Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.., <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />Public Works <br />Engineering <br />Team Central <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />City of Eugene <br />858 Pearl St. 3rd Floor <br />Eugene, Oregon 97401 <br />(541) 682-5291 <br />(541) 682-5032 FAX <br />www.eugene_or.govfPW <br /> <br />Date: March 22, 2007 <br /> <br />To: Heather O'Donnell, PDD <br /> <br />From: Gary McNeel, PWE Team Central <br /> <br />Subject: Santa Clara School Site Redevelopment TPR Analysis <br /> <br />Heather, we have completed our review ofthe subject TPR (Goal 12) analysis performed by Branch <br />Engineering dated Februaty 25, 2007 and offer the following comments for your consideration: <br /> <br />.,. <br /> <br />1. On page 1 of the TPR analysis, the last sentence under the Results section notes that "All studied <br />transportationjacilfties are projected to operate within the mobility standard under all scenarios <br />through the planning horizon year of 20 15. No special mitigation measures are necessary to <br />accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed zone change and plan amendments under the <br />requirement of OAR 660~12-60". PW staff cannot concur with this conclusion, as indicatcd by the <br />concerns in our review Dotes that foHow. <br /> <br />2. On page 5 of the report, under Site Access, the assumption set does not follow the City Scoping Sheet, <br />which noted "Any new access to River Road should be restricted to right-in, right-out movements." Also <br />due to both the length offrontage along Hunsaker Road (which exceeds maximum block length of 600 <br />feet under EC 9.6810), and the street connectivity standards ofEC 9.6815(2), the assumption should <br />consider the possibility of a north/soutb public street through the site between Hunsaker Road and <br />. Green Lane. <br /> <br />3. Figure 7 in the report, illustrating assignment of PM peak hour site generated traffic incorrectly <br />assigns left-in, left-out movements (47 and 40 respecth'ely) to tIle proposed site access on the east <br />side of River Road which would not be permitted with tbe right-in, right-out only movements <br />indicatcd in the Scoping sbeet. Vehicles destined for the left tUfn at River Ro~td and Hunsaker <br />executing a right-out from the site access is also questionable during tbe PM peak, since <br />northbound queues at the signal will mnke the necessary two-lane weave difficult. Those vehides <br />should be added to the westbound through movement on Huns~lker at River Rond. In addition, <br />there are no eastbound volumes shown on Hunsaker or Green Lane (should be 200/0 as shown on <br />Table 3 on page 14), about 80 onbe 392, whicb would account for the summation of movcments in <br />Figure 7 only being 312. The assumption of shopping center (ITE land use 820) as the reasonable <br />worst case development scenario fails to consider many otber higb volume generator's that could be <br />considered under the proposed zone change and plan amendments. Tbe application should <br />consider other high volume uses or mix of uses (such as medical) that could be permitted under the <br />proposed zoning. <br /> <br />4. Due to the changes noted above, the volumes shown in Figure 8 will need to be adjusted. AU <br />projected volumes in 2015 analyses should be rounded to tbe nearest 5. <br /> <br />Page 1 of2 <br />