AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

COMMENT LETTE~~e1~~ PLG-JiU Ekas From: Gary [garyceez@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 13,20073:18 PM To: PLG~JiII Ekes Subject: Response to Costeo FEIR To: Jill Ekas! Planning Manager From: Gary and Leticia Cruz I Redwood Village resident Date: June 12,2007 RE: Environmental Impact Report (Costco) Thank you for continuing to receive and read about my family's continued opposition to Costco's proposed sixteen-pump gas station. We oppose it because we LIVE too close in proximity to suCh a business thatwlll bring more "bads" than the "goods". My family is saddened by the fact that just because a business proposal that has "bads" that may fall under acceptable levels by way of mitigation or not, may still be permitted. We are really saddened because the ill effects will never entirely disappear (only dissipate) and will return day after day. Let's all honestly acknowledge that their respective levels will fluctuate up and down day to day sometimes cumulatively or just by the type of weather we have. But those who will be affected by the "down" days will be the residences closest to it. We will continue to be exposed to the "bads" over time. The easiest analogy to use is that the proposed gas station is a piece of a puzzle that just doesn't fit in the location Costco desires. Forcing to make this piece to fit will just mar the surrounding pieces, which are us, people that live in the immediate area. Gas station fumes are similar in natul'e to second hand smoke in that they have cancer causing properties. No one really gave credence to Its III effects until more studies were conducted. It is a silent killer. Please do not force us to be In Its presence even at "acceptable" levels. We also feel that the DE1R is incomplete or inadequate by not addressing the Stanford project as potentially 0l contributing as a cumlilative impact. In the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Stanford Outpatient Center Project, dated June 6, 2006, the Costeo project was included in "background traffic estimates.~ Along with stated 1 underused developments, such as the Midpoint Technology Park, Excite @ Home buildings. and Pacific Shores, which were considered as "Background Condjtions,~ cumulative traffic estimates and tables Indicated that the Woodside Road I Middlefield Intersection would operate ata LOS F with or without Stanford's project along with five or six intersections operating at unacceptable levels otLOS E or lower. See respective Tables 12.11 and 12.13. Why hasn't anyofthls been analyzed, considered, and or at least mentioned in Costco's DEIRlFEIR? Not having done so underestimates the multiple impacts the Costco's project wiD have. at least cumulatively. Related to the above, we are also troubled by a statement in Section 6.1 of Costco's DEIR. It states, "Issues relative to land use and planning, aesthetics. traffic, circulation and access, noise, pUblic services, hazards and hazardous materials and bidlogical resources were determined not to have a potential for cumulative effects." In comparison to the Draft Supplemental EtR Stanford project, Section 12.3.5 studied the cumulative effects of traffic. How can one OSEIRstudy the cumulative impact oftraffle and one DEIR dismiss it as not _ 1 applicable? Now, do the other impacts not studied actually have the potential for cumulative effects? ~ We are also scrutinizing the revision In the gallon amounts estimated to be pumped. It was noted in the FEIR that the amount of gallons estimated to be pumped changed from 540,000 per month to 750,000 per month. This equates to an additional 210,000 gallons per month. Even if a car could hold twenty-one gallons (conservatively high), thatwould equate to 10,000 cars to buy gas In a month (210,000 divided by 21). If you divided 10,000 by 31 days (maximum # of days in month), this equals approximately to 323 cars per day. It seems mathematically 6/14/2007