October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

17 of 59 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 65 Sir, when you talk about that public safety1 for the development would not be compromised, what2 conditions or situations would be employed in your view3 to that make that statement that public safety would not4 be compromised?5 MR. MacNEILL: So I would say, I am not6 making that statement. That is a word for word quote7 from the applicants de minimis exception request. So I8 believe that question is better suited for the9 applicant.10 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr.11 Chairman. That's all I have.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any13 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?14 MR. ALPER: I do, thank you.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Could we have quiet,16 please.17 MR. ALPER: Thank you.18 The Litwornia report says in number 1 that19 there is an estimated daily traffic of over 5100 trips20 per day when the existing development is taken into21 account. Are we not able to take that into account when22 we are talking about the minor collector roadway that23 shouldn't exceed 3500 or are we only allowed to consider24 the 2700 from the new development?25 66 MR. MacNEILL: So you're supposed to look at1 the proposed development stopping at the boundary lines2 of that proposed development.3 MR. ALPER: So the existing traffic is4 not --5 MR. MacNEILL: Based on the standards.6 Whether we agree with that or not, that's what the7 standards indicate.8 MR. ALPER: And when you talk about closing9 Kuzik, the phrase de minimis exception suggests that10 it's minimal, but we're -- it's closed then you got 270011 trips when you're only supposed to have a 1000, which is12 almost three times as many, which to me is a minimum?13 MR. MacNEILL: I absolutely agree with the14 phrasing is not in line with maybe the severity of that15 request, but, again, at least based on the applicants16 testimony, if the board decided to deny that request17 they would allow Kuzik Drive to open, which would then18 make them compliant with the number of trips based on19 the roadway classification.20 MR. ALPER: Which would then create21 different problems?22 MR. MacNEILL: Exactly. Which I believe is23 the reason for the requesting the de minimis exception.24 MR. ALPER: Understood.25 67 MR. MacNEILL: To avoid the additional1 traffic on Kuzik.2 MR. ALPER: Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have4 any questions for Mr.

he de minimis exception.24 MR. ALPER: Understood.25 67 MR. MacNEILL: To avoid the additional1 traffic on Kuzik.2 MR. ALPER: Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have4 any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?5 MR. CARDOZA: Yes, thank you.6 Mr. MacNeill, following up on Mr. Alper's7 question. So the question of closing Kuzik, I8 apologize, it's been a little while since we heard the9 original testimony on traffic, so you're saying that,10 and I wouldn't want to characterize it if you can't, but11 the applicants intention was to alleviate the problems12 if those minor collecting roads, because I mean they13 empty out to the same point, you're saying that the14 intention was to avoid problems at that point?15 MR. MacNEILL: Yes. So I believe, and again16 I do feel like that question may be is better served for17 by the applicant, but based on their de minimis18 exception request it is my understanding that they did19 not want to put additional traffic onto Kuzik Drive.20 MR. CARDOZA: Okay. So what I'm trying to21 get at is the benefits of traffic flow closing off Kuzik22 Drive, like there's the benefits versus, I mean, I guess23 you're going to have problems in one area, where I'm24 trying to sus that out. You know, how is that supposed25 68 to be more beneficial. The idea of closing Kuzik Drive1 to the, you know, only allowing emergency access, how is2 that supposed to be more beneficial?3 MR. MacNEILL: In my opinion it really helps4 just the residents on Kuzik Drive.5 MR. CARDOZA: But not necessarily the6 residents on Warner?7 MR. MacNEILL: No. No.8 MR. CARDOZA: Okay.9 The -- so if we're just putting all the10 traffic on Warner we have a much more, I don't know,11 backed up potentially roadway than, I don't know, you're12 going to have. I guess you're going to have that13 problem at any point but --14 MR. MacNEILL: So you would have additional15 trips on Warner.16 MR. CARDOZA: I'm going to go around in17 circles, so thank you Mr. MacNeill.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Counsel Person Scarpa, do19 you have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his20 testimony?21 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, just a little on22 the same topic. I have concerns about safety. The23 traffic engineer, wouldn't they typically look at24 current traffic that's there, because seems like25