Drive along a
formerly cleared and graded vehicle accessway will limit the necessary grading and associated
cut and fill, which helps to minimize soil erosion and flood hazard. Locating Cupola Drive in this
area also requires fewer tree removals since trees have already been removed along the
vehicle accessway. The applicant has proposed to include notes on the plan set regarding tree
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 20
Page 20
preservation conditions. These notes, described and further conditioned below, provide
additional clarity and assurance regarding the tree preservation requirements and allowed
activities within various areas on the subject property such as in common open space and
preservation areas.
Based on the available information, and with the additional staff findings and recommended
conditions of approval related to tree preservation under subsection (b) below, staff concludes
(b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to
preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with
trees having the following characteristics given the highest priority for
preservation:
1. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the
base zone or special area zone designation and other applicable
approval criteria;
2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than
individual isolated trees subject to windthrow;
3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or
shade expansive areas of pavement;
4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses;
5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building
setback areas;
6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view
corridors;
7. Trees with significant habitat value;
8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets;
9. Trees located along a water feature;
10. Heritage trees.
The previous staff findings with regard to applicable South Hills Study policies and other
approval criteria related to tree preservation and protection of significant natural features are
also relevant in the context of the above criteria. Those findings are referenced here as they
contribute to the demonstration of compliance with applicable tree preservation requirements.
Specifically, staff reiterates the finding that areas included in the proposed common open
space of Tract A and within the individual conservation areas of the eastern lots comprise the
majority of significant trees and vegetation which are suitable for preservation.
The applicant submitted a Tree Preservation Plan that indicates the location of all existing trees
on site. These trees are in various forms of condition from good to poor. Many of the trees
have not been actively maintained for decades. A number of trees have been damaged by
events such as ice storms and severe wind over the years. The applicant has made an effort to
preserve as many healthy trees as possible by concentrating the tree preservation in one large
area along the eastern border of the property. This is the area of heaviest tree population and
thereby preserves larger stands of trees in their natural habitat and also limits further wind-
throw damage that isolated trees are more susceptible to. This approach also creates a larger
vegetative corridor and provides a significant visual buffer between the publically used Ribbon
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 21
Page 21
Trail and the proposed private home sites. It is noted that the proposed single-family
development is compatible with surrounding developments which include other single-family
development and a City park, so there are no adjacent incompatible uses.
As demonstrated on page 25 of the narrative (revised August 22, 2017), the highest
elevation of the site is mostly obscured from views from lower elevations to the west by off-
site mature vegetation. There are no water features or known heritage trees on the site.
At this time, all of the trees shown on the lots in areas where construction may occur are listed
as discretionary trees (meaning they could be removed). Since the lots will be sold to
individual owners who will decide where to locate a future home, it is unknown at this time
where construction may occur on any lot. In order to ensure that any trees lost from future site
development are replaced, the applicant has proposed a one to one replacement for every tree
that needs to be removed for development.
The applicant has provided a tree preservation plan which provides clarity and assurance
regarding the tree preservation requirements and allowed activities within various areas on the
subject property, such as common open space preservation areas, and individual lot
preservation areas. Staff finds that the provisions of this plan, in combination with specific
notes on the plans, will ensure compliance with the applicable criteria regarding tree
preservation. While no major revisions to the proposed lot configurations, or other areas such
as preservation areas, appear necessary to adequately address the approval criteria, a number
of specific concerns and details regarding implementation of the tree preservation plan are
further addressed below. These include changes to the Tree Preservation Plan otes on
sheet L3.0, as recommended conditions of approval, as follows:
On the final plans, replace Notes #2 on sheet L3.0 with the following:
Protective fencing for trees identified to be preserved shall be installed under the
direction of a certified arborist and inspected and approved by the City prior to
beginning any construction related activities. All protective tree fencing shall remain in
place until completion of all construction activities; any relocation or removal of the
protective fencing shall also occur under the direction of a certified arborist, with
approval by the City.
On the final plans, replace Notes #8 on sheet L3.0 with the following:
In the event a preservation tree must be removed, justification of the removal must be
documented by a certified arborist. Documentation must be provided to the City for
review prior to tree removal activity. Removal of a preservation tree will require the
planting of 2 replacement trees for every tree removed. Replacement trees shall be a
native species, with a minimum caliper of 1 ½ inches for deciduous trees and a minimum
height of 5 feet for coniferous trees. Any trees that must be replaced within private
preservation areas are the responsibility of that lot owner. Any trees that must be
replaced in Tracts A, B, C, and D will be the responsibility of the common owners or
homeowners association.
On the final site plans, remove Notes #9 on sheet L3.0.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 22
Page 22
On the final plans, replace Notes #11 on sheet L3.0 with the following:
Trees in the common areas of Tract A and individual lot preservation areas that die
naturally or are damaged naturally and become potentially hazardous will require no
replacement trees. The removal of dead, diseased, or hazardous trees is allowed with
prior approval by a certified arborist and documentation of that approval (including the
need for removal) provided to the City.
An area of Tract A between Lots 13 and 14 will be excavated for the inclusion of a storm
drainage feature as depicted on plan sheets L3.3, L3.4 and L4.0. As a result, five trees will be
removed in or adjacent to Tract A. Staff recommends that two replacement trees for each tree
removed is necessary for restoration, therefore the following condition for changes to the tree
preservation plan is warranted:
On the final plans, replace
Any trees to be removed in Tract A, as a result of installation of the storm sewer system
between and near Lots 13 and 14, shall be replaced with two trees for every tree
removed, shall be a native
species, with a minimum caliper of 1 ½ inches for deciduous trees and a minimum
height of 5 feet for coniferous trees, and planted in the same general area.
Staff has additional concerns with trees proposed to be preserved in Tracts A, B, C, and D, and
the preservation areas of Lots 5 and 8 through 19. These preserved areas have a significant
number of trees with critical root zones (CRZ) that extend into the buildable areas of lots that
they are adjacent to. In order to limit the impact to the CRZ of these trees (see definition at EC
9.0500), staff recommends the following condition:
On the final plans for all lots that border Tracts A, B, C, and D or contain a preservation
area, a temporary 10-foot construction setback area from all abutting preservation
areas and Tracts A, B, C, and D shall be shown. The following note shall be added to the
plans: , C, and D or contain a preservation area, a
temporary 10-foot construction area setback from all abutting preservation areas and
Tracts A, B, C, and D shall be enforced during home construction, and shall include
As an alternative to this condition of approval, the applicant could also perform a more
detailed analysis of potential CRZ impacts to trees along the edge of the preservation areas to
demonstrate that no more that 30% of the CRZs would be impacted by development on the
lots, and thereby potentially adjust the construction setback area recommended by staff. At
this time, no such analysis has been provided as part of the application. In addition, staff
believes the following condition is warranted to ensure that th
Plan will sufficiently define what activities are allowed within preservation areas:
On the final plans, include a note that states:
Within the individual preservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19, and on Tracts
A, B, C, and D, no above ground structure that requires a building permit; no impacts to
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 23
Page 23
preserved trees; and no grading activity shall not be allowed. The only exception is
within Tract A, the storm drainage facility and associated grading and maintenance, as
shown on the plans, is allowed.
Based on the available information and findings above, and with the recommended conditions
of approval as described, staff concludes the proposed PUD will comply with these applicable
criteria.
(c) Restoration or Replacement.
1.
proposal mitigates, to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, the
loss of significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b)
above, through the restoration or replacement of natural features such
as:
a. Planting of replacement trees within common areas; or
b. Re-vegetation of slopes, ridgelines, and stream corridors; or
c. Restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, native plant habitat,
wetland areas, and riparian vegetation.
To the extent applicable, restoration or replacement shall be in
compliance with the planting and replacement standards of EC 6.320.
inventory. Therefore, this standard is not applicable.
2.
loss of significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above
shall be consistent with the acknowledged level of protection for the
features.
In this instance, the acknowledged level of protection requires that the proposed development
comply with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and South Hills Study. Those applicable
provisions have been previously addressed.
The applicant will be required to replace any identified preservation trees lost during
construction for the initial infrastructure such as street widening, new street, driveways,
stormwater facilities, sewer, other utilities and fences. In the future, once the common areas of
Tracts A, B, C, and D and the private road, Cupola Drive, are legally under ownership of the
Any identified preservation trees lost within the individual lot
preservation areas of Lot 5, and Lots 8 through 19, will be replaced by the lot owner, except for
preservation trees lost naturally without human intervention. These requirements are
addressed in the conditions of approval noted above, or otherwise included as notes on the
Therefore, staff finds that this criterion will be met.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 24
Page 24
(d)Street Trees. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of
those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according
to the process at EC 6.305.
As noted in the written statement, existing street trees are proposed to be removed as part of
the proposed improvements to Capital Drive. Removal of these trees will be authorized through
the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permit process, along with payment of
appraised values. To ensure that street trees are removed and replaced in accordance with City
standards, the following condition is warranted:
The final PUD plans shall note that street tree removals must meet the permit and
replacement value requirements of EC 6.305.
Based on the available information and recommended condition of approval, this standard will
be met.
EC 9.8320(5): The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through
compliance with the following:
(a)EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public
Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below).
With regard to street design and public right-of-way dedication requirements, referral
comments from Public Works Engineering staff are incorporated within this staff report and
confirm the following findings: no additional right-of-way dedication or special setback is
required as a result of this development.
EC 9.6805 Dedication of Public Ways.
Pursuant to EC 9.6805, as a condition of any development, the City may require dedication of
public ways for bicycle and/or pedestrian use as well as for streets and alleys, provided the City
makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. The public ways
for streets to be dedicated to the public by the applicant shall conform to the adopted right-of-
way map and EC Table 9.6870.
Per the findings at EC 9.6870 below, there is no requirement for additional right-of-way
dedication or special setbacks as a result of the development.
EC 9.6810 Block Length
Block length requirements are inapplicable in this instance because no new public local streets
are proposed or required, and an exception to the requirement for a connecting street between
Capital Drive and Floral Hill Drive is recommended below, per the findings at EC 9.6815.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 25
Page 25
EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets
In order to meet Street Connectivity standards, the proposed development must, at a
minimum, provide extensions of the public way which are consistent with subsections (2)(b),
(2)(c) and (2)(d). EC 9.6815(2)(b) requires street connections in the direction of any planned or
existing streets within ¼ mile of the development site and connections to any streets that abut,
are adjacent to, or terminate at the development site. EC 9.6815(2)(c) requires that the
proposed development include streets that extend to undeveloped or partially developed land
adjacent to the development site in locations that will enable adjoining properties to connect to
and emergency vehicles.
EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1) allows for an exception to these standards if the applicant provides a local
street connection study which demonstrates that the proposed street system meets the intent
of street connectivity provisions of the land use code as expressed in the purpose and intent
statement at EC 9.6815(1), and also shows how undeveloped or partially developed properties
within a ¼ mile can be adequately served by alternative street layouts. Additionally, EC
9.6815(2)(g)(2) provides that the City shall grant an exception to these requirements if it is
demonstrated that a connection cannot be made due to existing physical conditions, buildings
and other development on adjacent lands.
EC 9.6815(2)(a) precludes private streets unless the developer can demonstrate that a public
private street (Cupola Drive) is permissible in this case because a public street connection is not
required per the findings of subsections (b) through (f) below.
EC 9.6815(2)(b) requires the development to include street connections in the direction of
existing or planned streets, and to extend streets that abut, are adjacent to, or terminate at the
development site. Existing streets within ¼ mile of the development site include Capital Drive,
(which abuts the westerly boundary of the subject site) and Floral Hill Drive, which is
approximately 1000 feet to the east and is separated from the development site by the City
owned Ribbon Trail
requirement to provide a connection between Capital Drive and Floral Hill Drive pursuant to EC
9.6815(2)(g)(2)(a) since the existing slopes to the east are in excess of 30% (well above the
.
EC 9.6815(2)(c) requires developments to include street extensions to undeveloped or partially
developed lands adjacent to the development, and in a location that enables adjoining
properties
to the north and the Ribbon Trail to the east, the only adjoining lands include a 0.7 acre
-03-04-31, Tax Lots 2601 and 2603) to the west of the development
-03-04-34 to the south of the development
site, all of which have adequate frontage on Capital Drive. Public Works staff recommends that
there should be no requirement to provide additional public street connections through the
subject site to any of these properties. It is also noted that Capital Drive currently terminates at
the City-owned Hendricks Park property and that a connection in the direction of the Ribbon
Trail is physically precluded per the above findings at EC 9.6815(2)(b).
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 26
Page 26
EC 9.6815(2)(d) requires secondary access for fire and emergency vehicles consistent with EC
9.6870. The proposed project qualifies for an exception to this standard per EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2)(a)
because the slopes between Capital Drive and Cresta De Ruta Street to the west, and from the
private street (Cupola Drive) to the easterly property boundary are well in excess of 15%, which is
the maximum allowable grade for City streets. Further, an exception to the north is warranted
per EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2)(b) because the property to the north is developed as a City park (i.e.,
Hendricks Park) and Capital Drive already provides a public right-of-way connection to this
adjoining property. No additional street connection is needed.
EC 9.6815(2)(e) requires minimization of excavation and embankment for proposed street
alignments. Public Works staff concludes that the proposed development complies with this
standard because the proposed public street improvements will be located in alignment with
the existing roadway location. The proposal for curbside sidewalks on the east side of Capital
Drive will reduce the amount of excavation as compared to setback sidewalks, as will the
recommended exception to construction of a cul-de-sac or other type of turnaround at the end
of Capital Drive.
EC 9.6815(2)(f) requires that barriers be installed at the end of a required improved street when
it terminates at an existing street that is not improved to City standards. The applicant has
proposed to end the full width improvements of Capital Drive approximately 125 feet south of
the current condition. As an informational item, the installation of a street end barricade will be
required north of any Capital Drive access points, south of Hendricks Park, during the PEPI
process, consistent with this standard.
Given the available information, and based on the foregoing findings and exceptions, the
proposed PUD complies with the street connectivity standards.
EC 9.6820 Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds
According to EC 9.6820(5)(a), the topography of the development site allows for an exception
to EC 9.6820(1), (3), and (4). The construction of a cul-de-sac on Capital Drive would require
significant grading. The existing topography within the right of way of Capital Drive is steep in
nature and would preclude the ability to construct a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround at
the terminus of Capital Drive wi
justification for an exception to these standards.
EC 9.6830 Intersections of Streets and Alleys
(1) Angles
This standard requires that all streets intersect one another at an angle as near to a right angle
as practicable considering topography of the area and previous adjacent layout. Public Works
staff agrees with the applicant that the proposed development complies with this standard as a
result of the large curb radii at the street intersection of Capital Drive and Cupola Drive, which
provides adequate space in the intersections to allow vehicles to orient themselves 90-degrees
to the intersecting street in order to make right hand turns.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 27
Page 27
(2) Offsets
The proposed development complies with this standard as the distance along Capital Drive
between Cresta De Ruta Street and Cupola Drive (South) and the distance between Cupola
Drive (South) and Cupola Drive (North) each exceed the minimum offset distance of 100 feet for
local streets.
EC 9.6835 Public Accessways
The Ribbon Trail, a hiking trail which is publicly owned, is adjacent to the easterly boundary of
the development site. Because the path is unimproved (not paved) and because the slopes in
the eastern portion of the development site exceed 30%, there is no requirement for a public
connection to the Ribbon Trail.
EC 9.6840 Reserve Strips
This standard does not apply because the proposed development does not create the need to
prevent access to adjoining properties or streets or to control access to the subject property.
EC 9.6845 Special Safety Requirements
No special safety requirements are necessary to discourage use of the streets by non-local
motor vehicle traffic.
EC 9.6850 Street Classification Map
Per the findings at EC 9.6870 Street Width, which are incorporated by reference, the proposed
development is consistent with the adopted Street Classification Map, and complies with this
standard.
EC 9.6855 Street Names
This standard requires that names for new streets that are not in alignment with existing
streets are subject to approval by the Planning Director and shall not unnecessarily duplicate or
resemble the name of any existing or platted street in Lane County. Capital Drive is an existing
street name an-of-
been referred to the regional road naming group and has been determined to be acceptable
according to Public Works staff. Based on these findings, this standard is met.
EC 9.6860 Street Right-of-Way Map
The proposal does not amend the right-of-way map. This standard is not applicable.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 28
Page 28
EC 9.6870 Street Width
Pursuant to EC 9.6870, the right-of-way and paving widths of streets shall conform to those
widths designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way map. When a street segment right-of-
way width is not designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way map, the required street width
shall be the minimum width shown for its type in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths.
A greater width can be required based on adopted plans and policies, adopted Design
Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways or other
factors which in the judgment of the Planning and Public Works Director necessitate a greater
street width.
Capital Drive, which is not identified on the adopted Street Classification Map or the adopted
Right-of-Way Map (Fig. 60-61 of the Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP)), is a local street.
-volume street. Per EC
Table 9.6870, low volume local streets are required to have between 20 and 28 feet of paving
width along with 45 to 55 feet of right-of-way width. The existing 50 foot right-of-way exceeds
the minimum required right-of-way width of 45 feet for local streets and is also sufficient to
construct the required improvements in Capital Drive, which includes a 21 foot wide paved
street with curbs and gutters on both sides and a 5-foot wide curbside sidewalk on the east side
of the street.
proposed paving and right-of-way widths comply with the widths identified in Table 9.6870.
The proposed street design will be more precisely reviewed for compliance with applicable
standards during the subsequent Privately-Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permit
process. Based on these findings, Public Works staff confirms that no additional dedication or
special setbacks for street right-of-way are required.
EC 9.6873 Slope Easements
Slope easements may be required to facilitate the construction of public streets and alleys and
t
terrain, slope easements may be required Further, proposed slope easements are depicted on
Sheet L2.0 Tentative: Site Plan.
Since the extent of slope easements will not be known for certain until the PEPI permitting
process, the requirement for slope easements will be determined at the time of the subsequent
subdivision application and required to be shown on the final plat.
EC 9.6875 Private Street Design Standards
The proposed private street (Cupola Drive) is allowed in this instance, pursuant to EC
9.6815(2)(a).
This standard requires private streets to be designed and constructed in accordance with
applicable requirements contained in the adopted Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene
Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, which are more specifically identified in Section
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 29
Page 29
M. Private Streets and Alleys (on page 39 of Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 4608) in the
ACSP. Per Section M of the adopted standards (Arterial and Collector Street Plan), private
streets are required to comply with the standards for public streets with respect to intersection
configuration, minimum centerline radius length, grade, sight distance, width, curb
requirements, sidewalks and street alignments relative to natural resource sites and water-
related features.
Public Works staff confirms the proposed private street conceptually complies with applicable
standards. Per the private street typical section on the applSheet C4 Private
Roadway Plan & Profile) the private street will consist of 21-foot paving, curbs on both sides of
the street, and a 3.5 foot wide sidewalk on the westerly side of the street in a 25 foot wide
right-of-way (i.e., joint access easement).
At the time of the subsequent subdivision review, the private street will need to be formally
created by a separate document (i.e., Private Joint Use Access and Utility Easement and
Maintenance Agreement (JAM), or similar document). The JAM will include a description
defining the area of the private street and will also identify permitted improvements,
construction expectations, rights of usage and maintenance responsibilities for the facilities in
the private street, as well as responsibilities for the public sidewalk adjacent to the private
street. The JAM will be recorded concurrent with and cross-referenced on the final plat. At the
time of the subdivision review, provisions ensuring emergency access over the private street
will also need to be addressed. These may be included in the JAM or alternatively may be
dedicated as a Public Emergency Access Easement on a standard City form.
It is noted that the access connection to the private street will need to be constructed as a
standard driveway apron. Also, the structural design and construction inspection for the
that a structural design meeting the applicable public standards has been completed, will be
required at the time of the site development permit for the private street.
Based on these findings and future permit requirements, the proposed development complies
with these standards.
EC 9.8320(5): The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through
compliance with the following:
(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as
needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as
to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity
centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to
uses within ¼ mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians,
and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by
bicyclists.
The proposal includes major street improvements to Capital Drive adjacent to Lot 20 and
northward to Lot 2. These improvements include widening of the road, curb and gutter, and
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 30
Page 30
sidewalk along the east side of the road. A private road (Cupola Drive) will connect to Capital
Drive at the southern and northern portions of the development allowing an access loop
through the development. Cupola Drive will also include curb and gutter and sidewalk on the
west side of the road. The improvements to Capital Drive, and the addition of Cupola Drive, will
improve the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation within the development, while
providing the ability to drive through the development in a continuous manner without
negotiating a three-point turnaround or the use of a private driveway, which is currently the
only way to enter and then exit that portion of Capital Drive north of the intersection with
Cresta De Ruta Street.
As discussed later in this report at EC 9.6505(3), Public Works Engineering staff further confirm
that with the recommended condition of approval to widen the proposed sidewalk along
Capital Drive to 5-feet in width, the sidewalks along all proposed streets will be sufficient to
comply with the above standard in this instance.
Nearby facilities include Hendricks Park, the Ribbon Trail and neighboring developed residential
areas. There are no other facilities within a ¼ mile accessible to pedestrians. Laurelwood Golf
Course is within ¾ mile of the site and accessible by bicycle. The nearest commercial area is
th
19 Avenue and Agate Street with retail and restaurant uses, located within 1 ¼ miles from the
site and accessible by bicycle. The nearest LTD bus line (route 27) is also located within 1 ¼
th
miles on 24 Avenue between Agate Street and Nixon Street.
Based on the available information and the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed
PUD will comply with the applicable criterion.
(c)The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through
9.8680 where applicable.
The anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development does not meet any of the
thresholds established in EC 9.8650 through 9.8680.
and Street Connectivity Study, the anticipated peak hour trips of the proposed development
will be 27 AM peak hour trips and 35 PM peak hour trips, which do not reach the threshold of
100 or more peak hour trips. There are no documented concerns to warrant further review
under these standards, nor will the proposed residential development generate or receive
and Street Connectivity Study, there have been no reported crashes between January 1, 2010
and December 31, 2014, which is the most recent five-year period of available crash data from
A memorandum from Scott Gillespie P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager (see
Attachment F), which is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(7), indicates that Spring
Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to serve the
proposed development and no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. The
memorandum concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or
incapable of serving the development site.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 31
Page 31
Based on the available information, Public Works staff confirms that none of the applicable
triggers for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Review are met, and therefore no TIA is required
pursuant to EC 9.8650-9.8680.
EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety,
including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or
an impediment to emergency response.
The proposed PUD will comply with the above criterion, assuming compliance with various
requirements as identified elsewhere in this evaluation and to be addressed through
subsequent subdivision applications and related permitting processes. This specifically includes
and analysis
property is not located within a designated flood hazard area, and that erosion prevention
permits will be required for construction of various components of the proposed development
to ensure there are no significant risks associated with soil erosion.
Soil Erosion
Due to the size of the development, an erosion prevention permit will be required prior to any
ground-disturbing activities.
Slope Failure
Per the Geotechnical Investigation, the site appears to be geotechnically suitable for the
proposed development provided that the recommendations contained in the report are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The Geotechnical Investigation
also concludes that the proposed development will not adversely impact the proposed site or
adjacent properties. Public Works staff agrees with the analysis and conclusions in the report,
but recommends the condition of approval below, in accordance with this criterion, to ensure
that the PUD will not create any significant risk of slope failure. This condition of approval will
ensure that the recommendations in the report are carried out as requirements of the
development:
A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific recommendations for
design and construction standards, shall be provided with any applications for Privately
Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site
development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure, and residences on
individual lots. The development proposed with each permit shall adhere to the
recommended standards for design and construction as contained in the related
geotechnical analysis.
The specific standards for Geological and Geotechnical Analysis at EC 9.6710 are discussed in
further detail below, although staff notes that the application is technically exempt from those
opted Goal 5 inventory according
to EC 9.6710(3)(e). Regardless, Public Works staff finds that those standards have been met
the report will be carried out during future development of individual lots.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 32
Page 32
Stormwater or Flood Hazard
The development site is at the top of a hill, outside of any flood hazard areas, and does not
create a flood hazard. Stormwater flood control requirements are further addressed below,
under the related standards at EC 9.8320(10)(j).
Emergency Response
which describe the restricted access along Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive south of the
proposed development as causing significant delays in Fire Department response for several
reasons: unusually high opposing traffic, a collision of vehicles, construction on the road,
construction vehicles related to residential housing, down trees or wires, and other drivers
attempting ill-timed turn around attempts or trying to park. Concern was also expressed with
the potential impact upon the timely response of fire vehicles responding to major medical
indicated that minimizing restrictions
along existing roadways leading up to the development site would greatly improve the ability of
the fire department and other emergency responders to respond quickly. To improve access to
of existing roads that lead up to the Capital Hill PUD area be put in place. However, as discussed
in greater detail in the following section (see EC 9.8320(7)) and incorporated herein by
suggest that Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive are unsafe or incapable of serving the
c safety study and
concludes that the existing transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed
development, with no off-site mitigation required.
A
road leading up to the development site would improve the ability of emergency responders to
respond in the least amount of time. In addition, the City received a petition signed by 31
requesting an investigation of the increase in parking in the 2600 block of Capital Drive
allegedly causing hazardous conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and emergency
Order (AO) 58-18-01 on February 23, 2018, which removes all on-street parking from Capital
Drive between Spring Boulevard and Cresta De Ruta Street.
signs will be installed on Capital Drive by April 30, 2018. As discussed below and in a related
memorandum (see Attachment F) from Scott Gillespie, P. E., Public Works Development Review
Manager, the existing transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development,
with no required offsite mitigation by the applicant.
Updated comments recently received (also included with
Attachment D) conclude that providing the full unobstructed width on Capital Drive from Spring
Boulevard to Cresta De Ruta Street
improve emergency access and evacuation capabilities along the route.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 33
Page 33
Other public health and other necessary infrastructure improvements have been previously
addressed with respect to EC 9.8320(5)(a) and below, under (10)(b). The proposed addition of
two fire hydrants, the requirement to sprinkle new residential units, and the addition of the
private street, which will provide a street loop system that efficiently allows for fire safety and
emergency services vehicles will all reduce risk to public health and safety.
Based on the available information, staff concludes that the proposed development complies
with this criterion.
EC 9.8320(7) Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if
public services and facilities are not presently available, the applicant demonstrates
that the services and facilities will be available prior to need. Demonstration of future
availability requires evidence of at least one of the following:
(a)Prior written commitment of public funds by the appropriate public agencies.
(b)Prior acceptance by the appropriate public agency of a written commitment by
the applicant or other party to provide private services and facilities.
(c)A written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide for offsetting
all added public costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by
development, submitted on a form acceptable to the city manager.
The provision of water and electric services and other utilities is subject to review by Eugene
Water and Electric Board (EWEB) or other utility providers.
As discussed in greater detail in EC 9.6505(1) Water Supply and incorporated herein by
reference, referral comments from EWEB (January 15, 2018) indicate there is sufficient water
to supply the proposed Capital Hill PUD. However, the existing water system infrastructure
does not have adequate capacity to provide the required domestic and fire water flows
resulting from the increased demand of the proposed development. EWEB indicates that the
ring department in order to discuss
options for design of a new water distribution system, which includes a new pump station and
associated piping to provide adequate water for the development. The applicant will be
responsible for cost sharing of the new system. Prior to final subdivision approval, the applicant
will need to provide documentation from EWEB ensuring adequate water service, and a
condition of approval is proposed (see EC 9.6505(1)) to ensure the standard is met.
Additional EWEB informational items regarding water and electric service are included in the
referral comments and as Attachment E at the end of this report.
services are presently available to the site, as also
findings at EC 9.8320(10)(b) and (j), regarding public improvements and stormwater
respectively, are incorporated herein by reference as evidence that these services are available
to the site. The applicant has proposed a stormwater system to be constructed through the
PEPI process, which will limit post development runoff to pre-development levels, consistent
with the criteria set forth in EC 9.6791 through 9.6797. Those standards outline the
requirements for flood control, water quality, and flow control and are further discussed
below.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 34
Page 34
Staff finds that adequate public facilities and services are either presently available, or can be
available, and can be extended to serve the proposed development, as shown on the
A memorandum (dated December 8, 2017) was submitted by Scott Gillespie, P. E., Public
Works Development Review Manager, discussing the roadway conditions on Capital Drive and
Spring Boulevard and is incorporated herein by reference and included as Attachment F. The
that is reviewed in this memorandum. Public Works staff determined
engineer did the following:
Prepared volume and speed study calculations in addition to other geomatics
and operational calculations.
Properly estimated trips impacts from the development site per ITE standards.
Included estimated construction traffic from the development site even though
it is not considered best practice to do so.
Analyzed intersections for safety and operations.
Demonstrated that no crash reducing measures are necessary.
Demonstrated that recorded traffic speeds are within acceptable percentages
for the posted and statutory speed
Demonstrated that Capital Drive and Spring Blvd have adequate capacity to
serve the development site.
Demonstrated that no measureable congestion from an engineering standpoint
will result from the proposed development.
The
suggests the existing roadway network is unsafe or incapable of accommodating the traffic
impacts from the proposed development. The study indicates volumes and speed along Capital
Drive and Spring Boulevard were well within expected standards for local streets. Public Works
staff also reviewed information associated with the 2014 re-paving of Capital Drive and Spring
Boulevard, finding that pavement structural sections were designed to City standards and have
the capacity to serve the existing neighborhood and the proposed development. Also, the
pavement sections were found to be adequate to accommodate construction traffic from the
development site.
The review by Public Works staff also found the measured speeds on the streets are consistent
with the statutory and posted speeds and 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. Research indicates that these streets have been fully improved with curb and
gutters
and City/County engineers at the time of their construction. The roadway has historically
performed well and there is no engineering evidence to the contrary. Public Works staff
concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of
serving the development site,
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 35
Page 35
existing transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no offsite
mitigation by the applicant is required.
y addressing the availability of a full range
of urban services and facilities as prescribed in the Metro Plan. Additional staff findings and
requirements related to the necessary extension of urban services and facilities are addressed
elsewhere in this evaluation.
EC 9.8320(8) Residents of the PUD will have sufficient usable recreation area and
open space that is convenient and safely accessible.
Staff finds that the proposed PUD provides for sufficient usable recreation area and open space
in compliance with the above standard. The common open space established by Tracts B, C,
and D on the flatter portion of the site will provide the opportunity for relatively easy access
for passive recreational activity on the development site. Tract A is located in the steepest area
of the site and not easily accessible. However, the adjacency of Hendricks Park to the north and
existing access from the end of Capital Drive ensures the provision of convenient and safely
accessible recreation and open space areas.
Based on the above information, this criterion is met.
EC 9.8320(9): Lots proposed for development with one-family detached dwellings
shall comply with EC 9.2790 Solar Lot Standards or as modified according to
subsection (10) below.
proposal includes single-family detached dwellings and is therefore subject to
compliance with the applicable solar lot standards at EC 9.2790. The proposal does not request
any modification of the applicable solar lot standards pursuant to subsection (10), below, nor is
an adjustment to the solar lot standards requested. The proposal does comply with the solar
lot standards as discussed below.
EC 9.2790 Solar Lot Standards.
(2) Solar Lot Requirements. In R-1 and R-2, at least 70% percent of the lots
minimum north-south dimension of 75 feet and a front lot line
orientation that is within 30 degrees of the true east-west axis. For
purposes of this subsection, a lot proposed for more than one dwelling
unit shall count as more than one lot, according to the number of units
proposed (e.g. a lot proposed for a fourplex shall be considered 4 lots).
The applicant indicates that 8 of the proposed 34 lots do not have front lot lines since they are
accessed via private access easements across other parcels within the proposed PUD. Of the 26
remaining lots, 8 are solar lots (approximately 31%). Out of 34 lots, only 5 do not achieve the
minimum 75 foot north-south width dimension, despite their orientation to the front lot line or
lack of a front lot line.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 36
Page 36
(3) Exceptions to the Solar Lot Requirements. A proposed subdivision shall
be exempt from EC 9.2790(2) if either of the following exists:
(a) Density. The proposed subdivision provides at least 70% of the
maximum allowed density according to the zoning of the property.
(b) Site Constraints. One of the following circumstances is present:
1. Compliance with applicable street standards or public street
plans requires a street configuration that prevents the lots from
being oriented for solar access.
Capital Drive is an existing dedicated public right-of-way. Due to the hillside topography of the
area, Capital Drive follows the natural contours of the area with a number of curves and
changes in direction. The street runs primarily north-south along the west side of the proposed
PUD with one curved segment oriented within 30 degrees of true east-west. Due to the existing
location of Capital Drive, only one of the ten lots that front the street meets the solar
requirements.
Cupola Drive was located within an existing graded area that was used for vehicular circulation
by prior owners to access the property. The location for the private road was chosen to follow
the existing contours of the area while minimize grading impacts to the site, consistent with the
South Hills Study recommendation
minimum grade disturbance and minimum cut-and-fill activity as previously discussed in this
report. Cupola Drive is also a curved roadway that creates a looped connection to Capital Drive,
running in multiple directions, which prohibits most of the proposed lots from meeting the
requirement for the front lot line to be within 30 degrees of true east west.
Since both roadways are oriented to the topography of the site, with Capital Drive already in
existence and Cupola Drive located by necessity to minimize grading activity, a majority of the
proposed lots cannot meet the solar lot standards and therefore staff recommends the
development be considered as exempt from the solar lot standards.
Exemptions to the Solar Lot Requirements, which
provides for lots that do not meet the requirements but can be counted as a lot that satisfies
(2) Solar Lot Requirements. Under this exemption any lot with a slope of 20% or more in a
direction greater than 45 degrees east or west can be counted as a solar lot. The applicant
indicates that under this exemption, due to the significant slopes on the property, 28 of the 34
lots can be counted as a solar lots for a total of 82% of the proposed lots. Although the
proposed development qualifies under this exemption, the proposed PUD also qualifies for
exceptions to the solar lot standards under EC 9.2790(3) Exceptions to the Solar Lot
Requirements. In any event, the available information indicates that the proposed PUD meets
the applicable standards, whether it be through an exemption or exception, as those terms are
used in EC 9.2790.
EC 9.8320(10): The PUD complies with all of the following (An approved adjustment
to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code
constitutes compliance with the standard.):
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 37
Page 37
(a)EC 9.2000 through 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements
for the subject zone.
The provisions of EC 9.2750, Residential Zone Development Standards, and EC 9.2760,
Residential Zone Lot Standards, are applicable in this instance given the R-1 zoning of the
subject property.
The subject development site is 13.63 acres, with a net acreage of 13.1 acres that excludes the
area of the proposed private street as required by EC 9.2751(1)(c)1. The proposed total
dwelling unit count is 34 to 38 units (which includes existing units), resulting in a net density of
2.6 - 2.9 units per acre. The standards in Table 9.2750 allow for a maximum of 14 units per acre
in the R-1 zone. As noted previously, the South Hills Study further requires that the subject site
be limited to 5 units per (gross) acre.
Based on the available information and the findings above, with a proposed net density of 2.6
to 2.9 units per acre, the development is consistent with this standard and the policies of the
South Hills Study. The proposed density is well within the established maximum of 5 units per
acre.
Table 9.2750 limits the maximum lot coverage for all lots to 50%. Lots 16 and 17 are proposed
as having the option of constructing one to three units on each lot as attached single-family
units. The applicant is requesting flexibility for these two lots with an increase in the maximum
lot coverage to 65% in the event more than one single-family unit is built on either lot. The
applicant points out that Table 9.2750 allows for a 25% increase for lot coverage for row
houses. By allowing an increase in the lot coverage, the ability to develop the property is
enhanced, providing greater diversity of housing units and maximizing infill opportunities. Staff
ition:
The following note shall be included on the final plans:
For lots 16 and 17, each lot shall have the option of constructing up to three attached
single-family structures. If only one single-family structure is proposed, that lot shall
have a maximum lot coverage of 50% of the buildable portion of the lot. If two or three
single-family structures are proposed, that lot shall have a maximum lot coverage of
65% of the buildable portion of the lot. The buildable portion of the lot shall be the area
identified as outside any preservation area and shall not exceed 13,500 square feet,
regardless of how many dwellings are developed on the lots.
that more than one dwelling is built on those lots), the proposal includes a request for flexibility
under applicable lots standards according to the code sections below.
EC 9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.
(1) Lot Standards.
(c) Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be modified with an
approved cluster subdivision in R-1 or Planned Unit Development
(PUD) in any zone.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 38
Page 38
(5) Exceptions to the maximum lot size shall be granted if any of the
following is met:
(a) Existing physical circumstances such as topographically constrained
lands, conservation easements, existing buildings, or utility
easements prevent the ability to further divide the lot. (d) The
exception will enable the protection of natural resources.
(d) The exception will enable the protection of natural resources.
The standards of Table 9.2760 limit the maximum size of new lots in the R-1 zone to 13,500
square feet. The applicant is requesting several exceptions to this standard.
Lots 20, 22 and 23 contain existing buildings and other physical features associated with those
buildings such as driveways and garden spaces, which preclude reducing these lots below the
maximum 13,500 square feet according to the applicant. Staff notes that Lot 4 also contains a
single-family structure with a lot size in excess of 13,500. Staff agrees that in the case of Lots 4,
20, and 23, the proposed lot boundaries appear logical in order to preserve the existing
developed structures and other improvements, while allowing for the proposed new lots and
future development. Further division of these lots would disrupt the existing development.
In the case of Lot 22, which is proposed as 17,994 square feet, the applicant indicates that this
lot contains an existing vineyard and fruit tree orchard as well as several existing large trees,
which the developer wishes to retain in its entirety with the existing house on Lot 23. Staff is
concerned that in the future, if the applicant were to sell one or both of Lots 22 and 23, Lot 22
would be able to develop a larger area than typical for the R-1 zone. In addition, Lots 5, and 14
through 19 exceed the maximum allowable lot size as a result of topographic constraints and
natural resource protection. All of these lots have individual preservation areas and useable (or
buildable) areas of varying size. All but two lots (Lots 5 and 16) have useable areas under
13,500 square feet when subtracting their respective preservation areas. Staff agrees that the
proposed preservation areas on these lots effectively reduce the buildable area of each lot
consistent with the 13,500 square foot limitation for the R-1 zone, except for Lots 5 and 16. Lot
5 has a useable area of 16,618 square feet and Lot 16 has a useable area of 16,168 square feet.
For all of these lots (5, 16, and 22), staff is concerned with the size of the useable or buildable
area. In order to provide consistency with the R-1 zone as well as limiting grading impacts and
tree preservation associated with development, consistent with the policies of the South Hills
Study and Eugene Code, staff recommends the following condition:
The final site plan shall be revised to show a buildable area on Lots 5, 16 and 22 not to
exceed 13,500 square feet.
Lots 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, and 33 have no frontage on a public or private street. All of these lots
are accessed by private driveways with access easements across other parcels, or in the case of
Lot 19 across Tract A. Staff finds the proposed shared driveway accesses provide effective
frontage and access for practical purposes to these lots while reducing the need for additional
streets which would create additional grading impacts and potential loss of additional trees and
vegetation.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 39
Page 39
Based on the above findings and proposed condition, and with the recommended exceptions
as noted, staff concludes that this criterion is met.
(b)EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards.
EC 9.6500 Easements
This section authorizes the City to require dedication of easements for public utilities and
access under certain circumstances. This section also prohibits obstructions within public
easements.
With regard to the public storm drainage system, a 10-foot public utility easement (PUE) is
proposed across Lots 1 and 2 which will accommodate public stormwater detention pipes and
manholes. For the public wastewater system, public utility easements will be required as a
condition of approval under EC 9.6505(2), below.
Otherwise, the applicant does not propose, nor has Public Works staff identified, the need for
additional public easements to address stormwater or wastewater needs for present or future
development of the area.
As an informational item, pursuant to EC 9.6500(3), if any public utility easements are shown on
the final plat, the plat will need to note the following restriction: No building, structure, tree,
or other obstruction shall be placed or located on or in a public utility easement.
Based on these findings, the proposed subdivision will comply with EC 9.6500.
EC 9.6505 ImprovementsSpecifications
This section requires all public improvements to be designed and constructed in accordance
with adopted plans and policies, the procedures specified in EC Chapter 7, and standards and
specifications adopted pursuant to EC Chapter 7. Additionally, all developments are required to
be served by and implement infrastructure improvements including water, sewage, streets,
street trees, street lights, sidewalks, accessways, and stormwater drainage. The applicant
proposes all public improvements to be privately engineered and constructed.
To ensure compliance with EC 9.6505, an Engineering and Construction agreement is required
for the private construction of public improvements, which must be submitted when the
construction plans are submitted for review and approval. The configuration and size of the
public improvements will be subject to approval by the City Engineer upon review of the design
permitted prior to plat approval, a bond for the construction of public improvements will be
required prior to final plat approval. These future requirements will be further addressed as
part of the subsequent subdivision application process.
Based on the above findings and subsequent permit requirements, the development will
comply with these standards, as discussed in more detail below.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 40
Page 40
EC 9.6505(1) Water Supply
Referral comments from Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) (January 15, 2018) are
included as Attachment E at the end of this report and indicate there is sufficient water to
supply the proposed Capital Hill PUD. However, the water system is restricted by the existing
infrastructure which does not have adequate capacity to provide the required domestic and
fire water flows to the proposed development. The proposed development will require
significant upgrades to the EWEB water system, which would include a new pump station and
associated piping. Other informational items regarding water service are included in the
referral comments attached to this report. Referral comments from Public Works staff note
that prior to final subdivision approval the applicant will need to provide documentation from
EWEB ensuring adequate water service. To ensure this standard is met, the following condition
of approval is recommended:
Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide documentation that EWEB has
received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the plat. It
is noted that EWEB currently accepts cash payment, bond, or an irrevocable letter of
credit as financial guarantees.
As an informational item, the plans indicate two existing fire hydrants and two new proposed
hydrants with this development proposal. Since all new homes in the development will have
automatic sprinkler systems, a 50% reduction in the minimum fire flow from these hydrants,
from 1,000 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute, will be allowed subject to further
review as part of any applicable Fire Code requirements during the subsequent building permit
process.
Based on these findings, and with the condition of approval above, the standard for water
supply will be met.
EC 9.6505(2) Sewage
This standard requires all developments to be served by wastewater sewage systems of the
City, in compliance with the provisions of EC Chapter 6.
The applicant proposes to serve Lots 1-12 and 23-28 by extending a public mainline to the
south in Capital Drive from an existing manhole (#9149) with service to Lots 5-12 and 27-28
being provided by individual private pressure services located in the private street, Cupola
Drive.
The applicant proposes to serve Lots 13-17, 20-22 and 29-34 by extending a public mainline to
the north in Capital Drive (and a portion of Cupola Drive) from an existing manhole (#3706) with
service to Lots 13-17 and 29-32 and 34 being provided by individual private pressure services
located in the private street, Cupola Drive.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 41
Page 41
The foregoing proposals are conceptually acceptable, with the exception that standard public
utility easements are necessary for the construction of public wastewater mainlines on private
property. As such, the following condition is required for the proposed development to satisfy
EC 9.6506(2):
Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise Sheet C1 Wastewater and
Water Plan to include 14 foot public utility or public wastewater easements,
centered on the public wastewater mainlines, for all wastewater mainlines proposed
on private property. In the event that a public mainline is proposed for location
within 7 feet from the edge of a public right-of-way, a public utility or wastewater
easement shall be dedicated on the adjacent private property at the width necessary
to ensure 14 feet of operational and maintenance access to the wastewater
mainline (7 feet on each side), when combined with the public right-of-way within
that 14 feet.
wastewater system located on private property, to prevent or address backups or to conduct
other wastewater system inspection, maintenance, and repair needed to prevent damage to
the public system and the private properties it serves.
There is a nexus between the requirement to dedicate a 14 foot wide public utility easement
and the public interest at issue. Without a sufficient public utility easement, the City of Eugene
could be considered to be trespassing on private property when accessing the public facility for
inspection, maintenance, or repair of the public wastewater line. The 14 feet is the minimum
necessary to allow for public maintenance vehicles to access the entirety of the proposed public
wastewater line for inspection and maintenance purposes. This width also allows sufficient
width for excavation equipment in the event that the line needs to be replaced altogether.
This is the last opportunity that the City will have to require the dedication of the easement
prior to the construction of the utility lines.
ndividual private pressure services within the Capital
Drive public right-of-way for service to Lots 18-19 is specifically rejected; private service lines
are not permitted in the public right-of-way. To ensure the development proposal meets the
requirement of 9.6505(2), the following condition is necessary:
Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise Sheet C1 Wastewater and
Water Plan to include wastewater services for Lots 18 19 that do not include
private service lines within the public right-of-way. Private service lines may be
relocated on private property, or public gravity service lines may be placed in the
right of way.
With these two conditions of approval, and the requirement below to ensure a more detailed
review of the public wastewater system improvements as part of the Privately Engineered
Public Improvement (PEPI) process, the standards for sewage at EC 9.6505(2) will be met.
Based on these finding and conditions of approval, this standard is met
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 42
Page 42
EC 9.6505(3) Streets and Alleys and (4) Sidewalks
EC 9.6505(4) requires all sidewalks in the development to be located, designed, and
constructed according to the provisions of Chapter 9, the Design Standards and Guidelines for
Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, construction and design standards
adopted pursuant to Chapter 7, and other adopted plans and policies.
The applicant proposes a 4 foot wide sidewalk (including the curb) on the east side of Capital
Drive, a local street. The sidewalk design standards for local streets are set out on pages 36-38
of the adopted Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and
Accessways. In this case, consistent with the design standard at Section F.5, a curbside
sidewalk on one side of the street is sufficient to meet the Design Standards because Capital
Drive is an Access Lane with steep surrounding topography, and a curbside sidewalk will reduce
excessive impacts to such topography. However, the proposal for a 4 foot wide sidewalk is
specificall
urbside sidewalks, the
condition is warranted:
Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise the PUD plans to
include 5 foot sidewalks along the east side of Capital Drive.
impairments to safely travel on a publicly dedicated surface in both directions between
locations in their immediate neighborhoods and to more distant attractors, without being in
direct competition for travel space with bicyclists and motorized vehicle drivers.
There is a nexus between the requirement to construct an additional foot for a 5 foot
sidewalk - along the east side of Capital Drive and the public interest at issue. The 5-foot wide
curbside sidewalk will allow for pedestrians and people with mobility impairments to safely
travel on a publicly dedicated surface in both directions between locations in the Capital Hill
neighborhood and to more distant attractors such as schools, stores, and parks. The
construction of the curbside sidewalk adjacent to the proposed development will provide the
public with a viable alternative to walking in the street and being forced to compete with larger
and faster bicycles, cars, and trucks. Due to topographical constraints, the applicant has not
proposed sidewalks on the west side of Capital Drive, as is the current condition. With only
having sidewalks on one side of Capital Drive, it is imperative that the sidewalk be constructed
to the standard width.
The requirement to construct a 5 foot wide curbside sidewalk along the entire frontage of the
proposed development is roughly proportional to the impact that the proposed development
single-family residential lots and 2 new lots with the potential for multi-family use. These
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 43
Page 43
residential lots will be accessible from either Capital Drive, or a proposed private street, Cupola
Drive, which takes access from Capital Drive. Currently, approximately 12 single-family
properties have frontage on this block; the additional single-family lots will increase the
number of properties that access this block by approximately 167 percent. The construction of
new residential dwellings will result in an increase of vehicular traffic onto this block by
approximately 324 new vehicular trips per day (see Trip Generation Manual from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Single-Family Detached Housing) and will also result in
additional pedestrian traffic on abutting sidewalks. Without the additional sidewalk width,
pedestrians will have difficulty sharing a dedicated sidewalk, especially when sharing with those
who may have a physical disability or visual impairment.
This is the last opportunity that the City will have to require sidewalk construction prior to
development of the parcels.
As an informational item, Public Works staff notes that construction of the sidewalks in Capital
Drive may be delayed until the building permit process (rather than the PEPI permit process) for
development on individual lots in order to avoid damaging sidewalks during construction, with
the exception of intersection ramps and lots that are already developed with existing
residences.
As an informational item, the standards in EC 9.6505 require the developer to enter into an
agreement establishing installation and maintenance responsibilities for street trees in
accordance with the standards in EC 7.280.
Based on the above findings and condition of approval, this standard is met.
EC 9.6505(5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways.
No bicycle paths or public access ways are required per the previous findings at EC 9.6820 and
EC 9.6835, which are incorporated by reference.
Based on the available information and the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed
PUD will comply with the applicable criterion.
(c) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard
Areas Standards.
These standards do not apply because the subject property is not located within a special flood
hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(d) EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
The applicant has submitted a geotechnical/geologic investigation and addendum, based on the
South Hills Study Development Standards policy, which as previously discussed, are considered
mandatory approval criteria for the proposed PUD. However, in EC 9.6710(3) Exemptions from
Geological and Geotechnical Analysis Requirements
inventory are exempted from analysis. As confirmed by staff, the subject property is included
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 44
Page 44
which designates the subject site as Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and Prominent and
Plentiful Vegetation. Based on the South Hills Study Development Standards policy, the
requirements at EC 9.8320(6) regarding slope failure, and the submission of a
geotechnical/geologic investigation by the applicant, staff has proceeded with a review of the
geotechnical/geologic investigation as follows below.
G.E. of Branch Engineering, Inc., which is dated February 6, 2017, meets the Level One and
Level Two Analysis requirements of EC 9.6710(4)(a) and (4)(b), which consists of a compilation
of record geological data, site conditions, sub-surface investigation and testing and a report
discussing site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed development and other
applicable standards. The report concludes that the site is geologically and geotechnically
suitable for the proposed development. The report also includes a number of construction
recommendations including the design and construction of the proposed residential building
pads and foundations and public infrastructure improvements. Public Works staff concurs with
this initial geotechnical assessment. Adherence to the report recommendations will be required
during the subsequent PEPI permit, and building and site development processes, based on the
condition of approval recommended previously under EC 9.8320(6).
(e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site.
The standards for on-site pedestrian circulation at EC 9.6730 are generally applicable to
institutional, office, commercial, multi-family residential and industrial developments. These
standards are not applicable to the proposed PUD.
(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this land use code, no building or
structure shall be erected or altered except on a lot fronting or abutting
on a public street or having access to a public street over a private
street or easement of record approved in accordance with provisions
contained in this land use code.
The proposed development complies with public access requirements as each of the proposed
lots have frontage on a public street, or have access to a public street via a private street or
shared access easement. Requirements for the creation of the private street are addressed per
the findings at EC 9.6875. Access to Lots 5-10 and 16-19 will be provided via 20 foot wide
shared access easements. As noted previously, one of the future subdivision application
requirements will include the review and approval of a joint access easement and maintenance
agreement that will be recorded concurrent with the final plat.
Based on these findings, this standard is met.
(2) Access from a public street to a development site shall be located in
accordance with EC 7.420 Access Connections Location. If a
de
generation by less than 50% and will generate less than 20 additional
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 45
Page 45
exempt from this standard.
The proposed development is subject to the applicable standards at EC 7.420 and will comply as
addressed in the following findings.
EC 7.420 Access Connections Location
(1) Access Connections to all Street Classifications. Access connections to
all street classifications shall be located in accordance with the
following standards:
(a) No access connection shall be located to encompass a municipal
utility. An access connection may encompass a municipal utility if the
applicant either:
1. Executes a public utility easement for the encompassed municipal
utility; or
2. Agrees to accept financial responsibility for relocating and/ or
adjusting the encompassed municipal utility.
Compliance with this standard will be determined at the time of the building permit when
precise access connection (i.e. individual driveway) locations have been determined.
(b) Except when an existing lot or parcel frontage is located entirely
within an area where the adjacent street grade is over fifteen percent
(15%), no access connection shall be located in areas where the street
grade is over fifteen percent (15%). If an existing lot or parcel frontage
is located entirely within an area where the existing street grade is
over fifteen percent (15%), one access connection may be permitted
at the point of lowest grade percentage.
The proposed development complies with this standard since the majority of the proposed
grades are not over 15%. Staff notes that a very short section of the private street adjacent to
Lot 31 exceeds 15%; however, there is adequate frontage in which to locate an access
connection consistent with this standard.
Based on these findings, this standard is met.
(c) If a parcel has frontage on two or more streets of different street
classifications, the access connection shall access the street with the
lowest classification.
This standard is not applicable as the subject site does not have frontage on two or more
streets with different classifications.
(d) Access connections located within five feet of an existing alley
connection may be merged with the alley pavement. The combined
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 46
Page 46
connection width shall not exceed 35 feet. A public access easement
shall be recorded and submitted to the city upon issuance of a permit
to construct the access connection.
This standard is not applicable as the proposed development does not include, and is not
adjacent to, an alley.
(2) Access Connections to Arterial and Major Collector Streets.
These standards are not applicable as the subject site is not located on an Arterial or Major
Collector street.
(3) Access Connections to Local and Neighborhood Collector Streets.
In addition to the location standards set forth in EC 7.420(1), access
connections to local and neighborhood collector streets shall be located in
accordance with the following standards:
(a)Lots and parcels at intersections shall have the access connection
begin no less than 20 feet from the end of the radius of the curb, or 20
feet from the property corner if there is no curb.
At the time of the building permit for Lot 3, 20, 21 and 26 the access connection will not be
permitted to be located less than 20 feet from the end of the curb return.
(b) A safety island of not less than 22 feet of full height curb shall in all
cases be provided between access connections under one ownership.
Compliance with this standard will be determined at the time of the building permit when
precise access connection locations have been determined.
Based on these findings and future permit requirements, the proposed development will
comply with the applicable access connection standards.
(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards.
No special setbacks are required for future right-of-way or public utility easements. As
discussed previously at EC 9.6805 and EC 9.6870, Capital Drive complies with applicable right-
of-way width requirements.
(h) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities.
All on-
site plans, consistent with EC 9.6775.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 47
Page 47
(i)EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area.
visual obstructions that would pose a hazard to the traveling public. These standards will be
further enforced at the time of development.
(j)EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow
control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and
operation and maintenance.
EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control
In order to protect lives and properties from flood and drainage hazards, stormwater runoff
from development sites (as calculated utilizing the Rational Method and considering all
developments having received tentative or final plan approval) shall be discharged into existing
stormwater flood control facilities that have the capacity to handle the stormwater runoff; or,
be retained or detained onsite; or, discharged into a new stormwater flood control facility
constructed by the applicant. Proposed and required stormwater flood control facilities shall be
designed and constructed in compliance with code requirements. The applicant calculated the
stormwater runoff using software which utilizes the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Method.
This method is acceptable and is considered an equivalent hydrological analysis to the Rational
Method.
Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study, dated March 3, 2017,
and stamped by Nathan Patterson, P.E., the stormwater treatment and management plan for
the development includes the widening of a public street, the construction of a private street,
and underground treatment and detention tanks. This report has identified five existing points
of connection/discharge: (1) the eastern gutter line on Capital Drive, (2) Hendricks Park east of
the development, (3) a shallow channel north of the site, (4) the western gutter line on Capital
Drive, and (5) the adjacent neighboring properties to the west of Capital Drive.
The applicant has broken the proposed stormwater management up into three initial
components: (1) Capital Drive runoff, (2) private roadway runoff, and (3) individual lot runoff.
The majority of Capital Drive currently sheet flows to the west where intermittent curb exists.
In areas where curb does not exist, runoff drains to discharge point (5), which are the
neighboring properties to the west of Capital Drive.
Capital Drive
The applicant has proposed to construct a flush curb on the west side of Capital Drive in the
areas where a functioning curb currently does not exist. The proposal for a flush curb is
consistent with existing drainage patterns. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct Capital
Drive to City of Eugene local street standards, which includes constructing the road to a width
of 21 feet. The road is proposed to be constructed in a fashion that mimics existing drainage
patterns and quantities, with any additional street width draining to the east gutter. There is a
high point in Capital Drive at approximately the middle of the site. Runoff south of the high
point on the east side of Capital Drive will be collected into catch basins and directed to a
mechanical treatment device near the southern intersection with the private roadway. The
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 48
Page 48
runoff will then exit the underground system via a bubbler and continue down the curb line at a
rate less than or equal to existing rates. Runoff north of the high point on the east side of
Capital Drive will be collected into a proposed catch basin and underground detention tank
system that will discharge into an existing drainage ditch north of the site. Runoff on the west
side of Capital Drive will drain at rates and locations that match existing conditions either to
the western gutter line or the adjacent neighboring properties to the west.
Private Roadway
The applicant has proposed three discharge locations for the runoff of the proposed private
roadway. The first discharge point is for the southern portion of the private roadway, which will
be collected by catch basins or a trench drain and will enter an underground detention tank.
From here, the runoff will then be discharged into the eastern gutter line south of the
intersection via a bubbler. The second discharge point for the private roadway is located at the
bottom of the conservation area between Lots 13 and 14. Runoff for this drainage basin will be
collected into various underground storage tanks that will reduce the peak discharge rate and
release into the eastern conservation area west of the Ribbon Trail, via level spreaders. The
third discharge point is for runoff along the northern portion of the private roadway. This runoff
will be collected into a series of underground storage tanks and discharged into an existing
drainage ditch north of the proposed development site.
Individual Lots
For the lots bound by the new roadway improvements, upon treatment and flow control,
drainage disposal will discharge onto the new roadways. For the lots draining away from the
roadway to the east, disposal will be into level spreaders directed toward the existing park land
to the east or north. These locations are consistent with existing drainage patterns.
The proposed system has been designed so that discharge will occur at locations that mimic
existing conditions and at rates that are less than or equal to existing rates. The results from
infiltration testing confirms that the soils (Hydrologic Groups C and D) mapped at this site are
not appropriate for on-site infiltration, which is why the applicant has proposed a series of
underground mechanical forms of collection, detention, treatment, and discharge. Staff
confirms that the proposed detention system demonstrates conceptual compliance with this
standard and EC 9.6791(3)(b)(2), subject to a more detailed review for compliance with
applicable standards during subsequent permit reviews.
Based on these findings, this standard is met and will be further reviewed at the time of
development.
EC 9.6792 Stormwater Quality
In order to reduce runoff pollution and mitigate the volume, duration, time of concentration,
and rate of stormwater runoff from the development, the applicant must select, size, and
locate stormwater quality facilities from the Stormwater Management Manual to treat the
stormwater runoff from the proposed development. As noted previously, the application
includes the widening of an existing public street as well as the construction of a private street.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 49
Page 49
Capital Drive
The applicant has stated that the additional road widening of Capital Drive is too small to justify
the cost of water quality treatment, and therefore has proposed no treatment facilities for this
portion of the project. This is inconsistent with Eugene Code, as stated in EC 9.6792(3)(b), which
requires infiltration, filtration, or mechanical facilities to treat the runoff of a proposed public
street. For compliance with this standard, the following condition is warranted:
The final plans shall be modified so that the stormwater runoff on the north and south
ends of the additional Capital Drive road width will be treated through either filtration or
mechanical treatment methods in compliance with the Public Improvement Design
Standards manual.
Private Roadway
The applicant has proposed to provide a filtration facility for the runoff of the east side of the
private street through the use of a filter strip and level spreaders. The applicant has stated that
the runoff on the north and south ends of the proposed private street will be too small to
justify installing on-site treatment methods and proposes to pay a higher rate of system
development charges (SDC) for the impervious area created. This proposal is inconsistent with
the requirements of EC 9.6792(3)(c), which requires either infiltration or filtration facilities to
treat the runoff of a proposed private street. For compliance with this standard, the following
condition is warranted:
The final plans shall be modified so that the stormwater runoff on the north and south
ends of the proposed private street will be treated through a filtration facility in
compliance with the Stormwater Management Manual.
Individual Lots
The applicant has stated that individual lots will address flow control and water quality
standards when applying for building permits on a case by case basis. The applicant also
suggests that possible water quality mechanisms for the lots include: mechanical treatment,
lined planters, rain gardens, sand filters, or swales. Staff concurs that the water quality
standards for the individual lots will be addressed on a case by case basis at the time that each
lot applies for a building permit.
Based on these findings, and with the recommended conditions of approval, this standard is
met.
EC 9.6793 Stormwater Flow Control (Headwaters)
The site is located above elevation 500, triggering the need to meet flow control requirements.
Tables 1 and Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study outline the
discharge locations and flow rates under existing conditions and proposed conditions,
respectively.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 50
Page 50
Capital Drive
The applicant has proposed to use a number of underground storage facilities with orifices in
order to meet the flow control requirements of EC 9.6793. These underground detention tanks
will direct stormwater runoff to a location that mimics where runoff drains to under existing
conditions. According to Tables 1 and Stormwater Management Plan and
Drainage Study, runoff from Capital Drive will discharge in three locations Discharge Sites 1, 3,
and 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed stormwater system receiving runoff
from Capital Drive will result in peak discharge rates that are less than (Discharge Sites 1 and 4)
or equal to (Discharge Site 3) pre-development conditions. Staff concurs that this is consistent
with the requirements set forth in EC 9.6793(3)(a). Staff also notes that the facilities appear to
be consistent with EC 9.6793(3)(c), which requires that facilities be sited and designed
according to the flow control provisions and the facility design requirements set forth in the
Stormwater Management Manual.
Private Roadway
Similar to the system proposed for Capital Drive, the applicant has proposed to collect
stormwater runoff from the private street into a series of underground storage facilities with
orifices in order to meet the flow control requirements of EC 9.6793. As shown in Tables 1 and
Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study, runoff contributed by
the construction of the private street will be discharged at Discharge Sites 1, 2, and 3. For the
northern and southern portions of the proposed private street, runoff will be collected into
underground detention vaults with orifices that will reduce the peak discharge rate that are less
than or equal to pre-development conditions. Water will then connect into the proposed public
system where it will discharge at the locations identified in the Stormwater Management Plan
and Drainage Study. Tables 1 and 2 show that the peak discharge rate at Discharge Site 1 will be
less than that under existing conditions, and the peak discharge rate at Discharge Site 3 will be
equal to that under existing conditions, consistent with EC 9.6793(3)(a).
For the remaining portion of the private street, runoff will be directed into a series of
underground storage tanks with orifices that will reduce the peak discharge rate. Runoff will
then be released through level spreaders into a designated preservation area on the east side
of the development site. Based on existing topography, the proposed system closely mimics
existing runoff locations. The discharge location is identified as Discharge Site 2 in Tables 1 and
Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study. As shown in Table 2,
the peak discharge rate being released out of each level spreader mimics that of the existing
conditions. It is noted in the report that a 38-foot wide section was used to establish the
existing basin and its peak discharge rate of 0.16 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed
system includes two 38-foot wide level spreaders, each being 38 feet long and each having a
peak discharge rate of 0.16 cfs, which matches the existing condition. Staff concurs that this is
consistent with the flow control standards outlined in EC 9.6793(3).
Individual Lots
The applicant has stated that individual lots will address flow control and water quality
standards when applying for building permits on a case by case basis. Staff concurs that the
flow control standards for the individual lots will be addressed on a case by case basis at the
time that each lot applies for a building permit.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 51
Page 51
Based on these findings, this standard is met and will be further reviewed at the time of
development.
EC 9.6794 Stormwater Oil Control
This standard does not apply because the proposed development will not result in any of the
conditions listed under EC 9.6794(2) (a)-(d).
EC 9.6795 Stormwater Source Controls
This standard does not apply because this application will not result in any of the site uses or
characteristics listed under EC 9.6795(2) (a)-(h).
EC 9.6796 Dedication of Stormwater Easements
The applicant has proposed to place a portion of the public storm line on the north end of
Capital Drive within a 10 foot wide Public Utility Easement on the east side of the right-of-way.
The proposed storm pipe is 24 inches in diameter and is designed to increase the storage
capacity of the storm water system. Due to existing grades within the right of way, there will
not be adequate cover over this proposed pipe. In order to achieve proper cover over the pipe,
the applicant has proposed to direct the pipe alignment outside of the right-of-way to the east,
where there will be adequate cover over the detention pipe.
Based on these findings, this standard is met.
EC 9.6797 Stormwater Operation and Maintenance
As required by EC 9.6797(3)(d), applications proposing City operation and maintenance of all or
part of the stormwater facility must include an Operations and Maintenance Agreement in
accordance with the facility agreements adopted as part of the Stormwater Management
Manual. An agreement for the public stormwater treatment manhole will be required as part of
the PEPI permit process and prior to final subdivision approval.
As depicted on Sheet C2 Stormwater Plan, the proposed storm drainage system will include a
variety of public and private systems. Conditions related to Maintenance of the individual
systems will be imposed at the time of the individual tentative subdivision reviews.
Based on these findings and future permit requirements, this standard will be met.
(k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included
in the application except where the applicant has shown that a proposed
noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300
Purpose of Planned Unit Development.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at
EC 9.8015 of the land use code constitutes compliance with the standard.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 52
Page 52
An existing three unit multi-family building exists on proposed Lots 33 and 34. These lots are
located within the boundary of the Fairmount Neighbors association. The existing two-story
structure in question was converted into a three unit apartment sometime in the past.
Neighborhood concerns with the
during the PUD process. Per EC 9.2741 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2740, triplexes and
duplexes are prohibited within the Fairmount Neighbors boundaries.
Based on the concerns of neighbors, staff from Code Compliance Services inspected the interior
of the structure and conducted research on the history of its use. Code Compliance Services
staff confirm that the structure is set up as three separate living units, each with kitchen
facilities and individual electric meters. Code Compliance Service found no
compelling evidence that the three units were legally established in the past and that
modifications to the structure were conducted without building permits. In response to this
issue, the applicant submitted revisions to the site plan (dated November 28, 2017), which
reconfigured lot lines so that this structure would be split between Lots 33 and 34. The
applicant intends to modify the structure, creating two attached single-family units so that each
unit resides on a different lot. This is intended to meet the code restriction prohibiting triplexes
and duplexes in the Fairmount Neighbors area. Code Compliance Services staff are working
with the property owner to resolve the issues, given the significant amount of non-permitted
work done to the structure, and bring it into compliance. In order to ensure the structure and
any future modification is in compliance with code requirements, the following condition is
appropriate:
Prior to final PUD approval, all requirements of EC 9.2750 Residential Zone
Development Standards, including Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751 Special Development
Standards for Table 9.750, shall be met regarding the existing structure located on Lots
33 and 34.
Private Streets
The proposed PUD includes a private street (Cupola Drive), which is considered to be a feature
explicitly included in the application and therefore subject to compliance with applicable
standards at EC 9.6875, according to the above criterion. As noted previously, staff accepts the
private street proposal in this instance. The applicant does specifically address the criteria for
street connectivity exceptions at EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets, demonstrating that a
connection to the east to Floral Hill Drive is not feasible since it is separated from the
development site by the City owned Ribbon Trail and the existing slopes to the east are in
excess of 30%. Staff concurs, as discussed in greater detail at EC 9.6815 in this report, that
Capital Drive and Cupola Drive are precluded from further connection to Floral Hill Drive due to
the location of the Ribbon Trail and the steep terrain of the site. In addition, the private street
standards will allow for a more compact design that minimizes grading impacts as compared to
public streets. This is generally consistent with a variety of other applicable policies and
approval criteria which call for minimizing grade disturbance and natural resource impacts.
Residential Development Standards
As discussed previously in this reportincludes flexibility or exception to
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 53
Page 53
the residential development standards of the R-1 zone. These areas of flexibility/exception are
as follows:
Table 9.2750 establishes maximum lot coverage of 50%. Lots 16 and 17 are requested
to increase the maximum lot coverage to 65% since these lots are proposed as having
the option of constructing one to three units on each lot as attached single-family units.
By allowing an increase in the lot coverage, the ability to develop the property is
enhanced, providing greater diversity of housing units and maximizing infill
opportunities.
Table 9.2760 limits the maximum size of new lots in the R-1 zone to 13,500 square feet.
An exception is needed for Lots 4, 20 and 22 since each lot contains existing buildings
and other physical features associated with those buildings, such as driveways and
garden spaces, which preclude reducing these lots below the maximum 13,500 square
feet.
An exception to the maximum lot size of 13,500 square feet (Table 9.2760) was also
requested for Lot 23. This lot has no existing buildings or structures but is associated
with Lot 22 and contains an existing vineyard, fruit tree orchard, and other large trees.
Staff recommended a condition of approval to show a buildable area not to exceed
13,500 feet on this lot.
Additionally, Lots 5 and 14 through 19 exceed the maximum allowable lot size. These
lots have individual preservation areas and useable (buildable) areas of varying size. All
of these lots, except Lots 5 and 16, have useable (buildable) areas under 13,500 square
feet when subtracting their respective preservation areas.
Lots 5 and 16 have useable/buildable areas that exceed 13,500. Staff recommended a
condition of approval to show a buildable area not to exceed 13,500 feet on these lots.
As already discussed in this report, staff is supportive of granting flexibility and exceptions to
the standards discussed above noting EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development states
that he planned unit development (PUD) provisions are designed to provide a high degree of
flexibility in design of the site and the mix of land uses. As demonstrated by the applicant, and
as conditioned, the proposed lot sizes and lot coverage for those lots in question will be
consistent with the standards of the R-1 zone and ensure that the density of the site is well
under the maximum allowable density.
With regard to the above standards, staff further notes that the application does not include
specific plans for the individual residential dwellings to be constructed upon the proposed lots.
As these features are not explicitly included in the tentative PUD application, staff notes as an
informational item that compliance with the applicable residential development standards at
EC 9.2750 (such as for maximum building height, minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage for
the remainder of the lots, and fencing) will be addressed subsequently as part of the building
permit process at the time each lot is developed.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 54
Page 54
EC 9.8320(11): The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts,
including such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality.
Compliance with the PUD criteria noted elsewhere in this report, in addition to compliance
with applicable residential development standards and recommended conditions of approval,
provides adequate assurance that the proposed development will have minimal off-site
impacts consistent with the above criterion.
As previously discussed under EC 9.8320(2), the applicant has demonstrated consistency with
the South Hills Plan and its policies as follows:
The applicant has proposed the preservation of approximately 4.54 acres of land,
insuring the preservation of existing trees and vegetation while providing a continuous
visual buffer between the adjacent Ribbon Trail and the future home sites. These
described preservations areas are protected from any future construction and removal
of trees, therefore providing for the continued health of the native wildlife and
vegetation.
The combined preserved areas of Tract A and the private preserved areas of the eastern
lots provide an uninterrupted natural wildlife corridor, enhancing the existing wildlife
corridor that the Ribbon Trail provides.
The clustering of home sites in the mid to higher elevations along with the
approximately 2.5 to 2.8 dwelling units per acre, which is below the recommended
density of 5 dwelling units per acre, limits ground disturbance and allows for the
preservation of additional trees and vegetation. Also, a condition of approval is
geotechnical/geologic investigation are carried out during future development of the
site, which also limits potential ground disturbance and reduces the possibility of slope
failure.
The individual lot conservation areas along with the previously described Tract A
provides a significant buffer and visual screen from lower elevations and limits the
visible scale and bulk of the proposed single-family residential development. The
applicable residential development standards for the R-1 zone also ensure general
compatibility with the surrounding residential area.
Improving Capital Drive in its current location (within the existing right-of-way) and
utilizing the existing cuts into the hillside for the new private road to parallel existing
topographical contours will ensure that the necessary cut and fill has been minimized to
the greatest extent practical.
The applicant has either demonstrated consistency with the South Hills Study and its policies or
exceeded the policy recommendations as described above and in greater detail under EC
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 55
Page 55
9.8320(2) in this report. Consistency with the South Hills Study ensures that the development
proposal is compatible with its surrounding area, and minimizes off-site impacts.
As previously discussed under EC 9.8320(2), the applicant has demonstrated consistency with
the policies of the Laurel Hill Plan and its policies, which ensures that the development proposal
is compatible with its surrounding area, and minimizes off-site impacts as follows:
The proposed approximately 2.5 to 2.8 dwelling units per acre is well below the
recommended density of 5 dwelling units per acre described in Land Use and Future
Urban Design policy 1.
The location of the Cupola Drive along an existing graded vehicular accessway, the
clustering of lots in a non grid-type fashion around the road system, and a large
preservation area located in the steepest portion of the site with the heaviest
vegetation, demonstrates consistency with respect for the existing topography and a lot
layout other than a grid-type division of land as described in Land Use and Future Urban
Design policy 5.
Compliance with the South Hills Study, as previously discussed in this report,
demonstrates consistency with South Hills Study standards that include minimizing
alterations to land contours to retain as much of the forested atmosphere as possible,
as described in Land Use and Future Urban Design policy 6.
No new roadways are proposed within the Laurel Hill Plan boundary consistent with
Transportation policies 1 and 2.
On-street parking along one side of the street is provided on both Cupola Drive and
Capital Drive north of Cresta De Ruta Street, which appears to include sufficient on-
street spaces that would also accommodate a reasonable number of visitors, as
described in Transportation policy 4.
Public Works staff has reviewed the traffic safety and street connectivity study submitted by
the applicant, and concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways that provide
access to the development site are unsafe or incapable of serving the site and no offsite
mitigation is required. Public Works recommends the existing off-site transportation system is
adequate to serve the proposed development.
Public Works staff confirms the proposed storm drainage system has been designed with a
series of underground mechanical forms of collection, detention, treatment, and discharge.
Staff confirms that the proposed detention system demonstrates conceptual compliance with
the applicable standards at EC 9.6791 through 9.6795 and that stormwater discharge will occur
at locations that mimic existing conditions and at rates that are less than or equal to existing
rates, therefore minimizing off-site impacts and environmental quality.
Regarding noise, the development is proposed with 34 residential lots and no uses other than
residential. Anticipated noises generated from the development should be consistent with the
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 56
Page 56
noises and sounds generated by the neighboring residential areas and will have minimal impact
to the surrounding area.
As previously discussed, the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development does
not meet any of the thresholds established in EC 9.8650 through 9.8680, and therefore no TIA
is required. The anticipated peak hour trips of the proposed development will be 27 AM peak
hour trips and 35 PM peak hour trips, which is considered minimal in the context of existing
traffic using the street and the above criterion.
A memorandum from Scott Gillespie P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager (see
Attachment F) is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(7). The memorandum indicates that
Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to serve the
proposed development and concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways
are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. Therefore, no off-site mitigation by
the applicant is required.
requested by the applicant and recommended by staff and discussed
elsewhere in this report, the PUD complies with all applicable development standards.
Based on the available information and the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed
PUD will comply with the applicable standard.
EC 9.8320(12): The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and
harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses.
The proposed PUD is located in an area that is zoned and developed primarily for low-density
residential development. Since the proposed development is a residential land use, within a
residential area, there do not appear to be any inherent conflicts that would keep the
developments from being at least reasonably compatible and harmonious with nearby
residential development. The proposed gross density at 2.5 to 2.9 units per acre is on the low
side of the maximum allowable density of 14 units per acre, and is consistent with the
developed surrounding area. The proposal to create 34 lots for single-family residential
development is consistent with the general character of the area, and protections for
significant natural features and vegetation on the subject site will further ensure compliance
with the applicable criterion.
Immediately adjacent to the north property boundary are public lands (Hendricks Park) and
adjacent to the east property boundary is the Ribbon Trail. Residential development directly
abutting recreational uses makes the proposed development compatible with the nearby park
and trail uses.
Clustering of home sites in the mid to higher elevations limits the ground disturbance and
allows for the preservation of approximately 4.41 acres of the site along the east boundary,
providing a significant buffer with the existing forested area on the Ribbon Trail property. This
preserved area provides a visual screen of the development for those who use the Ribbon Trail
for recreation purposes and a significant wildlife habitat and corridor, helping to ensure a more
harmonious environment.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 57
Page 57
As the applicant states in their narrative, have no
definition in the land use code, which means a discussion of these qualities is purely subjective
and open to much interpretation.The applicant argues that the surrounding single-family
residential neighborhood is a mix of architectural styles, materials, and number of stories,
which is typical of many neighborhoods throughout Eugene. Given the varied nature of the
existing neighborhood, "reasonable and harmonious" could mean that the proposed
development will have a mixture of units that are mostly single family detached, some single
family attached, one and two stories in height, with varied and eclectic architectural styles, and
variable parking options (i.e. garages, no garages, carports).
The applicant is not proposing to build any homes as part of this proposal. Since lots will be
sold and developed individually by their respective owners, it is likely that each home will have
a distinct and different architectural style and appearance, using various materials consistent
with single-family home construction. Also, the varying topography will conceivably have an
effect on the type of house and construction methods depending on whether a home is located
on a flat or steep portion of the development site
photographic examples of various styles of homes in the area, such as front garage dominated
single-family, ranch style and contemporary, of one and two stories in height. It is reasonable
to assume the lots in this project will develop in similar ways.
As noted at EC 9.8320(5)(c) in regards to traffic, EC 9.8320(10)(j) in regards to stormwater
runoff, and EC 9.8320(4) in regards to protection of natural features which are incorporated
herein by reference, the proposed development will have minimal off-site impacts related to
traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and natural resources all of which helps ensure the
development is reasonably compatible with the nearby land uses and therefore complies with
this criterion.
As each of the lots are developed by private owners, they will be required to comply with
applicable residential development standards at the time of individual building permit review,
that include height, setbacks, and lot coverage, as established in the Eugene Code, as well as
the approved conditions of approval for the PUD. Staff generally concurs with the additional
further detail.
Based on the available information and the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed
PUD will comply with this standard.
EC 9.8320(13): If the tentative PUD application proposes a land division, nothing in
the approval of the tentative application exempts future land divisions from
compliance with state or local surveying requirements.
The applicant is proposing to divide the subject property into 34 residential lots and 4 tracts of
common open space. As stated above, nothing in the approval of this tentative PUD
application exempts the future land division application from compliance with state or local
surveying requirements.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 58
Page 58
Furthermore, as required by the tentative subdivision approval criteria at EC 9.8515(12),
subsequent land division applications must be consistent with the approved PUD. Given the
extent of final design and construction details that will be coordinated through the subsequent
subdivision application(s) and related permit review processes, staff highly recommends that
the applicant submit the final PUD application for Capital Hill PUD concurrent with the
tentative subdivision application. This will facilitate coordination of those subsequent reviews
and various technical details to ensure consistency with the approved tentative PUD, while also
enabling a shorter timeline for required land use application reviews.
EC 9.8320(14): If the proposed PUD is located within a special area zone, the
applicant shall demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the purpose(s) of the
special area zone.
The subject property is not located within a special area zone. As such, this criterion is not
applicable.
EC 9.8320 (15) For property with the /SR Site Review Overly Zone the PUD complies
with any additional site-specific criteria that were specified at the time the /SR
designation was applied to the property.
The property does not have the /SR Site Review Overlay Zone, therefore this criterion is not
applicable.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the available information and materials, and the findings and conditions of approval
contained in this report, staff recommends that the Hearings Official grant tentative approval
for Capital Hill PUD. Staff recommends that the following conditions of tentative PUD approval
be established, to ensure compliance with the applicable approval criteria.
As noted throughout the above evaluation, a number of design and construction requirements
will be further addressed as part of subsequent subdivision application(s) and related permit
reviews. Please refer to the list of attachments below, for a summary of informational
comments related to those future applications and permits.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. with the following:
Protective fencing for trees identified to be preserved shall be installed under the
direction of a certified arborist and inspected and approved by the City prior to
beginning any construction related activities. All protective tree fencing shall remain in
place until completion of all construction activities; any relocation or removal of the
protective fencing shall also occur under the direction of a certified arborist, with
approval by the City.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 59
Page 59
2. #8 on sheet L3.0 with the following:
In the event a preservation tree must be removed, justification of the removal must be
documented by a certified arborist. Documentation must be provided to the City for
review prior to tree removal activity. Removal of a preservation tree will require the
planting of 2 replacement trees for every tree removed. Replacement trees shall be a
native species, with a minimum caliper of 1 ½ inches for deciduous trees and a minimum
height of 5 feet for coniferous trees. Any trees that must be replaced within private
preservation areas are the responsibility of that lot owner. Any trees that must be
replaced in Tracts A, B, C, and D will be the responsibility of the common owners or
homeowners association.
3.On the final site pl
4.
Trees in the common areas of Tract A and individual lot preservation areas that die
naturally or are damaged naturally and become potentially hazardous will require no
replacement trees. The removal of dead, diseased, or hazardous trees is allowed with
prior approval by a certified arborist and documentation of that approval (including the
need for removal) provided to the City.
5.On the final pla
Any trees to be removed in Tract A, as a result of installation of the storm sewer system
between and near Lots 13 and 14, shall be replaced with two trees for every tree
cceptance of the system. Replacement trees shall be a native
species, with a minimum caliper of 1 ½ inches for deciduous trees and a minimum
height of 5 feet for coniferous trees, and planted in the same general area.
6.On the final plans for all lots that border Tracts A, B, C, and D or contain a preservation
area, a temporary 10-foot construction setback area from all abutting preservation
areas and Tracts A, B, C, and D shall be shown. The following note shall be added to the
der Tracts A, B, C, and D or contain a preservation area, a
temporary 10-foot construction area setback from all abutting preservation areas and
Tracts A, B, C, and D shall be enforced during home construction, and shall include
temporary construction fenc
7.On the final plans, include a note that states:
A, B, C, and D, no above ground structure that requires a building permit; no impacts to
preserved trees; and no grading activity shall not be allowed. The only exception is
within Tract A, the storm drainage facility and associated grading and maintenance, as
8.The final PUD plans shall note that street tree removals must meet the permit and
replacement value requirements of EC 6.305.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 60
Page 60
9.A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific recommendations for
design and construction standards, shall be provided with any applications for Privately
Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site
development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure, and residences on
individual lots. The development proposed with each permit shall adhere to the
recommended standards for design and construction as contained in the related
geotechnical analysis.
10.The following note shall be included on the final plans:
For lots 16 and 17, each lot shall have the option of constructing up to three attached
single-family structures. If only one single-family structure is proposed, that lot shall
have a maximum lot coverage of 50% of the buildable portion of the lot. If two or three
single-family structures are proposed, that lot shall have a maximum lot coverage of
65% of the buildable portion of the lot. The buildable portion of the lot shall be the area
identified as outside any preservation area and shall not exceed 13,500 square feet,
regardless of how many dwellings are developed on the lots.
11.The final site plan shall be revised to show a buildable area on Lots 5, 16 and 22 not to
exceed 13,500 square feet.
12.Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide documentation that EWEB has
received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the plat. It
is noted that EWEB currently accepts cash payment, bond, or an irrevocable letter of
credit as financial guarantees.
13.Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise Sheet C1 Wastewater and Water
Plan to include 14 foot public utility or public wastewater easements, centered on the
public wastewater mainlines, for all wastewater mainlines proposed on private
property. In the event that a public mainline is proposed for location within 7 feet from
the edge of a public right-of-way, a public utility or wastewater easement shall be
dedicated on the adjacent private property at the width necessary to ensure 14 feet of
operational and maintenance access to the wastewater mainline (7 feet on each side),
when combined with the public right-of-way within that 14 feet.
14.Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise Sheet C1 Wastewater and Water
Plan to include wastewater services for Lots 18 19 that do not include private service
lines within the public right-of-way. Private service lines may be relocated on private
property, or public gravity service lines may be placed in the right of way.
15.Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise the PUD plans to include 5 foot
sidewalks along the east side of Capital Drive.
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 61
Page 61
16.The final plans shall be modified so that the stormwater runoff on the north and south
ends of the additional Capital Drive road width will be treated through either filtration
or mechanical treatment methods in compliance with the Public Improvement Design
Standards manual.
17.The final plans shall be modified so that the stormwater runoff on the north and south
ends of the proposed private street will be treated through a filtration facility in
compliance with the Stormwater Management Manual.
18.Prior to final PUD approval, all requirements of EC 9.2750 Residential Zone
Development Standards, including Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2751 Special Development
Standards for Table 9.750, shall be met regarding the existing structure located on Lots
33 and 34.
Consistent with EC 9.7330, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, the Eugene
Hearings Official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny this Type III application within
15 days following close of the public record. The decision shall be based upon and be
accompanied by findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the
decision, stating the facts relied upon in rendering a decision and explaining the justification for
the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. Notice of the written
decision will be mailed in accordance with EC 9.7335. Within 12 days of the date the decision is
mailed, it may be appealed to the Eugene Planning Commission as set forth at EC 9.7650
through EC 9.7685.
Attachments:
It was not feasible to reprint all of the written materials, full-sized site plans, and other items
included in the public record for this application as part of the attachments to the staff report.
Several relevant items are attached to this report for ease of reference, however, the balance
of the other materials listed below are available for review at the Planning Division or upon
request. Copies of these additional materials can also be provided upon request, for a fee. As
a courtesy, portions of the available material are available online and can be accessed using the
file number at http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/ApplicationSearch. The Hearings Official will
be provided a full set of the record materials for review, and the full application file will be
made available at the public hearing.
Attachment A Vicinity Map
Attachment B Site Plan (Reduced Version)
Attachment C Summary of Testimony Received (up to February 27, 2018)
Attachment D Fire (March 28, 2017 and February 20, 2018)
Attachment E EWEB Referral Comments (September 12, 2017 and January 15, 2018)
Attachment F Memorandum by Scott Gillespie, P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager
Attachment G Summary of Informational Comments/Referrals
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 62
Page 62
For More Information:
Please contact Nicholas Gioello, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541)
682-5453, or by e-mail, at nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) February 2018 63
Page 63
Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1)
Attachment A
W
O
O
D
L
A
W
N
A
V
E
E
2
6
T
H
A
V
E
E
2
7
TH
A
V
E
Subject
Property
Subject
Property
^
_
UGB
´
Feet
0250500
Caution:
Legend
This map is based on imprecise
source data, subject to change,
Capital Hill PUDTaxlots
and for general reference only.
February 2018
Page 64
Attachment B
Page 65
VEHICLE AND BIKE PARKING
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY
PROJECT INFORMATION
PRESERVATION AREAS
OWNERSHIP MAP
LEGEND
NOTE
Tentative P.U.D.
3.3.2017
jas,ktvh
ces
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY
LIGHTING
IRRIGATION
A
4
4
A
4
4
44
4
4
A
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
A4
4
4
4
4
SOLAR LOT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
4
A
A
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
A4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4A
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
44
4
44
4
44
A
4
44
4
44
44
4
4
A
44
4
4
4
4
44
4
44
4
44
4
A
44
4
444
4A
444
4 A
4
4
4
4 4
4
4 4 44
A
4
4 4 4
4
4
4
4
4 4 44
44
4
4 4
STORMWATER
44
444
4
44
4
A
A44
4
4
444
4
4
4
44
4
4
44
A4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
A4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
44
AA...A.....A.
4
44...4.....4.
4
44...4.....4.
4
4
4A....A.A....A.
4
4
44....4.4....4.
44....4.4....4.
44....4.4....4.4
4
44....4.4....4.
4
44....4.4....4.
4
44....4.4....4.
4
44....4.4....4.
4
44....4.4....4.
44....4.4....4.
4
A
A
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
A
4
4
A
4
4
4
A
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
A4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
444
44
4
A
4
44
4 4
4
4
4
4 44
44
4 4
4
4
4 4
4
4 4
4 4
4
4
4
44
A
4
4
4
4
4 4
4
44
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
44
44
4
4
4
44
4
44
44
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
4
4
4
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Attachment C
Memorandum
Date: February 27, 2018
To: Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Eugene Hearings Official
From: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
Subject: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Summary of Public Testimony Received as of February 27, 2018
___________________________________________________________________________________
Staff has received testimony on the proposed PUD from two affected Neighborhood Associations,
neighbors, and other interested parties. The following is a summary of the issues and concerns raised
in the public testimony received to date.
Neighborhood Associations
A letter was received by staff on December 22, 2017, from the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens regarding the
proposed Capital Hill PUD. On December 29, 2017 a letter was received from the Fairmount
Neighbors Association regarding the proposed Capital Hill PUD. Both letters are nearly identical in
their content and wording. The Fairmount Neighbors Association along with the Laurel Hill Valley
Citizens appointed a committee (Capital Hill Response Committee) to evaluate the PUD application.
On December 6, 2017 the Capital Hill Response Committee recommended opposing the Capital Hill
PUD to the Laurel Hill Valley Executive Committee and the Fairmount Neighbors Association. The
Fairmount Neighbors Association voted 96-3 and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Executive Committee
voted 16-0 to accept the recommendation of the Response Committee. The Response Committee
conducted extensive analysis, contracting with technical specialists in law, forestry, geotechnical
engineering, and traffic engineering, and found these major issues with the proposal:
ed on steep slopes and would be
vulnerable to increased geological instability.
The removal of up to 466 trees, over 50% of the existing trees on the site, increases land slide
potential and exposes trees in Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail to windthrow and other
damage.
The proposal jeopardizes safety and emergency services response time throughout the
existing roadways and the new private street.
The proposal is located within the South Hills Study area, which encourages tree and
vegetation preservation within ridgeline areas for parks, open space and connecting trails.
to the Hearings Official that PDT 17-1
be denied and that no exceptions to the Eugene City Code be granted to the applicant adding
Page 66
Attachment C
that
community The full report and evidence from the Response Committee is intended to be submitted
into the record. At this time, staff has not received the report and evidence.
A full and detailed analysis of the proposal and applicable City code criteria has been formalized in
the staff report for PDT 17-1. Staff notes that a geotechnical/geologic investigation submitted by the
engineer found no significant geologic hazards that would impede or restrict the
construction on the site. The investigation also concluded the site is geologically and geotechnically
suitable for the proposed development, provided that specific recommendations described in the
investigation are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Additional discussion
of the geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are found in the staff report at EC
9.8620(2), EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. Staff has recommended
a condition of approval at EC 9.8320(6) in the staff report to ensure the recommendations in the
engineering investigation are carried out during future
development of the site.
are in various forms of
condition from good to poor. Most of the trees have not been actively maintained for decades, with a
significant number of trees damaged by events such as ice storms and severe wind. The applicant has
proposed preserving as many healthy trees as possible by concentrating tree preservation in one
large area along the eastern border of the property with the heaviest tree population and thereby
preserving larger stands of trees in their natural habitat. Preserving large stands of trees will limit
further damage from windthrow, which isolated trees are more susceptible to. At this time, all of the
trees shown on the lots in areas where construction may occur, also referred to as the buildable area,
are listed as discretionary trees that could be removed if a building or structure is proposed. The
applicant has proposed a one to one replacement for every tree that needs to be removed for
development. It is also important to note that lots will be sold to individual owners and will develop
at different times in the future. It is likely that these properties will develop sporadically over time
and associated tree removal will occur in the same manner. Tree preservation and replacement are
discussed in detail in the staff report at EC 9.8320(2), and EC 9.8320(4)(b) and (c).
Testimony Received from Neighbors and Other Interested Parties
Staff has received testimony in opposition of the proposed PUD from a number of other neighbors
and interested parties. Many of the letters and correspondence received express concern about
similar issues. The following is a summary of the issues raised:
Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive Leading Up To The Site
Pedestrian and bicycle safety conflicts with vehicles.
No sidewalks for pedestrians. Sidewalks need to be installed.
Roadways are too narrow at 18 feet wide and are substandard.
Multiple blind curves on roadways.
Vehicles cannot pass each other with a parked vehicle.
Difficulty for emergency response vehicles to safely access site.
Α
Page 67
Attachment C
Increase in vehicular traffic from the development will increase the problems with access,
and increase conflicts with pedestrians and bicycles.
Vehicular accidents have occurred due to narrow road width and will increase with this
development.
Driveways connecting to the roadway are too steep and create blind intersections.
Increased construction traffic will contribute to existing safety problems with roads.
Children have to walk to and from school in the roadway.
The development will cause a 24% increase in traffic.
Existing lack of emergency response, is a risk to public health and safety.
No secondary access to site.
Dispute with and
-mo
Streets leading to the site will have increased maintenance and repair costs due to
increased traffic.
Spring Boulevard is too narrow with no curbs. Large trucks cannot pass in opposite
directions on Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive.
Regarding safety issues on Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, a memorandum from Scott Gillespie P.
E., Public Works Development Review Manager (included with the staff report as Attachment F),
indicates that Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to
serve the proposed development and no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. The
memorandum concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or
incapable of serving the development site. This memorandum is discussed in greater detail at EC
9.8320(7) in the staff report. Public Works staff also confirms that none of the applicable triggers for a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Review are met, and therefore a TIA is not required pursuant to the
standards at EC 9.8650-9.8680.
included with the staff report as Attachment D)
indicate
up to the development site will improve emergency response time. Staff also received a petition
signed by 31 residents, requesting an investigation of the hazardous condition of increased parking
on Capital Drive. gineer executed an Administrative
Order on February 23, 2018, which will remove all on street parking from Capital Drive between
Spring Boulevard and Cresta De Ruta.
Drive by April 30, 201
signs on Capital Drive from Spring Boulevard to Cresta De Ruta will improve emergency access and
evacuation capabilities along the route. This issue is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(6) in the
staff report.
Sewer and Stormwater Impacts
The development will cause increased demands/stress on existing storm and sewer
systems.
Loss of trees will cause increase in stormwater runoff, impacting lands downhill from site.
Β
Page 68
Attachment C
More development of homes will cause more stormwater runoff from site.
Plans do not have enough details on storm drainage.
Increased stromwater runoff will increase landslides.
Public Works staff has confirmed that the applicant has proposed adequate stormwater systems
which will limit post development runoff to pre-development levels, and is consistent with the
approval standards set forth in EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 subject to several conditions of approval.
This includes meeting the standards for storm drainage regarding the public street (Capital Drive),
private street (Cupola Drive) and future construction of homes on the individual lots. This issue is
discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(10)(j) in the staff report.
The applicant proposes to serve the lots with a combination of public and private sewer systems,
including mainline extensions of the existing public sewer system. Public Works staff indicates the
proposal is conceptually acceptable and the applicable standards for sewage will be met with
recommended conditions of approval and a detailed review of the public wastewater system
improvements as part of the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) process. This issue is
discussed in greater detail at EC 9.6505(2) in the staff report.
Environmental Impacts
Development will have negative impact on Hendricks Park.
Removal of too many trees.
Removal of so many trees will cause blow-down hazard for trees in Hendricks Park and
other nearby trees.
Destruction of vegetation and loss of wildlife habitat.
Potential for increased landslides.
Negative impacts to Ribbon Trail.
Negative impacts to wildlife.
Increased chance of fire.
Negative environmental impact.
Only 18% of site is protected from development.
Invasive weeds on the site could threaten Hendricks Park when construction begins.
Staff has provided an analysis of potential impacts to the natural environment at EC 9.8320(2)
regarding policies of the South Hills Study, and EC 9.8320(4)(a) regarding minimizing impacts to the
natural environment. Comments from Parks and Recreation staff do not indicate any concern with
the development causing negative impacts to Hendricks Park.
The applicant has made an effort to preserve as many healthy trees as possible by concentrating the
tree preservation in one large area along the eastern border of the property, where the heaviest tree
population exists. By preserving larger stands of trees in their natural habitat there is less chance of
further damage from windthrow (or blow down) for the remaining trees onsite and nearby adjacent
properties. This preserved area creates a larger vegetative corridor adjacent to the Ribbon Trail and
provides a significant visual and buffer and wildlife corridor between the trail and the proposed
private home sites. This issue is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(4)(b) in the staff report.
Γ
Page 69
Attachment C
site
appears to be geotechnically suitable for the proposed development provided that the
recommendations in the report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. This
issue, as it relate to the South Hills Study policies, is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(2) in the
staff report. Additional discussion of the geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are
found at EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis, in the staff report. A
condition of approval is recommended at EC 9.8320(6) to ensure the recommendations of the
Fails To Meet PUD Code Criteria (EC 9.8320)
Does not meet criteria of EC 9.8320(5) does not provide safe and adequate
transportation systems.
Does not meet criteria EC 9.8320(6) is a significant risk to public health and safety.
Does not meet criteria EC 9.8320(11) fails to meet threshold of minimal offsite impacts.
Logical and analytical failure at EC 9.8300(1) applicant requests flexibility of design while
also demanding clear and objective measures.
The staff report provides analysis of the above referenced code criteria at EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (11).
Staff has concluded that the application complies with these sections of the code, subject to a variety
of conditions of approval and subsequent subdivision permitting requirement. Regarding the issues
raised about logical and analytical failure at EC 9.8300(1), this section of the code describes the
purpose of a PUD and does not serve as approval criteria except in the case of any requests for
-
addressed in the application materials and the staff report.
Other Issues
Increased noise from the development.
Site is in an identified landslide area and will increase the risk of more landslides.
Loss of trees will have a negative impact on view shed.
South Hills study is violated with loss of too many trees; development above 900 feet is
protected by South Hills Study.
No water service is available.
Up to 200,000 construction vehicle trips.
Does not provide a range of housing types, will not be affordable due to high construction
costs.
Development does not fit the character of the area.
Development is too big/dense, with too many homes.
No street connectivity for a secondary access route.
Peak hour trips are underestimated.
The preserved area buffer for the Ribbon Trail is minimal at the northeast portion of the
site; homes will be visible to walkers on the trail.
Δ
Page 70
Attachment C
Regarding noise, the staff report addresses this issue at EC 9.8320(11). The development is proposed
with no uses other than residential. Anticipated noises generated from the development should be
consistent with the noises and sounds generated by the neighboring residential areas and will have
minimal impact to the surrounding area.
Landslide issues are previously discussed under the Environmental Impacts section of this summary.
Additional discussion of the geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are found at EC
9.8320(2), EC 9.8320(6), and EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis in the staff report. A
condition of approval is recommended at EC 9.8320(6) to ensure the recommendations of the
The loss of trees and effect on the view shed are discussed at EC 9.8320(2) in the staff report,
regarding the South Hills Study policy that ensures developments blend with, rather than dominate,
the natural characteristics of the south hills area. Views of the property from off site are discussed at
EC 9.8320(3) and loss of trees and the view of the site is discussed at EC 9.8320(4)(b) in the staff
report.
The applicable policies of the South Hills Study are discussed at EC 9.8320(2) in the staff report. It is
noted that the South Hills Study provides that vacant property above 901 feet elevation ĬĻ
ƦƩĻƭĻƩǝĻķ ŅƩƚƒ ğƓ źƓƷĻƓƭźǝĻ ƌĻǝĻƌ ƚŅ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷͲ ƭǒĬƆĻĭƷ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ŅƚƌƌƚǞźƓŭ ĻǣĭĻƦƷźƚƓƭʹ
Њ͵ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ źƓķźǝźķǒğƌ ƩĻƭźķĻƓĭĻƭ ƚƓ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ƌƚƷƭʹ ğƓķ
Ћ͵ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ǒƓķĻƩ ƦƌğƓƓĻķ ǒƓźƷ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƦƩƚĭĻķǒƩĻƭ ǞŷĻƓ źƷ ĭğƓ ĬĻ ķĻƒƚƓƭƷƩğƷĻķ
ƷŷğƷ ğ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ źƭ ĭƚƓƭźƭƷĻƓƷ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ƦǒƩƦƚƭĻƭ ƚŅ Ʒŷźƭ ƭĻĭƷźƚƓ͵
Therefore, properties above 901 feet can be developed under the PUD process. Tree preservation is
discussed at EC 9.8320(4)(b) in the staff report.
Water availability is discussed at EC 9.8320(7) in the staff report. EWEB comments indicate there is
sufficient water to supply the proposed Capital Hill PUD. However, the existing water system
infrastructure does not have adequate capacity to provide the required domestic and fire water flows
resulting from the increased demand of the proposed development. The applicant will need to work
a new water distribution system.
Construction vehicle traffic is not part of the approval criteria for a PUD. Public Works staff has
previously responded to this question by neighbors, and indicated that the rehabilitation and
repaving of Capital Drive in 2016, design standards by accounting for heavy
vehicles over a 20 year design life.
Housing affordability is not part of the approval criteria for a PUD. The proposal does include the
option for two lots to develop with three smaller sized attached single-family units. An existing three
unit apartment will be converted into two single-family attached units.
The South Hills Study recommends maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed gross
density of approximately 2.5 to 2.8 dwelling units per acre is well below the recommended threshold.
Ε
Page 71
Attachment C
The proposed density is also similar to the existing density of surrounding existing neighborhoods.
This issue is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(1), (2) and (10) in the staff report.
Street Connectivity standards are discussed in detail at EC 9.6815 in the staff report. The applicant
also submitted a Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study which estimated the proposed
development will not exceed the threshold of 100 or more peak hour trips; therefore, a Traffic Impact
Analysis is not required. Public Works staff concurs with the findings in the study, and this issue is
discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(7)(c) in the staff report.
The proposed preservation area that acts as a buffer to the Ribbon Trail and Hendricks Park is
discussed in detail at EC 9.8320(2), (3), (4), (11), and (12) in the staff report. Staff concluded that the
preserved area provides a visual screen of the development for those who use the Ribbon Trail for
recreation purposes and a significant wildlife habitat and corridor, helping to ensure a more
harmonious environment.
ATTACHMENTS "A" and "B" (pages 73-375) OMITTED
Attachments
A.Letters from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens and Fairmount Neighbors Association
B.Public testimony received from neighbors and other interested parties
Ζ
Page 72
Attachment D
Eugene OfficeSpringfield Office
1320 Willamette Street 225 Fifth Street
Eugene, OR 97401 Springfield, OR 97477
(541) 682-5411 (541) 726-3737
(541) 682-6882 FAX (541) 741-2214 FAX
FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS FOR EUGENE OR
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENTS
Date:
2/20/18
Project:
PDT17-1 Capital Hill PUD Updated Comments
File Number:
Address:
Existing Use:
Proposal:
Planner:
Nick Gioello
Fire Department Comments/Conditions
I.Fire Department Access
Based on a review of the initial Fire Department Land Use comments for the Capital
Hill PUD PDT17-1 by Schirmer Satre Landscape Architects
no longer exists. This portion of the development, after
review, removed an access road that supported lots on a private drive originally serving
lots #1 and #4. Capital Hill Road will now dead end but this dead end road will not
exceed 150 ft, thus removing the requirement for an acceptable fire department
apparatus turn around.
(Original Fire Department Comments Dead End Fire Department Access Road 3/17/17)
1.Dead End Fire Department Access Roads Reference 2014 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.5 - At the N end of Capitol Drive and
specifically the private drive intersecting LOTS #1, #4
a. A Dead End Fire Department Access Road exceeding 150ft situation exists starting from
the SW corner of LOT#3 and terminating at LOT#4
b. The total length of this section is approximately 390ft
c. 2014 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.5 requires an approved area for turning around fire
apparatus where a Dead End Fire Department Access Road exists.
d.
extending to the South between LOTS#1, #4 on the N Private Drive
Page 376
Attachment D
2. Additional Fire and EMS Supportive Comments UPDATE 2/20/18
Fire Department Access Parking/No Parking
Original 3/27/17 Comment:
Roads leading up to the
Capital Drive area would greatly improve the ability of the fire department and other
emergency responders to respond in the least amount of time as possible.
ns on both sides
of existing roads that lead up to the Capita
Separate and apart from the Capital Hill PUD, the City of Eugene has agreed to address
an existing recognized fire department access issue along Capital Drive. This will be
on both sides of Capital Drive along with
enforcement. Providing the full unobstructed width to Capital Drive provides
improved emergency access and evacuation capabilities along this route.
Fire Department Comments Submitted By
Deputy fire Marshal Mark Dahl
Page 377
Attachment D
Eugene OfficeSpringfield Office
1320 Willamette Street 225 Fifth Street
Eugene, OR 97401 Springfield, OR 97477
(541) 682-5411 (541) 726-3737
(541) 682-6882 FAX (541) 741-2214 FAX
FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS FOR EUGENE OR
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENTS
Date:
3/27/17
Project:
PDT17-1 Capital Hill PUD
File Number:
Address:
Existing Use:
Proposal:
Planner:
Nick Gioello
Fire Department Comments/Conditions
1. Fire Department Access 2014 Eugene Fire Code Reference 503.1 and more
specifically 503.2.1 Fire Department Access Road Dimension
a. Capital Hill PUD Developed Road reference from the
SW corner of LOT#21 to the NW corner of LOT#1 (Plan Set Sheet
Reference L6.0)
i. Verify that this developed section of road meets the 20ft wide
unobstructed road width referenced in the 2014 Eugene Fire Code
503.2.1 and Eugene Local Streets Standard.
ii. Verify no parking (both sides of road) on this developed road as
also referenced by (i) above fire code and City standards
iii.
the 2014 Eugene Fire Code Appendix D103.6 and D103.6.1
Capital Hill PUD Developed Roads
i. Verify that this developed section of road meets the 20ft wide
unobstructed road width referenced in the 2014 Eugene Fire
Code 503.2.1 and Eugene Local Streets Standard.
ii. Verify no parking (both sides of road) on this developed road as
also referenced by (i) above fire code and City standards
iii.
in the 2014 Eugene Fire Code Appendix D103.6 and D103.6.1
Page 378
Attachment D
iv. Verify that a minimum turning /corner radius of 30 ft inside and 50
ft outside is achieved to accommodate fire department vehicles.
a. (Plan Set Sheet Reference L6.0)
i. At the SW intersection of Capital Drive and Street A
Private Drive between LOTS #21 and #22
ii. At the NW intersection of Capital Drive and Street A
Private Drive between LOTS #27 and #3
iii. Private Drive intersecting LOTS #11, #10, #9, #8
(coming off Street A Private Drive
iv. At the N end of Capital Drive for the corner to the
private drive intersecting LOTS #1, #4
v. Dead End Fire Department Access Roads Reference 2014
Eugene Fire Code 503.2.5 - At the N end of Capital Drive and
specifically the private drive intersecting LOTS #1, #4
a. A Dead End Fire Department Access Road exceeding
150ft situation exists starting from the SW corner of LOT#3
and terminating at LOT#4
b. The total length of this section is approximately 390ft
c. 2014 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.5 requires an approved area
for turning around fire apparatus where a Dead End Fire
Department Access Road exists.
d.
Fire Code
extending to the South between LOTS#1, #4 on the N
Private Drive
2. Water Supply OK
a. With the existing 2 fire hydrants and 2 new proposed hydrants and all new
developed homes having automatic sprinkler systems complying with
specified in EC 9.6815 (d) of the march 3, 2017 Tentative PUD Application
Capital Hill
Page 379
Attachment D
3. Additional Fire and EMS Supportive Comments
Purpose:
To aid in the understanding of the real world challenges faced by emergency
responders when responding to citizens and situations at, on, in and around
These supporting comments
geographical areas of the Capital Hill area of Eugene.
apply directly to the Capital Hill PUD and recognize and respect the intent of The
a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil
erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to
Fire Department considerations always include both Fire and EMS emergencies.
Concern Reality #1
The inbound flow of fire department vehicles is Capital drive via Spring Blvd. from
the north. This route has the fewest hairpin turns but also has very restricted access
in several places along Spring Blvd.
With the minimal access along this route, Fire Department response can be very
significantly delayed for any number of reasons: unusually high opposing traffic, a
collision of vehicles, construction on the road, construction vehicles related to
residential housing, down trees or wires, other drivers attempting ill-timed turn
around attempts or trying to park.
In a large scale incident such as a wildland fire or even a house fire, local residents
might be fleeing the area in their vehicles and impeding the flow of fire vehicles.
With any of the above situations the alternate route might require the fire vehicle
backing up a long distance (greater than 150 ft) before finding an available turn
around point such as at East 27th and Spring Blvd.
The alternative, if Spring is inaccessible, is Spring to Madrona Dr, to Highland to
Cresta de Ruta. At the intersection of Cresta de Ruta and the portion of Capital Blvd
which would access the new subdivision, is a very sharp left had turn that would
require additional maneuvering of the fire vehicle and would potentially greatly
reduce response time.
Minimizing restrictions along existing Fire Department Access Roads leading up to the
Capital Drive area would greatly improve the ability of the fire department and other
emergency responders to respond in the least amount of time as possible.
Page 380
Attachment D
sides of existing roads that lead up to the Capital Hill area
(Continued)
Concern Reality #2
The impact upon the timely response of additional fire response vehicles on major
medical emergencies and fire incidents.
For structure fires, NFPA 1710 calls for a minimum firefighting force of 4 to arrive
within 5 minutes, 90% of the time. This means we need two fire engines on scene in
that time allowance.
Additionally, OR-OSHA requires a minimum of one 2 person entry team and one 2
person rescue team to be assembled before entry into an IDLH (Immediately
Dangerous to Life and Health) atmosphere except for situations where a known
victim is inside the structure and rescue needs to be performed to save a life.
NFPA 1710 fu
within 9 minutes, 90% of the time. Our first alarm assignment for a residential
structure fire includes 4 engine company(12 persons total), 1 truck company(3
persons total), 1 medic unit(2 persons total) and 2 chief officers(2 total).
Given the severely restricted access to the area, in all likelihood the truck company
would not be able to physically drive to the scene. This means the Incident
Commander would need to determine whether to have the crew from the truck park
at the most out of the way place and walk in on foot or send the truck away and call
for another engine company. Either way the truck company crew of 3 would be out
of the fire fight.
Fire Department Comments Submitted By
Deputy fire Marshal Mark Dahl
Page 381
Attachment E
Page 382
Attachment E
Page 383
Attachment E
Page 384
Attachment E
Page 385
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 8 2017. A traffic engineering study is not explicitly
th
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.
%·¨²³¨¦ #®£¨³¨®²
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 27 to Spring
th
East 27 to Woodlawn (via Central & 26th)
th
Agate to Columbia (via 22 Ave)
nd
Agate to Fairmount (via 21)
st
19 to Fairmount (via Moss, Villard, or Orchard)
th
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
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).
2¤µ¨¤¶ lj 2¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨®
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 geomatics 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 applicants 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 si
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 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 applicants engineer and recommends the existing transportation
system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no offsite mitigation is required.
Page 388
Attachment G
/ğƦźƷğƌ Iźƌƌ t
5 Λt5 ЊАΏЊΜ
{ǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ LƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓğƌ źƷĻƒƭ
tǒĬƌźĭ ƚƩƉƭ
Since the extent of slope easements will not be known for certain until the PEPI
permitting process, the requirement for slope easements will be determined at the
time of the subsequent subdivision application and required to be shown on the final
plat.
Per Section M of the adopted standards (Arterial and Collector Street Plan), private
streets are required to comply with the standards for public streets with respect to
intersection configuration, minimum centerline radius length, grade, sight distance,
width, curb requirements, sidewalks and street alignments relative to natural resource
sites and water-related features.
At the time of the subsequent subdivision review, the private street will need to be
formally created by a separate document (i.e., Private Joint Use Access and Utility
Easement and Maintenance Agreement (JAM), or similar document). The JAM will
include a description defining the area of the private street and will also identify
permitted improvements, construction expectations, rights of usage and maintenance
responsibilities for the facilities in the private street, as well as responsibilities for the
public sidewalk adjacent to the private street. The JAM will be recorded concurrent
with and cross-referenced on the final plat. At the time of the subdivision review,
provisions ensuring emergency access over the private street will also need to be
addressed. These may be included in the JAM or alternatively may be dedicated as a
Public Emergency Access Easement on a standard City form.
It is noted that the access connection to the private street will need to be constructed
as a standard driveway apron. Also, the structural design and construction inspection
licensed engineer that a structural design meeting the applicable public standards has
been completed, will be required at the time of the site development permit for the
private street.
Pursuant to EC 9.6500(3), if any public utility easements are shown on the final plat, the
plat will need to note the following restriction: No building, structure, tree, or other
obstruction shall be placed or located on or in a public utility easement.
To ensure compliance with EC 9.6505, an Engineering and Construction agreement is
required for the private construction of public improvements, which must be submitted
when the construction plans are submitted for review and approval. The configuration
Page 389
Attachment G
and size of the public improvements will be subject to approval by the City Engineer
upon review of the design and supporting analysis prepared by the applic
If the improvements are not permitted prior to plat approval, a bond for the
construction of public improvements will be required prior to final plat approval. These
future requirements will be further addressed as part of the subsequent subdivision
application process.
The standards in EC 9.6505 require the developer to enter into an agreement
establishing installation and maintenance responsibilities for street trees in accordance
with the standards in EC 7.280
Public Works staff notes that construction of the sidewalks in Capital Drive may be
delayed until the building permit process (rather than the PEPI permit process) for
development on individual lots in order to avoid damaging sidewalks during
construction, with the exception of intersection ramps and lots that are already
developed with existing residences.
CƚƩ ƒƚƩĻ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ źƷĻƒƭ ğĬƚǝĻͲ ĭƚƓƷğĭƷ 9Ʃźĭ CğǝƩĻğǒͲ tǒĬƌźĭ ƚƩƉƭ
9ƓŭźƓĻĻƩźƓŭͲ ğƷ ЎЍЊΏЏБЋΏЋБЏВͳ ĻƩźĭ͵Ɔ͵ŅğǝƩĻğǒθĭź͵ĻǒŭĻƓĻ͵ƚƩ͵ǒƭ
The plans indicate two existing fire hydrants and two new proposed hydrants with this
development proposal. Since all new homes in the development will have automatic
sprinkler systems, a 50% reduction in the minimum fire flow from these hydrants, from
1,000 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute, will be allowed subject to further
review as part of any applicable Fire Code requirements during the subsequent building
permit process.
CƚƩ ƒƚƩĻ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ źƷĻƒƭ ğĬƚǝĻͲ ĭƚƓƷğĭƷ ağƩƉ 5ğŷƌͲ 9ǒŭĻƓĻΉ{ƦƩźƓŭŅźĻƌķ CźƩĻ
ğƷ ЎЍЊΏЏБЋΏБЌЏЊͳ ƒğƩƉ͵ŷ͵ķğŷƌθĭź͵ĻǒŭĻƓĻ͵ƚƩ͵ǒƭ
99. 9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭ
Overhead electric distribution facilities along the west side of the propose development
couldpose a conflict during construction.
An electric service extension is required to serve the proposed development. Extension
of electric facilities will be designed to meet the City of Eugene Utility Permitting
ordinances, land use ordinances, EWEB standards, and otherapplicable codes. The cost
of facility extensions and relocations will be borne by the requesting customer and
executed under EWEB policies and procedures at the time request for electric service is
made.
Page 390
Attachment G
Electric facilities extending across tax lots to serve adjacent properties require
easement. The applicant's representative should coordinate early in design with EWEB
Electric Distribution Engineering to confirm the specific locations and sizes of EWEB
easements or required relocation by calling 541-685-7521 or email at
DistributionEngineering@eweb.org. EWEB Utility Easements or PUE's required to serve
these properties must be noted on the plat prior to EWEB's approval of the Final
Subdivision.
Electric facilities under storm water treatment facilities or any open drainage structure
should be avoided. EWEB standards and extension design will require additional
measures if water treatment facilities are unavoidable. Additional information
pertaining to new electric service is available at EWEB's website at
http://www.eweb.org/contractors-and-developers/building-and-renovations/facility-
extension. EWEB owns and maintains service conduit and conductors.
CƚƩ ƒƚƩĻ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ źƷĻƒƭ ğĬƚǝĻͲ ĭƚƓƷğĭƷ WƚƓ ŷƚƒğƭͲ 9ǒŭĻƓĻ ğƷĻƩ ε 9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭ
.ƚğƩķͲ ğƷ ЎЍЊΏЏБЎΏАЍАЋͳ ƆƚƓ͵ƷŷƚƒğƭθĻǞĻĬ͵ƚƩŭ͵
99. ğƷĻƩ
The applicant is advs office about fire protection
requirements for building permits.
EWEB water does not allow installation of any w
or any open drainage structure within the right-of-way.
Provisions within the design must be made to accommodate the installation of water
facilities (services & hydrants) at common lot corners.
at service crossing and hydrant locations is
required. State Drinking Water regulations (OAR 333-061-0050(10)) require a minimum
separation betwe where they run parallel to each other,
if the sew below the water main.
EWEB owned water facilities will be located in the right-of- public
utility easement (PUE) adjacent to the right-of-way, or in a 1 PUE when not located
adjacent to the right -of -way.
CƚƩ ƒƚƩĻ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ źƷĻƒƭ ğĬƚǝĻͲ ĭƚƓƷğĭƷ .źƌƌ WƚŷƓƭƚƓͲ 9ǒŭĻƓĻ ğƷĻƩ ε 9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭ
.ƚğƩķͲ ğƷ ЎЍЊΏЏБЎΏАЌААͳ Ĭźƌƌ͵ƆƚŷƓƭƚƓθĻǞĻĬ͵ƚƩŭ͵
99. wźŭŷƷΏƚŅΏğǤ
Page 391
Attachment G
Those EWEB utility easements Instrument Nos. 18885 & 18881, recorded on December
53D, Lane County Deeds & Records, (EWEB doc. #1574) may affect
s northerly boundary and should be referenced on the plat.
There are existing electric facilities crossing Tax Lot 400 to serve Tax Lots 200 and 300.
Either Public Utility Easement(s) dedicated on the plat or EWEB Utility Easement(s)
recorded simultaneously with and referenced on the plat will be necessary to cover any
existing or new electric service(s) that cross any parcel(s) to serve another parcel(s).
Contact EWEB Electric Distribution who will design electric extension to serve the
development and determine the width and length necessary for any necessary utility
easements.
If a Public Utility Easement (PUE) is dedicated on the plat, the plat should include the
No building, structure, trees, shrubbery or other obstruction
shall be placed or located on or in a public utility easement. Or, at the customer's
request, EWEB canprepare a separate EWEB Utility Easement document for recording
simultaneously with the plat to satisfy EWES's needs.
CƚƩ ƒƚƩĻ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ źƷĻƒƭ ğĬƚǝĻͲ ĭƚƓƷğĭƷ /ğƩƩƚƌ 9ŭŭƌĻƭƷƚƓͲ 9ǒŭĻƓĻ ğƷĻƩ ε
9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭ .ƚğƩķͲ ğƷ ЎЍЊΏЏБЎΏАЊЍЍͳ ĭğƩƚƌ͵ĻŭŭƌĻƭƷƚƓθĻǞĻĬ͵ƚƩŭ͵
Page 392
/Њ
Ћ
Ќ
CONTE EXHIBIT D3 -- Staff Report posted on City PDT 17-1 Documents website
(Document date 3/7/2018)
Attachment C omitted
CONTE EXHIBIT E -- PW Response "Revised 2-1-18"
(This document was available on-line on February 28, 2018
the date on which the Staff Report was posted.
It references an outdated version of Eugene Code.
Gmail-Inconsistent versions of code in PWD referral and Staff reportPage1 of4
CONTE EXHIBIT F1 -- Nick Gioello e-mail thread
Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Inconsistent versions of code in PWD referral and Staff report
Paul Conte
<paul.t.conte@gmail.com>Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:40 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us>
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:11 PM, GIOELLO Nick R<Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/22/2018
Gmail-Inconsistent versions of code in PWD referral and Staff reportPage2 of4
Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm.
Associate Planner | Planning Division
City of Eugene
Planning & Development
th
99 West 10 Avenue
Eugene Oregon 97401
p541.682.5453
f541.682.5572
nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
paul.t.conte@gmail.com
Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/22/2018
Gmail-Inconsistent versions of code in PWD referral and Staff reportPage3 of4
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:40 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm.
Associate Planner | Planning Division
City of Eugene
Planning & Development
th
99 West 10 Avenue
Eugene Oregon 97401
p541.682.5453
f541.682.5572
nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
paul.t.conte@gmail.com
Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/22/2018
Gmail-Inconsistent versions of code in PWD referral and Staff reportPage4 of4
1461 W. 10th Ave
Eugene, OR 97402
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/22/2018
CONTE EXHIBIT F2 -- Gioello e-mail re PDT 17-1 record
CONTE EXHIBIT G1 -- PW Referral document posted March 6, 2018
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:52 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Cathy Johnson
This is what "NO PARKING" on Spring Boulevard looks like
Subject:
Dear Nick,
I must apologize, for I hit send instead of save last night and a copy of this email was sent to you at 8:01PM
unfinished.
I am also not totally clear about whether the subject is acceptable to submit during the Second Open-Record
Period, but I believe that it is.
If you agree, please enter this email into the record and confirm receipt
I am writing in response to Scott Gillespie’s Memo to you written December 8, 2017. It is found in the 1st Open
Record Period: Public Testimony (3-7-18 to 3-19-18)
Paul Conte’s Exhibit A, Attachment F, page 387, first paragraph. I am also expanding on recent neighbor
testimony on this same subject.
Mr. Gillespie says that on Spring Boulevard, “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 it’s length.”
I want to say that I’m very glad that the “No-Parking" signs exist, but the street is still not safe.
I’d like to share some photos and a story about the type of thing that very commonly occurs on Spring
Boulevard.
The situation is dangerous even when there are “NO
Sometimes some neighborly “policing” is required.
Parking” signs.
Last Thursday, March 15 at 7:44AM I heard a commotion below my house on Spring Boulevard.
Evergreen Roofing had parked two work trucks along the curb just below the busy 5 way stop. One of them
had a long trailer hitched to it.
They were making quite a bit of noise, and looked like they were starting to set up to do some work.
I went outside, leaned over my fence and asked them nicely where they were working. They told me that it was
a home around the corner and up the hill on Madrona
(I later found out that it was 2421 Madrona).
I commented that they were quite a ways from their job site, that they were parked in a very dangerous spot, and
could they possibly find another spot to park ?
They told me that they had scouted the whole hill and because they had a trailer, this was the best spot for them
to park. I asked them how long the job would take
and they replied that it would probably take all of that day and part of another day.
It appeared that the trailer was used to cut and manufacture gutters and the second truck (facing down hill)
would be making numerous trips up and down the hill
delivering the finished pieces to the site.
I again told them that they were parked in a very dangerous spot, and as a matter of fact, they were parked right
“NO Parking” sign.
in front of a
1
“ Oh it’s OK, we have a permit and can even park in the middle of the road if we need to."
They said,
I told them that trucks with trailers went up and down the hill frequently and managed to find parking spots
close to their job sites.
The guys said that their boss had told them to park there, and asked if I would like to speak to him on the phone.
I needed to check on something in the house,
so I said that I would be back in a few minutes and yes, I would like to speak to him.
When I returned, I was glad to see that they had moved to another location. In the end, the trucks had only
parked there for about an hour, but it was a very busy time
of the morning when residents were traveling to work and school and many construction trucks were driving up
the hill to begin jobs for the day.
It was incredible to me to think that they would consider taking up a full lane of traffic below a busy
intersection to stage a day and a half long job
for a home that was a some distance up the hill.
Most of the homes on Spring Boulevard do not have anywhere for visitors to park but on the street. Their
driveways are barely long or wide enough for two regular sized cars.
These homes, their driveways and access to them was permitted by the City many years ago. It does not appear
to me that there is any reasonable way to widen Spring Boulevard.
It is inevitable and understandable that these homes will require occasional visits from a vehicle or two
(landscape, construction, utility, UPS, etc) that have no alternative
but to park on the street. Whether it’s for 5 minutes or five hours, it can create a bottleneck and a potentially
dangerous situation.
These streets are narrow with virtually no sidewalks. When one of the lanes are blocked, it
throws pedestrians, bicyclists and cars out into the oncoming lane of traffic.
We have dozens of photos that document this dangerous situation. The fact that there are many blind
curves and driveways does not help.
That said, I don’t necessarily think that strict no-parking enforcement is the answer, I just don’t believe that it
would be at all wise to add to the existing volume of traffic.
Most Capital Hill Residents are used to this and know that they need to use caution at all times. We try to be
always on our guard and watchful.
Most of us can cite close calls that we’ve witnessed or been a part of.
We love our neighborhood, and we know that this is how it has to be and is the price that we pay for living in
this older, established neighborhood on this particular hill.
We’re all very concerned that an increase in all kinds of traffic will lead to a tragic situation. If the Capital Hill
not
PUD is approved, the construction traffic will be an insignificant
or temporary problem for us. It will create an extremely dangerous environment for everyone traveling up and
down Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard for many years to come.
Thank you,
Cathy Johnson
PS: Contrary to what Mr. Gillespie says (also on page 387) about there being no crash history on Capital Drive
or Spring Boulevard, a reported accident did occur
on Friday, September 29, 2017 at 3:34. The case number is 1716513, and I believe that it was briefly mentioned
in our Response Document under Criterion 5, page 30.
There have been many other incidents resulting in damage to vehicles that are known to us.
It truly is a miracle that no one has been seriously injured or killed on these roads over the years.
2
3
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 1:30 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Responsive testimony for PDT 17-1 (Capital Hill PUD)
EmailThreadAsEvidenceCommissionerBreeNicolelloDraftedCoCLetterInPDT17-1.pdf
Attachments:
Please acknowledge receipt and enter this message and attached document into the record for PDT
17-1.
This testimony directly responds to the testimony in the e-mail message identified below and the
accompanying letter from Brittany Quick-Warner, dated March 7, 2018.
From: Tiffany Edwards <tiffanye@eugenechamber.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:48 PM
To: GIOELLO Nick R
Subject: Request to rescind testimony
The document attached to my testimony contains the e-mail message thread and attachment
submitted on March 7, 2018 and posted for public review on the City's website.
The document establishes that Eugene Planning Commissioner Bree Nicolello has a direct financial
conflict of interest that renders her disqualified to participate in any way in legislative review or
quasi-judicial appeal proceedings by the Eugene Planning Commission related directly or indirectly
to the proposed Capital Hill Planned Unit Development, any successive development at the
proposed site and potentially other proposed residential developments.
This testimony does not directly implicate the Hearings Official's deliberations and findings
regarding PDT 17-1. The testimony is submitted to preserve the evidence and issue for potential
appeals of the Hearings Official's decision.
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
Attached document:
EmailThreadAsEvidenceCommissionerBreeNicolelloDraftedCoCLetterInPDT17-1.pdf
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
1
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Kathleen Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:30 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Tom Bruno; Susan Hoffman; Cathy and Dave Johnson; Brent
Lorscheider; Nathaniel Teich; Jason Brown; CW Murchison; Faris Cassell
Subject:PDT 17-1 Rebuttal Testimony
Attachments:James Mehrwein Rebuttal Testimony.pdf; Schirmer Satre cover Letter p 2.pdf; Hearing
Exhibit K.pdf
Date: March 29, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: Kathleen Masterson, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
Dear Hearings Official:
Please accept the attached file (James Mehrwein Rebuttal Testimony.pdf) as rebuttal testimony to the
applicant's testimony submitted on 3/21/18 (Schirmer Satre Group cover letter \[p. 2, section 3\] and Hearing
Exhibit K \[pp. 21-22 of 44). The latter documents are included here for ease in reference.
This rebuttal testimony is submitted in regard to Criteria (4) and (6).
Please confirm receipt of this testimony.
1
GIOELLO Nick R
From:CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:27 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:PDT 17-1 Rebuttal Testimony (Traffic) Please Confirm Receipt.
CHPUD Response to PUD Hearing Official-3-26-2018 (Massoud+Pics).pdf
Attachments:
Date: March 29, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: CW Murchison, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) Please Confirm Receipt
This and the following testimony in an attached PDF directly respond to the "Technical Memorandum
Transportation, Exhibit G of the March 21, 2018 Response from Carol Schirmer" authored by Damien
Gilbert of Branch Engineering, dated March 21, 2018, which was submitted during the first open-
record period. Specifically this testimony responds to Mr. Gilbert's comments made regarding
Massoud Saberian and his prior testimony.
Mr. Saberian has prepared a formal response to Mr. Gilbert's work, and it is attached as a PDF.
There are four pictures at the end of Mr. Saberian's response which show Mr. Saberian conducting
his on-site work (July 2017) for his analysis of Capital Dr traffic safety issues that Mr. Gilbert was
critiquing. These pictures show Mr. Saberian on Capital Dr. starting at the five corners and walking
the length of Capital Dr uphill, with the first picture showing Mr. Saberian using a tape measure to
verify the width of Capital Dr, and with the final picture showing Mr. Saberian on Capital Dr with the
“Pink House” owned by the Dreyers, which sits at the top of the hill, in the background. Mr. Saberian
is wearing the gray shirt, blue jeans, brown leather shoes, and sunglasses slid back on top of his
head.
These pictures firmly establish that Mr. Saberian did conduct extensive on site work to be able to
prepare a professional and unbiased review of the traffic safety conditions of Capital Dr, directly
contradicting what Mr. Gilbert said in his response. The following attachment provides a deep and
detailed response to Mr. Gilbert. The attachment is a PDF and is titled "CHPUD Response to PUD
Hearing Official-3-26-2018 (Massoud+Pics)".
Thank you for your consideration,
C.W. Murchison
2835 Capital Dr.
1
Date: March 26, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: Massoud Saberian, PE/TE, PTOE
Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
Dear Hearings Official,
I am responding to the Technical Memorandum Transportation, Exhibit G, prepared by
Damian Gilbert, PE, for Branch Engineering. My name is Massoud G. Saberian, PE, PTOE
and I am a licensed Civil and Traffic Engineer in Oregon, Washington and California with over
28 years of professional civil and traffic engineering experience with multiple public agencies
on the west coast in general and Oregon in particular.
I received both my Master of Science Degree in Civil/Transportation Engineering and my
Bachelor of Science in Civil/Structural Engineering from Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR. in 1981 and 1986 respectively. My licenses in both disciplines have been active and
current since they were issued.
I obtained my Professional Civil Engineering License (#14485) in 1989 and Professional
Traffic Engineering License in 1992 (#14485) through the required written examination
process for both disciplines at the time. Despite changes in licensing process for specialty
disciplines like Traffic Engineering, there are many professional traffic engineers who proudly
continue to practice in Oregon. Many of them are licensed Professional Civil Engineers or
other disciplines as well.
For a limited few who qualify, including myself, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE,
a well-established reputable international professional traffic engineering organization) began
issuing certification titled (Professional Traffic Operations Engineer) around 2004 which
requires many years of professional traffic engineering experience as well as a rigorous
written exam similar to Professional Traffic/Civil Engineering exam.
I worked for Washington County from 1990 to 2002 as a Traffic Analyst, Traffic Engineer and
Senor Traffic Engineer. Part of my duties included development review and making sure the
common civil and traffic engineering practices are not compromised. In addition, I worked as
the Senior Traffic/Signal Engineer at the Oregon Department of Transportation Headquarters
for three years (2003-2006). Furthermore, I worked as the Principal Transportation Engineer
for the City of Lake Oswego for five years (2006-2011) where I continued to review and
analyze many development applications.
Since1988, right before Obtaining my Professional Civil Engineering License to the present, I
have been operating SABA Consulting and Engineering Services in Beaverton, OR as a part-
time consulting business. In the past 30 years, I have prepared, reviewed and provided
technical expertise to my clients for over 100 projects in Oregon and Washington.
SABA, C.E.S., 5640 SW Murray Blvd. #20, Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553, sabaces100@gmail.com
Since 2014, I have been the Supervising Engineer providing supervision, mentorship, and
leadership to the transportation engineering section of the City of Santa Rosa, CA Public
Works Department. Despite my current position, I have maintained my full time residency in
Oregon andon average travel twice a month to visit my family and take care of clients.
the near future.
My professional licenses/certifications are as follows:
Professional Engineer (PE), Civil and Traffic, State of Oregon 1989 & 1993,
Professional Engineer (PE), Civil Engineer, State of Washington 2003,
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE), National ITE 2006,
Professional Traffic Engineer (TE), State of California 2014
(The dates shown are issue date of each license and all are current and have remained active
since I practice in all multiple states like many other professionals)
My broad-based education, certifications, and professional experience have provided me a
very well balanced, deep and well versed understanding of traffic issues at local, state,
regional, and national levels.
With a broad knowledge and experience of the civil and traffic engineering principals in
multiple states and municipalities (Washington County, Clark, Multnomah County, Marion
County, Clackamas County, Lane County, Tillamook County, Deschutes County (Oregon),
Clark County, Franklin County (Washington) combined with my education, experience, and
certifications makes me more qualified to do traffic analysis, not less as Mr. Gilbert insinuates.
I have a very long and established relationship with many engineers including traffic
engineers in Eugene, Springfield, Lane County in public and private sectors in various
capacities since 1990. I even have been retained and testified as expert witness in multiple
legal cases since 2010. I respect Mr. Gilbert as fellow civil engineer, but I am surprised by his
subjective overreaction which appears to have resorted to baseless ad hominem attacks
because he can find few, if any, significant deficiencies in my analysis and conclusions. I feel
confident that the Hearings Official will see through this tactic and appreciate that my broad-
based experience, supported by extensive education, and validated through multiple
professional certifications, sufficiently establish that I am fully qualified to provide expert
opinion on traffic capacity and safety issues. My LinkedIn Profile which is available online
covers a portion of my professional history.
I also want to make it very clear that I did an extensive on site visit of Capital Dr and the roads
near it on July 3, 2017. Together with members of the Joint Response Committee, we studied
road and traffic conditions and documented our work photographically, and by taking notes,
review of historical data and other references. Some of these photos show me at work on
Capital Dr. They were included in my report and will be presented here once again. My report
also included photographs provided by neighbors showing a variety of adverse and impactful
road and traffic conditions on Capital Dr and nearby streets. I had made it very clear to the
neighbors who retained me, th
SABA, C.E.S., 5640 SW Murray Blvd. #20, Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553, sabaces100@gmail.com
objective about my findings and will point out what I view as a Traffic Engineer which may not
be favorable to them. Also, as an Traffic Engineer with multiple public agencies in Oregon and
outside, I have a much broader understanding of operational and legal challenges after a
controversial development is allowed to proceed.
Mr. Gilbert grasps at straws with his suggestion that the photos were staged. This is untrue,
and there are numerous other photos and videos in the record that document similar issues. It
is frankly a petty and baseless attack unbecoming a professional engineer.
Thank you for taking the time to read my response. I fully stand behind my report. Please
disregard the spurious attacks against my qualifications made by Mr. Gilbert.
Sincerely,
EXP: June 2018
Massoud Saberian, PE/TE, PTOE
Principal, SABA, C.E.S.
Attachment 4 pictures of 120 taken during a site visit of Capital Drive on mid-morning
rd
Monday July 3
SABA, C.E.S., 5640 SW Murray Blvd. #20, Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553, sabaces100@gmail.com
SABA, C.E.S., 5640 SW Murray Blvd. #20, Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553, sabaces100@gmail.com
SABA, C.E.S., 5640 SW Murray Blvd. #20, Beaverton, OR 97005 503-888-7553, sabaces100@gmail.com
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Gunnar Schlieder <gunnar@geoscience-or.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:05 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:GeoScience 2nd Open Record
Hi Nick: My testimony for the 2nd Open Record Period for CaptialHill PUD is included in the folder at the
following link
Capital Hill PUD - Google Drive
Capital Hill PUD - Google Drive
Right-click
download
help protec
Outlook pr
automatic d
this picture
Internet.
There should be two files there, one is a memo regarding the License Issue and the other is a Rebuttal of Branch
Engineering's 1st Open Record Letter regarding geotechnical issues. The other two folders contain older
testimony. If you need access to that again let me know and I'll send you links to those.
Could you please let me know that you've received this and when the two memos have made it into the public
record online.
Thanks
Gunnar
Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG
(541) 607-5700 (ofc)
(541) 729-4271 (cell)
1
March 25, 2018
Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker
Hearings Official
c/o Nick Gioello
Planning
City of Eugene
via email: nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
RE: LICENSING STATUS, GUNNAR SCHLIEDER, G1139, E1139
Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker:
I am writing this memorandum to address the status of my registration as a Geologist and
Engineering Geologist, which has been brought into question by Carol Schirmer in her letter dated
March 21, 2018 and in Schirmer/Satres Hearing Exhibit 1.
Until Ms. Schirmer mentioned the issue, I had assumed that my registration as a Geologist and
Engineering Geologist was being treated as Active by the Oregon State Board of Geologist
Examiners (OSBGE). This assumption was based on the fact that I had renewed my registration and
paid my$ 265.00 renewal fee on 12/30/17, one day before the previous registration lapse date. The
receipt emailed to me then is attached. This should have resulted in automatic renewal of my
licenses.
However, as Ms. Schirmer points out in her letter, my registration was shown as lapsed on the
OSBGE website.
Once I determined that this was indeed the case, Isent an email to OSBGE inquiring about the issue.
Ms. Arrobangs email reply is attached. The issue was caused by an administrative error on the part
of OSBGE, when my payment for renewal was not linked to my registration renewal. OSBGE
apologized for the error and immediately corrected my status.
In conclusion, the lapse of my registration was not caused by any omission of mine, but rather
resulted from a failure of OSBGEs online renewal system, which was not possible to detect from
my side without further verification of my status at a later date. I am not normally in the habit of
checking my registration status after the renewal system informs me that my renewal was successful.
March 28, 2018
Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker
Hearings Official
c/o Nick Gioello
Planning
City of Eugene
via email: nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
ST
RE: REBUTTAL OF BRANCH ENGINEERING 1 OPEN RECORD SUBMITTAL,
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker:
I am writing this memorandum to provide rebuttal of the 2-page letter dated March 20, 2018 from
Branch Engineering, addressing my testimony submitted at the Hearing on the Capital Hill PUD on
March 7. I will address Mr. Derricks points as arranged in his letter.
Introduction
Mr. Derrick indicates that the report and addendum submitted last year were intended to be a
preliminary investigation for planning purposes with a concentration on the roadway layout.
I am in complete agreement that the investigation appears to have been preliminary and focused
on the roadway, given that conducting subsurface exploration was limited to the gently sloping area
of the Capital Drive/Cupola Drive loop.
However, Branch Engineerings investigative approach
fails to meet the requirements of EC 9.6710 (4)(b) and (5)(b) and EC 9.8320 (6) which require
investigation (including subsurface exploration) of all areas of a proposed PUD with slopes
.
greater than 10%
In addition, Mr. Derricks defense confirms that the layout of the PUD preceded the geotechnical
investigation, placing the cart before the horse. Ideally, geotechnical conditions would be
determined prior to deciding on a layout of both the lots and the infrastructure of a proposed PUD.
That way the PUD could be designed to fit into the geologic constraints of the site. This was never
done in this case, as the subsurface exploration focused on the pre-determined road alignment and
ignored the areas with more pertinent geotechnical/geologic constraints such as landslides.
March 28, 2018
Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker
Page 2
Suitability of Lots 18&19 (formerly Lots 19&20) and Lots 16 & 17
EC 9.8320 (6) requires that the applicant demonstrates at the Tentative PUD phase that the
development will not be a risk to public health and safety. Mr. Derrick indicates that his report states
that site specific foundation investigation is recommended for these and all the lots on the east side
of the proposed development.
This recommendation does not satisfy EC 9.8320 (6) as the
The PUD, including lot, infrastructure,
outcome of such an investigation is not currently known.
and storm water system were all designed in the absence of concrete knowledge of the geotechnical
and slope stabilityconstraints.
In this context it is telling that the conservation zone between
Lots 17 and 18, which, according to Ms. Schirmers testimony was placed there to address the
slide mapped by the applicants Engineering Geologist, did not cover the actual location of the
mapped slide scarps within Lot 16.
Therefore, unless further investigation is conducted to define the landslide parameters, such
as depth, configuration, and characteristics of the failure surfaces, and mechanism of the slides
none of the lots along the east boundary of the proposed PUD can be considered protective of
public health and safety, both for PUD proper, and the areas downslope.
Slope Instability
Mr. Derrick admits that there are areas of gross land instability on the east side and says that they
were mapped to best of \[their\] ability. As already mentioned during my testimony on March 7,
current Standards of Care would require that such mapping include a review of the geomorphology
using LiDAR maps. This was not performed.
Mr. Derrick furtherstates that my interpretation of the LiDAR is simply that, an interpretation with
no ground reconnaissance of the site.... This was incorrect when written, as
my original testimony
included several photos I took on the site, showing trees which showdeformation typically
associated with sliding slope movements and not soil creep!Moreover, my Addendum of
march 22, 2018 presents further field evidence of displacements of Floral Hill Drive in the area
The deformations of the road are completely consistent with eastward
just downslope of the site.
movement of several landslide lobes mapped on the LiDAR.
Sandstone vs. Volcanic Rock
Mr. Derrick admits that our test pits predominatelyencountered sandstone, but goes on to indicate
that the northeastern portion of the site is mapped as intrusive volcanic rock on DOGAMI maps.
The question begs whether DOGAMI mapping is more important than the material and
Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that DOGAMIs
structure actually present at the site.
geologic mapping was never conducted with the advantage of having test pits and, therefore, needs
to be treated as preliminary, especially at the scale of individual lots.
Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker
March 28, 2018
Page 3
If the ridge were indeed underlain by massive igneous rock, as stated in the Branch Engineering
Addendum of May 30, 2017, slope movements in this area would be unlikely. However, regardless
of the published geologic maps, the vast majority of the site is clearly underlain by sandstone, which
according to the maps is dipping to the NE at 11 E. Mydiagrammatic cross section conservatively
shows a dip of 10 degrees for the sandstone, which is very close to the mapped dip. Therefore, the
dip-slope-failure mechanism proposed in my previous submission is quite clearlya perfectly viable
explanation for the observed slope instability on the east side of the ridge.
The limited reliability
of published geologic literature is the reason that EC 9.6710 requires subsurface exploration
.
to determine actual site conditions
Biased Assessment
The bias in the distribution of the test pits, which are located only in the gently sloping area not
exhibiting evidence of slope movement is obvious even to the untrained eye. No further rebuttal
is necessary.
th
However, Mr. Derricks statements regarding the landslide at E. 30 Avenue are incorrect. The slide
I was referring to is located 0.36 miles from the S boundary of the proposed PUD and occurred in
1995. The report by Squier and Associates was written in 1996, as evidenced by the map of their
th
test pits, which is attached. Mr. Derrick may be confusing this slide with another one along E 30
Avenue located about 0.6 miles to the SE, which occurred during the 1980s when the access road
to LCC was constructed. The reason for mentioning the 1996 slide at the W-bound exit ramp for
Spring Boulevard was the fact that this slide is located along the same E-facing and E-dipping slope
and likely resulted from placement of fill for the ramp embankment on a pre-existing failure deposit.
This is very similar to the setup which is likely to occur along the east edge of the development
portion of the proposed PUD, where fills will likelybe placed at the top of the slope to support
houses and driveways.
Placement of Level Spreaders
This is the most interesting part of Mr. Derricks rebuttal. At face value, Mr. Derricks statements
show that he is in complete agreement with mytestimonyregarding the placement of one of the
PUDs main storm drainage systems:
Little can I say on this topic, it is not the best idea in my opinion. Three claims I would like
(emphasis added) ....
to be able to make are:
Clearly, Mr. Derrick recognizes that he cannot make these statements, given the design of the PUD
which does not consider the geologic constraints of the site. And finally, Mr. Derrick states:
I am not sure where that more suitable point of disposal is but it would be nice to find one.
GIOELLO Nick R
From:CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 12:15 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:PDT 17-1 Rebuttal Testimony (Traffic) Please Confirm Receipt.
Date: March 30, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: CW Murchison, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
This testimony from CHPUD Response Group Member, CW Murchison, directly responds to the "Technical
Memorandum Transportation, Exhibit G of the March 21, 2018 Response from Carol Schirmer" authored by
Damien Gilbert of Branch Engineering, dated March 21, 2018, which was submitted during the first open-
record period. Traffic Engineer, Massoud Saberian, has prepared his own PDF to respond specifically to Mr.
Gilbert. This testimony is intended to address some additional parts of Mr. Gilbert's response from March 21,
2018.
Mr. Saberian's report was specifically written to respond to the initial traffic safety report prepared by Mr.
Gilbert and submitted with the CHPUD application and to report on the traffic, road and safety conditions as
Mr. Saberian saw them based on his site visit, research, his vast professional experience and pictures
provided to show a wide variety of existing conditions. His report is very clearly applicable to Criteria 5 and 6,
concerning Traffic and Public Health and Safety/Emergency Access, respectively. His report also undermines
applicant and city engineer claims of safety and the ability of the road network to support a development of this
size, which directly relates to Criteria 7 concerning necessary infrastructure.
Mr. Gilbert has stated that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required because it did not meet the applicable
criteria, but Mr. Saberian very clearly pointed out in his report in issue 14 “On Page 7 under Section 2.1.4
Existing Traffic Speeds and Volumes, the report cites limited and partial data collection that was done between
4:00 PM on November 9th and 8:00 AM November 11th (Veteran’s Day). This is not common practice by any
traffic engineer since it is known that data collected on Mondays and Fridays as well as immediately before
and after a holiday or school in service days, does not provide accurate and representative data. Therefore,
the data presented is flawed and unreliable. Furthermore, for best Average Daily Traffic volumes, data is
collected for multiple days, especially if the development is controversial. The older data presented also, is too
old and does not represent present conditions.” Mr. Saberian has shown that the data the applicant used to
say that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required was data that was collected following non-standard protocol
for the profession and is clearly unreliable and should be collected according to protocol before the conclusion
that a Traffic Impact Analysis is not needed can be reached. We have no idea if the applicable criteria to trigge
r
a Traffic Impact Analysis has been met or not.
Mr. Gilbert states that “the off-site roadway exceeds the city standard for clear lane width of 14ft”. This is a
dubious claim. Even with no parking signs added this is not guaranteed. Capital Dr from the 5-way stop to Alta
Vista is 18ft in width. This is the majority of the approach to the development site. 18ft-4ft=14ft. This shows
very simply that if there is anything in the roadway for any reason that is larger than 4ft wide then the clear lane
width standard is not met. There are also times when Capital Dr itself has been closed for utility work and other
reasons forcing the emergency access to the much less safe and less desirable route according to the Fire
Department. Pictures of these closure events have been submitted for the record previously.
1
Mr. Gilbert states that Capital Dr is not a unique street condition for the area. This is correct. What is unique is
proposing to put a 34-38 home development at the end of that street (not to mention future possible
developments that could exacerbate problems at the 5-way stop). The Fire Department has been very clear
will not be
about the difficulty of accessing the proposed development site. Criteria 6 says, “The PUD a
significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm-water or
will not
flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response.” The criteria specifically says, the PUD
be
...an impediment to emergency response. The Fire Department has clearly said that it is an impediment to
emergency response, even with no parking signs on Capital Dr. The proposed PUD does not meet Criteria 6
and must be denied.
Mr. Gilbert then states that many of the issues brought up by Mr. Saberian were issues for the City of Eugene,
not issues for the Hearings official. This is absurd as Criteria 6 clearly discusses impediments to emergency
response and says the PUD will not be one in order to meet criteria 6. These are very clearly issues for you to
consider. Can the city or anyone for that matter guarantee that this PUD will not be an impediment to
emergency response, when the fire department has determined that it very clearly will be? Criteria 7 says,
“Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if public services and facilities are not
presently available, the applicant demonstrates that the services and facilities will be available prior to need.”
The off-site roadway access is inadequate and so the application does not meet Criteria 7 and must be denied.
Criteria 5 requires compliance with EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875. EC9.6815(1)(a) says “streets are designed
to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles.” The proposed CHPUD
very clearly fails this as well and should be denied.
Mr. Gilbert criticizes Mr. Saberian's comments 12,13, and 14 for similar and related reasons. Mr. Saberian
established that the speed study was flawed and unreliable. That makes any of Mr. Gilbert's rebuttals in 12 and
13 irrelevant. In comment 14 Mr. Gilbert and the city engineers simply seem to have said good enough even
without doing a study by professional standards. They decided it was OK to accept the holiday weekend data
and include it even though professional practice recommends otherwise.
In Mr. Gilbert's criticism of comment 18, I want to highlight that Mr Gilbert said, “It \[Capital Hill\] cannot meet
ADA standards.” Mr. Gilbert acknowledges very clearly that this presents a dangerous situation for anyone
affected by ADA. This dangerous situation would very clearly be exacerbated by the addition of 34-38 new
homes. This clearly does not meet Criteria 5 “The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems
through compliance with the following: (b)Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities,
as needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby
residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the
city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. “Nearby” means uses within
1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can
reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists,” and so the CHPUD should be denied.
Mr. Gilbert's statement that Mr. Saberian has submitted misleading and incorrect statements is wrong. At most
this would be a disagreement between professionals in the field and would imply that further investigation is
needed. Mr. Saberian's report is unbiased and reliable, being produced by a leader in the profession.
Mr. Gilbert states that all remaining comments are related to items not related to PUD criteria. This statement
seems to show a lack of familiarity with the PUD criteria, or a dishonesty in Mr. Gilbert's analysis. The amount
of information that applies directly to criteria 5, 6 , and/or 7 is tremendous. Mr. Saberian submitted 28 separate
comments and each one is directly related to one or more approval criteria. Just with the criteria quotations
cited in this rebuttal and a quick read of Mr. Saberian's comments it is very clear they are addressing safety
and ensuring safety and that that is the main thrust of his report. Remember again what Criteria 6 states, “The
will not berisk to public health and safety
PUD a significant , including but not limited to soil erosion, slope
an impediment to emergency response.
failure, storm-water or flood hazard, or ” And also remember this
from Criteria 5, “The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the
following: (b)Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings
and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops,
neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to
2
demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. “Nearby” means uses within 1/4 mile that can
reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to
be used by bicyclists.” All of this makes it clear that CHPUD does not meet Criteria 5 , 6, 7 and must be
denied.
3
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 4:23 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Tom Bruno; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Nathaniel Teich; Kathleen and Mike Masterson;
CW Murchison; Cathy Johnson; Jason Brown; Faris Cassell; Susan Hoffman
Subject:Re: PDT 17-1 Capital Hill PUD Rebuttal Testimony Regarding Criterion 7 ( c )
Attachments:Response to Schirmer 032118 Testimony 033018.pdf
Hi Nick.ttached to this email is a letter to the Hearings Official addressing the Response on Page 3
A
and 4 of Carol Schirmer's 3/21/18 letter to the Hearings Official, which discusses the form entitled
Owners' Commitment to Contribute to Cost of Water Infrastructure. Please enter this email and the
attached letter into the record and confirm back to me via email. Thank you.
PS. I had intended to add a few exhibits from Schirmer's 3/21/18 letter for ease of reference. I'll do
so in an email to immediately follow so that I don't miss the 5PM deadline with the attached. Sorry to
be so close to the wire. Thanks again.
1
Date: March 30, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: Susan Hoffman, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capital Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria General
Criterion 7 ( c ).
Dear Hearings Official:
Please accept this letter and the attached exhibit as rebuttal testimony to the applicant testimony
submitted on 3/21/18 (Schirmer Satre Group cover letter \[Page 3 of 4\] and Hearing Exhibits Q, R
and S \[Pages 31 through 39 of 44\]. These documents are included as an attachment to this letter
for ease of reference.
es
of 4
Request Response
contained on Page 41 of 62 and Page 61 of 62 (Recommended Conditions of Approval
Condition 12) of the 2/28/18 Staff Report, which reads as follows:
Condition 12. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide documentation that
EWEB has received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the
plat. It is noted that EWEB currently accepts cash payment, bond, or an irrevocable letter of
credit as financial guarantees.
The above Condition 12 emanates from the statement in the first paragraph of Page 41 of 62 of
the 2/28/18 Staff Report that indicates
prior to final subdivision approval the applicant will need to provide documentation from EWEB
ensuring adequate water service.
Ms. Schirmer, at the top of Page 4 of 4 of her 3/21/18 letter, indicates:
utility. That form of commitment, signed by the property owners, is Hearing Exhibit R.
EWEB informed the planning department on March 20 that the form of commitment by the
The Response Committee notes the following:
1) Public Records
9.8320 (7) ( c ) is an exercise in futility as this type of document is one of extreme legal
sensitivity. Any type of guaranty that binds a party to fulfill a complex legal financial
obligation such as the one under consideration would not typically be as readily accessible
via the same route as routine everyday City forms.
2) It is pre-mature at this juncture to produce any form of a signed guaranty or commitment
regarding water infrastructure. Does Thomas M. Dreyer and Cynthia A Dreyer, Individually
and as Members wners, and Mr. Kloos and Ms. Schirmer intend
that this is in complete satisfaction of EC 9.8320 (7) ( c ), and in doing so,
replaces the EWEB requirement of a
?
the public and the Response Committee?
3ommitment to Contribute to Cost of Water
woefully inadequate
the Owners is in many areas including, but
not limited to, the following:
a) . The definition
SUBJE
Tax Lot 201
. Tax Lot 201 is approximately 6.3 acres in size (in some areas of the tax
Regardless, it appears
that all of Lots 8 through 19 and portions of Lots 6, 7, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are not
covered by this document. Obviously, neither Mr. Kloos, Ms. Schirmer, the Owners
nor Mr. McCullough located this obvious error.
b) This document should contain icommitment, similar to an
Owners should not be able to circumvent their
legal obligation to provide sufficient water to all lots in the proposed development.
c What is the downside to the Owners if they do
walk away from this obligation?
d) This obligation is not secured in any manner, i.e., there is no asset mentioned that
the obligations of this document pass to any future owners of the land, including
heirs.
rmine the
could lead to future legal challenges.
is the monetary amount they are committing to provide? This is far too open-ended.
g
h) Have Mr. and Mrs. Dreyer been authorized by Maestown, LLC to enter into this
as member of Maestown, LLC the limited liability
company?
3) It is completely naïve to think that the attorney for the guarantor would create any type of
guaranty that works other than to the benefit of his client (the Owners). Even a person with
the most basic business sense understands the need to have an attorney from the utility
(EWEB) and/or the City to, at a minimum, review and comment upon such a document to
protect the interests of the utility and the City.
4) Does Mr. Wallace McCullough at EWEB have the authority or the professional expertise to
review and approve such a legal document? Surely such a large utility such as EWEB has a
legal staff that has expertise in this area. Did Mr. McCullough receive approval from his
legal staff to accept this document?
Given all of the issues discussed above, the Applicant has not complied with Public Works
requirement under EC 9.8320 (7) ( c ) and, therefore,
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 4:39 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Tom Bruno; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Nathaniel Teich;
CW Murchison; Jason Brown; Cathy Johnson; Faris Cassell; Susan Hoffman
Subject:Exhibits for Submission Sent at 4:23 PM Today
Attachments:Screenshot from Assessor.docx; Exhibt 1 pages 31-39 Schirmer 032118 ltr 033018.pdf
Hi Nick. Here are the Exhibits I wanted to add to my submission of Rebuttal Testimony sent to you a few
minutes ago. Sorry for splitting this into 2 emails. Didn't want to miss the 5 PM deadline with the
narrative. Please enter these into the record and confirm that you have done so by return email. Thanks
1
Screenshotfrom!ƭƭĻƭƭƚƩƭWebsiteShowingExtentofTaxLot18030431Α00201whichwasleftoffof
theͻ{ǒĬƆĻĭƷtƩƚƦĻƩƷǤͼDescriptionintheOwnerCommitmenttoContributetoCostofWater
Infrastructure.