|
<br />TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment PAGE 2 OF 36
<br />""""><><:'><":"':'><.'.;'.,A~><-v,_...:><...,.v.<.v.."'.?"_".-"...,'.....v..v..,...~'......'.v.v........".".'.~.,...:.,....,,"',",,,,,,,,,,_~,_,,,~,,><,,,o("v,>:""-"""">;~"_T_N''''.A.A.......',,,,''''.'hVNV.."'.-.......'.'.......-'......:.......-..."",,-.~',,><""",,.~,_><x._>c-, ,.><"~~><';K">_.'''';.;''''><;<><~.".v.:<.'-v,,>.><v.'''''Y.'..'v.).._~.........',.>""'.........,...,.."-..........."......................"..-...'.'01'.....'.......'....................,,-......""^^^'..'.<o..
<br />
<br />2. RESPONSE TO COMPLETENESS REVIEW COMMENTS
<br />
<br />Memo dated March 22, 2007 - Gary McNeel, City of Eugene Sr. Transportation Analyst
<br />
<br />i\.fter r~'vie\ving the comrnents presented b:rr the C,it:y of Eugene, I resr~ectfulI-Jr offer tl1e fol1o\ving
<br />
<br />summary of revisions:
<br />
<br />1. The conclusion has been modified to represent the results of the revised analysis.
<br />2. The analysis has been revised to assume only right-inl1ight-out movements at the River Road
<br />access. Also, a nOlih/south shopping street connecting Hunsaker Road. and Green Lane has been
<br />incorporated into the study assumptions.
<br />3. The analysis has been revised to assume only right-inlright-out movements at the River Road
<br />access. Additionally, the eastbound movements from the north and south site accesses have been
<br />shown in the assiglUllent of site generated tratnc. All allo\vable uses in the proposed C-2 Zone
<br />were reconsidered, and the respective published tlip generation rates \vere compared to assume
<br />the reasonable worst case development scenario. Although a medical dental office generates
<br />slightly more trips than a shopping center when view'ed as a stand-alone use, \vhen reviewing the
<br />typical uses that were surveyed in referenced sources used in the tlip generation manual, it was
<br />found that the shopping center uses typically include higher tratnc generators such as dlo1've-in
<br />banks, retail stores, and restaurants. Small office buildings \vere also sited as peripheral
<br />buildings observed in some of the surveyed shopping centers. Some other high trip generating
<br />allowable uses included grocery and convenience stores, which are already represented in this
<br />area, and would not be expected to develop on this propeliy. It is our opinion that the shopping
<br />center represents a reasonable worst case development scenario. 111e maximum potential floor
<br />areas \Vere determined by the project planners and architects. It includes parking areas. building
<br />setbacks, and other pertinent design elements. Previously, 100,000 square feet of gross leasable
<br />floor area was assumed. As the site design has evolved and land use codes ha\'e been applied, the
<br />buiiding areas have decreased. The resulting shopping center gross leasable Hoor area is 90,000
<br />square feet.
<br />
<br />4. Projected tratlic volumes in the year 2022 scenarios ha\'e been rounded to the nearest 5.
<br />5. Intersection perfol111ance has been reevaluated using 11CM2000 methodology, and LOS has been
<br />used for CIty faei lities.
<br />6. The conclusion has been updated, based on the recommended mitigation measures,
<br />
<br />A copy ofMr. J\tfcNeel's comments is included in Appendix 'A'.
<br />
<br />-(@JJ_~_(~~~_.._....}~_l~lg i.n e ~rillg, LIt t
<br />
<br />August 28, 2007
<br />
|