Laserfiche WebLink
included in the DER. <br />Section 4.11.6 Environmental Impacts <br />1) The analysis in the DER does not cover the cumulative impacts of residents of <br />projects <br />6,7,8,22,25 on Table 4.1, as well as the proposed project, using the Park Santiago <br />neighborhood as a bypass for 1-5 and/or Main Street. This is a real concern. The City <br />has <br />previously had to mitigate "through traffic" in the Park Santiago neighborhood by closing <br />Santiago Street at the park, adding speed bumps to Santiago Street, and closing the <br />intersection of Lincoln and Fairhaven. The potential impact from increased trips using <br />the <br />residential neighborhood in lieu of 1-5and Main Street has not been evaluated. This <br />would <br />especially relate to Option C, with access from Edgewood in Park Santiago. <br />Submitting DER Comments Page 7 <br />2) Freeway Segments. Table 4.115 shows the existing Level of Service (LOS) for all the <br />freeway <br />segments in the study area as unsatisfactory, and several are also shown as <br />unmitigatible. <br />The statement that the increase in freeway traffic due to the cumulative impact <br />densification at the 1-5/Main and SR 22/Main/Town & Country is insignificant because it <br />is <br />already unsatisfactory defies logic. It is analogous to rubbing salt in an open wound. <br />3) Table 4.11-16 Summary of Cumulative Project Trips refers to Figure 4.1 to locate the <br />cumulative projects. Figure 4.1 omits several projects shown in Table 4.11-16, and the <br />project numbering is different between the Figure 4.1 and Table 4.11-16. A revised <br />DER <br />should be issued with a figure that locates all of the projects in table 4.11-16, and uses <br />consistent project numbering throughout the DEIR. <br />4) The Opening Year (2040) Project Plus and Cumulative Projects (2040) sections lack <br />a <br />discussion of impacts to the surrounding residential streets and intersections in table <br />4.11-3 <br />and 4-11-4. These impacts have the potential to be significant. The DER should be <br />issued <br />with these impacts included. <br />5) The Opening Year (2040) Project Plus and Cumulative Projects (2040) sections <br />identify <br />intersections and freeway segments in the study area as unsatisfactory by 2020/2040, <br />and <br />state that the increase in freeway traffic due to the cumulative impact densification at <br />the I- <br />5/Main and SR 22/Mainfrown & Country is insignificant because it is already <br />unsatisfactory. <br />Again, this is not a logical statement, and is analogous to adding vinegar to the <br />previously <br />