There is absolutely no credible evidence that forcing an increased number of pedestf<i~P9rhtT#9t C <br />to share the same travel lane "has a positive effect on traffic calming, safety, livability aMachment B <br />reducing fatality injuries." <br />This statement alone provides sufficient evidence that Mr. Gillespie iseither unqualified or biased <br />(or both), and his testimony cannot be relied upon by the Hearings Official with respect to <br />-ensuring the PUD and its occupancy do not create a significant risk to pedestrians. (EC <br />9.8320(5)(b) and (6)) <br />For further proof, here is what Mark Schoening, the City Engineer of the Public Works Department, <br />provided as knowledgeable opinion on this issue: <br />"The second issue is: The implications of outward growth decisions as they effect on <br />unimproved roads.... The increased development reliant on unimproved roads increases <br />the demand on unimproved roads for all modes of travel. In addition because unimproved <br />roads aren't structurally engineered, the increased traffic of new development increases <br />the deterioration rate of the pavement surface. And, finally, because unimproved roads <br />typically don't have facilities of [sic] all modes of travel, the risk to public safety on <br />unimproved roads increases with new development." City Engineer Mark Schoening <br />testimony at the June 21, 2017 City Council work session. <br />Further, Mr. Gillespie's absurd statements are directly contradicted by the Draft "Vision Zero <br />Action Plan" and his opinion conflicts with the official "Vision Zero" policy adopted by City Council <br />Resolution No. 5143: <br />"STRATEGIES: Reduce potential for conflict between users. Decreasing the possibility that <br />street users can come into conflict is the first line of defense against crashes. This means <br />providing separated space for people walking, biking, driving and taking transit along the <br />street." Page 19. <br />The following statement by Mr. Gillespie is egregiously misleading and again belies his <br />incompetence or bias: <br />"I would encourage Brent and Paul to research queuing and multi-modal street design <br />practice. FHWA, NCHRP, NACTO, AASHTO, ITE, DOT's, Planning associations, Bike/ped <br />groups, etc all have publication that discuss an tout the benefits of queuing street from <br />built in traffic calming and accommodating multimodal i=t vision 0 goals." <br />I defy Mr. Gillespie to provide credible references to any organization encouraging forcing <br />pedestrians into the travel lane as a "safety improvement"! <br />As shown above Mr. Gillespie blatantly misrepresents the actual findings of "Vision Zero" Technical <br />Advisory Group. <br />Page 263 <br />