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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho NELSON JULY 22 – 1 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.” Not 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 Dated October 18, 2007 Fountaingrove Lodge Draft EIR Appendix P Traffic Impact Report Continued The Planning Commission needs to have the Crane Transportation Group revise their EIR to include: FRMA Positions 1) EIR Volume I, Executive Summary, Potential Impacts and Mitigations, Table ES-1, 3.13 Transportation and Traffic resolves Impact 3.13-1 with traffic signals for the intersections of east and west Thomas Lake Harris Drive (TLH) with Fountaingrove Parkway and needs to be adopted. However, there is no time frame for installation and the project needs to install those traffic signals as a first step in the construction process. In my view the increased traffic from construction trucks and construction workers will increase traffic to the levels projected when the development is complete. 2) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with Stonefield Lane. The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as shown in Volume II, Appendix P Traffic Impact Report, Table 8) and assess the impact on the intersection of TLH with Stonefield Lane. There are 122 residents living on Stonefield Lane with a greater number of owner vehicles--each home has a two car garage. Those residents, along with their guests, service vehicles, etc. create a great deal of traffic, not to mention the pedestrian traffic as the spa, tennis court, and pool are on opposite sides of TLH Drive. When making left hand turns or crossing TLH Drive, the sight distance is limited in both directions. To the north TLH curves downhill while to the south TLH is curved and with a steep downhill, both limiting the visibility of oncoming vehicles. 3) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with Cross Creek Road. The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as shown in Volume II, Appendix P Traffic Impact Report, table 8) and assess the impact on the intersection of TLH with Cross Creek Road. In addition, the latest study indicates there are 1000 round trips per day on Cross Creek which means there are 500 vehicles that need to enter TLH each day without the benefit of any mitigating action. 4) The project needs a total TLH traffic study including residents, guests, and service vehicles with their impacts on all intersections. Stonefield and Cross Creek are just the most obvious intersections needing mitigation for the 422 trips increase projection as indicated in EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic Impact Report, Table 8. ____________________________________________________________ Looking for insurance? Click to compare and save big. 8/8/2008 Page 2 of 2
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 22, 2008) Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin of the letter. 1) Comments noted. The City could identify only one difference between the comments presented in this July 22 letter from the previous letters, a change in the phrase “Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant…” to “Not resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant.…” This change does not require a modification in responses; please refer to the Responses to Comments Nelson July 19 – 1 through 9. ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-109
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:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 69 and 70: 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 117: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
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 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?