AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt

Browse Search

7A Page 27 cars driving the wrong way on the road and potentially increasing traffic hazards significan#ly. Such infractions would likely be dii�'icult to enforce. - d) some guests entering the deveiopment to visit residents may be forced to loop back on�o Finger Avenue because af the�ack of parking b�yand the entryway ta the de��lopment.For exaimple,a guest wanting to visit a friend living on Iot 9 ,�„_ may drive through tlie development hoping to park in the guest space n�xt tv the lot 9 home.If that space�s taken,he will be forced to either drive back along Fi.�ger to find space near the entra�ee area and th�n walk ac�ross the development to lot 9 ar simply park on Finger,which would be eloser than using�he project's guest parking.This effect would likely increase both traffic and p�rking impacts on Finger,especial�y with the newly proposed reduction in guest parlang on the property. All told,the e#�ects of one-way traffc flow appear t�do Iittle to improve cixculation and safety within the development given the current road c.onfiguratior�.Most impox�tantly, though,fihe issues that we braught forward in our MND response and that#he City also identified in their Feb. 10 sta.ff report are no�t impraved at all by making the road one- way.Neither staff nor us considered the original raad design to be too nar�row because of two-way�raf�'ic,specificall.y.instead,the raad width r�quirements are mostiy considered necessary to pmvide for adequate backup roam for vehicles, maneuverability for targe vehi.cles to ent�r and e�t the driveways,an.d mainYenanee access.The new roadway still. has no curb to keep vehicles off of the lots,and ta protect pedestrian walkways.Impacts of the road design vn Finger are not a�dresse�at all with�us design,nor are the impacts resuli7ng from reduced street franta,ges. In cvnclusian,we have determined that tb.e propased roadway moclifica�ions do not address our concerns about roadway saf�ty. Some cvnditiags are impraved,but we believe that on batance a one-way road may acivally inez�ease hazards an.d compiicate traffic flow as compazed to t�ie original design.The City�as clearly nat evaluated the potential impacts of#his design carefu�.y and thus there is insuffcient informa.tion to determine that there are no sign�ficant impa�cts from the new design.We wrge the Commission to require as an apnropriate mitigation that the project include a City- standard private rvadway,preferably with an included parking strip and sic��walks along all home frontag�s(to match Finger A.ve.'s streetscape),and to requ�re that all raaciway frontages be set back to conform wx�kh R-2 District standaxds.Tv mia�imiz�potenrial impacts oza the public street,th.e roadway sbou�d be redesigned so that there is oniy one intersec�ion onto Finger.If th�e applicant is unwilling t�o consider these mitigations,an EIR should be requi.red to properly evaluate the unpacts and analyze alternative roadway designs.