HomeMy WebLinkAbout2nd Open Record Period: Additional Public Testimony 3-30-18
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 3:04 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Responsive testimony for PDT 17-1 Capital Hill Tentative PUD
March 30, 2018
Dear Mrs. Gustafson-Lucker,
This testimony directly responds to testimony submitted during the first open-record period,
specifically the following statement by Mr. Damien Gilbert, Branch Engineering, on page 2 of his
March 21, 2018, "Technical Memorandum."
"The off-site roadway exceeds theCity standard for clear lane width of 14-feet on a local
street or access lane, provided the one area identified in my traffic safety study and
recommended for a safety improvement is followed. This is the area where approximately
four cars park on the downhill side of the street at approximately 2625 Capital Drive. This
was recommended with or without the subject development application. As you witnessed in
the hearing, the neighbors agree that the on-street parking is not an ideal condition. While
there is still no recent known accident history on this off-site roadway, the traffic study
recommends a safety improvement for that area." (Underline added.)
As I explain below the assertion that "the City standard for clear lane width \[is\] 14-feet on a local
street" is false. Coming from a licensed traffic engineer, this statement can only be understood as a
deliberate attempt to mislead the Hearings Official. The Hearings Official must not rely on this
deceptive statement because it is demonstrably not true.
The record contains the City's adopted street standards, as well as Eugene Fire Code. The most
relevant standard for determining unimpeded access for emergency response vehicles(EC
9.8320(6)) is stated in the fire code, which requires a twenty-foot-wide clear fire apparatus access
road from the fire station to the development site.
City code has a minimum paving width of 20 feet, which Mr. Gilbert deliberately left out of his
"expert" testimony. City code allows a 14-foot, two-way travel lane only on a street that has
twenty-one-foot-wide paving, and which has an adjacent seven-foot-wide, paved lane that provides
designated "pass-by" areas at least every 150 feet.
There is absolutely no place in any local standard that approves a two-way travel lane as narrow as
14 feet on a street that has less than 21 feet of paving. Capital Lane does not meet city standards
and cannot meet them without improvements, including widening the pavement and providing at
least one adequate sidewalk.
As a final comment, Mr. Gilbert gets up on his "high horse" to impugn Mr. Massoud Saberian's
analysis, and yet Mr. Gilbert himself has stooped toa bald-faced attempt to fool the Hearings
Official with what is basically a lie. This deceit would jeopardizs people's safety and potentially
their lives, and should not be tolerated from a licensed traffic engineer.
Paul Conte
1
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
2
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 1:25 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Tom Bruno; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Nathaniel Teich;
CW Murchison; Jason Brown; Faris Cassell; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman
Subject:PDT 17-1 Capital Hill PUD Rebuttal Testimony Regarding Criterion 3 and Criterion 10
Attachments:Page 3 of 4 Schirmers 032118 Ltr 033018.jpg
Nick: Please accept the following (and include it in the record) as Rebuttal Testimony from the Response
Committee to the Applicant's testimony submitted on 3/21/2018 (Schirmer Satre Group cover letter \[Page 3 of
4\] ). A copy of Page 3 of 4 of the Schirmer Satre Group cover letter is included as an attachment to this email
for easy reference. A quote from that portion of Ms. Schirmer's March 21, 2018 follows:
"Where we discuss lot coverage for purposes of calculation, we intended it to mean the non-
preservation area of the lots."
The Response Committee agrees that, for purposes of calculation, lot coverage calculations should only be
based upon the non-preservation area. Such calculations MUST ONLY utilize the ":buildable" square footage
Table EC 9.2750
of each lot as the lot size upon which the allowable lot coverage percentage (as indicated in
Residential Zone Development Standards
) be based. That is to say, the calculation of the allowable lot
coverage for EVERY LOT in the proposed project MUST be based upon the allowable percentage of coverage
EC 9.2750
(as indicated in ) multiplied by ONLY the "buildable" square footage of each lot. This calculation
for every lot in the proposed project MUST DISREGARD any individual tax lot preservation area attributable
to such lot, regardless of the square footage of any such individual tax lot preservation area.
To ensure that these requirements are adhered to in the event of any possible future project approval, the above
clarification regarding the methodology for lot coverage calculation:
1) Must be included as a Condition of Approval
, if any; and
2) Must also be included as a CLEARLY VISIBLE NOTATION on the final site plans
, if any.
Thank you. Please acknowledge your receipt of this email via return email.
1