Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho Gerut, Mary/BAO From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:40 AM To: Gerut, Mary/BAO Subject: FW: The Lodge at Fountaingrove EIR Attachments: EIR Report-Traffic Comments.doc EIR Report-Traffic Comments.do... -----Original Message----- From: Dewey Nelson [mailto:deweynelson@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:28 PM To: Galbraith, Joel Subject: The Lodge at Fountaingrove EIR Dear Joel, Attached are my comments and recommedations aimed at Appendix P of the EIR for The Lodge at Fountaingrove. Sincerely, Dewey Nelson 2003 Stonefield Lane Santa Rosa, CA 95403-0952 707-544-6327 ____________________________________________________________ Great pay, great benefits, rewarding. Click for information on a healthcare career. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oH0aJVCMmHA6OuURfAIBT sUrQn0aglyNwD1yGONxqa4sfyV/ 1
ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho NELSON JULY 17 – 1 NELSON JULY 17 – 2 NELSON JULY 17 – 3 NELSON JULY 17 – 4 Dated October 18, 2007 Prepared by Dewey Nelson DeweyNelson@Juno.Com Observations on EIR content: Fountaingrove Lodge Draft EIR Appendix P Traffic Impact Report 1) The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as indicated in EIR Volume II, Appendix P, Traffic Impact Report, Table 8) and to assess the impact on the intersections with Thomas Lake Harris Drive (TLH) and its numerous intersections with cross streets and side streets. The analysis needs to consider crosswalks, stop signs, speed bumps, etc. as opposed to just traffic signals. And decide if the 494 trips per day in EIR Volume II, Appendix D, Table D-1 is accurate. 2) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic Impact Report, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. States: “TLH Drive (East)/Fountaingrove Parkway – Unacceptable Level of Service & Signal Warrant: Drivers using the unsignalized TLH Drive (East)/Fountaingrove Parkway intersection have the option of using Fir Ridge Drive to access a signalized intersection with Fountaingrove Parkway. Based upon input from City traffic engineering staff, it is not the City’s desire that the TLH Drive (East)/Fountaingrove Parkway intersection be considered for signalization due to the ease of access to the Fir Ridge Drive intersection with Fountaingrove Parkway.” Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant by stating drivers have the option to drive through a long out-of-the-way loop in a residential area is ludicrous and totally unacceptable. We are, after all, concerned about the safety of our citizens. In addition, Volume I Executive Summary Table ES-1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change the impact from “Significant” to Less than Significant”. 3) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic Impact Report, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. States: “TLH Drive (West)/Fountaingrove Parkway – Unacceptable Level of Service & Signal Warrant: Although AM peak hour volumes at the TLH Drive (West)/Fountaingrove Parkway would be approaching signal warrant criteria, the number of vehicles experiencing LOS F delay for left turns from TLH Drive (West) will be small. In addition, the intersections along Fountaingrove Parkway immediately east and west of TLH Drive (West), at Altruria Drive and Round Barn Boulevard, are now both signalized and provide some gaps in traffic flow along Fountaingrove Parkway. For this reason, City traffic engineering staff have indicated their desire not to signalize this intersection. Should the City wish to provide an improvement measure, consideration could be given to providing a median refuge area along Fountaingrove Parkway just east of the intersection to facilitate left turns from TLH Drive (West). Resultant operation of left turn movements from TLH Drive (West) to Fountaingrove Parkway would be an acceptable LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours.” Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant because there are nearby traffic lights makes little sense and is totally unacceptable. Again, we are concerned about the safety of our citizens. In addition, Volume I Executive Summary Table ES-1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change the impact from “Significant” to Less than Significant”. 4) The EIR traffic engineer needs to make his own conclusions rather than rely on the city traffic engineer’s “opinions” while ignoring his own data. See EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic Impact Report, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. and A.3
Page 1:
Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care
Page 4 and 5:
CONTENTS Response to Comment Letter
Page 6 and 7:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS HFC hydr
Page 8 and 9:
1.0 INTRODUCTION were accepted. A p
Page 11 and 12:
2.0 List of Commenters and Response
Page 13 and 14:
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23:
Page 27 and 28:
ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Response to Comment Letter from Ed
Page 47 and 48:
Response to Comment Letter from Ann
Page 49 and 50:
Response to Comment Letter from All
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 63 and 64: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 71 and 72: 28) Comment noted. 2.0 LIST OF COMM
Page 73 and 74: Response to Comment Letter from Tho
Page 79 and 80: Response to Comment Letter from Jim
Page 85 and 86: Response to Comment Letter from Jos
Page 91 and 92: Response to Comment Letter from Edw
Page 103 and 104: Response to Comment Letter from Car
Page 105: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 143 and 144: Response to Comment Letter from Lar
Page 145 and 146: Response to Comment Letter from Lyn
Page 147 and 148: Response to Comment Letter from Ala
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
Page 189:
Executive Summary Project The Aegis
Page 193:
Mendocino £¤ 101 0 ± 5 10 Miles
Page 197:
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Swimmin
Page 200 and 201:
TABLE 3.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Sta
Page 202 and 203:
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Bec
Page 217:
3.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Spr
Page 221 and 222:
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235:
5.0 References California Board of
show all

Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?