must be prevented and creates a threat to public health and safety, violating Criteria 6 and the <br />CHPUD should be denied. Lots 1-4 should be eliminated. <br />EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 <br />This proposed CHPUD fails both and should be denied. <br />The city incorporated this into their response on Criteria 5 concerning safe access to the development <br />site “A memorandum from Scott Gillespie P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager (see <br />Attachment F), which is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(7), indicates that Spring Boulevard <br />and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to serve the proposed <br />development and no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. The memorandum concludes <br />there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the <br />development site.” The city also uses this memorandum from Scott Gillespie to support the CHPUD <br />Criteria 7 <br />meeting. We firmly disagree with Mr. Gillespie's memorandum (Attachment F to City <br />Report) and conclusions. The evidence we have provided in writing, video and photographically has <br />clearly established that Spring Boulovard and Capital Drive are inadequate and incapable of safely <br />serving the proposed development sight. We have also submitted a report on traffic safety completed <br />by Massoud Saberian, a Licensed Traffic Engineer, as opposed to the applicant who did not use a <br />licensed traffic engineer to produce their report on traffic safety. Massoud found numerous issues <br />with the substandard report submitted by the applicant that undercut the primary evidence that Mr. <br />Gillespie has used to support his conclusions that the necessarry roads and infastracture was in <br />place to adequately and safely serve the development sight. I would also like to remind once again of <br />the Fire Department's comments as well, which also refute Mr. Gillespie's conclusions about safe <br />access to the development sights. We disagree vehemently with the conclusions of Mr. Gillespie, <br />which were based on faulty underlying evidence. Due to all of these reasons the proposed CHPUD <br />EC 9.8320 Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 <br />does not meet and should be denied. <br />Uphill on Spring from the North side of Capital. Spring approaching the 5way from 27 th. <br />In both of these photos of Spring Blvd on each side of the Capital Dr intersection, Spring is below the <br />required 20ft in width. It is clear that impediments to traffic are common. It is tough for a 10ft wide <br />th <br />firetruck to even make it through the portion of Spring from 27 shown on the right. It is very clear just <br />from these photographs that there is inadequate access and emergency access to safely meet the <br />needs of the proposed development, also countering Mr. Gillespie. It must also be pointed out that <br />the applicant's traffic study did not address traffic issues beyond the 5way intersection. The two <br />photos above are outside the area of their traffic study. Numerous safety and access issues were <br />made about the 5way intersection, Capital Dr and the Madrona-Highland-CrestaDeRuta route in the <br />CHPUD Response Group's report and presentation as well as Massoud Saberian's report and other <br />testimony beyond the issues pointed out about Spring here. (Safe access issues also exist at <br />st <br />Fairmount-Spring intersection, along Fairmount Blvd, and down the short part of 21 St from <br /> EC 9.8320 <br />Fairmount to Agate.) For all these reasons the proposed development does not meet <br />Criteria 5, Criteria 6, and Criteria 7 <br />and should be denied. <br />4 <br /> <br />