evaluation of this proposal, in particular in light of the identification of the relevant street <br />as marginal in the 2012 ETSP. Staff has already demonstrated that there is a mechanism <br />for adding additional limitations to development, at least in this transportation realm. I <br />respectfully request that the Commission do so in a more effective manner than allowing <br />the development to add hundreds of cars to the number of trips in a situation that is <br />already barely tolerable. <br />In addition, the LTD bus serving this area stops at Railroad and Polk. Most riders are <br />inbound toward downtown or returning from downtown, thus have to cross Railroad. <br />Ridership (in normal times) is high at this stop reflects the diversity of residents of all <br />income levels and ages in the neighborhood, some with disabilities. During peak hours, <br />cars are Railroad are unlikely to stop for pedestrians at this unmarked crossing, <br />sometimes making it very difficult to get to the bus stop. Adding a large number of trips <br />to these roadways and turning movements to this intersection will only make this more <br />difficult. This problem was not discussed in the transportation analysis that was provided <br />yet is germane to a decision regarding whether this proposal may result in changes which <br />reduce the livability of this area for its residents. <br />Finally, I'm not a traffic engineer, nor are you. On one hand, we can't proceed without <br />some reliance on professional judgements. Yet we just saw these professional <br />judgements change (in the staff report) shortly before the hearing on January 26, without <br />notice and with no apparent written document for neighborhood review to inform our <br />comments. With these few protections to reduced adverse impacts, I would not have <br />concerns about transportation issues on this project. <br />Concern #2: Adequacy of information for neighbors and Commissioners <br />I was pleased to learn in the hearing that the transportation issue, previously ignored, was <br />addressed shortly before the January 26 hearing (although not yet adequately in my <br />opinion). There remain other issues in the staff report. Here's a sample: <br />Uses <br />The table comparing allowed uses in I-2 versus S-W has several errors. Most aren't very <br />important, so here are just a few highlights: <br />• A number of I-2 uses are incorrectly listed as not allowed (such as software <br />development, which I believe currently occurs on the site). <br />• Some uses are listed as allowed in S-W which are not, or listed as not allowed, yet are <br />(see the two homeless shelter uses as an example <br />• Some uses are listed twice, in two different ways! (see structured parking). <br />