Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...
Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...
Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 31 – 2<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm<br />
Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> and also in the Executive Summary under 3.13 the Traffic &<br />
Transportation<br />
According to the EIR impact report but, depending on where you read, there will be<br />
an increase <strong>of</strong> 422 or 494 vehicle trips per day TLH. And yet the report did not<br />
evaluate the impact <strong>of</strong> that increase in traffic on all <strong>of</strong> the intersections with TLH.<br />
Cross Creek alone has 1000 trips per day, while Stonefield Lane is fed by 122 units<br />
each with a two car garage—we are talking 200+ vehicles not counting guests and<br />
service vehicles that are using this one intersection. The EIR <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> needs<br />
to evaluate the traffic exposures on all <strong>of</strong> these intersections with TLH, not just the<br />
two mentioned, and with emphasis on all left hand turns including those into the<br />
Lodge and the dental <strong>of</strong>fice on TLH and FGP.<br />
In Appendix P, both the east and west intersections <strong>of</strong> TLH with FGP were studied<br />
and met the requirements for a traffic signal, but no traffic signals were<br />
recommended. In both cases, input from the city’s traffic engineering department<br />
was cited and, in my opinion, both reasons are unacceptable.<br />
But, the Executive Summary Mitigation measure 3.13-1 does state there shall be a<br />
traffic signal at TLH and FGP, but fails to include both intersections. However,<br />
also in the Executive Summary table ES-1 3.13-1 it is stated that the traffic signals<br />
would improve the status <strong>of</strong> these two intersections from unacceptable to<br />
acceptable. Not noted is that there will also be a sudden increase <strong>of</strong> traffic from<br />
construction workers and heavy construction vehicles which will create an<br />
immediate safety hazard at the intersections. We, therefore, not only need<br />
traffic signals at both <strong>of</strong> these intersections, but they are needed at the<br />
beginning <strong>of</strong> construction.<br />
We are, after all, talking about the safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens.<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 3)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM