Additional Public Comments as of 3-23-18

There is a fundamental issue with pedestrian safety that is not addressed by the applicant. There is absolutely no accommodation for pedestrians on Capital at the access of lots 18 and 19. Here you have an 18ft wide road with curbs on both sides at a sharp 90 degree curve with no sidewalk. This is part of the proposed CHPUD and has not addressed pedestrian safety or access in any way, but rather has made it more unsafe through the introduction of the access for lots 18+19 and the addition of additional traffic from the proposed development. In fact there is no accommodation for pedestrians anywhere from the main entrance of the proposed PUD on Capital all the way to Alta Vista. This is well within ¼ mile of the proposed CHPUD and leaves that entire section of Capital Dr 18ft wide with curbs and no sidewalk for pedestrians or wheelchairs. This is clearly a danger to public health and safety and does not meet EC 9.8320(5)(b), not meeting Criteria 5 or 6 and should be denied. Lots 18-19 should be eliminated. EC 9.8320 Criteria 6 says The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm water or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. “Based on a review of the initial Fire Department Land Use comments for the Capital Hill PUD – PDT17-1 by Schirmer Satre Landscape Architects, the “dead end fire department access road” no longer exists. This portion of the development, after review, removed an access road that supported lots on a private drive originally serving lots #1 and #4. Capital Hill Road will now dead end but this dead end road will not exceed 150 ft, thus removing the requirement for an acceptable fire department apparatus turn around.” (from the Fire Departments letter) So here the applicant was going to need to make a turn around for emergency vehicles at the North end of Capital Dr. To avoid this more costly solution the applicant choose to simply end Capital Dr after 150 ft serving lots 1-4. These properties beyond the 150ft would be in a much more dangerous situation if this happened. The city requires a dead end barrier at the end of the 150ft. This leaves lot 1 with no way to have it's driveway get to the street making more difficult to service in emergencies. There are also two existing homes beyond this point on the other side of the Capital from proposed lots 1-4 that would have their houses and driveways cut off from the street with this cobbled together compromise. There is no mitigation for these neighbors parking, how they would access their houses, how an emergency vehicles would get in, how a disabled person would access... This is an unacceptable situation that must be prevented and creates a threat to public health and safety, violating Criteria 6 and the CHPUD should be denied. Lots 1-4 should be eliminated. EC 9.8320 Criteria 5 and Criteria 6 This proposed CHPUD fails both and should be denied. The city incorporated this into their response on Criteria 5 concerning safe access to the development site “A memorandum from Scott Gillespie P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager (see Attachment F), which is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(7), indicates that Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to serve the proposed development and no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. The memorandum concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site.” The city also uses this Criteria 7 memorandum from Scott Gillespie to support the CHPUD meeting . We firmly disagree with Mr. Gillespie's memorandum (Attachment F to City Report) and conclusions.