Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 26 <br /> to the City's standards wou�c�ha,ve been an appropriate mitigation for this impact in the <br /> � MND along with a requirement to red.esign the rvadway for.one entrance onto Fing�r to <br /> reduce imgac�s on the pubiic street. <br /> � Update since the Feb.1�hearing <br /> The applicant's new plans show the roadway mod�fied to now accommodate one-way <br /> � traffic(t�avell.ing from NE to SVV}.A�#-ft wide strip of conc�ete pavers wili also be <br /> placed wi.thiu the road along its outer edge to des�gnate a peciestr�ian right-o.f-way. The <br /> overall width and physica.t dimensions of the roadway are unchanged,however,froxn the <br /> previous design and does not meet City standard for a private road.In its report dated <br /> May 19,2009,5taff now su�ges�s that fu�.di.ngs could be made to support a one-way <br /> stre�t of narrvwer widtb because on1.y one l.ane wou�d be needed far traffic. <br /> Discussion <br /> The conversion of the private roadvvay to one-way traffic presents same issues fvr which <br /> the City has lxttie�xperxence to evaluate.Redwood City has few one-way streefis. VVe <br /> asked the City to provide us with ex,a�nples of simitar one-way raads in residential areas <br /> of Redwood City as well as exampl�s of design sfandards far one-way roads,and they <br /> were unable to do so.Mr.Vo�ametsanti canfumed.tha.t the City�.as nv d�sign standards <br /> for one-vsray st7reets an.d there are no coxnparable one-way streets in our community. It is <br /> clear fram the May I 9 Staf�repart that tb.e City has yet�to research design standards for <br /> one-way s�reets Faund elsevvhere or to critically evaluate putential impa�ts from such a <br /> road and how such a one-way road would w�rk for the project. <br /> Wc see several.potential consequenccs of the pmposed.roadway fox this planned <br /> development that differ from the previous plan,some benef cial,most not: <br /> 1) based on reseaxch we canducted on the web,ane-way streets typically increase <br /> vehicle speeds.Th�'ts may be good for traffic flow,but this impac#wou.ld increase <br /> haza.rds for pedestrians and velucles using the raad.way;�:raffic flow shouid not be <br /> an issue for this development; <br /> 2) for this project,the chosen circulation direction eliminates most of the bland turns <br /> and driveways that we nrsted in our MND response,so this is a pvsitive impact. <br /> 3} however,one-way circulation urill also be inconvenient for most homeowners in <br /> the project.Hames on Iots 1,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 woulc�have to drive extra <br /> distances to either enter or exi.t their driveways to Finger Avenue.As an example, <br /> a driver heading#o lot 7 and approaehing th�development an Finger from t1�e <br /> south wot�ld need tv drive past the lot?home on Finger and loop nearly the entire <br /> d.istance back to park in her dri�eway.This rest�icrivn in circula�ion would <br /> undoubtedly praduce mar.e f:raffic on the private road than the two�way <br /> configura�ion. <br /> 4) �raff c flow on the road befiween homes at 4U and 54 Finger Avenue would <br /> pvtentialiy increase aver the original desigu,because all traffic entering fhe <br /> - development vvilt be forced to use that outlet,even though most homes are <br /> ctustered closer to t.he sauthexn entrance. <br /> �) the above resfirict�on in traffic flow will likety encaurage motarists to"short- <br /> circuxt Yhe loop#o enter Qr exit t�h.eir homes mare quickly,which wauid resuit in <br />