This neighborhood does not have networked streets; there are only two routes off the hill. The proposed <br />subdivision would impact traffic for the entire hill. The developer has not studied pedestrian or bike traffic, <br />of which there is a high volume. ThIGMX\]dWVSEHWEVIWYFWXERHEVHSRXLe hill. The narrow, twisting roads <br />have a number of hazards for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers, including some that may be addressable, and <br />others that are impossible to address due to the topography. These hazards include: inadequate sight <br />distance; undersized roads; inadequate shoulders and sidewalks; pavement edge drop-off; poles and other <br />objects next to the road; insufficient guardrails; inadequate lighting; insufficient warning signs; non-existent <br />or faded centerlines; trees and other vegetation reducing visibility; and potholes and uneven paving. The <br />most egregious problem is the inadequate sight distances; for much of the hill, stopping distances exceed <br />sight distances at typical speeds, meaning cars are physically unable to stop in time to avoid obstructions; <br />they swerve into the oncoming traffic lane. A road can only sustain two of three conditions: dangerous <br />roads, high pedestrian traffic, and high vehicular traffic. We already have two of these conditions on the <br />hill. <br /> <br />While it would be impractical, if not impossible, to bring the roads up to current standards due to the site <br />topography, it would be negligent to increase traffic volumes on these sub-standard roads. This is especially <br />true given their city-wide appeal for walking, running, and biking. If the city permits added vehicular traffic, <br />they open themselves to liability when someone gets injured or killed in an accident. This proposal would <br />endanger cyclists and pedestrians, MRSTTSWMXMSRXSXLIGMX\]dW=A3KSEPSJGVIEXMRKbEWYWXEMREFPI <br />IRZMVSRQIRXXLEXMRGPYHIW_EGSQTEXMFle mix of land uses that encourage alternatives to the use of the <br />EYXSQSFMPI$c <br /> <br /> <br />@LI?SYXL7MPPW?XYH\]WXEXIW.bMREVIEWof significant conflict which could be resolved through the use of an <br />EPXIVREXMZIHIZIPSTQIRXTPER"TVMQEG\]WLSYPHFIKMZIRXSXLITYFPMGMRXIVIWXMRER\]HIXIVQMREXMSR$c8EWO <br />the city to follow that policy, and give primacy to the public interest in their determination on this <br />proposal. <br /> <br />For noncompliance with the intent of SB10 and SB100; for noncompliance with the intent and letter of <br />the South Hills Study; for noncompliance with the citydWVIKYPEXMSRWVIKEVHMRKXVIITVSXIGXMSR"WXSVQ\[EXIV <br />management, and slope protection; for a proposal rife with untruths; and for irreversible liabilities in the <br />neighborhood context this proposed PUD should be denied. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Roxi Thoren <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />