Page | 9 <br /> <br />The efficiency of a community detention facility makes that the only reasonable solution. <br />5) No one likes this plan <br />• The applicant’s representative has expressed misgivings over the nature of this project and lack of open <br />space provisions [8]. <br />• The applicant’s attorney has expressed concern over traffic planning, specifically emergency egress in <br />case of wildfire. (He also agrees that stormwater detention would best be provided using a community <br />facility, but is under the mis-impression that the city’s requirement for each lot to provide treatment also <br />requires each lot owner to provide detention [8] – this is not required by code.) <br />• Public Works has expressed frustration that the city code does not give them sufficient tools to push <br />back with their concerns and they feel obligated to grant wide latitude in granting exceptions. They will <br />also be overwhelmed with inspection tasks if 39 individual detention facilities are added to their annual <br />maintenance schedules. <br />• Neighbors are very concerned over the loss of trees and habitat, increased traffic, lack of emergency <br />access and stormwater control. <br />• Downstream neighbors are especially concerned over increased stormwater peaks, posing threat to life <br />and property <br />• Future lot owners will be upset when they see the bill for the additional improvements required which <br />should have been provided by the developer. <br /> <br /> <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 35 of 43