Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Comments <br />CEMEX Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement <br />November 30, 2009 <br />The lower FAR suggested in the FSA letter would generate approximately 1,119 trips during the <br />PM Peak hour as an industrial park, a net reduction of 515 trips in the future industrial volumes <br />compared to the values used in the analysis. This would reflect a significant reduction in the <br />future baseline condition, which would very possibly result in the rezone traffic impacts <br />appearing greater than those shown in the reports. <br />Trip Generation <br />Information <br />LU 110 <br />LU 120 <br />LU 130 <br />Li ht I stry <br />Heavy Industry <br />Industrial Park <br />FAR <br />0.365 <br />FAR <br />0.25 <br />FAR <br />0.365 <br />FAR <br />0.25 <br />FAR <br />0.365 <br />FAR <br />0.25 <br />PM <br />Rate <br />0.98 <br />0.19 <br />0.86 <br />Tris <br />1,862 <br />1 1,275 <br />361 <br />1 325 <br />1,634 <br />1 1,119 <br />ADT <br />Rate <br />6.97 <br />1.50 <br />6.96 <br />Tris <br />13,243 9,071 <br />2850 <br />1 1,952 <br />13,244T9,058 <br />le) Again, this analysis needs to look at the worst-case build -out for the site under existing and <br />future zoning. If driven the by market forces full build -out of the site could occur prior to the <br />horizon year, so it is appropriate to analyze this impact. Lower rate development in the past does <br />not guarantee continued low -rate development into the future. <br />If) Once again, it is possible that the development would occur in such a way that all trips <br />would be loaded during the PM peak of the adjacent street. All of the analysis for this report <br />used the "PM Peak of Adjacent Street" rates, which accounts for a "typical" level of off-peak <br />shift changes for the land uses in question. Unless there are existing provisions which require <br />off-peak shift changes there is no justification for assuming that new uses in this area will not <br />tend to match the current patterns. <br />2) The growth rate of 2% was used for the general background growth rate to be consistent with <br />recent direction on other traffic impact analysis within the City of Everett. If anything, this <br />growth rate is conservative as most arterials in the area show less than a 2% annual growth rate <br />based on a July 2009 update to our traffic volume maps. The application of this growth rate to <br />"turning movements" includes through vehicles in addition to left and right turning vehicles. A <br />"turning movement count" is distinguished from a "segment count" in that it records the specific <br />direction of travel of each vehicle through an intersection and is the standard for traffic analysis <br />in the industry. <br />3a) The detailed design of roundabouts is not appropriate at this level of analysis. Just as with <br />traffic signals, a preliminary design (such as was submitted for this project) is sufficient for <br />planning -level analysis of this sort. Roundabouts, when properly designed, are fully capable of <br />safely handling heavy truck traffic as well as smaller, passenger vehicle traffic. <br />Chapter 2 — Traffic Comments <br />13 <br />