CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)

Home Browse Search

especially relate to Option C, with access from Edgewood in Park Santiago. Submitting DEIR Comments Page 7 2) Freeway Segments. Table 4.115 shows the existing Level of Service (LOS) for all the freeway segments in the study area as unsatisfactory, and several are also shown as unmitigatible. The statement that the increase in freeway traffic due to the cumulative impact densification at the 1-5/Main and SR 22/Main/Town & Country is insignificant because it is already unsatisfactory defies logic. It is analogous to rubbing salt in an open wound. 3) Table 4.11-16 Summary of Cumulative Project Trips refers to Figure 4.1 to locate the cumulative projects. Figure 4.1 omits several projects shown in Table 4.11-16, and the project numbering is different between the Figure 4.1 and Table 4.11-16. A revised DEIR should be issued with a figure that locates all of the projects in table 4.11-16, and uses consistent project numbering throughout the DEIR. 4) The Opening Year (2040) Project Plus and Cumulative Projects (2040) sections lack a discussion of impacts to the surrounding residential streets and intersections in table 4.11-3 and 4-11-4. These impacts have the potential to be significant. The DEIR should be issued with these impacts included. 5) The Opening Year (2040) Project Plus and Cumulative Projects (2040) sections identify intersections and freeway segments in the study area as unsatisfactory by 2020/2040, and state that the increase in freeway traffic due to the cumulative impact densification at the I- 5/Main and SR 22/Main/Town & Country is insignificant because it is already unsatisfactory. Again, this is not a logical statement, and is analogous to adding vinegar to the previously salted open wound. 6) Text on page 4.11-23 ends abruptly one-third of the way through the page, during a discussion about freeway ramp queuing, after stating that all the Options (A,B,&C) result in unsatisfactory queues but not significant only because there is not a standard for significance. The next sentence starts, "However, Option", stops there, and leaves the bottom two thirds blank. A very diligent reader finds that the text picks up with "C seven pages later on 4.11-30, where it states something important- Option C would have the most significant impact on freeway queues. This is a key finding about Option C, which is lost to all but the most diligent reader due to the formatting. The DEIR should be re -issued with the formatting corrected so that readers have the opportunity to understand and comment on the impact of Option C. Section 4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts concludes that the cumulative impacts are not significant, but omits that the basis for that conclusion is that the level of service without the projects is already unsatisfactory in 2020 and 2040. This is an illogical conclusion. Bad traffic can most certainly be made worse. Professional Planners and elected officials have a responsibility to make our cities better, not to continue to approve development knowing it will make quality of life worse for the current residents. The DEIR should be reissued with cumulative impacts compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions clearly addressed. Submitting DEIR Comments Page 8 4.9.8. (Should be 4.11.8) Regulations. Adopted goals for intersection and roadway level of service provide the framework for approving or disallowing new development to reduce potential impacts. Allowing unsatisfactory level of service to get even worse with no mitigation is in conflict with the adopted goals for level of service. 4.9.9 (Should be 4.11.9) Mitigation. This mis-numbered section says in one line that traffic impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. The discussion through -out Section 4.11 says that level of service on the surrounding freeways will be unacceptable in 2020 and 2040. Concluding that no mitigation is required is not logical. Bad traffic can most certainly be made worse by bad planning. Professional Planners and elected officials have a responsibility to make our cities better, not to continue to approve unmitigated development knowing it will make quality of life worse for the current residents. The DEIR should be reissued with mitigations to the cumulative impacts compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions clearly stated. 2