Attachment C <br />GIOELLO Nick R <br />Attachment B <br />From: Kim Toner <kimtoner@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 6:14 PM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <br />Cc: David and Catherine Johnson <br />Subject: Comments about the Public Works Report for the CHPUD <br />Dear Nick, <br />We have had some previous correspondence about the Capital Hill PUD, most recently in December 2017. After reading <br />the PW report about the PUD I have some additional comments which I request that you enter into the public record. I <br />have used the section numbers utilized in the PW report. <br />EC 9.6815 Connectivity to streets: <br />An exception is granted if the PUD applicant demonstrates "an intent of street connectivity if a connection cannot <br />be made due to existing physical conditions..." This is saying that if a site is too difficult to connect streets, then an <br />exception will be made as long as the applicant has this intent. Why is this requirement in the city code if an exception <br />will be made for intent? An intentional road connection won't allow emergency vehicles to access the PUD in case of <br />blockage of the primary access, and could expose the developer and the city to a significant liability if injuries or deaths <br />occur. <br />Already emergency vehicles have difficulty negotiating the streets up here, and fire trucks have been delayed accessing <br />a property because the width of their vehicles makes it extremely difficult to negotiate the other vehicles parked on the <br />narrow streets. To add to this difficulty by increasing the number of houses that the emergency services must serve <br />without improving access defies common sense. <br />Secondary access for emergency vehicles: Cresta de Ruta St is not a secondary access since it is a loop and debouches <br />at the 5-way intersection, meeting Capital Drive; if there is a blockage at the 5-way intersection there will be no access <br />to the PUD (or to any of our homes). Secondary access should mean access from an independent direction to ensure <br />proper safety procedures. <br />EC 9.6815 (2) (b): <br />The argument that there should be an exception for a connection between Capital Dr and Floral Hill Dr because the <br />eastern slope is > 30% is illogical,- if the slope is too steep to build a connector road isn't it too steep to build houses? <br />This argument defies logic. <br />3. EC 9.6873: <br />Approving the PUD before knowing the extent of the slope easements required is tantamount to approving the PUD <br />without having all the information needed. <br />4. EC 9.6875 Private street design standards: <br />(5) (c) "27 a.m. peak for trips and 35 p.m. peak hour trips" - this calculation grossly underestimates the number of <br />peak hour trips per day. 34 lots multiplied by two or more cars per lot (more for multi-family units) is a much larger <br />number. In addition there would be twice-daily trips to and from the school bus (at 27th and Spring) for any children <br />within the PUD. Construction vehicles would also add immensely to these numbers. <br />The city needs to review crash data 2015-2017, there have been accidents on Capital Drive (most recently last summer <br />when a vehicle hit another vehicle on Capital Drive, then continued up the hill and went off the road at the hairpin turn). <br />Page 121 <br />