EP Waterfront 10/17/24

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e e

oh okay everyone I think we're ready to um have a we have a quorum here we're ready to uh proceed so we have Miss Griffith Mr pelli myself Mr Pioli Mr Conley Mr hard Cil uh Mr Andre and Mr amaroso so we have a quorum for tonight so I'll call the meeting to order I don't have any opening remarks uh first order of business is approval of minutes from September 25th 2024 any discussion I have a

motion wa any a second second by Dominic all those in favor motion approved thank you second item under new business is a report of our fiscal year 24 audit this is for the year ending June 30th 2024 so we have our representative from the audit firm uh Mr pesi if you want to come and just give a presentation and um go over some of the highlights of the

audit good evening um so I just want to start by thanking Ray for his uh assistance in getting this done this is the earliest we've been able to finish and probably since before Co um so as all things considered you had a pretty straightforward year first and foremost it was unmodified opinion which is what you want we saw no issues no question costs no findings that we needed to attention regarding the operations of

the commission um the main page that you guys would be concerned with is page 15 it's a statement of revenues and expenditures is a little misleading this year because you finally have dispersed your uh new funds for the low-income housing so it was artificially inflated for years and years I think since 2018 um if you take out that 743 you actually had an operating surplus of just under 74,75

um pretty close to your budget um yeah know I I agree Greg I read them and other than the planned draw down of that transfer to the uh support the housing across the street I think at previous year we uh transferred $100,000 to another low income moderate income uh property on Sutton Avenue so those are all planned uh you know non operating items extraordinary items So within the uh operating budget U our revenues

exceeded our expenditures and uh we have a sizable comfortable uh working capital to yeah your fund balance is uh 235,000 which is pretty healthy um as I said it was artificially ined for the past five years 700,000 of cash that was restricted right and uh the audit is available on our website if anyone wants to see it it's uh filed with the state as well I think we send a copy to the

Commerce department and uh I think technically our AIT has to be done within six months through the close of the first year so back there in October months this year so yeah worked out really well hopefully we keep that momentum going and um again everything in here is pretty straightforward like I said no no major changes from the previous year um no findings no question which is what you want to yeah I do know

that uh one one favorable item I know is our revenues were a little ahead of budget because of our development fees that we collected which helped support the operations of the so any questions uh right yeah any questions from the commission members okay I think we'll take a vote to accept the order report and then we can file it with the state uh motion second all those in favor thank you

thank you Greg and hard copies will be available uh tomorrow oh great yeah I think I was emailed to all the commission members and we have a I think it's online as well so but if we we'll have hard copies available at the office if anyone's interested maybe give one to the uh City Hall staff as well thank you Greg good seeing you again okay our next item uh under agenda think

it's the continuation of the public hearing for the uh property at the 500 Veterans Memorial Parkway there it is uh so uh we have um our applicant here who will provide an update on some issues and items that we uh continue to uh uh discuss so I'll have Mr balinsky come up and uh have him make a discussion what will be presented tonight thank you Mr pasii uh again Josh berlinsky with the

of darl Everett representing the applicant medic comic Development LLC um we have a few items just for the commission's consideration this evening uh before we get started though I I know that um two individuals from par engineering are are here as um the commission knows uh par was commissioned to do peer reviews for both uh traffic offsite improvements as well as storm water um we submitted some rather

comprehensive reports uh we received responses to both of those peer reviews this week and uh they were both gracious enough to to come tonight at um our invitation and and just talk through their findings so I thought might be the the right thing to do to to let them go first and and have um Derek hug to speak on traffic and Bobby Sykes to speak on storm water and uh the commission can

can ask him any questions or go over any issues and then we'll resume with our our relatively brief um presentation this evening as well so if that works for you I'll that either Derek or Bobby get

going thank you all again uh my name is Derek hug I'm with the par Corporation I'm the managing engineer for traffic engineering uh back in May to say uh we issued our first set of uh comments on the traffic study well issued initially two comments two sets of comments one for the manassin associates report that was done in late 2023 and then on a letter that was submitted to do from Crossman engineering that

updated many of the things that were in the vanas report but focused strictly on the state highway so there were two sets of comments that were floating around out there uh received responses formal responses to comments uh in September on both of those reports at this point the uh the nass and Associates report is largely uh Obsolete and most and I I did not do a formal response to to to that set of

comments uh but I did couple of days ago uh submit a yesterday uh a a formal letter with my disposition on response to comments submitted by Crossman on their letter they also submitted an updated letter uh that expanded on what they had done previously my initial comments I I've had 22 of them majority of those have been addressed to my satisfaction uh I I can what I'll do is

here is I think I'll go through the ones that I I think still have there's still some work that needs to be done or procedures that need to be fleshed out in some fashion um one thing that was somewhat vaguely but but pointed out in the updated study was that the applicant was willing to work with the city regarding city streets uh and and do that in in something of an iterative approach where this

development is going to be built out over a number of years in different stages or different phases um but there is no detailed um procedure for how that is either forced or or or moves moves forward and so I tried to read between the lines and they can correctly Pro correctly that there may be a traffic studies interim traffic studies done for each of the sort of significant phases of the project as it's built

out uh and I personally like that approach because you know when when you're doing the master plan that's supposed to be built out over a period of years there were a lot of assumptions that need to be made and inevitably certain percentage of those assumptions are going to be right certain percentage of those assumptions are going to be wrong if you do it in an iterative approach there are far fewer assumptions

that need to be made and therefore the accuracy tends to be better not only that but as you go through the development as as the different phases are developed you have the benefit of learning from what happened in the earlier phases of development applying that phases of development so I would support that approach um it's just that in the report it's vague

about next the other one other issue is the uh left turn into the site at the main driveway on Veterans Memorial so this is the driveway that is just east of Theos roundabout at Lion Avenue uh there is some discussion going back and forth about what that left turn into the site should look like it's already been decided there will not be a left turn out of the site that that but they but

that a left turn into the site will be allowed um my previous comment on this was that um based on the traffic study there would be up to 150 left turns making going into the development at that location in a single hour and so my comment was this should be separated out as a left turn B but obviously we know this is historic Road there's it's a scenic route it needs uh treated carefully and just

blowing out extra Lanes is not what is what we want to do um but nonetheless I'm concerned about the safety of that if that's a through Lane um the comment that came back was that it would be back just east of that two lanes would then merge together into one and there for that left lanee would essentially become a left turn Bay and that's probably true but nonetheless um without it being

specifically marked as such there still is the expectation that you can go through there and that leads to an increased risk of rear end crashes at a location that's relatively high speed and I know speeds will probably decrease to some degree when you introduce the round round about but this location is about a th000 ft several hundred feet East uh of that that roundabout so there will be the

opportunity for vehicles to to increase their speed between those two locations um so my comment my my specific comment here was that this left turn Bay should be included should not be a de facto left turn Bay or a Trap Lane that comes you you have two lanes leaving the roundabout and then one of them just becomes a left turn Bay and just kind of stops in the middle of

nowhere we call that a Trap Lane that is also not what I think the treatment should be here I think there should be one lane leaving that roundabout eastbound I guess Southbound Southbound um and then a left turn pocket for after that to make it clear that it's not a anybody entering that intending to stop to make that ESS uh one other issue was the location of the westernmost driveway off Lion Avenue

which is the one nearest to the roundabout uh that driveway way location my comment was that it's awfully close to the roundabout location and I'm concerned about interference between those two locations uh that driveway uh my understanding has been slightly moved a little bit further away from the roundabout and there is the a a promise that through ryot's uh physical alteration permit um application

procedures a uh Vim analysis will be done of that roundabout and and that's all fine for ryot but ryot doesn't necessarily care because Lion Avenue is not a state road they don't really care if the queue backs up to this driveway so I suspect ECT that where that driveway is now it's probably F what vism analysis is done and says that that queue isn't going to back up to the driveway we're not going to have

interference between those two things I'm I'm content to to to allow it to um but again as part of this process if this board grants approval and then that analysis shows that that Q is going to back up the driveway I don't know that there's any way to force them to to change it at that so again it's it's a proced more of a procedural thing than necessarily that there's a real problem I

to the Eastern end the North Eastern end of the site and ultimately connects to the neighborhoods to the north and east of the site uh and just south of uh on the opposite side of Veteran moral Parkway there is a small trail head for the East Bay Bike that is also the the spot where the East Bay Bike paack separates from Veterans Memorial Parkway and uh heads over to the uh the watch Mok Co

process so that is in my view a particular area of potential interest where pedestrians who are who are in that neighborhood to the north and east or enjoying the trail system within the site and want to access the East Bay Bike that seems like a pretty natural desire desire as it stands right now for them to follow the dictated estrian pass to get to that trail head or to get over to

the East Bay Bike Path continue toward watch Co they would have to walk th feet to the north then cross at the at the southern end of that roundabout and then walk a th000 feet to the South and at the end of all of that they have moved about you know 50 or 60 feet as the crow flot my belief is that pedestrians are going to cross there whether there's a

mark and if that is going to be in the natural desire path we should Mark it as a crosswalk and design it such that it is safe and fits within Parkway aesthetic that can be done does not have to be done with a light can be done by various traffic common Meers that that can be um uh but that is something that to this point the applicant has been resistant

to include in their plans and I it's important additional discussions about other than that um the only other small issue we had an ongoing discussion about cut throughs particularly Mercer Street uh and there is a a proposal in their traffic study to make Mercer moral Parkway right in right right in right out only uh which would likely at least reduce any uh cut throughs but at the same time you still

have First Street I I worry that the cut throughs that would want to take a left in to Mercer they would no longer be able to do that what they can do is just take a left on the First Street further up on the Parkway and just go down First Street to merer it's just it just changes how they do it so I don't and this this is becomes part of the benefit of the

uh iterative method of doing these traffic studies is that is that that we can hopefully identify if that's happening and for later stages of the development include uh measures to try to further BEC because I nobody can say nobody's got to Cur the ball nobody can say I think that's um I those are all the issues that are left outstanding all the rest of them that I had here I think

have been okay uh thank you so um there actually 25 items you noted in your letter um to Ry and Ry this was uh delivered to us or today okay okay so um this will uh be made available to the public hasn't been I don't upload to the website yeah so we'll make this available to this to this to the public but I I think your your main point just to capture and

again you're working on be as an independent reviewer on behalf of the commission to review studies provided by the applicants over know what your role is here so uh summaries your main issues is just somehow how to codify this iterative approach during the development phases and maybe that's a condition of a that we could take into that um I guess the second one is the left turn only lane onto the parkway into the

facility traveling south um just so you know if somebody thinks it's a through Lane they could just keep on going and not realizing something's taking that could be a problem at uh the proximity of the uh Lion Avenue entrance uh on the parkway to the rotary it's uh is a an issue but also I think your biggest issue is some sort of a pedestrian safe Crossing just realizing people are just going to take the least

passive least resistance and maybe not take the formal crossing that's th000 ft north of them and just cross over at the C at some point so I guess that that's something it'd have to work with the do and the scenic highway and the city obviously did nine and safe Crossing there that uh you know still respects to the respects the parkway that also allows safe Crossing because right now

as as you know somebody who walks over on the bike pack a lot there is no safe Crossing on on the parkway you pretty much have to make a dash at Lion Avenue and the parkway you just have to kind of make there is no there's not even any striping there or I don't they're going to yield pedestrian passing signs at a long I do know that there are some left

turn only Lanes further down the parkway think Broadway I think there's a right hand turn there is a you know capacity to do that we just have to see how to make that possible design all right I think this is very helpful uh like I said we'll make this available to the public it's uh brings up 25 items U we're just asking at the end of this that the applicant would be

provide a formal response to address each comment uh that you notify still have some those four sort of outline and then I guess the Mera Street cut through scenario how do great any questions sure thank you for that again we'll make this uh available and uh this was a good review of the various traffic issues that we've had reviewed to date so um I think the public requirement is very helpful so sure

good evening uh my name is Bob Sykes I'm a bar site so we completed our original review in the storm water December 2 orally about7 com in response to comments we received engineer and we recently completed of those responses and revisions and today so there were some significant revisions from sign from the December submission some of the onsite that's that were proposed incorporation of some

additional prary systems and but most of our most of our comments were were that's right yeah I guess may just go bit closer Bobby so you can they can hear you sure um so we have about 13 comments uh that um they relatively technical um but that still warrant some type of clarification or Revision in our opinion so um I can go through the the outstanding items uh the comments on the

proposed site plans um we would be requesting that uh they incorporate additional pre-treatment um in accordance with DM requirements for the infiltration practice IES uh so that they can be maintained appropriately and we can ensure that they they function Wither's designed we've also asked for additional detail and access to the wet extended detention Basin it's one of the larger

systems on site um and just a little bit more detail as how it's anticipated to be maintained uh including gate locations and then consideration to routine and Mowing and then also on the site plans um we'd request updated Landscaping plans showing the plantings within some of these systems um that was one of the previous comments we just be that those be provided then comments on the storm

water management design and Report um we are requesting some confirmation on the wheel permeability testing that was completed and just that it was in accordance with the m regulations um there wasn't a lot of backup information on on how it was completed and when it was completed um and then we'd also be requesting uh groundwater elevations within the white extended detention Basin that they be reviewed there was

some conflicting information within the response to comments uh and also in the test pit logs um and there's some other technical things with the calculations we request that some of the atomic concentrations be reviewed um and incorporation of potentially some longer time concentrations that might alter some of um so kind of reoccurring through our our memo our previous memo we'd also request

confirmation uh that if any of the observed groundwater elevations rather than modeling which is another U method of uh reviewing estimated season High groundwater uh if the observed elevations are are used within uh the design that they're used in accordance with demm requirements and they utilize the adjustment factors uh that DM requires uh just again to just confirm that the systems function you as

designed in the future um same with soil classifications too uh we' request that the that the detail these details be presented in a in a format that we we can review it was a significant amount of geotechnical information that was provided and we're we're hoping it can be summarized a little bit better so that we can understand the the so classifications within some of these systems

um um we'd review yeah we request that uh the some freeboard um items that we'd like to be checked some of the infiltration basins but everything they appear to have addressed most of our comments relative to that and then we had a couple new comments U from this this round of review um and some of the plan revisions that were Incorporated uh there is a an infiltration Basin that's credited for water quality that um

exceeds the allowable infiltration rates so uh that would have to be removed and then the water quality requirements would have to be reviewed and uh potenti there would be a need for additional water quality uh throughout the uh throughout the site um it' also uh request just an update on the status of the DM and and army car Army Corp permits um a lot of the things that we're requesting are likely going to be

required by DM as well so uh like some of the detail relative to the the soil evaluations and groundwater modeling um that could be provided to us for our review and then uh I think our final comment final new comment um the design was recently revised to to incorporate uh two 36 in uh drain pipes that discharg to the The Cove um and we'd request that you know and that these this system be reviewed

and that confirm that safe passage of a 100-year event um is provided to the site not necessarily through the conveyance but that uh that it's reviewed and you know with increased rainfall intensities that we're experiencing uh we just want to make sure that with the proposal to convey this significant amount of FL through a closed drainage system um that sech charge conditions are reviewed and

uh any negative impacts to any of the proposed structures um are reviewed and understood and we'd also request that uh confirmation that all the flows during those surcharge conditions are safely to the anticipated Downstream design points and N those flows with the site Atty About Properties happy to answer any other questions I think that summarizes the remaining items in our thank you thank

you Bobby so again uh you're hired by the commission on behalf of the commission to review the the the storm water engineering that's being proposed by the applicant we've identified a number of items you'd like to see either further clarification or additional comments on uh that report will be made available Ray uh has it been sent to you yet or do okay so when it's um I don't

know if it's if it's has been emailed or not but we'd like to post it on our website as soon as it's it's I don't know we we'll make sure because again it's a very technical analysis we we'll make sure it gets uploaded so folks can understand uh but the role here of you is you're acting on behalf of the commission to uh do a second set of eyes on the uh proposed storm water solutions

are being U discussed by the applicant and I appreciate your uh emphasis on U noting the uh sort of the rainfall activity we've had in the last few years is it's uh you know these rare occurrences are not so rare anymore uh I I I do note that the mo the property is largely sloped into the Cove and that's I think where most of the snowm water will end up eventually but the the uhu

the uh key part of it is to make sure that it's treated uh and infiltrated before it actually just discharg into the Cove to uh protect this the water quality there so and uh all of that analysis I know you mentioned DM the Army Corp I assume crmc is also taking a look at all of that as well and they'll have to have a a permit U that's satisfactory to them as well

so great thank you um any other questions from the commission members again we'll we'll make it available uh post it online and send it out to the uh members and also make it available to the public I assume you have it and you'll be working on responses to it so thank you thank you to both uh Bobby and and Derek the um the storm water uh peerreview was was distributed late late

this afternoon so um I believe the city has both peer review summaries to uh post on the website tomorrow um we we did have the opportunity to review the the pair our excuse me peer review um upon receipt and uh Paul Bannon is is here and and maybe we can have a real-time discussion with with par about one or two elements of it but just to um which I know will be exciting for

everyone and the microphone placement is really there to make it as awkward as possible so that's great but um but maybe what we'll uh I do want to speak just to a couple of elements there which is the the iterative approach that that Bobby mentioned we we agree with that and we encourage to so um we as everyone knows there's the phase two which is the commercial component as well as a

portion of the residential um and and then we've got phase three which is the balance of the residential and and we agree and think it's best practices to have that traffic study be Revisited and have special attention paid to the Mercer cut through and other elements that power might identify in connection with that second um generation traffic study and we have no issue making medic

condition um before I I turn it over to to Paul Bannon um the the left turn on Veterans which Bobby referred to as you may recall when we received a letter from B uh earlier this year um they had expressed similar reservations about that element the lack of better term um they I I think like Bobby they accept it subject to further engineering and and um participation and presentation

including but not limited to the vism analysis uh we adhere to that as well so if the the practice in the engineering and the simulations dictate that you know we we have no choice but obviously that's that's do and Scenic roadways jurisdiction and and wherever that goes we obviously will adhere to that to that decision uh you know I think s r and do are aligned and that they've both

identified it as a potential area and and understood and we'll see where the the permitting at state level takes us there um the uh last issue which is I think the most uh sensitive one that par raised is the um second uh bike path access and and just everyone knows what we're talking about it's that juncture where the bike cap curves up um where it then goes along parallel to vener Memorial

Parkway there is a small parking field immediately adjacent to that jut and that's the intersection I believe that Bobby's referring to as as a potential um secondary bike path access um we we have the applicant has reviewed that concept and and has um you know objected to it for lack of a better term like throughout but I I think it might be helpful and we realize this isn't the

conclusion of that dialogue but just for for Paul Bannon to get up and kind of explain our position and potential um accommodations to there and then we have further work to do with power in that regard but I just want Paul banon to kind of explain our reasoning for that so the commission or power don't think we're being particularly arbitrary in that regard we have a rationale there so

Paul if you want to just spend a minute there

good evening uh Paul Bon with Crossman engineering um we initially looked at that when uh par raised that question um we have concerns relative to that location based on the geometry of the parkway at that location it's on a both a horizontal and vertical curve and slight distance isn't is an issue um how people or why people would cross there um that's also a question I have we don't want people that are using that

tiny white path parking lot to access our site so that's not something that should occur um you signed as such and it's typically um full you know during during the busy Sumit period so um no one should be parking at that location to access our prop the treatment of our proper property can be properly landscaped and directed so that there would be no physical connection or desire or line of

short distance path to get to the bike path at that location when you our internal um roadway system in in sidewalks in where the residential component uh of the of the project is located is on the central driveway that Central driveway is located you know several hundred feet from the line of what would be a crossing they would have to walk that way to cross there and we can set up the the landscaping and

pedestrian paths to make that a not desirable um condition additionally long term when across the street gets developed there'll be a connection to the bike path through that property and be more direct from where we're proposed in the crossing that was a consideration in village on the waterfront to have extension of the bike path all the way along the Waterfront so didn't have had two options so think we

think long term uh that that would be a a potential connection from Lion directly to the bike back instead of further so so we feel that um we can properly handle the pedestrian paths and how people are Crossing whereing instead of adding the secondary crossing right so you're saying you would discourage people from entering uh your prop the property from that Vantage Point either through some

buffering or Landscaping it it yes right now it's all fenced and and there's trees there and so we'll incorporate um you know the proper landscaping and know Pathways within the site to not direct pedestrians to cross likely there would be no uh receiving point at the other end of the property to invite biking or pedestrian they naturally might be inclined let go to where they're invited

into the property in the formal opening so that's that's kind of your stance yes and as Josh had indicated B raised uh several of those same issues relative to the driveway on Lion they will be looking at that part of the vism analysis so both locations will have to justify the location and stacking access points to the property I think the capacity of that parking a lot is fairly limited U maybe yeah 30 cars legally

right do Park you know sort of yeah you know but uh generally uh it's it's on the weekends mostly it's it's uh it's a little over over but during it's just not relative to op property and the parkway geometry it's just not good safe location okay thank you

again that will be part of our um ongoing interaction with par in terms of a formal written response um we've already forwarded uh the response on the storm water to bowler engineering and um they are preparing their response uh they expect to have it out next week and our hope is that at the November uh DRC meeting um we will have both storm water and and traffic KN on would the concerns

addressed and um and concurrence with par on the fee remaining so but again I I want to stress that um that power has been a an an able and willing um partner in in the back and forth and and we appreciate their comprehensive approach to this um and and they've made the project better as a result of their refinement so thank you very much to the B um we just have a couple more items to

go over tonight uh so and and I just want to update uh with regard to the archaeological element and um just so people are aware um we're in touch with both state historic and the tribe the National Historic tribal preservation office um as to next steps if any of the property uh that that dialogue is ongoing it's it's uh all good and constructive um and our expectation is that Deborah Cox from

pal will be here next month to provide the update summary written submission that was requested at the at the previous meeting I think that was in August so so that is the schedule is that uh dab be here uh to answer further questions and and let you know where that process hopefully is concluded um but but that's the the schedule right now so and on that Josh nothing's been conveyed to the city we're not in

receipt or possession of any updated so um so all that's happened is that there was um submissions to State historic as I think we mentioned previously um that Mission has been turned over to the tribal preservation office uh they have been in touch with both the state uh as well as the applicant in terms of questions and and um just uh about location and geography and and uh processes going forward and it's been

positive and educational and and the tribe has been um communicative the tribal office and and state historic Charlotte tayor especially has has responded to our requests so and pal leading the charge there and um and she'll be here next month to kind of bring everyone up to speed and hopefully kind of uh put a put a bow on it as to what's going on and and how this how it

played out okay thank you thank you for that all right so just a few things then remaining this evening um and then uh a couple responses we got uh from members of the commission as well as the public and then I just want to conclude with a a brief revisiting of um some of Ashley s's testimony last month which um was was substantive and comprehensive and I just want to focus on a couple of those

elements just for the commission's edification prior to adjournment this evening um Liam could you please go to the David coat resume real quickly that attachment so if everyone recalls uh David coat Consulting performed our noise study I just wanted to bring forward his resume so everyone can see who we're dealing with here he is considered one of the most renowned experts on Acoustics and Noise modeling

in the region um graduated from MIT uh I've heard of it and a degree in mathematics also Westminster College with a degree in chemistry um he consults as you can see in the second paragraph or the last paragraph he consults in a broad range of Acoustics and noise and vibration control his experience includes noise and vibration data collection analysis and computer modeling for noise predictions noise

mitigation measures preparation of noise reports for environmental impact statements and presentations during hearings and public meetings he has extensive computer experience including a Proficiency in several programming L um could you go to the next page please so I just keep going on is so we can see Mr CO's various areas of expertise uh in the architectural building Acoustics as

the commission may recall um Mr Cod actually performed a pinpoint hbac analysis for each building um proposed to be constructed the conclusion of which is that the noise impact of that once everything was constructed was minimal in terms of buildings as uh Mr coat put it to some of us when we were speaking with him buildings really don't make noise so the hvac's systems were the ones that do he measured them um

using a very precise computer program the exhibit to his report shows all the placements negligable impact on the community um he also specializes in Highway noise rail noise and aircraft noise as well as Amphitheater sound impact analysis I should have deleted that given that the amphitheater has been a Bugaboo for us it's just a visual amenity um as well as GIS elements um his I just

want to go through his references Li if you could keep scrolling so uh it's four pages and as you can see that I believe he's worked for all four divisions of the Armed Forces he's worked for various cities and towns in New England he's worked for Fortune 50 companies in their nor modeling um he is considered he is the go-to for site Improvement projects uh throughout the Northeast and and up

and down the East Coast um he is if not the premier in the field he is uh he is one of them and so we engaged him um obviously no preconceived notions as to what he would or would not report he submitted a initial noise study at the request of the commission we supplemented it to include the hbac analysis as well as further updates on the highway element on the Veterans

Memorial Parkway element and um and we submitted that and we answered some questions we did receive um some questions from from a member of the public I I I did forward Mr CO's responses to the commission earlier today actually Liam could you pull up the email that says Medicom at noise studies

please great so um Dan Bodwin uh submitted an email um to Ray and Bill um I think in September uh or August he reported again in September we wanted to make sure that that Mr coat saw and and an opportunity to respond um I want to go through his his answers in detail they're brief but briefly you know one of the points that Mr bodan asked for was that the adjusted traffic Counts from the Crossman study

um be used instead of the vanesse study which is what you know as we had mentioned several months ago that the vanesse study although it spoke to a previous iteration in the project used a CO adjusted factor for its counts that was significantly incre in Suess of both the actual counts there because Jeffrey Durk who was the engineer at vaness was trying to account for Co so he used

artificially inflated counts accordingly there's a corresponding upward adjustment of the counts for his projected traffic build out because you started from a higher level than was really there so uh pursuant to Mr B's uh response um we asked uh Mr Co to look at the numbers from the Crossman study um Paul Bannon concluded that the numbers are in fact lower uh and thus there would in all likelihood produce

negligible lower amount of noise um based on the correct configuration of the project um with regard to truck traffic uh we had been asked to just revisit the analysis there um Mr CO's analysis is limited limited to the definition of heavy crucks of all the proposed uses at the development the only use that requires heavy trucks would be the grosser and the grosser estimates um based on

industry standards upwards of 30 trucks a day uh Mr kooch confirmed and we asked them to revisit this that the noise impact of 30 trucks a day along Veterans Memorial Parkway is negligible it is a fraction of the overall noise effect that the um traffic has upon the surrounding neighborhoods uh there is I know um some members of of the public live at Kettle Point as do I uh there's

about 2060 apartments and 60 something Condominiums um as well as a a six-story medical office facility there's no big trucks that go to that development um there is FedEx and there is U medical services that go to university of the fedix except for movers there's no big trucks that are residental development and there's no big and if you take 260 and you take zero and you multiply Z

0 time 890 units it's still zero so we don't anticipate big trucks at the residential component of the development um nor do we expect heavy trucks to service any other commercial element of the development it's just the Grocers it's just 30 trucks a day along Veterans Memorial Parkway and that specific portion of lions well short of the residential neighborhood which truck traffic would be permitted for the very

limited purpose of making deliveries to improvements with a veterans Memorial Parkway address that is allowed for the ordinance that is the plan of events and there is no anticipated interruption or truck traffic going through neighborhoods um adjacent to the development uh the city doesn't allow it and and we do not propose it um finally uh I I just want to go through the the responses in in general um the first one

was asking to use the Crossman numbers based on the correct square footage I already I already addressed that um uh as we mentioned in it's in yellow the updated traffic data actually has lower future volumes and speeds um the grocery trucks analyzed as I mentioned the 30 trucks fall into the Federal Highway Administration heavy truck category those are the only trucks that make a distinction from a noise

standpoint that's why Mr coat included them um the projections do not include construction vehicles that will serve the development over the 10e bill out the project that is that is correct um you know the construction vehicles themselves are an a are are along veterans M Parkway they might Traverse over Lions they can't access the site through any other way they certainly can't access it through the emergency

access in which club is to be located they're limited access rights and obviously until there's um you know until New curb cuts are installed they'd have to use the existing access point belong vets to begin with um as it relates to and let's put a pin in that concept because I want to go back to construction sequencing in a moment um again uh there was an inquiry as to an underestimation of vehicle and truck

traffic more analysis on the noise that will be generated by truck traffic Mr Co Revisited it at our request and said it's a negligible impact and the truck traffic noise will have a minimal impact throughout the Nabor um and then finally uh there was a reference to um the 50 decibel threshold um this it states there should be a discussion of how the 50 decibal threshold relates to the projected noise

levels on Lion Avenue Fort Street in the residential section Mr coat TB candid wasn't sure how to respond to that since the town city noise ordinances don't apply to tr so because it's a moving the noise ordinance relates to ongoing the immediate vicinity of the improvment or individual or stru that are subject to the noise so we we included the federal and state standard for reference purposes um although there

not they're not necessarily appliable just to show that all of the traffic uh contemplated um as a result of the development is well below uh the state or federal standard that might otherwise be applied in a different uh physical setting so I I do want to uh thank the public for for submitting those comments uh we're hopeful that we um answer them to to his satisfaction and and uh

hopefully we've uh finished that one um can we go to uh oh let's go to actually the one that talks about um site plan so can you please uh open that overall site rendering great um let's talk about construction noise and sequencing for a moment so um as we've uh previously estblished and as I believe the commission uh what we call phase two is the uh improvements in green or gray

whatever your vintage point might be it is the commercial element as well as a few of the um residential buildings uh just below it including the village Corridor so there have been some concerns raised about production no the largest Improvement on phase two is the grosser which is further away from any residence than University Orthopedics is to residence on uh Veterans Memorial

Parkway further down um there is a nine and a half acre buffer that's being donated to the city uh I understand we're only talking about the first five years of uh project build out but there are no improvements in the immediate vicinity of a neighborhood that should have any effect on tra on noise impact on this on the study um on the public excuse me we are a long veterans from

Royal Parkway and this is by designed by the way we are on Veterans Memorial Parkway we are on lions parallel and across the street from an office Park um this development is being sequenced and the infrastructure will be built in but there's no um vertical construction uh in with an earshot of residen excuse me for up to for up to five years we agree and we will agree as a condition to this

approval should we be so fortunate that we put forth as a condition to proceeding with phase three a construction sequence plan and a Construction Control plan that shows that we've made the best efforts possible to reduce noise pollution and sequencing in order to provide as much comfort as possible within reason for neighbors and the public within that phase three area again um whereas phase

two is still proximity we still have the buffer of the donated land between the uh residents and uh any proposed improvements I understand that's further down the line I don't mean to dismiss the severity of it we agree that we have to to submit to the commission as a condition to proceeding to phase three a construction management plan acceptable to the commission that's more than reasonable

but I just want to make clear of the fact that the immediate construction of the short-term project no members of the public are going to be affected by nothing that's more than four stories of residents and there's nothing more than for the commercial there's maybe two stories uh depending what the height of the grocer is could be uh maybe a little bit more but obviously it's a one-story

building with a high ceiling so I I just want to put in perspective that again you've got Kettle point which I think we all agree with a huge success um you have construction that was much closer to residences for which there was no noise plan there was no mitigation plan there was no construction plan I assure you none of this took place um but we are willing to agree to it here it's a

bigger project we understand the issues the concerns that have been raised but we also want to impose just a little degree of reasonableness as upon what's going on and and just realize that the office Park U might have the same concerns as the residents in the back I I do want to let out out as a possible condition a potential condition that we're more than willing through and we are keeping a list of them so when

the juncture comes when we'll ask for approval we'll list all the conditions that have been discussed over the last nine months and attach them to our approval um for the commission's um benefit all right um last element here please oh uh while we're on it can we go to Liam the um the picture that's Parkway Scenic uh PNG please that picture one of the two photographs great this is a picture of

uh Veterans Memorial Parkway further up past Kettle Point uh I think around squantum that right uh this is lovely and beautiful um it's forested it's at the right time of year um we understand the concerns about the the nature of the Parkway and and maintaining its character uh for those of us that remember the the kettle Point permitting um there were significant deviations in

Veterans Memorial Parkway part of kettle point I believe there was a second curb cut introduced to Veterans Memorial Parkway um there was significant landscaping and element I mean there was a lot of changes that still maintain the element characteristics of the Parkway and this is um a portion just west of it we go to the second picture please um Parkway Frontage and then we got this so I am as

big a fan of a dilapidated fence as anyone this is the view of C directly across the street from the metacomet property um I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here folks this is the proposed location of the roundabout uh I am all for preserving the character of Veterans Memorial Parkway I live off of Veterans Memorial Parkway I have nothing but good things to say about the city of East Providence I'm not

necessarily certain what we're preserving right here we propose a roundabout with landscaping and a pedestrian Crossway and an visual Improvement to what's going on here uh I'm going to get to the analysis of whether or not this is in keeping with the character of the parkway but I I think it's important to point out that there are certain visual elements of the parkway that we all think of that that

we hold in the highest regard then there's certain portions when you're like so maybe this is one of them and maybe this is one of them that could use some work that will be brought about by virtue of the roundabout just putting that out there for the commission's consideration all right can we go to Ashley sweet's resume please

Liam you're doing a great job you're the best one so far by the so uh this is Ashley sweet's resume she was here last month um she has a resume that is most impressive but I don't think she did herself the proper service and went over it last month when she was here so I just want to recap it Ashley is currently the senior planner at weon and Samson um she that is one of the Premier

planning consultants in Connecticut Massachusetts in Rhode Island he was formerly the planner for exiter as well as Charleston and hington he is also currently the um interim planner for the town of Tiber um he has uh worked as an intern in the jam planning office has a master of community planning concentration environmental planning U uh she has been engaged and active in the planning space for almost 20 years

uh she has been um for those of you that know some of the cities and towns in which she's worked uh those are not uh she has been exposed to various types of development projects and in her capacity as the consultant at Weston and Samson she has seen some of the biggest development projects in Connecticut Massachusetts and rhod Island uh she knows what she's talking about when she

made her review I want to point out a couple elements of her presentation she did a PowerPoint but I think there's some certain elements here that we could go through um I just want to make sure this is the this is the expert that we submitted a report that is now part of the record we want to call fur elements to your attention we can you go to the report please it is um called manic Comet

report all right

okay

um okay that's it thank you so I um you make it a little bigger that would be uh but you know I just want to call it the um this is the beginning of all actuallyy summarize the process whereby confirming since veterans is classified as a state M Road a Pap will be required as will Scenic roadways uh she also begins in this element to discuss the consistency of the proposed development with zon and the proposed

development complies with the majority of the requirements of the zoning district and subdistrict which designates a portion of the areas of open space the overlay District um the Met com so she then goes on to two pages go over the zoning consistency I don't need to revisit that she did that but I also want to know that she went over all the elements of the city zoning ordinance as well as the comprehensive

plan to identify the consistency of this project Liam could you go to page 10 of the report please all right stop here please so this is um what a planning report generally does for those of you that are are new to this experience and over the next six pages Ashley then goes through every element in the in the East Providence comprehensive plan that in her expert opinion this application

complies with such as in the first one the challenge for the city is to ensure quality development of the remaining undeveloped lands and the Redevelopment of land for New Uses such as land in the Waterfront District while protecting the quality of life for residents protecting the natural resources of the city and creating an environment that promote a favorable economic CL clment excuse me

her conclusion the proposed mix use development would provide a range of opport OPP unities for residents through the development of housing retail service business Recreation opportunities in open space the project is designed to offer high quality housing and services which will offer additional housing and economic development opportunities in the city while also protecting natural resources

through open space protection that's an important concern for the city of East Providence we have aspired to meet it um the next four pages are just the various elements in the comprehensive plan and it shows the compliance can you please go to um page 13 of the courtly there you go um the one in the middle link the approval of new development proposals including infill proposals to the existing capabilities

of the infrastructure this is her expert opinion as shown in figure six of this report the city has identified this general area for infill development and discussed and planed for infrastructure to support such the project proposes to construct the roundabout at the intersection of Veteran Memorial Parkway in Lion ABY her expert opinion is that the roundabout achieves compliance with

this element all right let's uh I think one more um Liam could you please go to page 25 of her report uh access curb cuts signalization and reated roadway perfect um all right I'm going to read these three paragraphs because this is analysis this is the kind of expert testimony that um the city deserves the waterpr commission needed to hear and that we needed to convince ourselves of that this was the

right path but I I think this is there have been various arguments raised over the last uh nine months that perhaps this doesn't comply that perhaps we are supposed to forget that uh 10 years ago 15 years ago a roundabout was approved as part of The Village at the waterfront that in the district plan uh the Waterfront District plan from 2003 that a roundabout was actually proposed at

the end of Veterans Memorial Parkway those things are true they Remain the case but with regard to this proposed application I want to read these paragraphs specifically the Waterfront plan recognizes that Redevelopment along the Waterfront could negatively effect impact the parkway if not properly designed the Waterfront plan calls for development that is proportional to the existing roadway functioning capacity

limiting of curb Cuts in their size and location is encouraged and signage limited amount and scale the Waterfront plan identifies traffic signalization it's not in keeping with the character of the Parkway and that development that warrants either signalization or widening of the parkway should be prohibited the proposed development achieves compliance with these recommended standards through the

installation of a roundabout to mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed development the Waterfront plan clearly contemplates that in order to realize the full potential of the Waterfront District improvements to the parkway will be necessary the Waterfront plan mitigates these impacts by requiring that the techniques employed be in keeping with the character of the existing roadway and specifically calls

out the installation of roundabouts as an acceptable method to do so the traffic study submitted as part of this project determined that the proposed development will not decrease the level of service and that with the proposed improvements to the parkway traffic conditions will remain as they are presently the installation of a roundabout at Ryan Avenue Lion Avenue excuse me ensures that the proposed

Redevelopment along the parkway is proportional to the existing roadway function and capacity through an improved mitigation technique impacts on the the parkway are further mitigated by placing smaller scale buildings both in massing and in height adjacent to the parkway with larger buildings located towards the center of the development to minimize the impact on the Parkway and on adjacent residential uses expert

testimony comprehensive analysis of the comprehensive plan and the Waterfront District plan conclusions that align with the application we have endeavored over the last eight months to provide this commission and the design Review Committee with this comprehensive as summary if we can as to why we believe this application satisfies the relevant criteria in order to allow it to proceed

I am calling out these specific elements tonight because over time if you keep on hearing something you up you're like is there something to that we want to point out that the experts that we've retained and the Consultants we've hired have been engaged to both respond to points that are raised in due courts over the nine months of hearings as well as to share their conclusions that this development

is right from both a legal and Regulatory standpoint um that's that's all we have tonight uh I thank you for the time and the patience I know I speak quickly um and I'm happy to answer any questions that that you have uh Mr Bannon is here as well um there's any residual traffic concerns but I otherwise I thank you for your time thank you Josh uh just to kind of summarize um what was presented tonight

so uh you've agreed to respond to the uh comments by par for the traffic uh the storm water uh you've indicated the willingness to uh possibly make a condition of approval requiring updated traffic reviews as phasing uh you've asked for you've indicated that you'll look for a a new updated noise study as residential construction continues in phase four I guess it is three whatever the one towards the back towards the

back um and you you're contending that the development uh you know conforms to the uh the commission of the parkway in the in the sense that the development is proportional that the roundabouts mitigate any need for traffic signalization so there is a modest widening of the of the parkway though I know at for the rotary there is that issue there uh but you're saying that despite that you feel that the

roundabouts the trade-off of the roundabout is far better than say a traffic sign that obviously was clearly prohibited there so and then one of the other things I was I was looking into I I was meaning to speak to the building inspector I know that there are certain standards that contractors have to abide by when they're doing construction in the city certain hours they have to operate uh

within um and I haven't had a chance to connect with him but uh I know that there's a large construction project going on in Martin Middle School right in the middle of a neighborhood think it's aund it's fairly large addition there so um uh I wasn't ask if there's any special considerations that govern that construction that perhaps we should consider doing here for this particular

project as well uh that construction is very visible from the street and uh you know I I I don't know the hours of operation is but I just wanted to checking with him to see if there's something we should consider that's being employed at that at that development site that we should think about you know making addition here of the the construction at the Parkway so um I think that's it's a good

summary for I think what I've heard tonight and we understand that there's additional work to be done on the archaeological survey and I know you're reaching out to City staff to complete the public safety studies um any questions or comments from the commission members what we've heard chair you talked about nine months went fa detailed in think you development have a timeline not yet soon

and just one last question on the consistency with the comp plan that's a finding that the planning board makes right uh in in this case as well um I think I don't they've already done that or they have to weigh in on that before fin they make a finding um that I think is more of a recommendation to this commission and again that's uh that hasn't happened yet I don't think no

okay all right great so you know obviously that issue will be weighed in by the planning board for the you know consistency with the comp so okay all right well thank you that's a lot to digest tonight so um any other additional comments from the your applicant taking a breather okay so we'll open it up for public hearing questions or comments from the public

just at first I wanted to say that I'm All Access that have been discussed tonight one thing that came up quite a few months ago presenting roundabout and where the crosswalk would be and then how you through development and then out and I raised a concern then and I didn't hear it tonight so if I'm coming back and I want to go back to the bike and I'm onl and I'm as a biker on other

side of the street in the development and now I want to cross Parkway I have to cross yes Ling seems like it's going to be really busy there because you have exit are concerned you have the trucks coming in to go to the grocery store but I have to cross the street there to get into the development to get theik I hear a lot about coming from the bike PA through the development but nothing about and

the access from lion cross lion back into the development and then back I brought this up months ago when you first showed the plan but I haven't seen any changes or have heard any considerations to the safety there and again I bring up the truck also because the trucks you you mentioned tonight will be accessing grer online and that's what I will do so okay thank you I think uh that's

something else that perhaps we could you know maybe par to you know weigh in on that as well provide some TRS uh you mentioned the truck traffic though the trucks to the grocery store are going to enter in through the parkway through the roundabout or down through lion um both okay okay so there's a chance a large truck's probably not going to go through a roundabout I would think be more likely to go down

line the roundabout will be designed to accommodate that left turn and right turn um two and the oh oh for for large it'll be from you know the north 195 left turn to Lion drive way in and then Loop out okay and we're proposing sidewalks all all along Ryan have um that out there today so from Lion down to Mercer to yeah there'll be that connection the city just recently completed there

sidewalk way Improvement uh to war anav um we're going to have a connection there uh along the park and we're going to run R new sidewalk all along L and have two veterans moral Parkway um we'll have a wider path uh for that bike path connection um dual use of pedestrians and bicy okay thank you

is Renee chin um so I love the sidewalks sidewalks way are great and and I do recall that there will be a sidewalk on this side of the street but as a biker you're not supposed to be on I'm going to be still on the other side of the street on a bike supposed to ride with not I'm not going to ride riding my bike on the sidewalk and I understand it'll only be a sidewalk on

so that doesn't solve the bike issue I'm sorry but I'm not supposed to be on wait there's not going to yeah it's it's difficult to follow so you're saying that uh sidewalks will be on both sides of Lion Avenue I thought they were only going to be on one side of Lion Avenue there right just one side right yeah just the development side okay no wait a minute let's see if you can respond

it'll be as you go down the road there'll be a sidewalk on one side whether it's on our side or the first field side so where our second driveway is to the east um that there'll be a crossing there over to the park and then connecting to the uh sidewalks they just built um to the east yeah so um I think the concern is if we do if the sidewalks installed on where the Little League

fields are essentially that's where people Park you there really know I mean there's a defined pedestrian path Along lionav on that side talk to Dan um and part of is work the east in the Reconstruction so okay so that's been reviewed with City staff in terms of we spoken to them on on that so saying there'll be a pedestrian bike access on the other on the other side it's an allpurpose

path as she indicated there'll be sidewalks okay along Lon or pedestrian the bicyclist will it will be in the road it's a it'll be a Shar there's no shoulder on the road so that can be the signage can be enhanced uh for cyclist along that

segment Bing

how do I have a sidewalk all the way from V moral

Park it's we're probably just going to do one it's all connected it's all is there something uh Josh that maybe you can send us that illustrate us that we can share with Renee uh visually you know just you know maybe at a staff level so okay I guess Steve had a comment here he wanted to make so

my laser finger see

Poli area and that sir

long

cross now no cross right you're just you're you're rolling the dice hold on so so when there's a access path there's a walkway across here right

me for

e e

yeah I think that's a good

idea thank you we'll just need to make sure that the path there is designed with the proper width to you know similar to what the bike path is so would allow people on bikes and people to walk on the you know the same thing so going to the bike path and coming from the bike path is the same route I think keeping it consistent might be a good way to you know minimize

the confusion so that's the maybe something we could you know discuss at a future meeting maybe to kind of spe you know focus in a little bit on that um but you know because the nature of the bike path it will likely be uh a fair amount of bike traffic into the into the facility so um anybody else from the

public thank you Mr chairman uh candy steal I just want to reiterate for anyone watching out there as chairman fioli said that these gentlemen from Power Engineering are independent third part experts and I also want to clarify that Mr Bannon Mr coat miss sweet are experts retained by Marshall and are not necessarily independent thirdparty experts thank you thank you um any anybody else

evening H Andre um I just have a question did I asked you before about Josh it says um some of the an exception to the land um a right of way from metacomet to um I'm trying to yes Maran I asked you about that before it's on the D can you explain where that is was months ago oh well and also who owns um who owns the land that the what where you're supposed to be

on well I think it's a state and is there's some private right yeah there's some private there's private owners that have to uh I think accommodate the build out of the rotary after around about who are the private owners well I think it's the medical office right and then uh whoever own a property across the street which I believe is Rh Island water PR Enterprises Mar is Marshall's um linked

with RH Island water fund they have they didn't have any okay all right and if you could give us some background on this issue of question about the reservation of the language in the Beed um and and we looked into it and our response is that um we reviewed the deed into the property and we have title insurance and we have a survey and we are confident that our boundaries are

adequately shown in the deed and are located on the survey for which we have title insurance and and that's all we're concerned about so um so I I thank you for bringing the issue to our attention we revisit our our claim and our rights and and we're confident that we've properly identified the property and that the boundaries um are as as we thought them be and uh uh Josh who did your title work is Chicago Title

Insurance Company provided the policy um and uh and we had a survey done and I think there was a further survey done in connection with the administrative subdivision plan and and we're we're confident that the property has been properly staked um that ownership is is um nonissue and uh and that we're we're properly ensured in case any issues should arise and that's all recorded in

the land evidence records of the city the title policy is not recorded um I believe the plan has been the subdivision plan has been recorded but the property obviously hasn't been conveyed to the city until the development well no I mean just the uh the actual when you when the when the marshals bought the property uh um there's a plan I I don't recall Bill if the survey is recorded but there is an

administrative subdivision plan show that shows the boundaries of the property right that's properly stti in that's on record somewhere right that's on record obviously some somewhere yeah thank you thank you it to the extent that there are any questions about ownership of private property this commission and no public body can determine those questions that's a matter for the Superior Court to decide if any dispute

arises I am just asking because in the deed it says with the acception of this land so I want to know where that land was you don't know seriously what about the um the other thing 1616 the you know anything about that these are the it's the exception to your land right here and you can't yeah I I think Heather I think Amy said that those issues would have to be reviewed

by a court they're right here so if they're in their plan shouldn't we have an explanation on I I think it's outside the prview of the of the commission to determine what the proper boundaries of the property I think that those decisions already been made they are actually Marshalls actually wrote this and said the except yeah I don't know I it's hard for me to I don't know what you're referring to what is what is it

that you have it's the it's the right away from um met a comet to pierce I think and it's it's accepted from the land from the Marshal land I I was just wondering where the dimensions where it is on that map you can even point to it I I think if the state has any issue with what the with the proposed development here Marshall is going to know about it so um Marshall

does know about it they wrote it right here they accepted it it's not it's not included in the Marshal land so why can't so what so Heather it's really hard because we don't know what you're referring to what you have in your possession or if you've discussed it with Josh I don't know what it is so so I think along with the application there was a boundary survey submitted right so we have a boundary survey

unless the commission and even even if the commission were to get a boundary a conflicting boundary survey that calls into question the original survey that the applicant was submitted um I've always consistently advised Municipal clients ownership is not a matter that Municipal boards can determine if an applicant submits you know submits a survey and the neighbor says well part

of the property that you say is mine you say is yours is actually mine that's again that's a matter that only the Superior Court in Rhode Island can determine uh you know who owns what well I would I would maybe you guys uh I don't claim to be an attor would um yes that's that's beyond the of this commission I am I'm I am just saying what they will down is accepted from

their boundaries why don't we have the right to know exactly where that is it's not included in the Marshal plan and you I think the the only I think if the question is what is the boundaries the the answer that Marshall has submitted is the survey no I want to it's not the bound I want to know where this piece of land I have the measurements I mean if I sent the measurements to one of you

would you be able to show me exactly where that was it's hard to say I have no idea I'm not really somebody that's familiar with land boundaries or Sur supposed to be you are you saying that they don't own the land or portion of the land I'm saying that that it looks like they don't it's accepted from their land well I guess if it's a question of ownership that's as a risk that they uh they've

taken whether or not they they have a claim on the land so that's all I'm asking for is I want to know where it is on the map it's a hilarious that you can't you can't tell me all and well that's good okay again I don't have something else sure I was amused that you said you were going to just put a bow on it on the archaological survey because isn't there a phase two

coming yeah no no bow no bow all right okay I don't I don't recognize that I don't understand that reference myself but but the survey is the whole property right it's it's okay

good evening thank you my name is Dan Bodwin I'm a resident of kettle Point Josh I didn't know you were a neighbor be around campus sometime I think Josh isn't a rental unit time you probably don't can you don't get you don't mingle with the conduit oners do you so everyone's talking about qualifications tonight and I certainly have no quals with the noise consultant I mean obviously one of the best in the

field um my qualifications I probably mentioned this before is I a master's in urban planning I was a practicing urban planning for almost 45 years I'm retired now during that time I was a member of the American Institute of certified planners I was actually president of the Road Island chapter for a few years so I have a little bit of background as well that um hopefully U you can take into

consideration on the comments I just want to talk about the noise um comments that came out tonight just a few few uh the whole purpose of this is to give the commission adequate noise so they can make some good judgments as to what effect the traffic will have not only in traffic performance but on the quality of life of the neighborhood and I think you need more information I'm glad to

see that the par study par uh peer review the second one is done now because I think that will add some good information to the whole analysis one of the comments um that came back to my comments was on traffic count and I didn't quite understand it because the traffic counts and the and the noise levels were the same in the December study in the August study and in the

comments that that came back um just the other day that the traffic counts are the same the noise are the same no question the traffic will increase on Fort and lion and there will be some noise that's noticeable so that's something to really think about going forward I think the idea of doing traffic studies as the plan and the progress progresses is good I like to see that and I think you should set some

criteria as to what you're looking for when those plans come in what are the levels of noise level of the criteria for noise levels what are the levels for number of traffic that might be generated particularly on Fort and lion but I think that that's a good idea um there was another comment about um noise projections on truck traffic I mean this is a serious issue this is the first time that yes track trucks should

be allowed on veterans moral Parkway every study says it should be discouraged the stewardship plan for the says the same thing trucks are not shouldn't be permitted and yet here they are trucks coming on there so it's a serious issue and one of the things is how much is it going to generate and yes the supermarket will have the most but there's other big users there there's a 10,000 foot liquor store there's almost

a 15,000 foot drug store that they can build um so there's a lot of and then we'll introduce trucks so how do you prevent other trucks and getting on it's a serious issue that needs to be thought about in terms of introducing trucks to the vets um there's another question about construction vehicles again 10 years could be a lot of construction vehicles and I know the answer has been

we don't know but I you know I know Marshall to be a very sophisticated Builder they know what they're going to build they probably have projections out there as to what it's going to take and I think with a little bit of work Marshall could estimate okay these are going to be the construction vehicles that we expect to visit the site During certain phases or at least some estimate

of it I I think you can obtain that I think that's important information that this commission should have when it enters you know when it really takes um you know a comprehensive look at the effects of this those are basically my uh my comments um in response to the uh consultant um response um basically it's you know how do we protect the neighborhoods now when you look at truck dver think of the neighborhood coming

from Providence you can actually make that movement now right you can go south um on your left you'll see a lot of homes that front right on the Vets a lot of neighbors ever right on the Vets the first time they're going to see a lot of trucks and yes it doesn't meet any criteria for the Contours in the federals and all that stuff but individual in a house is going

to know a difference hey there's a lot of trucks on that vets and what does that mean I don't know that's up for everyone to decide here as to the importance of that to the quality of life of the neighborhood in the area um those are my comments tonight I'll have some future comments on some other studies but that's it tonight thank you okay anybody else in the public okay great uh any questions or

comments from the commission members at this point okay I think we'll have to take a vote to continue the hearing November 21st is the next scheduled uh meeting date for the Waterfront commission have a motion that we continue the hearing to November 21st second all any discussion all those in favor okay motion passes uh hearing will be continued to November 21st so uh the only other item on the agenda is the

staff report Ray

that that's the uh clubhouse and that the the maintenance building you're talking about

yeah e

thank you any questions for Ray um I have a motion to adjourn okay all those in favor thank you Mo motion meeting the Jour thank

you for