if you will, of the proposed plans' inappropriate density, Capital Hill's topography, and <br />streets not designed or able to handle that amount of increased use. Roads now often <br />clogged and requiring patience, will become impassable. <br />Schirmer-Satre and the property owners have wrestled with the inherent physical <br />realities of their site. They have attempted to solve the many problems through various <br />designs (rejected by the city twice, then "forced complete"). They have searched every <br />possible direction, including invading the neighboring Hendricks Park, to find a feasible, <br />required secondary access and improve existing roads. Despite their significant <br />financial resources and repeated meetings with city departments over some seven <br />years, the developers and city departments could not identify any secondary access or <br />possibility for improving existing roads. The developer's only solution to the problem of <br />approval for this unsuitable PUD plan: their current request for the codes to simply go <br />away. The petition begs for approval of ignoring the law. <br />On 2/13/18 Scott Gillespie, PE, Public Works Engineering, responded by email to a <br />neighbor's question concerning the city's assessment of needed improvements to <br />Capital Drive if CHPUD is approved. <br />Gillespie responded: "Public Works staff does not believe there is code criteria to <br />support public improvements to the access roads off site. Code does not require a <br />comprehensive traffic study and the scope of our review does not go out that far from <br />the development site it would be extremely difficult to make constitutional findings to <br />require an offsite improvement." <br />There are three legal problems here. First, Gillespie seems to rely on the Branch <br />Engineering traffic study to determine that a "comprehensive study" is not required. Yet, <br />Traffic Engineer, Massoud Saberian [report submitted by neighborhood response group] <br />finds Branch's study misleading, flawed, and inadequate. Second, Gillespie seems to <br />contend that his review need not consider CHPUD access "off site." Yet code requires <br />safe and adequate access to the PUD. Even if his highly focused interpretation of <br />"access" would be legitimate, that the city is only required to provide safe and adequate <br />access "on site," code explicitly requires Public Works to consider impacts within % mile <br />of PUD property. <br />Third, Gillespie also seems to argue here that there is no way to determine that access <br />will be made unsafe with the expected increase of traffic. Yet, based on the number of <br />increased dwellings, CHPUD will generate 30% to about 50% greater traffic 1) at the <br />dangerous Cresta de Ruta intersection [0 sight distance], 2) at the steep, blind hairpin <br />turn at CHPUD's southernmost private driveway access, and 3) at the blind Alta Vista <br />intersection (0 sight distance). Public Works erred by not considering those affected <br />points, explicitly required by code. It also erred by not including CHPUD's full access <br />route, which includes Capital Drive to Spring Blvd. to Fairmount Blvd. <br />Gillespie also writes: "The developer's engineer did conduct a traffic study to address <br />Capital Drive and a portion of Spring. The measured volumes and speeds were <br />