9. On Page 5 of the report under section 2.1.3 (sight Distance), American Association of State <br />Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is used as reference to note partial adequacy of <br /> sight distance, for lots 18 and 19. Assuming that can be achieved, AASHTO <br />standards which are commonly applied to many other roadways design standards are simply <br />ignored or remain unmentioned. Many aspects of this development application fall far short of <br />AASHTO Standards. <br />10. On Page 6 of the report, in the first paragraph, it is noted that in order to achieve the <br />minimum line of sight, some trees must be removed. There is, however, no mention of the <br />environmental impacts here. The inconsistent application of rules when convenient, is not <br />consistent with sound engineering practices and city code. <br />11. On the same page (6), second paragraph, the 145 feet of sight distance to be achieved is <br /> <br />12. On Page 6, third paragraph the report assumes that approaching vehicles would be <br />travelling about 15 mph. That is a huge assumption, and it must be verified through a new <br />speed study at the point where the line of sight is obstructed. This is common and reasonable <br />practice, when a formal Traffic Study is conducted. <br />13. On Page 7, in the second paragraph, AASHTO standards are used again. However, the <br />report fails to mention that the AASHTO standards for approaching speed is based on actual <br />data and not based on posted advisory speed that may or may not be present. To achieve this <br />result, a recent speed study must be conducted to justify the use of the AASHTO language. <br />14. On Page 7 under Section 2.1.4 Existing Traffic Speeds and Volumes, the report cites limited <br />and partial data collection that was done between 4:00 PM on November 9th and 8:00 <br />AM November 11th <br />is known that data collected on Mondays and Fridays as well as immediately before and after a <br />holiday or school in service days, does not provide accurate and representative data. Therefore, <br />the data presented is flawed and unreliable. Furthermore, for best Average Daily Traffic <br />volumes, data is collected for multiple days, especially if the development is controversial. The <br />older data presented also, is too old and does not represent present conditions. <br />count data collected east of Alta Vista Court, there is no way to determine how many of the <br />counted trips during the 24-hour period were travelling to residents with driveways on Cresta <br />D <br />logic raises fundamental questions about the validity of the report as a justification for the <br />how can one conclude there are no safety problems now or in the future. If common and <br />accepted Traffic Engineering Practices were used, better and more reliable conclusions could <br />have been reached. <br />16. In the last paragraph of Section 2.1.4 under the table that provides Capital Drive Speed <br />Data, it is noted that No vehicle speeds greater than 30 mp <br />traffic engineering practice to collect enough data that reliable 85th percentile speed can be <br /> <br />