appropriate and consistent with statutory and posted speeds for local streets. Even if a <br />deficiency was present and there was clear code criteria, it would be extremely difficult <br />to make constitutional findings to require an offsite improvement." Gillespie seems to be <br />saying there are no clear code criteria regarding safe and adequate access. However, <br />while some code criteria regarding traffic and access are subjective, others are explicit <br />and relevant. Gillespie also appears to rely overly heavily on the flawed Branch <br />Engineering study, which was not conducted by a certified traffic engineer. Despite <br />acknowledging serious concerns about the access roads' deficiencies, NO traffic <br />engineer was consulted by Public Works or the Planning Department, yet Gillespie <br />believes it would be "extremely difficult" to determine whether there is a need for offsite <br />improvement to the single access road that he admits is nowhere close to current <br />standards and "obsolete." <br />The Branch Traffic Study bases its arguments about safety and adequacy of Capital <br />Drive primarily on its survey and projected CHPUD traffic numbers. Branch uses an <br />estimate of 5 peak trips per household and up to 49 average daily trips as the projected <br />PUD traffic increase. Gillespie appears to accept this finding. However, in a June, 2014 <br />meeting with myself and Josh Reckord, a neighbor, Gillespie stated that 10 is the <br />accepted standard for the number of trips per day generated per household. Gillespie <br />does not mention this relevant number anywhere in his evaluation, nor does he mention <br />the realities of the often blocked traffic lanes on Capital Drive along its full access and <br />within % mile. <br />Vehicles, including bikes, and pedestrians are frequently required to stop and wait <br />behind parked vehicles or other obstructions in order for oncoming traffic to pass. Public <br />Works engineer Eric Favreau referred to these Capital Hill obstructions as "helpful <br />calming," and "queuing" safety features. As density on the hill has increased, these <br />"calming" moments have increased dramatically, already causing delays. Recently, a <br />fire truck on a test drive up Capital Hill had a "calming" moment. Faced with parked cars <br />and a garbage truck just below the five-way intersection, it was forced to back down the <br />hill, around a blind curve, then back around a 90 degree corner onto another street <br />[Fairmount Blvd], a process requiring about 10 minutes, then the garbage truck <br />completed its run down the same distance. This is a clear existing impact on emergency <br />services access to CHPUD property, and will only worsen with the increased traffic and <br />time required by not only sanitation trucks, but many other service trucks. <br />It is not a simple task to assess safety of the unique street situation and topography <br />from city offices or even a one-time drive-around. Understanding typical daily use of <br />CHPUD's unique and "obsolete" [Gillespie's description] access requires a reality-based <br />view. Attached photos illustrate the topography, street traffic, and daily use that pose <br />the real threats to safe and adequate access to CHPUD. <br />This proposal must be analyzed using accepted traffic standards and city codes. <br />Developer or city convenience is no legal basis for setting aside and providing variances <br />to those codes and standards. Ignoring them will result in unsafe, unworkable access to <br />current and future residents of Capital Hill. This CHPUD proposal does not meet clear <br />