Sample Letter - Traffic
Public Comment Letters Opposing the Project are Due: Monday, July 29th by 5:00 pm!
Here is another Sample / Form Letter 5 for folks to copy / paste / submit to these copy & paste-able email addresses for Kyle Smith, the five Nevada County Planning Commissioners, and five Board of Supervisors.
Kyle.Smith@nevadacountyca.gov; danny.milman@co.nevada.ca.us; laura.duncan@co.nevada.ca.us; Terence.McAteer@co.nevada.ca.us; Mike.Mastrodonato@co.nevada.ca.us; jo.garst@co.nevada.ca.us; Jo@jogarstdesign.com; heidi.hall@nevadacountyca.gov; ed.scofield@nevadacountyca.gov; lisa.swarthout@nevadacountyca.gov; sue.hoek@nevadacountyca.gov; Hardy.Bullock@nevadacountyca.gov
Number 5 – Traffic Impacts Report – Flawed by outdated data, oversimplified assumptions, and insufficient consideration of broader impacts on traffic, safety, and the environment.
This sample letter can be adapted and personalized by residents who wish to express their concerns about the traffic Impacts created by the proposed Alpenglow Sawmill and Glu-Lam factory. It highlights key reasons why the project’s real traffic impacts will be much greater than evaluated by the applicant and the County.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Email Address]
[Date]
Nevada County Planning Department
950 Maidu Avenue, Suite 170
Nevada City, CA 95959
Re: Sawmill Traffic Impact Analysis and VMT Report Flawed
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Traffic Impact Analyses submitted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated May 20, 2022 is flawed and a deeper evaluation of impacts created by the proposed Alpenglow Sawmill & Glu-Lam Factory Complex in a more detailed Environmental Impact Report is warranted. Please consider the following:
1. Use of Outdated Data:
The report's reliance on the 2019 Hobart Mills Limited Traffic Analysis significantly undermines its conclusions. Traffic volumes and patterns are dynamic, influenced by shifts in work habits, transportation trends, and local development. Since 2019, Truckee's population has grown from around 16,500 to approximately 18,400, leading to increased vehicular demand. This growth likely impacts local infrastructure in ways not reflected by outdated data.
2. Assumption of Unchanged Traffic Volumes:
The report assumes that traffic volumes on SR 89 have remained constant, negating the need for volume adjustments. This perspective is shortsighted, failing to account for future developments, seasonal variations, and evolving local traffic dynamics. Projections of future traffic growth and various scenarios should be incorporated to provide a comprehensive analysis.
3. Relocated Trips and Net New Trips:
The analysis posits that relocating trips from Hobart Mills to the new site does not significantly impact overall traffic. This claim is misleading. While it might reduce traffic in one area, it increases it in another, potentially leading to localized congestion, increased road wear, and environmental impacts. The cumulative effects on the entire network should be rigorously assessed.
4. Simplified Trip Generation Calculations:
The trip generation calculations for employee housing apply a 20% reduction, assuming employees will live on-site and reduce their off-site trips proportionally. This assumption may not hold true for all employees. Additionally, using ITE Code 223 for affordable housing might not accurately capture the unique trip generation characteristics of this project. More nuanced calculations are necessary.
5. Flawed Peak Hour Trip Estimates:
The application of a fixed percentage (17%) from Hobart Mills to estimate PM peak hour trips oversimplifies potential differences in peak hour patterns between the two sites. This can lead to inaccurate peak hour trip estimates, potentially underestimating or overestimating the actual impact.
6. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis:
The VMT analysis claims a net reduction due to the sawmill's local operations compared to trucking material to distant locations. This oversimplification fails to account for potential increases in local traffic congestion, road maintenance costs, and emissions. Moreover, a reduction in VMT does not necessarily equate to a reduction in overall environmental impact, as localized emissions and traffic could increase.
7. Sight Distance and Turn Lane Analysis:
The conclusion that no new turn lanes or acceleration lanes are needed is based on current traffic volumes and conditions. This does not sufficiently address potential future increases in traffic or the impact of additional heavy vehicle traffic on road safety and efficiency. The assumption that relocating a speed limit sign and trimming trees will ensure adequate sight distance is overly simplistic and ignores potential unforeseen obstacles or maintenance issues.
8. Impact on Bicycle Safety:
The analysis claims minimal heavy vehicle impact on planned bicycle facilities. This underestimates the hazards heavy trucks pose to cyclists, especially on rural highways with high speeds and limited shoulder width. The presence of heavy vehicles can significantly affect cyclist safety and comfort, which the analysis inadequately addresses.
9. Level of Service (LOS) Evaluation:
The LOS evaluation focuses on maintaining standards without and with the project. However, it overlooks potential fluctuations in traffic patterns, seasonal peaks, and cumulative impacts from other nearby developments. A broader range of traffic scenarios should be considered to ensure a comprehensive impact assessment.
Integrated Critique and Recommendations:
Combining these critiques, it becomes clear that the SR 89 Sawmill Traffic Impact Analysis and VMT Report are fundamentally flawed due to reliance on outdated data, oversimplified assumptions, and insufficient consideration of broader impacts on traffic, safety, and the environment.
Recommendations:
1. Update Traffic Data: Incorporate current traffic data reflecting the substantial population increase in Truckee since 2019.
2. Comprehensive VMT Analysis: Conduct a detailed VMT analysis that considers local traffic congestion, environmental impacts, and road safety concerns.
3. Localized Traffic Impact: Assess the localized impact of relocated trips on residential areas, local businesses, and emergency services.
4. Safety Assessments: Perform thorough safety assessments for cyclists and pedestrians, considering increased heavy vehicle traffic.
5. Emergency Access: Evaluate emergency access and response times in light of current and projected traffic conditions.
6. Infrastructure Improvements: Plan for necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate increased traffic volumes and ensure compliance with updated transportation policies.
By addressing these issues, the analysis can deliver a more accurate and reliable assessment of the project's potential impacts on transportation and the local community.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Signature]