it's it's you know there's unsafe because there's parking on either side of the street i mean we're
describing the vast majority of the city that there's parking on two sides you know on two
sides of a of an egress um does it doesn't limit visibility uh significantly no not not in any not
any more than any other street on the block and i would say that that is a safe uh place to uh for
ingress and egress although i do believe by right they could expand it to 25 feet uh as mr uh
martinez said yeah right so uh so they have one room to work with um the last thing i wanted to
ask you was about mr montanis's um testimony uh as you know the streets department approved those
the additional curb cuts and the 15 parking spaces um and he claimed in his testimony that they
that they reviewed all of the appropriate uh policies and regulations including vision zero
and and uh and complete streets uh what is your what is your opinion uh as to as to whether that's
actually true uh i feel like they there's nothing documents exactly what they looked like what they
looked at, I would say that it is a, their review would be kind of like how we used to see it a few
years ago while we were still trying to convince people to adopt a Vision Zero standard. It's just
vision zero standard it's just lower standards you know like i said the the obstruction
lower standards, you know, like I said, the abstract.
of the telephone pole the width of the sidewalk and of course all the more importantly all the
curb cuts along that street it's just you know maybe in terms of from narrow engineering
perspectives it meets their criteria for vehicular safety but in terms of vision zero
standards, I feel it falls far short. I mean, as far as you know, Mr. Cromey, is there a way
for the streets department to have evaluated Vision Zero and complete streets without doing
what you and your colleague did, walking that road, looking at pedestrian and traffic counts
and evaluating the full context of what's happening on that street? Neighborhood context
is essential, and looking at the block is essential to understanding whether a particular
development or intervention is going to increase or reduce safety.
And as far as you can tell in your experience with the streets department, not just in this
case, but it appears that you have experience with the streets department on other projects.
Is that true?
I do. And I generally I find the streets department has very, very good high standards and does take into account vision zero safety considerations, but it seems like they fell a little short on this one.
so your your opinion if you wanted to state your opinion to the to the board as to
uh whether how valid or or how or how well um done the streets department review was i think
that would be helpful to the board they could know what it is you feel was was done correctly
and if you have anything that was not done correctly i would say i'm just going to restate
my objection for the record as to um mr cromey testifying as to what streets department did
correctly or incorrectly um it's just for the record i understand the board's position that
they're hearing mr cromey's testimony we're going to list but we will evaluate what he says okay
i would say that the this particular uh evaluation on this site does not take into account
the neighborhood context where this is an effectively a shared street with a lot of
pedestrian users. And so the result of their decision, which increases the number of curb
cuts significantly, is an unsafe recommendation for an unsafe practice. Okay. Finally, I wanted to
look at the interior of the property for a moment.
And so there is a part of your report where you address whether there is space in the interior of the property to place these 15 parking spaces if they're not going to be where it's indicated here, where it's proposed along Castoria Street.
So we're we're in and this is this is what, like a two acre parcel, right?
Yeah. So where do you see sufficient area to add 15 parking spaces into this property?
Well, you know, we all appreciate landscaped areas for their inherent value, but I would say in this instance, you know, there's a large area, the landscape area to the left and north of the Maxwell Mansion, and a little bit closer to the Tulpa Hawkins Street entrance.
is space that can be used with minimum impact
and use that in a way to create a significant buffer
for the historic mansion.
Still have plenty of space left over
and not have the Pastoria Street neighbors
bear the brunt of that parking placement decision.
So your suggestion is that the area
where my cursor is now,
which is close to top of hawkins street um to the uh basically a way from uh towards wayne
avenue um from the from the maximal mansion um this area is looks looks promising to you
yeah they're in the area directly above that i'm saying north but i know it's not north on this
man okay and did you when you evaluated that um did you did you make any kind of
make any kind of evaluation that this area would be actually big enough to accommodate 15 parking
evaluation that this area would be actually big enough to
spaces? Yeah, I think you could see this with the naked eye, but I, in this instance, used a Google
Earth calculate 14,000 square feet that still left a 20-foot buffer to the mansion, which I know was
a priority for the site developers, to be considerate to those neighbors.
okay um i have no further questions at this point mr phillips thank you uh good morning
mr cromey good morning uh are you a uh professional engineer i am not okay uh are you a traffic
operations engineer i am not are you a member of the institute of transportation engineers
no i'm not okay have you ever been recognized as a traffic engineering expert
uh traffic engineer and expert no not both okay and isn't it accurate that ch planning does not
provide traffic uh engineering uh reports we have done in the past and we may in the future but uh
It's not a common part of our practice currently.
And wouldn't it be fair to say that it would be most appropriate for traffic engineers to provide traffic engineering reports?
I'm going to object to that. That's both calls for speculation and it's also argumentative.
I'm going to allow that testimony and that question, please.
Sure. I would not agree with that statement. I think that you cannot have an accurate safety analysis without consideration of the neighborhood context, discussion with the local neighbors, and other larger zoning and land use considerations that planners provide and that engineers, traffic engineers, have no expertise in.
That was not my question.
My question was, as it relates to traffic safety and traffic plans, wouldn't it be more
appropriate for traffic engineers to provide that sort of a report?
Traffic engineers should be involved on a traffic study that looks exclusively at traffic
issues without any broader context.
Sure, that would be a small piece of the discussion that would be of some value.
okay and and that traffic engineers also uh are concerned with traffic safety isn't that correct
yes okay increasingly less so uh in previous generations but they're getting better at it
um and you walked this property that was your testimony right yes okay i'm just going to share
my screen briefly okay mr chromey can you see my screen it's not it's up now yeah i see it now
okay uh and do you recognize uh the area i am you know for the record we'll note that this is a 2020
view but generally familiar with the area that it's depicted yes okay and is this the area we've
been talking about with west pastoria street and west topahokken street yes okay and you are uh
aware that there are a number of curb cuts uh along pastoria street unrelated to 224 topahokken
right correct wallingford apartment has a curb cut and there are further curb cuts as you
um you know head uh you know head west on pastories isn't that right correct okay
just kind of flip to 2022 and actually and you also see how uh previously the
curb cut along pastoria uh kind of curved around the wing of the building right yes okay
would you agree that uh the photo i just showed or what is on your screen now from 2022 is an
accurate depiction of how the property looks now yes okay um along where my cursor is isn't it
Is it true and correct that sidewalks were installed along 224 West Pastorious's frontage?
Yes. And that sidewalk does not continue as you head down the street, though, correct?
And that sidewalk did not...
It's true.
And those are some of the photos you showed where there is no sidewalk along along the street, right?
Correct.
Okay. Also, do you see how the curb cut no longer curves and provides straight means of ingress and egress, correct?
I do. Correct.
Do you see any landscape buffer on this plan?
um it's top down so it's not easy to see but it looks like it's not the landscape buffer in
question separating the parking area does not appear to have been installed yet okay and you
said that you did review the transcripts from prior hearings correct yes and do you recall
mr bielby saying that no landscape buffer had been installed yes i'm aware i'm aware of that yes
okay uh going back to your uh report i just want to go through a few a few specific comments you
made uh you had spoken uh to the installation of the speed cushions uh september 2023 correct
yes and uh you would agree that speed cushion uh can make a street safer right
uh they contribute they're they're part of the part of the puzzle yeah okay and you said that
it indicates uh department of streets is aware of excessive driving speeds on pastoria street
isn't that correct that's what you said i i said that that the um the speed cushions are indications
of that yeah did you speak to anyone from streets department about the speed cushions i did not
uh so then you're actually not aware of uh how or why the speed cushion were installed
uh no i i'm not aware of any other reason than to reduce speed okay i know you're aware that
uh the owner of topahawken uh supported and encouraged the installation of speed bumps
along west pastoria i was gonna object that it's asked and answered he doesn't have any personal
knowledge and so there's no point to ask him for things that he doesn't know well he can tell me
mr phillips i believe he said before that he doesn't he's not aware of it
and i'm also questioning that that's that that mr phillips you're introducing evidence that's
not in the record, and therefore there's no foundation for your statement, which is an
assertion that your client has done something salutary, which I'm sure he does salutary
things in his life, but it's not proper to enter into evidence something that has no
foundation.
Well, the foundation is based on the record of Mr. BLB's testimony regarding the speed
bumps and Mr. Horner's testimony regarding the speed bumps.
And Mr. Cromey said that he reviewed the prior transcripts, so therefore the question is
related to Mr. B.O.B.'s testimony.
Okay, so why don't we move forward, Mr. B.O.B.
You also noted in your report that you said that due to the narrowness of the street,
an individual with a mobility device or pushing a stroller cannot walk down the street safely
and comfortably with excessive or speeding traffic.
Isn't that correct?
Correct.
Is it customary to assume within reports that individuals are breaking the law?
Is it customary to assume? Well, I have to say with respect to speeding and speed cushions, the purpose of a speed cushion is often to reduce the speed of a vehicle to the speed limit.
So it is the assumption that there is speeding there.
And at the point of the speed cushion, they are coming down to the speed limit and then
likely speeding up, which is why we need three of them here.
But my question wasn't related to the speed cushions.
You had stated in your report that due to the narrowness of the street, an individual
with a mobility device or pushing a stroller cannot walk down the street safely and comfortably
with excessive or speeding traffic.
Correct.
I stand by that.
So without excessive or speeding traffic, can individuals with mobility devices or pushing a stroller walk down the street safely and comfortably?
Actually, no, not comfortably because they're still on the street and it's still subpar and below the standards that we look for.
it's still subpar and below the standards uh that we look for uh when we want somebody to have a
you know uh sidewalk accommodations okay but mr bb did install sidewalks
he did not quite five sidewalks but sidewalks
you aware of any graphic uh fatalities along west pastory street in the past 15 years i'm not
Are you aware of any traffic accidents on West Pastoria Street in the past 15 years?
And with respect to the 15 parking spaces, which is specifically why we're here,
we're seeking approval of these 15 parking spaces.
uh did you uh review in mr horner's uh report where he recommended uh that individual back in
to the parking spaces i did see that you think that would be a uh a prudent idea
i don't think it's sufficient to make up for the uh the curb cuts uh is it prudent for people to
back into their spaces? Yes. Is it easily enforced? Not so much. And you're aware that
motor vehicles are required over the past several years to be equipped with rear view cameras?
Yes. Okay. And so isn't it fair to say that a prudent, average, ordinary driver who is getting
into their vehicle would check their surroundings before backing out or pulling out of a spot yes
okay um and if individuals uh uh actually let me strike that you reviewed
and walked around uh the neighborhood correct correct okay uh and and did you observe uh
uh the availability of on-street parking uh i i did not focus on that no
wouldn't you agree there is on-street parking along tulba hawkins street yes
it is but did you uh review and uh to ascertain whether there's adequate on-street parking or
inadequate on-street parking to support the demands of the neighborhood i did not
And you would agree that it is of a public benefit that individuals have places to park their vehicle?
um not without qualifications i think uh i think we have uh we encourage too much
parking in the city quite frankly but um uh i i take i take what you're saying in the context
that it is a benefit to the property owner and to the tenants to have parking spaces on site
Okay. And I know that your report had focused on school children or disabled individuals. If there were disabled individuals who reside at 224 West Topahawken, wouldn't it be advantageous and beneficial for them to have parking closer to their home and their apartment?
I'm going to object that that calls for speculation and evidence that there's no foundation. In fact, there are no units that are certified as ADA compliant, and there is no testimony in the record to say that there is any disabled people who currently live at the property, so it just calls for speculation.
Mr. Masters, I'm going to allow the question if Mr. Cromey can answer.
Could you repeat the question, please?
Would you agree that it would be advantageous for any disabled individuals living or residing in 224 West Top of Hawkins to have parking closer to their apartment as opposed to farther away?
It would be advantageous for that individual, assuming that, you know, they had other accommodations as well.
Okay, just review, see if I have anything further.
I believe my remaining questions can be directed towards, can I just ask, just as a matter
of process, it will be Ms. Fincham-Sheehan who's testifying next, Steve?
I believe my remaining questions can be addressed by Ms. Fincham-Sheehan.
I have no further questions for Mr. Cromie.
Okay, sure. Just one really brief one. So, Ben, you testified that in Cross that there are sidewalks that were installed by the property owner at this location. Can you share with the board how big, how wide those sidewalks are and whether they actually comply with the minimum size that the city requires for sidewalks?
Well, the Complete Streets recommendation is five feet, and it is short of five feet, although I can't tell you a precise measurement. The one image that we looked at earlier before shows the service pole, the telephone pole in the middle of the sidewalk, which is a complete obstacle.
And that's on Mr. Ability's property, that pole exists?
Correct.
So, is your testimony that, do these sidewalks comply with the Complete Streets ordinance, as far as you can tell?
As far as I can tell, they do not.
All right, I'd like to call my next witness, Nicole.
So, Steve, not to put any pressure on you, I'm going to mention that I think in Hillary's communication with both of you, we talked about, I guess, 90 minutes.
Yes, I think, listen to me, and I think we've decided to stretch it to two hours.