February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 77 to 80 of 154 20 of 68 sheets 77 the existing development.1 Now, what is the way into this project. We2 had a lot of testimony on this and we absolutely3 incontestably shown there's only one way into this new4 project, that's Oval Road through Warner. You enter5 Oval, you go up Warner and you're in the project. There6 is no other way in. The way into this new project is7 exactly the way into the existing project. It's the8 same road. They have to extend Warner to kind of9 connect up to. But you're going from Oval to Warner in,10 that's it. If the first is a cul-de-sac then the second11 is part of the cul-de-sac. Now, I recall questioning, I12 think it was our engineer from the board, and the13 question I asked was, Well, if this new project had been14 built as part of the original rather than two phases,15 would it all have been one big cul-de-sac? If you16 recall the answer was, yes. So you want to get one set17 of average daily lives, one set of cars and trips per18 unit in a cul-de-sac, you can't double it because you19 wait 30 years and make a bubble of the cul-de-sac on top20 of the existing one. It's one cul-de-sac. And the21 concession by the engineer was that Well, if it had all22 been built at one time it would have been one giant23 cul-de-sac. The RSIS standards would apply. But24 somehow through some miraculous and manipulation of25 78 geography the applicants trying to sell you on the fact1 that this is a separate cul-de-sac. Goes in through2 Oval and Warner, goes out through Oval and Warner. It's3 simply an expansion of the existing cul-de-sac. And4 just because you decide to hold back and build this in5 two phases, doesn't mean you get credit for doubling the6 amount of cars, vehicles, units and trips. The law is7 the law. One way in, one way out, there's a limit to8 the number of trips available. Period. You cannot9 exceed it. There is no dispute that they exceed it.10 Mr. Litwornia's testimony was very clear. The only way11 they have around this problem is equivalent to juggling12 the books, so to speak. The only way they have around13 this problem, is Kuzak. Right. They can say well, we14 have, and maybe we can put the engineering drawing back15 on before we leave this. Thank you. I think this will16 work.17 Basically what we have is Kuzak is going to18 be closed and used only for emergency access, we

we can put the engineering drawing back15 on before we leave this. Thank you. I think this will16 work.17 Basically what we have is Kuzak is going to18 be closed and used only for emergency access, we know19 that, that's the proposal. Yet, they can't really do20 that. Well -- and they want a de minimis exception.21 They say there's really not a lot of extra traffic,22 therefore we don't need a second road inside the23 project. It says, de minimis exception. Well, there's24 going to be 7000 car rides per day than under the25 79 existing traffic conditions now. And, you know, I asked1 this question a few times and everyone said, oh, that's2 de minimis. We're having an enormous increase in3 traffic of about 2500 per day, I think. The existing is4 2700 something, I'll get the exact figures. And we're5 going to more than double or double it. Now, they want6 to close Kuzak as a de minimis exception and use it only7 for emergency access. That avoids the issue. That's8 the book juggling I'm talking about. They're saying9 well, if we have Kuzak we have two ways into this10 cul-de-sac. Yeah, if the only development was this,11 that might work. It's not. And it doesn't really work12 anyway because what does Kuzak feed into? Warner. What13 does Warner feed into? Oval. The only way in and out14 doesn't work out. So even if you didn't have the de15 minimis exception and you force them to open Kuzak, it16 doesn't work. Because Kuzak is still feeding into17 Warner and into Oval. It's not a separate way into this18 development. They're still stuck with the RSIS, and no19 one has explained any provision in the statute that20 allows you to simply expand an existing cul-de-sac and21 then start the bean counting over from scratch and22 ignore all the other traffic that exists from the23 existing part of it. There's no statute, no regulation24 offered. So the idea of de minimis exception, it means25 80 that -- well, if you -- we had to do Kuzak we would and1 that would solve the cul-de-sac problem. It doesn't.2 Because it all feeds right back into Warner which feeds3 back into Oval. There's only one way in and one way out4 and the fire chief made this very clear. You know, he5 said, he admitted in his report, we only have one means6 of ingress and egress except for those emergency ways.7 So there's no possibility that Kuzak is a separate way8 into this development. Under the RSIS

he admitted in his report, we only have one means6 of ingress and egress except for those emergency ways.7 So there's no possibility that Kuzak is a separate way8 into this development. Under the RSIS the only way to9 avoid the cul-de-sac minimums or maximums rather, is you10 have two separate ways in and out of the development.11 One here going to some arterial road, one here going to12 a road. When the two go into one that's one way in and13 out. It is not two ways. This is common sense. Why14 does the RSIS exist? It exists to protect people. It15 exists to minimize traffic problems. It exists to16 maximize the ability to access the site. It exists to17 minimize too many cars passing in front of houses,18 ruining the life of the people who live in them and it19 exists to minimize traffic jambs at a single way in and20 out. That's why if you want more trips per day, more21 trips per unit in a multifamily development, you got to22 have two separate ways in and out and you no longer have23 a cul-de-sac. They don't have it. So even if you say24 the hell with the de minimis exception, that's a lot of25