Referral Comments (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

of East 31st is also in close proximity to the major intersection of Hilyard at 30th. This places the intersection of 31 st and Hilyard within the intersection influence area for the north bound approach. These factors, including the limitation in street width and available right-of-way severely limit the mitigation options. The applicant proposes channelizing the east bound approach to mitigate impacts. This was the obvious and practical mitigation available given the constraints of a developed intersection. Signalization or additional traffic controls at the intersection are infeasible due to the proximity of the traffic signal at 30th and Hilyard. It is poor practice to install traffic signals in close proximity to one another and would severely degrade traffic operations. Even if a traffic signal was possible, a mitigation of this expense would also not be proportional to the impact imposed by the proposed development (especially considering the development does not generate trips heading east bound on East 31st Avenue towards Hilyard Street). Another option for mitigation is to restrict turning movements (i.e. right-in, right-out for vehicles approach Hilyard Street). However, this is also not a preferred option because East 31 st is the only local street connection to Hilyard in the vicinity and serves a significant portion of the neighborhood to the west. Public Works staff also assume that restricting movements at this intersection would not be supported by neighbors living on East 31st Avenue. Further, it is not common practice to restrict turns from an adjacent neighborhood as a mitigation for a development that does not directly access from the same location. In summary, there is no practical mitigation to increase level of service that could be implemented at the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 31 st Avenue beyond the proposed channelization. Channelization of the east bound intersection approach is the most appropriate level of mitigation available, and will keep post-development traffic level of service at the same level that would have occurred without development. An active pedestrian crossing is also warranted - Dolan findings to be determined by the City Attorney's office. Based upon the discussion above and required mitigation, this criterion has been met. EC 9.8680(2): Public improvements shall he designed and constructed to the standards specified in EC 9.6505 Improvements -Specifications. The requirement of improvements based on a traffic impact analysis does not negate the ability of the city traffic engineer to require improvements by other means specified in this code or rules or regulations adopted thereunder. The proposed mitigation at 31st and the active pedestrian crossing are within public roadways. The required mitigations shall be designed and constructed according to EC 9.6505 Improvements - Specifications. This will be designed and approved through the City of Eugene PEPI process. The City of Eugene Traffic Engineer will not require any 6