Nate - I’m talking about traffic and everything else. There’s only one way out (for large- scale <br />trucks and fire trucks). The only way up is at the Fairmount and Spring intersection at 2100. Is <br />that considered off-site? Is it relevant? <br />(55:40) Nick - There’s relevance. We’ll address that when we get to the Staff Report. I don’t know <br />what the answer is at this stage. I think what we’re hearing today (from Public Works) is that <br />there won’t be any changes to the road(s) going in. <br />Nate - Is it evident that this is considered under the impact? <br />Paul - Yes. Legally, if there’s an impact. For example, if a noise beyond acceptable levels reached <br />out a mile, that would be illegal under sub(11). <br />Faris –That would also apply to traffic? <br />Paul - Under that provision There are other provisions that have different limits for the impact. <br />Nate - How far down do you go? So this is an arguable point? <br />Nick - Yes. <br />Faris - But in this situation, how far out do we need to consider access as an important part of the <br />criteria? Do we consider access all the way down the hill (out of the immediate <br />th <br />neighborhood)…for instance, down to 19 and Agate? <br />Paul - Separate answers. Nick has been very helpful with sub(5) and sub(6) and other traffic <br />related things – they are one situation. Minimum negative off-site impacts are different criteria. <br />That doesn’t have a limit. If you can show there would be significant off-site impacts two miles <br />out, that’s another issue. But if its traffic access, that’s a different question. <br />On page 62 (of the written Application), Applicant only addresses “peak hour” trips of <br />proposed residences and considers them negligible. Is this a problem? <br />Eric - That’s what we consider. “Peak hour” trips; only the worst-case scenario. <br />What does “off-site impacts” entail? Particularly in relation to EC 9.8320 Criterion 11 – <br />“traffic” (page 61 of the written Application) and Criterion 6 “safety” and “impediment to <br />emergency response” (page 46 of the written Application). Does the Planning Department <br />consider road network that provides access/egress to/from PUD site and <br />limitations/constraints of this route? <br />(58:04) Nick - Yes we do. As a caveat to this, it’s going to be very important what the Fire <br />Department’s referral comments say. I’m not going to “sugar-coat” it. If they come back <br />and say “it’s totally hazardous; we can’t get up there; putting in this PUD is going to <br />make it worse; we can’t provide service” or something like that…(I don’t think they’ll end <br />then we’re going to <br />up saying that…but if they end up saying something close to that…) <br />have to look at this very hard and decide. Do we recommend approval or do we <br />recommend denial? We’re not at that stage yet. <br /> Typically you do these smaller projects <br />and you know going in…yes, everything is lining up; this is going to be an approval. I’m <br />this thing is still unknown <br />not saying that in this case; . <br />Paul - it’s worth pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Applicant; it is not on the <br />opponent (to the development). <br />Nick - Right. The (City’s) assessment involves looking at what they (the Applicant) <br />provided and looking at the referral comments that come in. <br />Meeting ended approximately at 10:10 AM. <br />Meeting minutes submitted by Cathy Johnson & Susan Hoffman, CHPUD Response Team. <br /> <br />