CW- Because there’s no sidewalk? <br />Paul - The question is very simple – You have a “travel-way” which vehicles have to use and <br />pedestrians have to use. Does that increase the risk for those pedestrians vs. the pedestrians being <br />able to move outside of the “travel way”? <br />(44:45) Eric- I understand what you’re saying but…and I think Massoud would be able to address <br />this since he is a traffic engineer… <br />Paul - Can we get a city response on that? Because that’s essential to sub (5) sub (b). <br /> I can tell you what the answer is. If you go look at the literature, you’ll find that it increases the risk <br />and in fact the Public Works staff and the City Engineer have provided testimony to counsel that <br />that’s the case. So I’ll be sure they have that testimony to submit. The point is that when you’re <br />looking at sub (b), you need to address the fact that mixed traffic as I’ve described increases the risk <br />to pedestrians. <br />(45:17) Massoud - As part of my presentation, I refer to the Traffic & Safety Study by Branch <br />Engineering, which was submitted by the Applicant. At the bottom of page 2 it says, “additionally <br />there are areas where street parking creates a narrower than is typical condition that should be <br />reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer.” That’s one part… <br />Massoud continues - While I’m on the topic, the beginning of the report cites City Code EC9.8650 <br />indicating, “this development does not have significant impact” with which I disagree. Significant <br />by whom? That’s something the City Traffic Engineer and the Engineering Group will address such <br />as a percent impact to the existing neighborhood. As part of that code language, there are two <br />segments that both increase traffic as well as the cross sectional element of the street. So those are <br />all in the city code that has to be addressed at some point. But it is under this discussion and I’ll be <br />making a reference to those when I generate a response to the Traffic Safety Analysis. Again, (the <br />Applicants says) they’ve chosen to do it (submit a traffic safety analysis) and are not required to do <br />it…I disagree with that. It should be a requirement for any development of this size. <br />Eric - so I think we’ve essentially covered the next few questions (referring to 19 & 20.) <br />19. If improvements to the access roads listed in #17 are necessary to accommodate increased <br />traffic caused by CHPUD by the City or in the hearing process, who will pay for those <br />improvements? <br />20. Has the City calculated load limits for access roads listed in #17? Can you provide those <br />limits to the response group? <br />21.(47:25) Does the Planning Dept. believe that the South Hills Study applies to either one or <br />both FNA (Fairmount Neighbors Association) and LHVCA (Laurel Hill Valley Citizens <br />Association) sections of CHPUD? <br />Nick - references his 6/26/17 letter to Carol Schirmer (that’s on-line) including some maps <br />showing the location of the South Hills Study, the Fairmount Neighbors Area and the Laurel Hill <br />Valley Citizens Area. <br />Nick - Yes…South Hills Study applies to a portion of this (property) and that came up in their <br />(Applicant’s) argument that they couldn’t do “Needed Housing” although that’s what they wanted <br />to do. We’re taking this project as if it’s under the General Criteria because that’s how they <br />checked the box and that’s how they wrote their narrative. We’re not considering the needed <br />housing argument, but that might be a separate argument that comes up in appeal, if there is one. <br />Faris - So the South Hills Study only applies to a portion? <br />Nick - Yes. About half of it. <br />Faris- A significant portion. <br />Nick - Yes. <br /> <br />