04.08.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!