SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Conditions. It states " It can be seen from table 0- 4-2 that the cumulative traffic would degrade the existing a. m. peak: hour levels of service at the intersections of State Route 88 with Collier Road and Mack:ville Road from LOS A to LOS P. In addition, the existing p. m. 4 Peak hour LOS at the intersection of State Route 88 and Mack:vi. 11e Road would degrade to an unacceptable LOS D under this condition. (LOS means Level Of Service) Please turn to page 66 and read under =. 4. 3 Mitigation Measures. "No mitigation measures are recommended. The intersection of Mack:ville Road and State Route 88 was identified as deter i.oti nq to LOS I? in year 10 of project operation with cumulative traffic. As the Lock:ford . Planning Area developer, this intersection should be monitored to identify when the traffic volumes increase to the level that would warrant <_a traffic signal . Is this report really tellinq us that only the Lock:ford area development will determine the condition of this intersection? If this is not true then why should we wait untill the Lock:ford area develones. I guess I _fust don' t understand this report . The EER report suggests that 10, 000 nal 1 ons of water a day will be needed to keep the dist levels caused by the loading egiptment down to acceptable levels. l hi s would lead me to believe that it will require 5 almost 40 million gallons of water to attempt to sa.ti si f y this dust problem. With our drought problems and the dropping of our water tables, where is all this water going to come from? On page 95, paragraph two (2) states that "To date, no application has been submitted" regarding the proposed homes to be built on the 20. 64 acres located on the top of the adjacent bluff overlooking the proposed quarry site. This is not true. I ' m assuming this error was 6 made because the ETR report was made befor the permit was released regarding these new homes. Now these new homes must be taken into consideration befor this rock: and sand quarry be permitted to go forward. We could go on and on about the losses of our greatest commodity, our rich farm lands when it isn' t necessary but that' s probably another story. In closing I would like it to be known that I have owned my piece of Clements for about 0 years and lived on this same piece of land over 60 years ago. I have built my retirement home here over lookinq this bluff and do not want to look out over my yard and see the dust, gasoline and diesel smoke, nor hear the pollutant noises that will most certainly be created by the proposed Clements Rock Quarry. If this quarry is allowed to go forward we will most certainly see whats left of our wild life d i ssapear. Please give some serious, in depth thoughts to accepting this EIR report as it stands. It is missleadinq to say the least .