From: TERRI MEINE
Date: * No Date *
Subject: Letter for Public Record-MCP/EIR/EIS Proposed for Riverside County, CA.?
Attachment(s): 0

From:

Terri Meine

17828 Gustin Ln.

Lake Mathews, Ca 92570

951-780-4123

 

January 07, 2009

 

 

To whom it may Concern,

I am a resident of the Lake Mathews area. I am extremely concerned about the prospect of a freeway going through my beloved home and community.

1.	Cajalco Rd. cannot sustain heavy loads of traffic

a.	Water table at intersection of Cajalco/Smith is at 8 feet - 2007
b.	High water table in Cajalco "valley" – fed from too much housing construction runoff.
c.	Many artesian in this area.
d.	Liquefaction in event of earthquake, etc.

2.	Pollution – vehicle emissions "settle in" valley (Wood Rd to Gavilan  Hills Rd.
3.	Noise pollution.
4.	Soil vibration.
5.	MWDP – water storage facility, dam and detention basins.  

a.	Check on problems that arose during construction – URANIUM (see records State of California), high water levels necessitating de-watering the mountain and design changes in 1998.

6.	Riverside County Flood Control storm channel and distribution basin – built in 2005(!).
7.	Increased construction of Gavilan plateau and surrounding hills – more runoff affecting water table, therefore road stability and longevity would be compromised.
8.	Wildlife and plant species.
9.	Loss of homes.
10.	Loss of property values.
11.	Health issues.
12.	Excessive speeding and accidents.

PLEASE BEWARE BEFORE YOU ADD MORE STRESSES TO CAJALCO ROAD. (thank You Anne & Jerry Grill For so adequately spelling out some of the foreseeable faults to this project)

 

With all of the reasons that have been addressed as to why this is a bad idea, it does make one ask the question as to WHY are you still pursuing this plan of action? It makes sense to me and the many people that I have spoken to in this area that there is more to this than you are telling us. 

With the environmental risks, the water table issue, the fact that this area is one of the last of it’s kind in this county, and one of the most beautiful rural areas, why pursue it? When there are much easier and less expensive ways around the transportation issue. 

Please answer me this, why is it that the 60 FWY is only 10-12 miles north of the proposed Mid county parkway and yet you saw fit to have the majority of this freeway only 2 lanes? Could it be that the money would be much better spent widening the 60 Freeway?  

Well then, there is always highway 74. it could definitely use some improvement and at the same time without risk of tearing open new land for yet another freeway. 

I urge you to stop the mid county parkway and look at other options for spending our tax dollars. 

 

Tax payer & voter

Terri Meine