Mr. Saberian is a full-time supervising engineer for the City of Santa Rosa, California. <br />He does not state that he ever visited the site. <br />Mr. Saberian did not submit any calculations to demonstrate that the TIA standards are <br />not met. <br />Mr. Saberian concedes that the "existing conditions" are that the existing conditions meet <br />the city roadway width standards. <br />The "narrow street with no sidewalk" situation is ubiquitous in the South Hills generally; <br />it is an effective method, as the City Engineer notes, to calm traffic. Some new streets in <br />the South Hills have purposely been constructed this way as a way to implement traffic <br />calming policy. <br />Neighbor concerns about speeding and illegal parking raise city enforcement issues, not <br />grounds for denying new development. <br />The Gilbert response concludes with responses to specific criticism in Saberian report <br />The neighborhood response committee submitted evidence at the second open record period. <br />This evidence should not be considered because it responds to hearing evidence, not evidence in <br />the first open record period. <br />In summary, the HO should endorse the conclusion in the staff report, as supported by the expert <br />testimony of the applicant's and the city's engineer. <br />EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including <br />but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment <br />to emergency response. <br />1. As explained in our March 5 Standards Spreadsheet and Hearing Letter, the operative phase <br />"significant risk" makes this a subjective standard that can't be applied consistent with the <br />Needed Housing Statute. <br />2. The Staff Report at 32-34 examines the application under each of the five elements of this <br />standard, finds compliance, and recommends approval. The Staff Report recommends a <br />condition requiring further geotechnical analysis in conjunction with any development. The <br />applicant concurs with that recommendation. The HO should endorse the Staff Report findings <br />and condition. <br />3. Opponents' consultant, Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG, provided a half-hour PowerPoint <br />lecture at the hearing and a written report critiquing the applicant's geotechnical study. He also <br />made two post-hearing submittals. The applicant's original report was authored by Ronald <br />Derrick P.E., G.E., Principal Geotechnical Engineer at Branch Engineering, and Gary Sandstrom <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />