Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...
Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...
Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Aegis Senior Living Continuing<br />
Care Retirement Community –<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project<br />
Final <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
SCH # 2006112153<br />
Prepared for<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, California<br />
October 2008<br />
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 1000<br />
Oakland, CA 94612
Contents<br />
1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-1<br />
1.1 <strong>Environmental</strong> Review Process............................................................................1-1<br />
1.2 <strong>Environmental</strong>ly Superior Alternative................................................................1-3<br />
1.3 Organization <strong>of</strong> the Final EIR ...............................................................................1-3<br />
2.0 List <strong>of</strong> Commenters and Response to Comments ........................................................2-1<br />
2.1 List <strong>of</strong> Commenters................................................................................................2-1<br />
2.2 Master Responses ...................................................................................................2-2<br />
2.2.1 Soils and Seismic Mitigation....................................................................2-2<br />
2.2.2 Land Use Compatibility ...........................................................................2-5<br />
2.2.3 Oak Trees and Oak Woodland ................................................................2-6<br />
2.2.4 Noise............................................................................................................2-9<br />
2.2.5 Local Traffic..............................................................................................2-10<br />
2.2.6 Visual Resources......................................................................................2-12<br />
2.3 Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR............................2-13<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Aegis Living ............................................2-22<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Elizabeth Anderson and Thomas<br />
Toth, MD...................................................................................................2-29<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Linda Barr ................................................2-32<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Ed Bellone ................................................2-35<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Annette Cooper.......................................2-37<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Allen T. Daugaard ..................................2-39<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dr. Susan L. Dibble and Dr. Jeanne F.<br />
DeJoseph...................................................................................................2-41<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Skip Epperly (Advocates for<br />
Responsible Development) ....................................................................2-52<br />
Response to Comment Letter from <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Master<br />
Association (FRMA)................................................................................2-59<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Thomas and Judith Glenn .....................2-63<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Kyra Janssen ............................................2-66<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Jim Johnson..............................................2-69<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Kirt and Brenda Kisling .........................2-72<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Joseph Magagna......................................2-75<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Edward Margason ..................................2-81<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Henry McGuckin (letter<br />
dated July 18, 2008) .................................................................................2-85<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Henry McGuckin (letter<br />
dated July 25, 2008) .................................................................................2-90<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Carmen McReynolds, M.D....................2-93<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Native American Heritage<br />
Commission (NAHC) .............................................................................2-95<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 iii
CONTENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated<br />
July 17, 2008).......................................................................................... 2-100<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated<br />
July 19, 2008).......................................................................................... 2-106<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated<br />
July 22, 2008).......................................................................................... 2-109<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated<br />
July 28, 2008).......................................................................................... 2-112<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated<br />
July 31, 2008).......................................................................................... 2-116<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Ryan and Sheri Neuman ..................... 2-118<br />
Response to Comment Letter from North Coast Regional Water<br />
Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB)................................................. 2-125<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Lynn and William Rood...................... 2-130<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Larry Scharf........................................... 2-133<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Lynda Scigliano .................................... 2-135<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Alan Spencer......................................... 2-137<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Jim Sturgeon.......................................... 2-140<br />
Response to Community Comments Letter (as submitted by<br />
Dewey Nelson)...................................................................................... 2-151<br />
Response to oral comments made during the Public Hearing<br />
(July 24, 2008)......................................................................................... 2-170<br />
3.0 Errata and Revisions.......................................................................................................... 3-1<br />
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program .......................................................... 4-1<br />
5.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 5-1<br />
Tables<br />
4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
iv ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
Acronyms and Abbreviations<br />
3-D three-dimension<br />
afy acre feet per year<br />
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s<br />
BMP Best Management Practices<br />
BRAR Biological Resources Assessment <strong>Report</strong><br />
CCAR California Climate Action Registry<br />
CDFG California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game<br />
CEQA California <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality Act<br />
CH4 Methane<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
CNPS California Native Plant Society<br />
CO2 carbon dioxide<br />
CR Cluster Residential<br />
dBA decibels A scale<br />
dbh diameter breast height<br />
Draft EIR The <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
EIR <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
Final EIR Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care Retirement Community –<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Report</strong><br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
Project<br />
Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care Retirement Community -<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project<br />
FRMA <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Master Association<br />
FRPCD Policy Statement <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Planned Community District Policy<br />
Statement<br />
General Plan <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 2020: General Plan<br />
General Plan EIR General Plan Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
GHG Greenhouse Gas<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS<br />
HFC hydr<strong>of</strong>lourocarbons<br />
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<br />
ITE Institute <strong>of</strong> Transportation Engineers<br />
KOP Key Observation Points<br />
kWh kilowatt hour<br />
lb/ft 2 pounds per square foot<br />
LOS level <strong>of</strong> service<br />
MMRP Mitigation and Monitoring <strong>Report</strong>ing Plan<br />
mph miles per hour<br />
N2O nitrous oxide<br />
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission<br />
NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board<br />
NOD Notice <strong>of</strong> Determination<br />
NOP Notice <strong>of</strong> Preparation<br />
NOx nitrogen oxide<br />
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System<br />
p. page<br />
PFC perfluorocompounds<br />
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric<br />
PM10<br />
pp. pages<br />
particulate matter<br />
Project Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care Retirement Community -<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project<br />
ROG reactive organic gas<br />
SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency<br />
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride<br />
SUSMP <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Area Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan<br />
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan<br />
USACE U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers<br />
USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br />
vi ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
1.0 Introduction<br />
The complete <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (EIR) for the Aegis Senior Living Continuing<br />
Care Retirement Community - <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project (<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project,<br />
or the Project) consists <strong>of</strong> the following:<br />
• The <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (Draft EIR), Volumes I and II,<br />
State Clearinghouse Number 2006112153, dated June 2008, by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>,<br />
California<br />
• The responses to comments and revisions to the Draft EIR contained in this document<br />
(the Final EIR)<br />
• The Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program, included with this document<br />
In addition, the following related environmental documents are incorporated into this EIR<br />
by reference:<br />
• <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 2020: General Plan (General Plan) (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 2002a) and <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
2020: General Plan Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (General Plan EIR) (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong>, 2002b)<br />
• <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Planned Community District Policy Statement (FRPCD Policy<br />
Statement) (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 1992)<br />
The following subsections outline the environmental review process for the EIR and<br />
summarize the Project’s environmental compliance.<br />
1.1 <strong>Environmental</strong> Review Process<br />
The following subsections outline the environmental review process for this document and<br />
summarize the Project’s environmental compliance.<br />
Notice <strong>of</strong> Preparation and Scoping<br />
On November 29, 2006, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> (<strong>City</strong>) Department <strong>of</strong> Community<br />
Development issued a Notice <strong>of</strong> Preparation (NOP) that an EIR would be prepared for the<br />
Project (see Appendix A to the Draft EIR for a copy <strong>of</strong> the NOP). The NOP was submitted to<br />
the State Clearinghouse, responsible and interested agencies, and interested members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
public. The purpose <strong>of</strong> the NOP was to allow for concerns and comments to be received<br />
regarding the scope and content <strong>of</strong> the EIR. Written comments were accepted through<br />
December 29, 2006. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on December 12, 2006, at<br />
the Steele Lane Community Center in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, where verbal comments were received.<br />
Draft EIR Circulation<br />
The Draft EIR was prepared based on input received during scoping. The Draft EIR was<br />
circulated for review by the public and agencies for 45 days. The 45-day comment period<br />
ran from June 13 through July 28, 2008; written comments postmarked by July 28, 2008,<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION<br />
were accepted. A public hearing to take verbal comments was held on July 24, 2008, before<br />
the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Planning Commission.<br />
EIR Certification<br />
This Final EIR includes additional information that is intended to clarify and expand the<br />
information in the Draft EIR. After a careful review <strong>of</strong> the comments received on the<br />
Draft EIR, the responses to the comments, and the information added to the Final EIR, the<br />
<strong>City</strong> has determined that recirculation <strong>of</strong> the document for additional public review and<br />
comment is not required. Section 15088.5 <strong>of</strong> the California <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality Act<br />
(CEQA) Guidelines governs recirculation <strong>of</strong> a Draft EIR before certification. Recirculation is<br />
only required when “significant new information” is included in the Final EIR, such as<br />
information showing that:<br />
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new<br />
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.<br />
2. A substantial increase in the severity <strong>of</strong> an environmental impact would result unless<br />
mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others<br />
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project, but the Project’s proponents decline to adopt it.<br />
Because the Final EIR does not identify any new significant environmental impacts from the<br />
Project or from a new mitigation measure and does not identify a substantial increase in the<br />
severity <strong>of</strong> an environmental impact over that described in the Draft EIR, the grounds for<br />
recirculation have not been met.<br />
This Final EIR contains copies <strong>of</strong> written and verbal comments received on the Draft EIR<br />
and responses to those comments; they are included in Section 2.0, List <strong>of</strong> Commenters and<br />
Response to Comments. The <strong>City</strong> will review the EIR for adequacy and consider it for<br />
certification pursuant to the requirements <strong>of</strong> Section 15090 <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines.<br />
Project Approval<br />
After the <strong>City</strong> certifies the adequacy <strong>of</strong> the EIR, it can approve the Project and would:<br />
1. Adopt appropriate findings regarding the significant environmental effects identified in<br />
the Final EIR, the availability <strong>of</strong> feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce<br />
or avoid significant environmental effects, and other matters pursuant to Public<br />
Resources Code Sections 21002, 21002.1, 21081, and 21081.5 and CEQA Guidelines<br />
Sections 15002, 15021, 15064, and 15091<br />
2. Adopt a statement <strong>of</strong> overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources<br />
Sections 21002 and 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093<br />
3. Adopt a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program pursuant to Public Resources<br />
Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15097<br />
Following Project approval, the <strong>City</strong> would file a Notice <strong>of</strong> Determination (NOD) with the<br />
State Clearinghouse pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15094.<br />
1-2 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
1.2 <strong>Environmental</strong>ly Superior Alternative<br />
1.0 INTRODUCTION<br />
As required by CEQA, Section 4.5 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR also identifies the environmentally<br />
superior alternative. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.0, Alternatives, in general the<br />
alternatives, including the No Project Alterative, would be expected to have impacts similar<br />
to or greater than the Project impacts. The Smaller Footprint Alternative and the State<br />
Density Bonus Alternative meet the Project objectives discussed in Section 2.2, Project<br />
Objectives, while the No Project Alternative may not, depending on the development that<br />
occurs. The Smaller Footprint Alternative would reduce the level <strong>of</strong> biological impacts<br />
compared to the Project, but would result in greater, potentially significant and unavoidable<br />
visual impacts. The State Density Bonus Alternative meets all the Project objectives, but<br />
would have greater environmental impacts than the Project. The No Project Alternative<br />
could reduce visual impacts, depending on the type <strong>of</strong> development that occurs, but could<br />
have increased traffic congestion, noise, and air quality impacts as compared to the Project.<br />
Among the alternatives to the Project, the Smaller Footprint Alternative would be the<br />
environmentally superior alternative. However, as noted above, the Smaller Footprint<br />
Alternative would not be environmentally superior to the Project because <strong>of</strong> greater,<br />
potentially significant and unavoidable visual impacts.<br />
1.3 Organization <strong>of</strong> the Final EIR<br />
This Final EIR is organized as follows:<br />
Section 1.0—Introduction<br />
Describes the report, environmental review process, and environmentally superior<br />
alternative.<br />
Section 2.0—List <strong>of</strong> Commenters and Responses to Comments<br />
Section 2.0 includes a complete copy <strong>of</strong> written comment letters and minutes <strong>of</strong> the public<br />
hearing. The individual comments within each letter and the minutes are marked and<br />
enumerated in the margins. Responses to comments follow each letter, numbered to<br />
correspond to the comments in the letter; similarly, responses follow the public hearing<br />
minutes.<br />
Section 3.0—Errata and Revisions<br />
Section 3.0 <strong>of</strong> the Final EIR contains errata and revisions to the Draft EIR. The errata and<br />
revisions are shown as strikeout for deletions and underline for new text in the pages from<br />
the Draft EIR. Overall, the errata represent minor modifications to the text <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR.<br />
Section 4.0—Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Section 4.0 contains a consolidated list <strong>of</strong> mitigation, monitoring, and reporting activities<br />
that the <strong>City</strong>, in certifying the Final EIR, commits to implementing. CEQA requires that each<br />
public agency adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures to meet its responsibilities<br />
under the Act and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 21082).<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 1-3
2.0 List <strong>of</strong> Commenters and Response to<br />
Comments<br />
2.1 List <strong>of</strong> Commenters<br />
The Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (EIR) for the Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care<br />
Retirement Community - <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project (<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project, or the<br />
Project) was circulated for review by the public and agencies for 45 days. The 45-day<br />
comment period ran through July 28, 2008. Numerous written comments were submitted to<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> (<strong>City</strong>) during this review period. In addition, a public hearing was<br />
held on July 24, 2008 to take verbal comments from members <strong>of</strong> the public.<br />
The written and verbal comments received are as follows:<br />
• Aegis Living<br />
• Elizabeth Anderson and Thomas Toth, MD<br />
• Linda Barr<br />
• Ed Bellone<br />
• Annette Cooper<br />
• Allen T. Daugaard<br />
• Dr. Susan L. Dibble and Dr. Jeanne F. DeJoseph<br />
• Skip Epperly (Advocates for Responsible Development)<br />
• <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Master Association (FRMA)<br />
• Thomas and Judith Glenn<br />
• Kyra Janssen<br />
• Jim Johnson<br />
• Kirt and Brenda Kisling<br />
• Joseph Magagna<br />
• Edward Margason<br />
• Henry McGuckin (letter dated July 18, 2008)<br />
• Henry McGuckin (letter dated July 25, 2008)<br />
• Carmen McReynolds, M.D.<br />
• Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)<br />
• Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 17, 2008)<br />
• Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 19, 2008)<br />
• Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 22, 2008)<br />
• Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 28, 2008)<br />
• Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 31, 2008)<br />
• Ryan and Sheri Newman<br />
• North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB)<br />
• Lynn and William Rood<br />
• Larry Scharf<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-1
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
• Lynda Scigliano<br />
• Alan Spencer<br />
• Jim Sturgeon<br />
• Community Comments (as submitted by Dewey Nelson)<br />
• Oral Comments made during the Public Hearing (July 24, 2008)<br />
2.2 Master Responses<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> the numerous comments received on similar topics, general or “master”<br />
responses were drafted to provide a singular, comprehensive response. This section<br />
provides master responses for the topics <strong>of</strong> Soils and Seismic Mitigation; Land Use<br />
Compatibility; Oak Trees and Oak Woodland; Noise; Local Traffic; and Visual Resources.<br />
2.2.1 Soils and Seismic Mitigation<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> the comments submitted raised concerns that mitigation measures for<br />
potential soils and seismic impacts, described in Section 3.6 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, are inadequate<br />
and include studies and analysis that defer evaluation <strong>of</strong> impacts and findings in a manner<br />
inconsistent with California <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.<br />
Per California Code <strong>of</strong> Regulations Section 21080, the determination <strong>of</strong> the significance <strong>of</strong> an<br />
impact must be based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions<br />
predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by fact. Analysis <strong>of</strong> potential geotechnical<br />
impacts in the Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (EIR) was based on 13 different studies<br />
and analyses completed at the Project site by multiple experts and including extensive field<br />
data, as well as more general information such as published soils maps and Alquist-Priolo<br />
Special Studies Maps. This evidence was sufficient to determine that significant impacts<br />
could occur as a result <strong>of</strong> seismic ground-shaking, slope instability, seismic-induced ground<br />
failure, and expansive-soil behavior. Additional evidence is not needed to support the<br />
identification <strong>of</strong> potentially significant geotechnical impacts.<br />
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B) states that “[f]ormulation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures<br />
should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify<br />
performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect <strong>of</strong> the project and which<br />
may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” When specific mitigation measures<br />
cannot be firmly established at the time <strong>of</strong> EIR certification, the lead agency must identify<br />
probable mitigation measures and make a commitment on the record to their<br />
implementation. (Sacramento Old <strong>City</strong> Assn. v. <strong>City</strong> Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011.)<br />
This is <strong>of</strong>ten the case when a project has been developed to a level where general mitigation<br />
measures (e.g., seismic bracing) are known, but the specific measures (e.g., special concrete<br />
moment resisting frame vs. concrete shear wall) have yet to be determined until final<br />
design.<br />
Mitigation Measures 3.6-2 through 3.6-5 are based on design standards and codes used on a<br />
regular basis in California to address geotechnical issues in building construction. These<br />
standards and codes outline performance standards that minimize hazards to people and<br />
structures to acceptable safety levels, as required by the state. The detailed site-specific<br />
analyses described in the mitigation measures will identify the specific approach required to<br />
2-2 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
meet the performance standards. Because there are additional site exploration and analyses<br />
to be performed during final project design, the <strong>City</strong> has identified specific alternative<br />
mitigations to be incorporated, depending on the results <strong>of</strong> the findings. (Defend the Bay vs.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Irvine (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th.) To clarify the purpose <strong>of</strong> the additional studies and<br />
that the mitigation measures reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the mitigation<br />
measures have been revised as follows.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Incorporate site-specific seismic analysis into Project<br />
design.<br />
The site-specific seismic analyses will be performed to identify the active and<br />
potentially active seismic sources that are capable <strong>of</strong> generating significant ground<br />
shaking at the Project site. Analysis may include response spectra, computer<br />
simulations, and finite element model. These findings will be incorporated into the<br />
design <strong>of</strong> Project components prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the Improvement Plan. The project<br />
components will be designed in accordance with the applicable building codes (2007<br />
California Building Code) and will satisfy the seismic performance criteria <strong>of</strong> their<br />
intended uses. Code requirements for structures located very near faults are more<br />
complex than the requirements for structures located outside this region. For<br />
structures located within the Project region, additional measures such as site-specific<br />
geotechnical and geological investigations and additional structural analysis and<br />
detailing are required. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the project,<br />
then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3. Incorporate site-specific slope stability analysis into<br />
Project design.<br />
AdditionalThe site-specific investigations and analyses will be performed during<br />
final design by the Applicant. The investigations will include drilling soil borings<br />
and recovering soil samples within and outside the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
development site. The investigation will also include identification and<br />
characterization <strong>of</strong> the horizontal and vertical (depth) extents <strong>of</strong> slope instability. The<br />
findings will be incorporated in the analyses that will evaluate slope stability,<br />
including landslides and soil creep, and various slope stability measures. Depending<br />
on the findings, slope stabilization measures may consist <strong>of</strong> regrading slopes,<br />
providing surface and subsurface drainages, and constructing slope strengthening<br />
elements such as toe buttresses and secant walls. analyses will be performed and the<br />
findings <strong>of</strong> the analyses The results <strong>of</strong> these studies may limit the proposed<br />
development design, and they will be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong> Project<br />
components prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the Improvement Plan. If the studies result in a<br />
significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Incorporate the results <strong>of</strong> geologic and geotechnical<br />
investigations and site-specific seismic analysis into Project design.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> a design-level geologic and geotechnical investigations, site-specific<br />
seismic and geologic hazard analyses will be performed to collect data and to assess<br />
the potential for seismic-induced ground failure in soil and rock materials adjacent<br />
to and underlying Project components. The study will include assessments <strong>of</strong><br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-3
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
seismic-induced geologic hazard potential at the Project site, such as liquefaction,<br />
slope failure during earthquakes, and loss <strong>of</strong> bearing capacity <strong>of</strong> foundation soils. If<br />
such potentially problematic soils and/or slopes are found, the effects <strong>of</strong> these<br />
seismic-induced geologic hazards to the performance <strong>of</strong> Project components will be<br />
evaluated and incorporated into the design.<br />
Mitigation measures may include excavation <strong>of</strong> potentially liquefiable soils during<br />
construction and replacement with engineered backfill, in situ ground treatment<br />
(such as compaction grouting, deep soil mixing, and jet grouting) to prevent<br />
occurrence <strong>of</strong> liquefaction and loss <strong>of</strong> soil bearing, construction <strong>of</strong> perimeter system<br />
to contain the problematic soils, and strengthening slopes using toe buttresses and<br />
secant walls. Potential slope failure within and outside the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed development site that may impact Project components will be assessed.<br />
Portions <strong>of</strong> the Project site that are susceptible to slope instability hazards are likely<br />
to be susceptible to slope failure as a result <strong>of</strong> strong seismic ground shaking.<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> these studies may limit the proposed development design, and they<br />
will be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong> Project components prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement Plan. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then<br />
recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: Develop appropriate design features for locations where<br />
potential problems have been identified through design-level geotechnical<br />
investigations.<br />
Design-level geotechnical studies will be conducted to develop appropriate design<br />
features for locations where potential problems are known to exist. If potentially<br />
problematic soils are found, appropriate design measures may include excavation <strong>of</strong><br />
potentially problematic such soils during construction and replacement with<br />
engineered backfill, ground-treatment processes, redirection <strong>of</strong> surface water and<br />
drainage away from foundation soils, and the use <strong>of</strong> deeper foundations. Covering If<br />
expansive soils are found, covering them with a moisture-conforming and protecting<br />
blanket <strong>of</strong> approved onsite or imported materials <strong>of</strong> low expansion potential can also<br />
reduce shrink/swell behavior. Implementation <strong>of</strong> these standard engineering<br />
methods would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. If the<br />
studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR<br />
may be required.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-6: Evaluate subsurface conditions and analyze excavation<br />
and grading slopes for stability and incorporate recommendations into grading<br />
plans and construction operation activities.<br />
Temporary construction slopes and existing natural or constructed slopes impacted<br />
by construction operations will be evaluated for stability. In developing grading<br />
plans and construction procedures, the stability <strong>of</strong> both temporary and permanent<br />
cut, fill, and otherwise impacted slopes will be analyzed. Construction slopes and<br />
grading plans will be designed to limit the potential for slope instability, maintain<br />
adequate drainage <strong>of</strong> improved areas, and minimize the potential for erosion and<br />
flooding during construction. During construction, slopes affected by construction<br />
operations will be monitored and maintained in a stable condition. Construction<br />
2-4 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
activities likely to result in slope or excavation instability will be suspended during<br />
and immediately following periods <strong>of</strong> heavy precipitation when slopes are more<br />
susceptible to failure.<br />
Appropriate construction methods and procedures, in accordance with state and<br />
federal health and safety codes, will be followed to protect the safety <strong>of</strong> workers and<br />
the public during trenching and excavation operations. A design-level geotechnical<br />
investigation will be performed to evaluate subsurface conditions, identify potential<br />
hazards, and provide information for development <strong>of</strong> excavation plans and<br />
procedures. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then<br />
recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
2.2.2 Land Use Compatibility<br />
Several comments received by the <strong>City</strong> question the compatibility <strong>of</strong> the proposed Project<br />
with the existing residential neighborhood, including building size and scale and Project<br />
proximity to other community care facilities within the <strong>City</strong>. Other comments are concerned<br />
with compatibility <strong>of</strong> the proposed Project and the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Planned<br />
Community District Policy Statement (FRPCD Policy Statement), including possible<br />
requirements regarding flat-padding, grading, and landscape screening. These issues were<br />
addressed in the Draft EIR; summaries <strong>of</strong> the analyses presented and the corresponding<br />
page numbers in the Draft EIR are provided below.<br />
As stated in the Draft EIR, community care facilities are allowed in any land use designation<br />
and any zoning district in the <strong>City</strong> through a Conditional Use Permit (Draft EIR p. 3-113). It<br />
is the <strong>City</strong>’s policy to provide incentives for assisted and senior care facilities and for this<br />
reason community care facilities are permitted under the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 2020: General Plan<br />
(General Plan) regardless <strong>of</strong> surrounding land uses (Policy H-D-14, Draft EIR p. 3-114).<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> zoning, the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch area has been zoned as a Planned Community<br />
since 1972. Since 1981, the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch area has been governed by the FRPCD<br />
Policy Statement (Draft EIR p. 3-113). As discussed in the Draft EIR, the development plan<br />
that accompanies the FRPCD Policy Statement, as adopted per Ordinance Number 2196,<br />
designates the Project site as a Cluster Residential (CR) Land Use Area, which allows for a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> land uses, including single-family homes, apartments, group dwellings, child<br />
nurseries, churches, health care facilities, private recreational facilities, and accessory<br />
buildings and uses (Draft EIR p. 3-113). The Project site is located within a Housing Bonus<br />
Area, which per the FRPCD Policy Statement, allows for development density <strong>of</strong> up 15 units<br />
per gross acre (Draft EIR p. 3-114). No portion <strong>of</strong> the site as “tree/vegetative grouping.”<br />
The Project is consistent with the guidance and requirements <strong>of</strong> the Development Concept<br />
Plan in the FRPCD Policy Statement. Some specific guidelines and requirements are listed<br />
below.<br />
• Section VI(B)(2) <strong>of</strong> the Policy Statement states that “[t]he Development Concept Plan is<br />
general and conceptual in nature; it is intended to illustrate generally buildable and<br />
generally open areas within <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>. It is not intended to be specific to the extent<br />
that it may be exactly scaled. The Plan shall serve as a Framework for specific<br />
development proposals, and establishes the basic concept <strong>of</strong> retention <strong>of</strong> exposed<br />
hillsides.”<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-5
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
• Objectives for the entire 1,250-acre <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch district include “retain[ing] the<br />
general topographic and tree mass characteristics <strong>of</strong> the site and to protect other major<br />
natural features <strong>of</strong> the site.” The objectives are intended to provide guidance for the<br />
whole area, not be used as requirements for individual development projects. The<br />
Project supports this objective by retaining the general topography <strong>of</strong> the site (see bullet<br />
below on flat padding), retaining some <strong>of</strong> the native trees, and preserving Piner Creek.<br />
There are no rock outcroppings on the site that would constitute a major natural feature.<br />
• The Project will be consistent with the General Provisions for Landscaping<br />
(Section IV(D) in the FRPCD Policy Statement), including compliance with the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
tree removal ordinance and protection during construction <strong>of</strong> trees to be retained.<br />
Detailed landscaping plans will be completed during the design review process.<br />
• Design standards regarding “flat padding” (Section VI(E)(4)) applies to development <strong>of</strong><br />
individual residential units. Though this standard does not apply directly to the Project,<br />
the Project does meet the intent <strong>of</strong> the standard by addressing each building foundation<br />
separately and having “breaks” in the building heights, which decrease as the elevation<br />
decreases.<br />
Regarding the proposed building sizes, CR land use criteria do not specify maximum<br />
building height, lot coverage, and setbacks (Draft EIR p. 3-114). Instead, individual criteria<br />
are established for each project by its Use Permit. As mentioned above, because the Project<br />
is designated as a community care facility, it is allowed in any zoning district through the<br />
Conditional Use Permit process. The Conditional Use Permit is required for community care<br />
facilities and for development within the FRPCD to establish allowed uses, dimensional<br />
standards, landscape requirements, parking requirements, and other development<br />
standards (Draft EIR p. 3-120). It is the Conditional Use Permit application review by the<br />
<strong>City</strong> that ultimately determines what the acceptable project size, grading, and landscaping<br />
requirements.<br />
General Plan Policy LUL-E-3 requires the <strong>City</strong> to avoid the concentration <strong>of</strong> large<br />
community care facilities in any single residential neighborhood (Draft EIR p. 3-120). In the<br />
northeast part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>, existing continuing care facilities include Brighton Gardens,<br />
Varenna, and Vineyard Commons. Determination <strong>of</strong> what is considered a “concentration”<br />
<strong>of</strong> facilities is made on an individual basis by the <strong>City</strong>; in the case <strong>of</strong> the proposed Project,<br />
the <strong>City</strong>’s Community Development Department has determined that the Project will not<br />
create a concentration <strong>of</strong> community care projects in the area because the facilities are within<br />
a variety <strong>of</strong> neighborhoods.<br />
2.2.3 Oak Trees and Oak Woodland<br />
Some comments expressed confusion about the number <strong>of</strong> trees protected under the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
ordinance that would be removed by the Project, how many and what species <strong>of</strong> trees<br />
would be required to be replanted on the site, and how the replanted trees would be<br />
accommodated on the site. These items are addressed below.<br />
Oak trees within the Project’s Study Area were evaluated in 1999 and then reevaluated in<br />
April 2006 (see Draft EIR p. 3-42). An inventory and evaluation <strong>of</strong> all trees over 4 inches in<br />
diameter breast height (dbh) or 54 inches above grade, unless otherwise noted, was<br />
conducted, the results <strong>of</strong> which are reported in the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Arborist’s <strong>Report</strong><br />
2-6 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Tree Inventory and Evaluation, included as Appendix E <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. It should be noted<br />
that the numbers <strong>of</strong> trees to be removed is the best estimate currently available; during final<br />
Project design, minor changes may be made in the final designation <strong>of</strong> trees to be removed.<br />
However, the evaluation included in the Tree Inventory in Appendix E is an accurate<br />
representation <strong>of</strong> the magnitude <strong>of</strong> the potential impact.<br />
As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, <strong>of</strong> the 513 trees located in the Study Area,<br />
approximately 338 trees (66 percent) are proposed to be removed during construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project, and approximately 175 (34 percent) would be preserved. The trees to be removed<br />
include 78 valley oaks, 138 coast live oaks, 24 blue oaks, 75 black oaks, 11 California bays,<br />
and one madrone under protection by the <strong>City</strong>, including approximately 120 native heritage<br />
trees (Landesign Group, 2006), as defined by the <strong>City</strong> Code Title 17. As stated in Appendix E<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, many site visits and meetings with the engineers and landscape architects<br />
were conducted to identify the best quality trees and groups <strong>of</strong> trees to retain wherever<br />
possible (see Arborist’s <strong>Report</strong> Summary, October 9, 2006). Grading, walkways, and other<br />
features were relocated and revised to preserve quality trees and groves. The <strong>City</strong><br />
recognizes that incorporating tree avoidance directly into the Project design (as described<br />
above) is not sufficient to reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> oak tree removal to less than significant<br />
levels. For this reason, the <strong>City</strong> will implement the mitigation measures described in the<br />
Draft EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, and 3.4-1c). As described in the Draft EIR,<br />
mitigation for loss <strong>of</strong> protected native trees will be mitigated primarily with onsite tree<br />
plantings (Draft EIR p. 3-56). Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a states that the Project shall comply<br />
with <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Municipal Code Chapter 17-24, which requires replacement <strong>of</strong> two<br />
15-gallon trees for each 6 inches, or fraction there<strong>of</strong>, <strong>of</strong> trunk diameter <strong>of</strong> a tree to be<br />
removed (see Draft EIR p. 3-56). Table 3.4-3 in the Draft EIR shows the initially proposed<br />
replacement, should the trees replaced be 15-gallon container size. Based on the total <strong>of</strong><br />
338 trees to be removed, a total <strong>of</strong> 2,107 15-gallon sized trees would be required for<br />
replacement.<br />
Tree replacement ratio is subject to approval by the <strong>City</strong>, where the ratio may be modified to<br />
require a greater number <strong>of</strong> smaller trees or, conversely, fewer numbers <strong>of</strong> a larger size (see<br />
Draft EIR p. 3-56). For example, the <strong>City</strong> may further refine its replanting requirements for<br />
fewer, larger (36-inch-box) trees, rather than using a greater number <strong>of</strong> smaller (15-gallon)<br />
trees. In this example, based on an estimated onsite tree replacement mitigation factor <strong>of</strong> one<br />
(1) 36-inch-box tree for seven (7) 15-gallon trees, a total <strong>of</strong> 290 thirty-six-inch-box trees<br />
would be required for replanting (Landesign Group, 2008). A 36-inch-box tree would be<br />
larger than a 15-gallon tree, at a height <strong>of</strong> approximately 8 to 10 feet when planted. The<br />
coast live, valley, and black oak trees are expected to grow approximately 18 inches to 2 feet<br />
per year after root establishment. Blue oaks are expected to grow slightly slower.<br />
As specified in the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a, a tree replacement plan will be submitted to<br />
the <strong>City</strong>’s Department <strong>of</strong> Community Development for approval. The plan shall include the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> trees to be removed, the number <strong>of</strong> replacement trees, and the onsite location <strong>of</strong><br />
the replacement trees. The plan will also include success criteria for tree survival and<br />
replacement. In general, plantings are expected to be done around the perimeter <strong>of</strong><br />
buildings and along roadways and parking areas, and adjacent to areas <strong>of</strong> trees to be<br />
preserved where feasible. Lot coverage (areas <strong>of</strong> buildings, parking lots, circulation ways,<br />
paved walkways, and patios) is approximately 46 percent (see Section 2.4.2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-7
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
EIR), or about 4.53 acres. This leaves up to 5.3 acres on the site on which the trees can be<br />
planted, an area that can accommodate 290 trees.Approval <strong>of</strong> the Tentative Map and<br />
Conditional Use Permit for the project will not be provided until the Applicant submits an<br />
acceptable tree replacement plan approved by the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
To preserve and protect trees that will not be removed as part <strong>of</strong> the Project, Mitigation<br />
Measures 3.4-1b and 3.4-1c will be implemented. These mitigation measures include<br />
showing all trees to be preserved and trees to be removed on all plans as well as<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> best management practices (BMP) during construction to protect tree<br />
trunks and areas within the drip line and root protection zones, a standard construction<br />
practice for projects involving oak and native tree removal. The Mitigation Monitoring and<br />
<strong>Report</strong>ing Program in the Final EIR outlines the responsible entity for mitigation,<br />
monitoring, and reporting activities.<br />
Several commenters stated impacts to oak woodland had not been addressed or adequately<br />
mitigated. These items are addressed below.<br />
Descriptions <strong>of</strong> the oak woodland are presented in several places, including Section 3.4.1 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Draft EIR and Section 4.1.2 <strong>of</strong> Appendix I, Biological Resources Assessment <strong>Report</strong><br />
(BRAR). It should be noted that the BRAR Study Area described in Appendix I extended<br />
beyond the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the Project site, and so estimated areas <strong>of</strong> habitat are slightly<br />
larger than what is present on the Project site. Approximately 6.08 acres <strong>of</strong> mixed oak<br />
woodland are present in the BRAR Study Area; approximately 5.78 acres are present on the<br />
Project site itself. The oak woodland on the Project site includes dense, crowded native<br />
evergreen and deciduous oaks, intermingled with other species. The trees vary widely in<br />
condition, ranging from sparsely-foliaged trees with extensive branch dieback to<br />
densely-foliaged, excellent specimens, as is common in areas with poor soils and crowded<br />
trees. Many trees show extensive decay and dieback. Although protected and heritage trees<br />
within the oak woodlands are afforded special review and protection under the <strong>City</strong>’s Tree<br />
Ordinance, the oak woodland vegetation type within the Study Area as classified by<br />
Holland (1986) is not one <strong>of</strong> the oak woodland types included on the List <strong>of</strong> California<br />
Natural Communities as a “special” community for which lead and trustee agencies would<br />
require an impact assessment in environmental documents.<br />
Although the quantity <strong>of</strong> oak woodland that would be lost as a result <strong>of</strong> the Project is not<br />
explicitly stated in the Draft EIR, the quantity is implicitly provided in two ways. Because<br />
most <strong>of</strong> the trees on the site are within the mixed oak woodland habitat, the removal <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately 66 percent <strong>of</strong> individual trees (see Draft EIR <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-1) would roughly<br />
correspond to removal <strong>of</strong> approximately 3.8 acres (66 percent <strong>of</strong> 5.78 acres). Conversely, as<br />
noted in the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.2, approximately 8 acres <strong>of</strong> the site will be impacted by<br />
grading and construction activities, leaving just under 2 acres undisturbed. Because <strong>of</strong><br />
efforts by the Applicant and the <strong>City</strong> to minimize oak tree impacts, almost all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
undisturbed area will consist <strong>of</strong> oak woodland. This would correspond to removal <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately 3.8 acres <strong>of</strong> oak woodland. During the Design Review process, the <strong>City</strong> will<br />
work with the Applicant to further reduce these impacts as feasible.<br />
As noted by several commenters, oak woodland provides ecological benefits such as<br />
wildlife habitat that would be impacted by loss <strong>of</strong> oak woodland. These impacts were<br />
evaluated and mitigation provided as described in the Draft EIR in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-3 (loss <strong>of</strong><br />
2-8 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
raptor and migratory bird nesting habitat and impacts to nesting non-special-status birds);<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-4 (impacts to roosting and maternity colonies <strong>of</strong> special-status bat species); and<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-7 (disturbance to existing wildlife corridors). All impacts will be mitigated to a<br />
less than significant level.<br />
As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-1, the loss <strong>of</strong> protected and heritage valley oaks and other native<br />
trees is a potentially significant impact, and by implication, the <strong>City</strong> agrees that loss <strong>of</strong> oak<br />
woodland is also a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, and<br />
3.4-1c would mitigate impacts to oak woodland as well as to individual trees. Under<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a, replanting <strong>of</strong> native tree species typical <strong>of</strong> mixed oak woodland<br />
will be done on an area <strong>of</strong> up to 5.3 acres in size.<br />
2.2.4 Noise<br />
Several comments received by the <strong>City</strong> state that the analysis <strong>of</strong> noise impacts in Section 3.10<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR does not accurately address the impacts that would occur. In addition,<br />
several commenters questioned the feasibility <strong>of</strong> Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 to implement<br />
noise-reducing measures for ro<strong>of</strong>top mechanical equipment, given the proposed design <strong>of</strong><br />
the ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
Descriptions <strong>of</strong> Project operations that could generate noise are included in several parts <strong>of</strong><br />
the Draft EIR, including Section 2, Project Description; Section 3.3, Air Quality; and<br />
Section 3.13, Traffic, and include vehicle traffic and mechanical equipment noise. Predicted<br />
noise levels from the Project were compared to existing noise levels, which were determined<br />
by taking 24-hour continuous noise measurements in two locations in the neighborhood (see<br />
Appendix O Noise Study in the Draft EIR). As described in the Noise Study (Appendix O to<br />
the Draft EIR) and <strong>Impact</strong> 3.10.1, traffic from the Project would increase noise levels by less<br />
than 1 decibels A scale (dBA) over current levels, and impacts would be less than<br />
significant.<br />
Commenters requested additional clarification <strong>of</strong> noise impacts from delivery trucks and<br />
“24/7 operations.” An estimated four delivery truck trips per day would occur as part <strong>of</strong><br />
Project operations, as described in Section 3.3.3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. Delivery trucks would<br />
operate during daytime hours. Although a brief increase in noise may occur from individual<br />
delivery trucks, the noise would be similar to Federal Express, UPS, and other delivery<br />
trucks that already operate in the neighborhood. The only nighttime operation will be shift<br />
changes <strong>of</strong> a small number <strong>of</strong> employees (5 employees on-shift at 10:00 p.m. and 30<br />
employees <strong>of</strong>f-shift at 10:30 p.m.; see page 5 <strong>of</strong> the traffic study in Draft EIR Appendix P).<br />
Nighttime operations will otherwise be typical <strong>of</strong> residential areas. Common areas that<br />
could be used for entertainment are in the center <strong>of</strong> the parcel, oriented toward the golf<br />
course; noise from activity in these areas would not significantly affect neighboring areas.<br />
As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-2, mechanical equipment may be located on the Care Center<br />
ro<strong>of</strong>top. Mechanical equipment will be typical <strong>of</strong> residential buildings and include<br />
ventilation and air conditioning equipment. The location <strong>of</strong> equipment on the ro<strong>of</strong>top, while<br />
unlikely to increase noise levels above the existing noise levels in the neighborhood north <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project site, could be noticeable to the adjacent neighborhood, depending on the<br />
placement and type <strong>of</strong> equipment used, and could result in a significant noise impact.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 describes noise insulation features that will be incorporated into<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-9
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
the Project design as needed. Where equipment is mounted on a sloped ro<strong>of</strong>, it is installed<br />
within a well so that it does not protrude from the ro<strong>of</strong> and sound insulation is provided by<br />
the walls <strong>of</strong> the well. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B) states that “[mitigation] measures<br />
may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” Mitigation<br />
Measures 3.10-is based on a performance standard that will be implemented during final<br />
design.<br />
Construction noise impacts are detailed in the noise study (Appendix O to the Draft EIR)<br />
and are described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-3 in the Draft EIR. Noise produced by construction<br />
activities would be audible and exceed existing noise levels in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Project site<br />
during the construction period, constituting a significant but temporary noise impact.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 outlines BMPs for the contractor to minimize construction noise<br />
impacts to the degree feasible. Because residents are assumed to be at home during the<br />
night, the mitigation measure correctly identifies daytime hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,<br />
Monday through Saturday) as the time when the number <strong>of</strong> people in the neighborhood is<br />
at its lowest. Construction duration is expected to be 19 months; the greater noise-producing<br />
construction activities would last only a portion <strong>of</strong> this time during earthwork and<br />
foundation construction activities. Because impacts are short-term, and noise levels would<br />
be reduced through the BMPs in Mitigation Measure 3.10-3, noise impacts from construction<br />
will be less than significant.<br />
2.2.5 Local Traffic<br />
Several comments were made regarding adequacy <strong>of</strong> the analysis <strong>of</strong> traffic impacts along<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive and its intersections and requested clarifications about the<br />
location and timing <strong>of</strong> Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, Add a traffic signal on Thomas Lake<br />
Harris Drive.<br />
Data from the traffic analysis performed by The Crane Transportation Group (see Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P) was used to evaluate potential traffic impacts from the Project, as described in<br />
Section 3.13 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. An exact prediction <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> traffic on the possible<br />
routes used by the visitors and residents cannot be accurately made and such exhaustive<br />
impact analysis is not required by CEQA. To comply with CEQA, the analysis focused on<br />
the main routes that would carry the majority <strong>of</strong> traffic. By concentrating analysis on<br />
the intersections with greatest potential for impact, the need for mitigation is<br />
similarly focused where appropriate. Minor traffic routes and intersections, including<br />
Stonefield Lane, were not considered by the <strong>City</strong> as major locations with<br />
potential Project impacts and therefore were not included as part <strong>of</strong> the focuses traffic study<br />
(2006 Crane <strong>Report</strong>, p. 6). See also Response to Comment Epperly-14. The number <strong>of</strong> trips<br />
generated by the Project were estimated using a standard estimation measure (based on<br />
facility type) generated by ITE Trip Generation Handbook, a commonly used source. Based<br />
on the Handbook, a project <strong>of</strong> this size and type would generate approximately 422 daily<br />
round trips (dispersed over 24 hours). To further focus the impact analysis, trips occurring<br />
during the AM and PM peak hours were considered as they would yield the greatest<br />
potential for congestion. One-way trips generated by the Project were estimated to be<br />
29 (AM peak hour) and 44 (PM peak hour). As shown on Figure 9 in the traffic study in<br />
Draft EIR Appendix P, the Project would generate an additional two cars per hour<br />
2-10 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
(peak PM) at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris Drive and Cross Creek. This is not a<br />
significant impact to this intersection; no stop signs are required as a result <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />
Several comments received regarding traffic impacts appear to have resulted from<br />
commenter misunderstanding <strong>of</strong> the documents provided in the Draft EIR Appendix P.<br />
CEQA is intended to be a dynamic process by which the lead agency researches, analyzes,<br />
and determines the potential environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> a project. This process is not<br />
necessarily linear and the lead agency can reconsider issues and technical opinions as the<br />
EIR is developed. Although data and analysis from the Crane Transportation Group study<br />
in Appendix P were used in preparation <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the conclusions presented in the<br />
Draft EIR were drawn independently by the <strong>City</strong>’s EIR consultant and the <strong>City</strong> after<br />
considering the study data.<br />
As described in the first paragraph <strong>of</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1, the Project would increase the average<br />
delay for left turns to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway at the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway<br />
and Thomas Lake Harris Drive West by 20 seconds during the AM peak hour and<br />
29 seconds during the PM peak hour. These additions in traffic are substantial in relation to<br />
the existing traffic load and would result in significant delay impacts. As described in the<br />
second paragraph <strong>of</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1, the impact to the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway<br />
and Thomas Lake Harris Drive East would be less than significant because delays would be<br />
increased there by approximately 1 second per vehicle. Therefore, the traffic signal included<br />
in Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 would be installed at the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway and Thomas Lake Harris Drive West. Addition <strong>of</strong> the traffic signal would improve<br />
the level <strong>of</strong> service at the intersection over current conditions, which would reduce the<br />
impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.14 has been clarified as follows.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Add a traffic signal on Thomas Lake Harris Drive.<br />
A three-legged signal shallwill be installed at Thomas Lake Harris (West) and<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. This traffic signal would alleviate the need for a westbound<br />
right-turn deceleration lane and an eastbound left-turn acceleration lane on Thomas<br />
Lake Harris Drive. In addition to the traffic signal, there will be a need to increase<br />
the radius <strong>of</strong> the curb return on the northeast quadrant <strong>of</strong> the intersection to improve<br />
the flow <strong>of</strong> the westbound to northbound right turn. The traffic signal would be<br />
interconnected (timed) with the existing traffic signals at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Round Barn Boulevard, as well as the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Altruria Drive. This would result in an improvement<br />
over the existing LOS.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> does not require improvements to be made before actual construction; installation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the traffic light will occur at the <strong>City</strong>’s discretion. Financing <strong>of</strong> the traffic light will come<br />
from payment by the Applicant. The Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> Fee was combined with the Public<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Fee to be incorporated into a single Community Facilities Fee (CFF), which is paid<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> improvements or signals installed and is collected with the issuance <strong>of</strong> a<br />
building permit. The CFF is deposited into a fund for <strong>City</strong>wide improvements and used as a<br />
financial resource for Public Works Capital Improvement Projects.<br />
While Project impact to the collector (neighborhood) streets surrounding the site is<br />
considered less than significant, the <strong>City</strong> will require construction vehicles to access the site<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-11
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
using the west intersection <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris Drive and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway; this<br />
will limit construction traffic in the adjacent neighborhoods.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-3 considers whether the Project could result in an increase in hazards due to a<br />
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. While<br />
the impact analysis determined that the Project would not result in a significant increase in<br />
traffic along Thomas Lake Harris Drive, to further reduce potential hazards to pedestrians<br />
who want to cross Thomas Lake Harris Drive, a new pedestrian crossing will be included as<br />
a condition <strong>of</strong> Project approval. This is not considered a mitigation measure under CEQA<br />
because it is not being implemented to lessen a significant impact. The Applicant will install<br />
a speed table to reduce potential hazards to pedestrians who want to cross Thomas Lake<br />
Harris Drive; the crossing would be a raised speed table marked as a pedestrian crossing<br />
equipped with a pedestrian-activated flasher (Draft EIR p. 3-165).<br />
2.2.6 Visual Resources<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> the comments raise concerns that the analysis in the Draft EIR does not<br />
properly account for the visual effects <strong>of</strong> the grading that will occur on the site, the retaining<br />
walls that will be required, and the massing <strong>of</strong> the buildings. In some cases, these comments<br />
suggest that the analysis is deficient because the EIR does not include a grading plan or<br />
cross sections <strong>of</strong> the site. Other comments question the accuracy <strong>of</strong> the simulations,<br />
suggesting that they do not accurately portray the site grading, retaining walls, and<br />
structures.<br />
As indicated in Section 3.1.3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the analysis <strong>of</strong> the Project’s visual effects was<br />
based on review <strong>of</strong> the visual simulations presented in Figures 3.1-4 through 3.1-7. As the<br />
text in Section 3.1.3 indicates, these simulations were prepared using a high-end threedimension<br />
(3-D) visualization s<strong>of</strong>tware. This s<strong>of</strong>tware was used to integrate the data<br />
available from the site grading plan, the architectural plans for the buildings, and the<br />
landscape plan to create a highly accurate 3-D digital model <strong>of</strong> the Project. This model, in<br />
turn, was used as part <strong>of</strong> a systematic process to create accurate simulations <strong>of</strong> the Project as<br />
it would appear in the views from the four analysis viewpoints, including removal <strong>of</strong> trees<br />
required for Project construction. Given the reliance on the detailed data on Project design<br />
to build the 3-D model <strong>of</strong> the Project, the use <strong>of</strong> a widely accepted s<strong>of</strong>tware program to<br />
create the 3-D model and simulations, and the systematic protocol followed to permit<br />
proper scaling <strong>of</strong> the Project features and placement in the views, the resulting simulations<br />
provide highly accurate depictions <strong>of</strong> the Project’s appearance. The simulations provide an<br />
accurate depiction <strong>of</strong> the end results <strong>of</strong> the proposed grading <strong>of</strong> the site and the construction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the retaining walls and buildings; these aspects <strong>of</strong> the proposed project have been taken<br />
into account in the analysis <strong>of</strong> the Project’s visual impacts.<br />
The trees and other landscaping visible in the simulations were rendered to reflect the size<br />
and level <strong>of</strong> maturity they would have approximately 5 to 10 years after their installation.<br />
Thus, the simulations represent the appearance that the Project would have in 5 to 10 years<br />
when the trees would be small and provide limited screening but before the trees attain<br />
their full maturity and provide a more complete level <strong>of</strong> screening. More detail on tree<br />
replanting is included in Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.<br />
2-12 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
In response to comments indicating an interest in seeing depictions <strong>of</strong> the Project as it would<br />
appear immediately after construction and before the landscaping has grown out, a<br />
supplemental set <strong>of</strong> simulations has been prepared. These simulations, presented in this<br />
document as Views 1, 2, 3, and 4, depict the views <strong>of</strong> the Project from each <strong>of</strong> the Key<br />
Observation Points as they would appear immediately after completion <strong>of</strong> construction and<br />
installation <strong>of</strong> the landscaping. As review <strong>of</strong> these simulations indicates, although the<br />
recently planted trees and shrubs would provide some level <strong>of</strong> screening, the retaining walls<br />
and structures would be more visible than would be the case in the simulations presented in<br />
the EIR, which depict the level <strong>of</strong> landscape maturity and screening that would exist 5 to<br />
10 years after project completion.<br />
The CEQA Guidelines include no provisions that require that visual resource analyses<br />
include grading plans or project cross sections as a part <strong>of</strong> their analyses. However, in<br />
Appendix C <strong>of</strong> its Design Guidelines, the <strong>City</strong> requires that applications for certain<br />
developments (which would include projects like <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project) include a<br />
“three dimension Visual depiction.” The Guidelines specify that “[t]he three dimension<br />
visual depiction must illustrate how the completed project will look as seen from public<br />
areas” and provide a range <strong>of</strong> options for the form that this depiction might take. One <strong>of</strong> the<br />
options is “[a] computer generated simulation.” Because this visual analysis includes four<br />
computer-generated simulations <strong>of</strong> the Project, it is consistent with the <strong>City</strong>’s requirements.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> does not require that the visual analysis must also be accompanied by a grading<br />
plan and cross sections.<br />
As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.1-3, implementation <strong>of</strong> the Project would result in new sources <strong>of</strong><br />
light with the addition <strong>of</strong> nighttime security lighting along driveways, in outdoor parking<br />
lots, and near building entrances. The presence <strong>of</strong> this lighting on a site that now does not<br />
contain substantial sources <strong>of</strong> nighttime illumination has the potential to substantially affect<br />
nighttime views in the area. To some degree, the building massing and the trees retained<br />
and planted on the site will attenuate these effects, but if unshielded and poorly directed,<br />
the light fixtures could cause <strong>of</strong>fsite light impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 requires strict<br />
conformance with the <strong>City</strong>’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the Principles <strong>of</strong> Low-impact<br />
Lighting Design. These guidelines and principles include measures such as restricting<br />
outdoor lighting to areas where it is essential for safety and security and use <strong>of</strong> light fixtures<br />
that eliminate uplighting and that are shielded to prevent light spill. Incorporation <strong>of</strong> these<br />
measures will be confirmed during the design review process and will minimize the amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> nighttime light that leaves the site. No significant impacts will occur.<br />
2.3 Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR<br />
This section contains, in alphabetical order, copies <strong>of</strong> the comment letters and public hearing<br />
transcript on the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project EIR. Individual comments within the letters<br />
and transcript have been enumerated, and responses to each comment are provided.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-13
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
AEGIS – 1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
AEGIS – 2<br />
AEGIS – 3<br />
AEGIS – 4<br />
AEGIS – 5<br />
AEGIS – 6
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
AEGIS – 7<br />
AEGIS – 8<br />
AEGIS – 9<br />
AEGIS – 10<br />
AEGIS – 11
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
AEGIS – 12<br />
AEGIS – 13<br />
AEGIS – 14<br />
AEGIS – 15<br />
AEGIS – 16<br />
AEGIS – 17<br />
AEGIS – 18
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
AEGIS – 19<br />
AEGIS – 20<br />
AEGIS – 21<br />
AEGIS – 22
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
AEGIS – 22
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Aegis Living<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) The Project Objective is correctly written on pages (pp.) iii and 2-2 in the Draft EIR as<br />
“Create approximately 135 community care facility units.” While the Applicant may<br />
propose construction <strong>of</strong> 136 units, it is not the specific objective <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> to do so.<br />
The Project Components section on page (p.) iii <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR has been amended<br />
as follows: Eight Six two-bedroom community care units in the form <strong>of</strong> duplexes and<br />
detached cottages.<br />
Section 2.1, Background and Project Origin, section on p. 2-1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR has<br />
been amended as follows: “The Project site is defined as two three lots designated in<br />
the Development Concept Plan as Cluster Residential land use.”<br />
Section 2.4.1, Project Components, description <strong>of</strong> the Main Building on p. 2-7 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR has been amended as follows: “The building will be two and three stories<br />
over a lower-level parking structure and will have a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 49 feet.”<br />
Section 2.4.1, Project Components, description <strong>of</strong> the Flats on p. 2-7 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR<br />
has been amended as follows: “The two and three-story building will have a<br />
maximum height <strong>of</strong> 37 feet, with two tower exceptions (elevator tower at 46 feet and<br />
stairway tower at 41 feet) that total 5 percent <strong>of</strong> the building footprint.”<br />
2) Section 2.4.1, Project Components, description <strong>of</strong> Offsite Improvements on p. 2-11 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Draft EIR has been amended as follows: “A raised crosswalk on Thomas Lake<br />
Harris Drive between the Flats Building and Employee Housing (Lot 3)at Gullane<br />
Drive will be added.”<br />
3) Section 2.4.1, Project Components, description <strong>of</strong> the Loading/Staging Area and<br />
Trash/Recycling Enclosures on p. 2-11 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR has been amended as<br />
follows: “Trash and recycling enclosures are provided in three major locations: at the<br />
southwest corner <strong>of</strong> the Care Center, in the covered parking area under the west<br />
wing <strong>of</strong>next to the Main Building and at the northwest corner <strong>of</strong> the employee<br />
housing. In addition, smaller trash/recycle rooms will be located within the main<br />
building, flats building, and care center. in an area <strong>of</strong> The total area <strong>of</strong> all<br />
trash/recycling locations is approximately 810 ft 2.”<br />
4) Comment noted. Requirements for tree replanting are described in more detail in<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master Response Oak Trees and<br />
Oak Woodland <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR document. The exact number and size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
replacement trees and/or other tree mitigation would be determined through the<br />
development permit process and may consist <strong>of</strong> a variety <strong>of</strong> tree sizes and types.<br />
5) As noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-6 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, a focused rare plant survey was conducted<br />
on October 5 and 14, 2005, June 16, 2006, and February 16 and April 9, 2007.<br />
However, it should have been noted that these rare plant survey dates corresponded<br />
to the general blooming periods for observing and identifying all but two, not seven,<br />
<strong>of</strong> the special-status plant species with potential to occur at the Project site, as<br />
2-22 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
identified in Table H-1 Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Study Area in Appendix H to the Draft EIR. These two species<br />
are streamside daisy, which has a low potential <strong>of</strong> occurrence and blooms between<br />
July and September, and wooly-headed lessengia, which has a very low potential <strong>of</strong><br />
occurrence and blooms in mid- to late August. This correction is shown in<br />
Section 3.0, Errata and Revisions, <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR. Because the rare plant surveys<br />
were conducted over a period <strong>of</strong> 3 years, during early, mid-, and late season<br />
blooming periods; the wooly-headed lessengia and streamside daisy have,<br />
respectively, very low and low potential for occurrence; and the multiple focused<br />
rare plant surveys did not reveal the presence <strong>of</strong> any special-status plant species.<br />
Potential impacts to special-status plant species are considered to be less than<br />
significant, as noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-6. However, it is still possible that rare plant<br />
surveys may be required by the applicable resource agencies, including California<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game (CDFG) and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),<br />
based on their review <strong>of</strong> the EIR and Rare Plant Survey <strong>Report</strong>, included as<br />
Appendix G to the Draft EIR.<br />
6) Table 3.4-3 indicates in table footnote “c” that olive trees do not require replacement<br />
under the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Tree Ordinance (<strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 17-24 Trees).<br />
Requirements for tree replanting are described in more detail in Mitigation<br />
Measure 3.4-1a <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master Response Oak Trees and Oak<br />
Woodland <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR document.<br />
7) Comment noted. Requirements for tree replanting are described in more detail in<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master Response Oak Trees and<br />
Oak Woodland <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR document.<br />
8) The first bullet in Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 states that “[t]o avoid impacts to nesting<br />
avian species, Project activity shall be avoided to the degree feasible during the<br />
breeding season (generally, March 1 through September 15).” The specific dates <strong>of</strong><br />
the breeding season to avoid nesting avian species will be confirmed with the<br />
resource agencies.<br />
9) Section 3.6, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity has been amended on p. 3-68 as follows:<br />
“Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>,<br />
California (Giblin, 2007). This study included additional trenching excavation and<br />
logging to resolve discrepancy regarding a possible faulting through the northeast<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the Project site.”<br />
10) Section 3.6.1, Setting, description <strong>of</strong> Topography and Drainage, has been amended<br />
on p. 3-69 as follows: “Local drainage features within the Project vicinity site include<br />
subdued drainage swales, closed or nearly closed drainage depressions, and abrupt<br />
changes in stream direction and gradients.”<br />
11) Section 3.6.1, Setting, description <strong>of</strong> Bedrock has been amended on p. 3-70 as follows:<br />
“Scattered test pits dug by Giblin Associates showed lava flow rocks, agglomerate,<br />
tuffaceous, and sedimentary rocks. Bedding observed indicated that the rocks in the<br />
central portion <strong>of</strong> the property are folded in an anticline (concave downward). Beds<br />
are gently folded with dips varying from gently eastward at the higher elevation in<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-23
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
the eastern property area to moderately down to the west in proximity to Thomas<br />
Lake Harris Drive. A northwest strike interrupts these rocks to form a crude layering<br />
or bedding with a moderate westerly dip <strong>of</strong> about 25 to 30 degrees.”<br />
12) Figure 3.6-4, Local Geology Map, has been replaced with Plate 3 <strong>of</strong> Giblin Associates’<br />
Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard <strong>Report</strong>, December 2007. The revised<br />
figure is included in Section 3.0, Errata and Revisions, <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR.<br />
13) Comment noted. The 1997 version <strong>of</strong> Special Publications 42 was used during<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. The reference in Section 3.6.4 contains a typo and<br />
should read:<br />
“1992. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies<br />
Zones Act <strong>of</strong> 1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps. California Division <strong>of</strong><br />
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Revised 1997.” This correction is included<br />
in Section 3.0, Errata and Revisions, in this Final EIR.<br />
14) Section 3.6.1, Setting, description <strong>of</strong> Local Faulting has been amended on p. 3-84 as<br />
follows: “California Geological Survey Special Publication 42 requires a site-specific<br />
fault study if a site is within an Alquist-Priolo zone.”<br />
15) Comment noted. No formal revision to the Draft EIR is required.<br />
16) Comment noted. No formal revision to the Draft EIR is required.<br />
17) The second bullet on p. 3-86 has been amended as follows:<br />
A 20- to 25-foot-thick landslide colluvial soil deposit in the swale near the north end<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project site. This deposit, consisted <strong>of</strong> debris flow and pond sediment, and the<br />
underlying bedrock appear to be part <strong>of</strong> an ancient landslide movement.<br />
18) The last paragraph on p. 3-120 has been amended as follows: “Progressive care<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> residents would be addressed by the proposed 36-unit Care Facility by<br />
providing high-acuitysecurity assisted living and memory support/Alzheimer’s<br />
care.”<br />
19) Comment noted. The <strong>City</strong> does not agree with the commenter’s position on the<br />
Community Facilities District. Measure “O” does not provide all the funding<br />
necessary for police and fire services to operate according to their public obligations.<br />
Measure “O” was designed to target existing and past financial shortcomings, not to<br />
address future growth. Therefore, additional funding is necessary through a<br />
Community Facilities District where growth is creating additional demands for fire,<br />
police, street maintenance, and similar <strong>City</strong> services. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a is<br />
considered by the <strong>City</strong> as a mandatory component <strong>of</strong> the proposed Project to<br />
mitigate its impact on fire and police services.<br />
20) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
21) See Master Response Local Traffic. Applicant will be solely responsible for signal<br />
construction and installation as required by the <strong>City</strong> with conditioning <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project. There is no longer a separate Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> Fee to be issued for the Project.<br />
The Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> Fee was combined with the Public <strong>Impact</strong> Fee to be incorporated<br />
2-24 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
into the Community Facilities Fee (CFF), which is paid regardless <strong>of</strong> improvements<br />
or signals installed, and is collected with the issuance <strong>of</strong> a building permit. The CFF<br />
is deposited into a fund for <strong>City</strong>wide improvements and used as a financial resource<br />
for Public Works Capital Improvement Projects.<br />
22) CEQA draws a distinction between individual project impacts and cumulative<br />
impacts, which are created as a result <strong>of</strong> the combination <strong>of</strong> the project evaluated in<br />
the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. There are no significant<br />
individual Project impacts, including traffic impacts (see Draft EIR pp. 3-163 through<br />
3-165). However, as described in Draft EIR Section 4.1.13, Transportation and Traffic<br />
(cumulative impacts), Mendocino/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>, Mendocino/Bicentennial, and<br />
U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps/Old Redwood intersections would remain at level <strong>of</strong><br />
service (LOS) F under the analyzed cumulative scenario. This incremental<br />
contribution by the Project to this existing traffic condition is considered significant<br />
and unavoidable. As noted in Section 4.1.1.13, various projects are proposed or<br />
underway for improvements to address these issues, as mitigation; however, even<br />
with these projects, U.S. 101 and some associated ramps are expected to remain at<br />
LOS F. No additional mitigation for this cumulative impact has been proposed at<br />
this time.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-25
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:11 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
Attachments: 3881054766-To The Editor.docx<br />
From: Niewald, Anette<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:09 AM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
Anette Niewald<br />
Community Development/Planning Division<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
(707) 543-3226<br />
aniewald@srcity.org<br />
From: Tom Karsten [mailto:tk@mkgrp.com]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:28 PM<br />
To: Niewald, Anette<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
From: Elizabeth Anderson [mailto:norcaltraveler@sbcglobal.net]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:38 PM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com<br />
Cc: ncaston@sonic.net; pacisco@aol.com; Vicki@15000inc.com; Tom Karsten; davidpoulsen816@msn.com<br />
Subject: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
To the Planning Commission:<br />
8/1/2008<br />
Page 1 <strong>of</strong> 1<br />
Attached is a letter regarding the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge project. Thank you for your kind attention to this very<br />
important matter.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Dr. Thomas L. Toth & Elizabeth Anderson<br />
4464 Kilarney Circle<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, Ca 95403<br />
707-576-7972
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
ANDERSON – 1<br />
ANDERSON – 2<br />
ANDERSON – 3<br />
ANDERSON – 4<br />
July28,2008<br />
<br />
DearMr.Bartley:<br />
Letuspredicatethisletteronthepremisethattheonlypositiveaspects<strong>of</strong>the<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>Lodge<br />
projectarethemarketingtotheLGTBcommunityandhousingforemployees.Quitehonestly,wewish<br />
wehadhadthevisionandthecapitaltoembarkonsuchaprojectourselves.<br />
However,wehaveveryseriousconcerns.Sincepastbehaviorisanexcellentindicator<strong>of</strong>future<br />
behavior,itisreasonabletohavetheexpectationthatthecurrentplanspresentedtothePlanning<br />
CommissionbyAegisminimizethetrueimpact<strong>of</strong>suchamassiveprojectonarelativelysmallpiece<strong>of</strong><br />
landandtheneighboringhomes.Inreality,thisisanotheraggressiveandinvasiveprojectthatwill<br />
destroytheintegrity<strong>of</strong>aquietresidentialneighborhood.Thisisthesameasbuildingahotelsuchasthe<br />
VineyardCreekHotel&Spainaquietneighborhoodwiththeattendantimpacts<strong>of</strong>noise,trafficsafety<br />
issues,loss<strong>of</strong>trees,&loss<strong>of</strong>wildlife.<br />
Noonewaspreparedfortherapeandpillage<strong>of</strong>thelandthatoncehadopenspaceandbeautifultrees<br />
thatisnowVarenna.4storybuildingsnowareplacedonthehillside.Almostallthetreesaregone.<br />
Plantingyoungtreesisnotatruemitigation<strong>of</strong>removingtheoldheritageoaks.Newtreeswillnotreach<br />
thesize&grandeurthedestroyedtreesinthelifetime<strong>of</strong>anyoneinvolvedinthisproject!Varennais<br />
muchlargerinscopethanthevisionthatwasoriginallypresentedtothePlanningCommission.<br />
Varenna,uponclosescrutiny,ismerelyahighendtimeshare.<br />
<strong>Santa</strong><strong>Rosa</strong>needsseniorhousingfortheLGBTcommunityandforlowincomeseniors.However,the<br />
parcelunderconsiderationisnottheappropriateplaceforaproject<strong>of</strong>thissizeandmagnitude.Why<br />
notalongRoundBarnBlvd,ifitmustbein<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>,wherethereiscommercialland.Varenna,<br />
BrightonGardensandVineyardCommonsareallincommercialzones.Whymakeanexception?<br />
Thiscommercialventurewillhaveahighnegativeimpactforthe2storycondominiums(Stonefield)and<br />
thesingle&2storysinglefamilyhomes(TheOaks)thatcurrentlyexistoneitherside<strong>of</strong>theproperty.<br />
Thesehomesareverymodestlysizedwithnoneover2,150squarefeet.Additionally,anadditional<strong>of</strong><br />
242parkingspacesdestroystheconcept<strong>of</strong>residentialneighborhood.AftercarefullyreviewingEIRand<br />
observingongoingbuildingatVarenna,wehaveeveryreasontobelievethatthehulking3story<br />
behemothslatedtobecomepart<strong>of</strong>theFLisnotevenremotelyanaccuratedepiction<strong>of</strong>thefinalresult.<br />
Itshouldbenoted,thatthereisalreadyaprominentbusinesssituatedacrossfromTheOaksonThomas<br />
LakeHarrisinthejurisdiction<strong>of</strong>SonomaCounty.ParadiseRidgeWineryalreadyhasadistinctimpacton<br />
theneighborhoodinterms<strong>of</strong>trafficandnoise.<br />
Thebest<strong>of</strong>allworldswouldbetoprotectthislandasmitigationtothedamageincurredwhen<br />
developerswereallowedtobuildontheridgetopsabove<strong>Santa</strong><strong>Rosa</strong>.However,ifthe<strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Lodgeshouldbeapproved,atleastthesizeandscope<strong>of</strong>theFLshouldbereducedandplacement<strong>of</strong>the<br />
singleunit“casitas”couldbeplacednearcurrenthomesonGuillaneandthelargecommercialbuildings
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
ANDERSON – 4<br />
andparkinglotsbeplacedinthemiddle<strong>of</strong>theproject.Webelievethereisroomforcompromiseso<br />
thattheimpactonsinglefamilyhomeswouldbereduced.<br />
Thankinadvanceforconsideringallpoints<strong>of</strong>viewonthisveryimportantmatter.Wehavefaiththat<br />
thePlanningCommissionwillresearchthematterandinvestigatethetrueintentions<strong>of</strong>Aegis.Wealso<br />
hopethatthecommissionwilllookattheEIRforVarennaandcomparethevisionoriginallysetforthto<br />
theCommissionandseewhathasactuallytranspired.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Dr.ThomasL.Toth,MD&<br />
ElizabethAnderson<br />
<br />
4464KilarneyCircle<br />
<strong>Santa</strong><strong>Rosa</strong>,Ca95403<br />
7075767972
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Elizabeth Anderson and Thomas Toth, MD<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Potential impacts related to the scale <strong>of</strong> the Project are addressed in Section 3.1,<br />
Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, in the<br />
Draft EIR. Compatibility with surrounding land uses is further discussed in Master<br />
Response Land Use Compatibility <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR. Potential impacts <strong>of</strong> the Project<br />
on loss <strong>of</strong> trees/wildlife, noise, and traffic are described, respectively, in Sections 3.4,<br />
3.10, and 3.13 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. <strong>Impact</strong>s to the surrounding areas will be less than<br />
significant with the implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures.<br />
2) The Project is an allowed land use on the site and is consistent with applicable land<br />
use regulations, as described in Section 3.9 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master Response<br />
Land Use Compatibility <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR document. No significant land use impacts<br />
will occur as a result <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />
The parcels around Round Barn Drive are potentially large enough to fit the Project<br />
but are currently owned by private parties. As discussed in Section 5.5 in the Draft<br />
EIR, other locations for the Project were evaluated; no alternative locations were<br />
identified that could meet the Project objectives.<br />
3) Potential impacts <strong>of</strong> the Project on views are described in Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR<br />
and in Master Response Visual Resources <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR document. Potential<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> the Project on land use are described in Section 3.9 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in<br />
Master Response Land Use Compatibility <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR document. As noted in<br />
Master Response Visual Resources, the visual simulations were done correctly and<br />
present an accurate depiction <strong>of</strong> the Project. As noted in Master Response Land Use<br />
Compatibility, the Project is an allowed land use on the site and is consistent with<br />
applicable land use regulations. <strong>Impact</strong>s to land use and views will be less than<br />
significant with the implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures.<br />
4) The Project site is unrelated to previous developments that have been implemented<br />
on ridgetops in the <strong>City</strong>. Mitigation required for completed development projects on<br />
ridgetops in the <strong>City</strong> will have been previously implemented and no further<br />
mitigation for those projects would be required. A <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project<br />
substantially reduced in size and scope would not meet the Project objectives. The<br />
Project site is generally too narrow to accommodate one <strong>of</strong> the larger buildings at the<br />
location currently planned for the cottages/duplexes.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-29
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Barr.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:28 PM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: EIR/Aegis/Thomas Lake Harris<br />
From: Linda Barr [mailto:wileysgram@vom.com]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:02 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: EIR/Aegis/Thomas Lake Harris<br />
July 25, 2008<br />
Dear Mr. Galbraith,<br />
My name is Linda Barr and I live at 2160 Wedgewood Way in <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>.<br />
My neighbor and I attended the meeting last night where the EIR for the Aegis project<br />
was discussed. I am vehemently opposed to approval <strong>of</strong> this project. I feel that the<br />
density <strong>of</strong> the project is way to great for the size <strong>of</strong> the parcel. In fact, I feel that only<br />
low density single family dwellings should be built there. I agree with the woman who<br />
was concerned about the light that will be generated at night by apartments, villas,<br />
rooms, restaurants and the parking lot, to say nothing <strong>of</strong> the noise generated by all<br />
their generators, air conditioners, and delivery trucks. <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> is basically a<br />
residential neighborhood. As our homes are expensive, we pay high property taxes and<br />
should be able to expect to have privacy and protection from noise and light pollution.<br />
The intended project will create both kinds <strong>of</strong> pollution. I am appalled too that the<br />
planning commission would allow the destruction <strong>of</strong> so many old and beautiful trees.<br />
Far fewer trees would have to be removed if the parcel was developed as low density<br />
single family dwellings. I also resent all the extra traffic that this project will generate,<br />
and I resent the installation <strong>of</strong> yet another stop signal on <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. I<br />
have been a resident <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> for two years and I have seen a tremendous<br />
change in the amount <strong>of</strong> traffic, and in the amount <strong>of</strong> time that it takes me to get from<br />
the 101 Highway up to my house on Wedgewood Way due to the extra stop signals.<br />
The one at Varenna is particularly irksome. I also agree with the gentleman who<br />
pointed out how traffic has been reduced to a single lane for a long time as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
on going construction at Varenna. I believe that the same kind <strong>of</strong> disturbance will be<br />
cast upon us during construction <strong>of</strong> the Aegis project on Thomas Lake Harris. I beg the<br />
city council and the city planning commission to deny this project.<br />
Incidentally, the gentleman from Florida who plans to move to Aegis, and the woman<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Barr.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:08 PM<br />
BARR – 1<br />
BARR – 2<br />
BARR – 3<br />
BARR – 4
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Barr.htm<br />
representing the Council on Aging and particularly aging gays were not addressing the<br />
environmental issues. They were attempting to garner public sympathy for<br />
homosexuals and their plight as retirees. Let me say this, their plight is no different<br />
than anyone else's. Many <strong>of</strong> us live alone and face old age without the companionship<br />
<strong>of</strong> family. Being gay is nothing special as far as I'm concerned. Further more I think<br />
that the exclusiveness <strong>of</strong> this gay project should be illegal too. Why do the gays need a<br />
gay restricted residence? If any homosexuals were turned away from residency at<br />
Varenna, they would be screaming bloody murder and claiming segregation. So how do<br />
they get <strong>of</strong>f being able to have a gay retirement village? Will black people be able to<br />
have a black restricted retirement village? How about Italians? Or Jews? This whole<br />
project is ridiculous in my opinion.<br />
I do not have the email addresses <strong>of</strong> all the other city council persons. Will you please<br />
forward my letter to them to. Thank you very much.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Linda Barr, a concerned citizen <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
578-7299<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Barr.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:08 PM
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Linda Barr<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
2) See Master Responses Visual Resources and Noise. For explanation <strong>of</strong> how <strong>Impact</strong><br />
3.13-3 presents and accurate impact evaluation <strong>of</strong> the Project’s outdoor lighting<br />
plans, see Response to Community Comments – 13.<br />
3) See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Oak Tree and Oak Woodland.<br />
Developing the parcel at a lower density does not necessarily reduce the number <strong>of</strong><br />
trees removed. The proposed Project concentrates buildings on areas <strong>of</strong> the site,<br />
allowing other areas to be preserved. If single-family homes were constructed<br />
instead, the spacing <strong>of</strong> such homes could result in even greater tree impacts.<br />
4) As discussed in Master Response Local Traffic and in Draft EIR <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1,<br />
installation <strong>of</strong> a traffic light is necessary to reduce delays at the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway intersection with Thomas Lake Harris Drive. The Project would add an<br />
additional average delay for left turns to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway by 20 seconds<br />
during the AM peak hour and 29 seconds during the PM peak hour at an<br />
intersection with existing conditions below <strong>City</strong> standards. This is a potentially<br />
significant impact that requires mitigation through installation <strong>of</strong> a traffic light.<br />
Draft EIR Section 2.4.3 includes a description <strong>of</strong> how construction vehicle traffic will<br />
access the Project site and where the staging locations will be located. Some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fsite improvements (i.e., sidewalk along Thomas Lake Harris, sewer and water<br />
connections) will require temporary lane closures. Some <strong>of</strong> the onsite improvements<br />
(i.e., retaining walls) may require temporary lane closures. The Project is not<br />
anticipated to require lane closure beyond what is typical for constructions projects.<br />
2-32 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:10 PM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW:<br />
Attachments: scan0001.jpg<br />
scan0001.jpg<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: Ed Bellone [mailto:edbellone@sbcglobal.net]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:39 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject:<br />
Joel,<br />
Hope all is well with you, long time no see. Please include the attached thoughts<br />
in your deliberations.<br />
Thanks,<br />
Ed Bellone<br />
1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
BELLONE – 1
Response to Comment Letter from Ed Bellone<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual Resources.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-35
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COOPER – 1<br />
Message<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:55 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Retirement Development Hearing<br />
From: Annette Cooper [mailto:ACooper@KeeganCoppin.com]<br />
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 3:14 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Retirement Development Hearing<br />
I attended the Public Hearing on Thurs.July 24,2008....I wanted to comment the that I felt the majority <strong>of</strong><br />
the comments seem to be directed at the Merits <strong>of</strong> whether this Proposed Site is suitable for development;<br />
as opposed to comments as to the merits <strong>of</strong> this specific project It's important to recognize that the nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> a Planned Development contains many lifestyle resources onsite that keep the residents within that<br />
community,and minimize the need to have to go anywhere..thus having positive impact on minimizing the<br />
traffic being generated. It's equally important to implement an intelligent plan to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
baby boomers as they make their way into retirement....Finally;it's incumbent on the Planning<br />
Commission to determine that any opposition taken into consideration MUST be made on the actual<br />
merits <strong>of</strong> the project,and reasonable concerns regarding implementation <strong>of</strong> the development....It's critical<br />
that any opposition based on an antiquated cultural bias toward gender preference is recognized as<br />
prejudice,and should not be allowed to stand.....Acceptance <strong>of</strong> a Senior Gay Housing Project has the<br />
potential to attract an upscale cultural class that will have a positive financial impact on this society;with<br />
minimal impact on schools,and extended community resources. I realize the <strong>City</strong> is in an on-going<br />
balancing act to meet the growing housing needs <strong>of</strong> the society,while maintaining a decent quality <strong>of</strong> life<br />
for the community at large.There are many factors that need consideration,and Fountain grove Lodge<br />
appears to be meeting most <strong>of</strong> the criteria for positive housing expansion in our <strong>City</strong>.Thank you for your<br />
time,Annette Cooper...320 Gilbert Dr. <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>,CA.95405<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Cooper.htm8/1/2008 2:10:08 PM
Response to Comment Letter from Annette Cooper<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted. As described in Section 2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the Project objectives<br />
include provision <strong>of</strong> approximately 135 units <strong>of</strong> community care facility units,<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> quality senior care, and provision <strong>of</strong> housing for seniors with<br />
convenient access to medical care facilities, highways and transportation, retail, and<br />
recreation amenities. These objectives support policies and goals in the General Plan<br />
that call for projects and services to support the needs <strong>of</strong> seniors in the <strong>City</strong> (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 2002).<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-37
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
DAUGARRD – 1<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Daugaard.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:37 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Another Varenna?<br />
From: allend315@comcast.net [mailto:allend315@comcast.net]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:35 AM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel; scott@hallandbartley.com<br />
Subject: Another Varenna?<br />
Gentlemen,<br />
Thank you for your letter Re: Another Varenna??? I plan on attending the meeting but will<br />
probably not speak as I am sure there will be many more qualified persons in attendance who will<br />
voice opposition to the building <strong>of</strong> this facility on Thomas Lake Harris Road. The population in<br />
general has been asked by the Governor to conserve water. In addition, the Water Dept. as well as<br />
PG&E have semi-regular ads on TV asking that we cut back on our water usage and to use<br />
electrical appliances during the non prime time usage hours. I would like the Planning<br />
Commission to explain why, if our current resource levels are being strained, they continue<br />
to okay the building on new big projects before new resources become available.<br />
I fear that despite this perfunctory community meeting their minds are already made up and the<br />
project will be built. I believe one <strong>of</strong> my neighbors when he said"...<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> has the best<br />
government that money can buy!".<br />
Allen T. Daugaard<br />
2072 Stonefield<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Daugaard.htm8/1/2008 2:10:08 PM
Response to Comment Letter from Allen T. Daugaard<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.14-2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the water demand associated with<br />
this Project is included in the General Plan evaluation <strong>of</strong> water supply, given that the<br />
land use <strong>of</strong> the Project is consistent with the FRPCD Policy. The water demands for<br />
this Project were also included in SCWA’s Urban Water Management Plan 2000,<br />
which is also the <strong>City</strong>’s Urban Water Management Plan. Because current water<br />
demands are 23,000 acre-feet per year (afy), and only a portion <strong>of</strong> the development<br />
anticipated in the <strong>City</strong>’s General Plan has occurred, the <strong>City</strong>’s water supplies are<br />
currently sufficient to meet the present and future demand associated with this<br />
Project. No significant impacts to water supply would occur as a result <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />
See also Draft EIR Section 3.14.1 Setting discussion <strong>of</strong> Domestic Water Supply on<br />
p. 3-167.<br />
As discussed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.14-4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, existing electric and natural gas grid<br />
supply is sufficient to support the Project and is provided for in the General Plan. No<br />
significant impacts to energy supply would occur as a result <strong>of</strong> the Project. It should<br />
be noted that guidance to restrict utility use during peak hours relates to electric<br />
transmission capacity during peak summer use periods, not resource supply.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-39
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
DIBBLE – 1<br />
DIBBLE – 2<br />
DIBBLE – 3<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Dibble.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:20 PM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
From: Sue Dibble [mailto:sue.dibble@gmail.com]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:49 AM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel; scott@hallandbartley.com<br />
Subject: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
To: Joel Galbraith, Supervising Planner and Scott Bartley, Chair Planning Commission<br />
From: Dr. Suzanne L. Dibble & Dr. Jeanne F. DeJoseph<br />
We are priority members and future residents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge and we wanted to add our<br />
comments in support <strong>of</strong> the EIR. Our two biggest concerns had been the need for removal <strong>of</strong> trees<br />
and the increased traffic.<br />
After readingthe EIR on the website, we were very pleased to note that significantly<br />
moretrees would be planted than would be removed. We are also pleased that thetrees that will be<br />
planted will not be oaks since "sudden oak death" is presentin Sonoma County. We do have a<br />
little concern about keeping oak trees that arein poor quality (e.g. trees 16, 19) since poor quality<br />
oak trees provide a setup for the virus. We believe that <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> has been at the forefront<br />
inresponsible community planning to decrease greenhouse gasses, and this increase<strong>of</strong> trees would<br />
support that plan.<br />
We were also concerned about traffic from the standpoint <strong>of</strong> safety. The proposed traffic light at<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive will provide an opportunity to control the flow <strong>of</strong> traffic and increase<br />
the safety <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> the residents <strong>of</strong> that area, not just those <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge. Additionally<br />
although we currently have two cars, when we move to <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> we plan to sell one, and<br />
purchase an electric car for local travel.<br />
We are grateful to Aegis for providing this type <strong>of</strong> senior housing. And, having toured<br />
Varenna, we are looking forward to living in a home designed and built with the quality that<br />
Aegis clearly provides for residents <strong>of</strong> its properties.<br />
We are also grateful to the Planning Commission for releasing the draft EIR, and hope<br />
that you will proceed with all due speed. We are currently completing a renovation on our home<br />
in San Mateo in preparation for sale when <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> is complete. We are so looking forward<br />
to becoming active, participating members in our new community <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>..<br />
Thank you.<br />
--<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Dibble.htm8/1/2008 2:10:08 PM
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dr. Susan L. Dibble and Dr. Jeanne F.<br />
DeJoseph<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted. As described in Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland, a<br />
variety <strong>of</strong> native trees, including oaks, will be replanted onsite to mitigate for loss <strong>of</strong><br />
protected trees. Greenhouse gas impacts are discussed in Section 3.3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR<br />
and in Response to Comment Epperly -15.<br />
2) Comment noted. Traffic impacts are discussed in Section 3.13 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in<br />
Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
3) Comment noted.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-41
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:19 PM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: DEIR <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge comments<br />
Attachments: DEIR COMMENTS.PDF<br />
8/1/2008<br />
Page 1 <strong>of</strong> 1<br />
From: Gigi LaFontaine [mailto:gigi.lms@sbcglobal.net]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:19 PM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com; ncaston@sonic.net; pacisco@aol.com; vicki@15000inc.com; tk@mkgrp.com;<br />
davidpoulsen816@msn.com; Galbraith, Joel; Morris, Erin; Meredith, Marie<br />
Cc: Skip Epperly; kyraj@aol.com; 'Susan Nowacki'; 'Ed and Carol Margason'; ulrikegf@yahoo.com; phoeben@pacbell.net;<br />
'lynn and william rood'; 'Dewey Nelson'; 'Jim MacMillan'; judithg@sonic.net; chezmac@earthlink.net;<br />
alcognata@yahoo.com; walkerkelly@comcast.net; jim@jimjohnsonassociates.com; teperry@juno.com;<br />
lc543orps@earthlink.net<br />
Subject: DEIR <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge comments<br />
On behalf <strong>of</strong> Skip Epperly (scnr19@sbcglobal.net) the Supplemental comments to the DEIR <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
is attached.<br />
Skip Epperly
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 1<br />
EPPERLY– 2
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 2<br />
EPPERLY– 3<br />
EPPERLY– 4<br />
EPPERLY– 5
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 6<br />
EPPERLY– 7<br />
EPPERLY– 8<br />
EPPERLY– 9<br />
EPPERLY– 10
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 10<br />
EPPERLY– 11<br />
EPPERLY– 12<br />
EPPERLY– 13
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 13<br />
EPPERLY– 14<br />
EPPERLY– 15
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 15
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 15<br />
EPPERLY– 16<br />
EPPERLY– 17<br />
EPPERLY– 18<br />
EPPERLY– 19<br />
EPPERLY– 20<br />
EPPERLY– 21<br />
EPPERLY– 22<br />
EPPERLY– 23
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 23<br />
EPPERLY– 24
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
EPPERLY– 24
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Skip Epperly (Advocates for Responsible<br />
Development)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted. The <strong>City</strong> disagrees and believes that the Draft EIR has adequately<br />
analyzed the Project’s impacts to air quality, aesthetics, biology, greenhouse gases,<br />
seismicity, traffic, land use compatibility, and that the mitigation measures provided<br />
mitigate potentially significant levels to less than significant. See specific responses<br />
to these issues as follows: aesthetics (Response to Comment Epperly-2 and<br />
Epperly-3), biology (Response to Comment Epperly-4 through Epperly-11),<br />
greenhouse gases (Response to Comment Epperly-15), seismicity (Response to<br />
Comment Epperly-13), traffic (Response to Comment Epperly-14), and consistency<br />
with area plans (Response to Comment Epperly-16 through Epperly-22). No<br />
comments specific to air quality appear to have been made by the commenter.<br />
2) Aesthetic impacts are evaluated in Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and are further<br />
discussed in Master Response Visual Resources. Site drawings do accurately portray<br />
the Project’s height, mass, and density (see Master Response Visual Resources).<br />
Visual impacts by the Project were appropriately based on these site drawings;<br />
therefore, the conclusions derived from the impact analysis, including the<br />
incorporation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures, are accurate. Removal <strong>of</strong> the oak trees and the<br />
site topography were incorporated into the visual analysis and visual simulations<br />
included in the Draft EIR. As a visible design element, retaining walls were analyzed<br />
in the Draft EIR (p. 3-14, 3-21, 3-22) and incorporated into the simulations (see<br />
Master Response Visual Resources).<br />
3) See Master Responses Visual Resources and Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and<br />
Response to Comment FRMA – 16.<br />
4) As described in Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the only onsite riparian habitat is within<br />
the 50-foot buffer <strong>of</strong> Piner Creek. No direct impacts to Piner Creek or its associated<br />
riparian vegetation will occur; no mitigation is required.<br />
5) See Master Response Oak Tree and Oak Woodland.<br />
6) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland with mitigation, impacts to<br />
protected and heritage trees would be less than significant.<br />
7) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.<br />
8) See Response to Comment Public Hearing – 58.<br />
9) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and Response to Comment<br />
Public Hearing – 58.<br />
10) See Response to Comment Epperly – 4. The Study Area described in the Biological<br />
Resources Assessment <strong>Report</strong> in Appendix I extended beyond the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project site, and so estimated areas <strong>of</strong> habitat are slightly larger than what is present<br />
on the Project site and described in the Draft EIR.<br />
2-52 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
11) Potential impacts to wetlands are discussed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-2; no significant impacts<br />
would occur. Also see Response to Comment NCRWQCB – 4.<br />
12) Buildout as allowed in the <strong>City</strong>’s General Plan and the FRPCD Policy Statement are<br />
used as the basis for projecting water demand in the SCWA Urban Water<br />
Management Plan. See also Response to Comment Daugaard -1.<br />
13) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation.<br />
14) See Master Response Local Traffic. There is no specific requirement in CEQA for<br />
determining which intersections (or other facilities) should be analyzed. The traffic<br />
analysis therefore focused on the main routes that would carry the majority <strong>of</strong> the<br />
traffic. Any additional traffic from the Project at other intersections will be low.<br />
15) See Response to Comment Public Hearing – 58.<br />
16) See Master Comment Land Use Compatibility.<br />
17) The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy UD-A-4; the grading contours and<br />
stepped buildings will blend with the overall hillside nature <strong>of</strong> the site (see Draft EIR<br />
Appendix C – General Plan Consistency Table).<br />
18) The Project is consistent with General Plan Policies UD-H-1 and UD-H-6, and Goal<br />
UD-H. See Draft EIR Appendix C – General Plan Consistency Table for an<br />
explanation <strong>of</strong> how the Project is consistent with these goals and policies.<br />
As described in Appendix C, the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy<br />
UD-H-3. The <strong>City</strong> has considered the Applicant’s site plans as drawn since only<br />
5 percent <strong>of</strong> the site area contains slopes over 25 percent, and <strong>of</strong> those only about<br />
one-third would be altered. In addition, none <strong>of</strong> the areas with slopes over<br />
25 percent would be visually prominent or significant. Other design measures to<br />
reduce the impact include placement <strong>of</strong> buildings and parking facilities to maximize<br />
retention <strong>of</strong> existing tree clusters that best blend with the natural setting; prioritized<br />
grading; stepped building design; and architectural features. Final design will be<br />
subject to approval by the Design Review Board.<br />
19) The Project is consistent with General Plan Policies OSC-D-3 and OSC-E-1, and Goal<br />
OSC-E, as described in Draft EIR Appendix C – General Plan Consistency Table. For<br />
example, the Project will preserve the most important existing wildlife corridor,<br />
which is along Piner Creek.<br />
20) The Project is consistent with General Plan Goal NS-C, as described in Draft EIR<br />
Appendix C – General Plan Consistency Table.<br />
21) The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LUL-E-3, as described in Draft EIR<br />
Appendix C – General Plan Consistency Table. Also see Master Response Land Use<br />
Compatibility.<br />
22) The Smaller Footprint and State Density Bonus alternatives evaluated in Section 5 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Draft EIR would be consistent with General Plan Goals and Policies and would<br />
meet most <strong>of</strong> the Project objectives. As described in Response to Comment FRMA-16,<br />
an alternative small enough to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-53
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
impacts such as impacts to trees and visual resources would be far too small to<br />
achieve most <strong>of</strong> the Project objectives.<br />
23) As discussed in Section 5 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, section 15126.6 <strong>of</strong> the California<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines specify that an environmental<br />
impact report (EIR) must describe a reasonable range <strong>of</strong> feasible alternatives to the<br />
project that could feasibly attain most <strong>of</strong> the basic project objectives and would avoid or<br />
substantially lessen any <strong>of</strong> the significant environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project (emphasis added). An alternative to the Project with a moderate reduction in<br />
size would not avoid or substantially lessen most impacts from the Project, including<br />
visual, habitat, and traffic impacts. In order to avoid or substantially lessen such<br />
impacts, a smaller version <strong>of</strong> the Project, for example, would have to be limited<br />
primarily to the grassland areas and reduced at least one floor in height. A project <strong>of</strong><br />
this size would be far too small to achieve most <strong>of</strong> the Project objectives; it would<br />
accommodate only a fraction <strong>of</strong> the objective <strong>of</strong> 135 units and would not have room<br />
to accommodate the community care facility or the employee housing. Seismicrelated<br />
impacts would be similar for any project built on the site.<br />
24) As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.0, Alternatives, in general all the alternatives,<br />
including the No Project Alterative, would be expected to have impacts similar to or<br />
greater than the Project impacts. The Smaller Footprint Alternative and the State<br />
Density Bonus Alternative meet the Project objectives discussed in Section 2.2,<br />
Project Objectives, while the No Project Alternative may not, depending on the<br />
development that occurs. The Smaller Footprint Alternative would reduce the level<br />
<strong>of</strong> biological impacts compared to the Project, but would result in greater, potentially<br />
significant and unavoidable visual impacts. The State Density Bonus Alternative<br />
meets all the Project objectives, but would have greater environmental impacts than<br />
the Project. The No Project Alternative could reduce visual impacts, depending on<br />
the type <strong>of</strong> development that occurs, but could have increased traffic congestion,<br />
noise, and air quality impacts as compared to the Project. Among the alternatives to<br />
the Project, the Smaller Footprint Alternative would be the environmentally superior<br />
alternative. However, as noted above, the Smaller Footprint Alternative would not<br />
be environmentally superior to the Project because <strong>of</strong> greater, potentially significant<br />
and unavoidable visual impacts.<br />
2-54 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
FRMA – 1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
FRMA – 2<br />
FRMA – 3<br />
FRMA – 4<br />
FRMA – 5<br />
FRMA – 6<br />
FRMA – 7<br />
FRMA – 8<br />
FRMA – 9<br />
FRMA – 10<br />
FRMA – 11<br />
FRMA – 12<br />
FRMA – 13<br />
FRMA – 14<br />
FRMA – 15
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
FRMA – 15<br />
FRMA – 16<br />
FRMA – 17<br />
FRMA – 18<br />
FRMA – 19<br />
FRMA – 20<br />
FRMA – 21<br />
FRMA – 22<br />
FRMA – 23
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
FRMA – 23<br />
FRMA – 24<br />
FRMA – 25<br />
FRMA – 26<br />
FRMA – 27<br />
FRMA – 28<br />
FRMA – 29<br />
FRMA – 30
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Master Association<br />
(FRMA)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter, not the commenter’s numbering within the letter.<br />
1) Scoping comments submitted during the scoping period were considered during<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, as described in Section 1.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. Responses to<br />
the enumerated comments are provided below.<br />
2) Compatibility <strong>of</strong> the FRPCD Policy Statement (amended 1992) with the General Plan is<br />
outside the scope <strong>of</strong> this EIR. The Project is consistent with both the General Plan and<br />
the FRPCD Policy Statement, as described in Section 3.9 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master<br />
Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
3) Comment noted.<br />
4) The Project is consistent with the General Plan, the Design Review Policy, and<br />
Ordinance 2196, as described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.9-1 in the Draft EIR and in Master Response<br />
Land Use Compatibility.<br />
5) The Project is consistent with Ordinance 2196 as described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.9-1 in the<br />
Draft EIR and in Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
6) The Project does not include “phasing” or a “Lodge Two.” The Project is consistent with<br />
Design Review Board policies and Ordinance 2196 as described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.9-1 in the<br />
Draft EIR and Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
7) Comment noted.<br />
8) Compatibility <strong>of</strong> the Project with surrounding land uses and the environment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
neighborhood is determined primarily through the evaluation <strong>of</strong> aesthetic, noise, and<br />
traffic impacts <strong>of</strong> the Project. With implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures, the Project<br />
will not have significant impacts to views, noise, and traffic; see, respectively, Sections<br />
3.1, 3.10, and 3.13 in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Project will not have a significant effect<br />
on the environment <strong>of</strong> the neighborhood. In addition, the Project is consistent with<br />
applicable land use plans and policies for the site, as described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.9-1 in the<br />
Draft EIR and in Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
9) The Project does not include an “Emerald Isles” or a “Lodge II.” Cumulative effects and<br />
the cumulative scenario analyzed are described in Section 4.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; as<br />
described there, only cumulative traffic impacts to U.S. 101 ramps would be significant;<br />
all other cumulative impacts would be less than significant.<br />
10) See Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and Master Response Visual Resources. Four computergenerated<br />
simulations <strong>of</strong> the Project were created to support the visual impacts analysis.<br />
11) The analysis <strong>of</strong> cumulative impacts is included in Section 4.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; as<br />
described there, only cumulative traffic impacts to U.S. 101 ramps would be significant;<br />
all other cumulative impacts would be less than significant.<br />
12) See response to Comment FRMA-8.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-59
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
13) The analysis <strong>of</strong> the Project’s effects on visual resources was based on the view areas that<br />
would be the most sensitive to the visual changes likely to be brought about by the<br />
Project (see Draft EIR p. 3-9 and Master Response Visual Resources).<br />
14) See response to Comment FRMA-8.<br />
15) Comment noted.<br />
16) See Response to Comment Epperly-23.<br />
17) Comment noted.<br />
18) The Project is compatible with the FRPCD Policy Statement, as described in Draft EIR<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.9-1 and Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual Resources.<br />
19) Potential impacts to aesthetics, including building massing and plantings, were<br />
evaluated in Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and are further discussed in Master Response<br />
Visual Resources; with mitigation, no significant aesthetic impacts would occur.<br />
Information on the size <strong>of</strong> individual buildings is provided in the Draft EIR in<br />
Section 2.4. The Project would not physically impede use <strong>of</strong> the Oaks Homeowners’<br />
Association pool facility; “privacy” is not a resource area evaluated under CEQA.<br />
20) See response to Comment FRMA-8.<br />
21) A “will serve” letter from SCWA is not necessary. The <strong>City</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Utilities has<br />
determined that there is sufficient water to serve the site. As described in Section 3.14 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Draft EIR, SCWA provides the <strong>City</strong> with its potable water supply. The <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
entitlement to SCWA water is 29,100 acre-feet per year (afy). Because current water<br />
demands are 23,000 afy, and only a portion <strong>of</strong> the development anticipated in the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
General Plan has occurred, the <strong>City</strong>’s current entitlement is sufficient to meet the present<br />
and future demand associated with this Project.<br />
22) Project impacts to traffic, including operational traffic generation, were evaluated in<br />
Section 3.13 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; no significant traffic impacts from operation <strong>of</strong> the Project<br />
were identified. Cumulative traffic impacts were evaluated in Section 4.1.13 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR; cumulative traffic impacts to U.S. 101 ramps were identified as significant. See<br />
also Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
23) Comment noted.<br />
24) As described in Section 2.4.3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, construction staging areas will be located<br />
within the Project boundary on the proposed surface parking areas. Following<br />
construction, the <strong>City</strong> will review the streets for any damage and repair accordingly.<br />
25) Comment noted.<br />
26) The Project will not block emergency evacuation routes. As noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR, the installation <strong>of</strong> a signal at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris and<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway will improve emergency access to and from the site. The<br />
Project’s increased demand on emergency services is evaluated in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.11-2 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR; with mitigation, impacts will be less than significant.<br />
27) See response to FRMA – 26.<br />
2-60 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
28) Comment noted.<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
29) See Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 (Add a traffic signal on Thomas Lake Harris Drive) in the<br />
Draft EIR, which notes that installation <strong>of</strong> a new signal alleviates the need for a<br />
westbound right-turn deceleration lane from <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway onto Thomas Lake<br />
Harris Drive.<br />
30) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation for explanation <strong>of</strong> how Mitigation<br />
Measures 3.6-2 through 3.6-5 in the Draft EIR comply with CEQA requirements.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-61
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
GLENN – 1<br />
GLENN – 5<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:31 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Hearing FountainGrove Lodge 7/24/08<br />
From: Judith Glenn [mailto:judithg@sonic.net]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:11 AM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com<br />
Cc: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: Planning Commission Hearing FountainGrove Lodge 7/24/08<br />
I have lived at 3591 Blackhawk Circle in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> for over five years. I am concerned that the proposed <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Lodge project is out <strong>of</strong> character with the residential community setting that it will be residing in. Aegis Corporation has<br />
proposed that this 10 acre site be a Residental Care Facility for the Elderly and has proposed 242 parking spots and living<br />
units for over 135 residents. This will in my opinion cause problems degrading the existing visual characteristics (section<br />
3.1-2 <strong>of</strong> Draft EIR) <strong>of</strong> the site and its surrounding due to its large size, scale (up to three story building) and virtual use <strong>of</strong><br />
the entire ten acre spot with buildings and parking spots. Secondarily I am concerned about the loss <strong>of</strong> protected heritage<br />
Valley Oaks and other native trees (Section 3.4.-1 <strong>of</strong> the EIR). It is my understanding that Heritage Valley Oaks are<br />
diffiicult to replace and that removing the majority <strong>of</strong> these trees (over 80 heritage Valley Oaks) is inconsistent with<br />
prohibitions previously applied to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Homeowners. Thirdly, I am concerned about the massive grading<br />
(section 3.6-3) and use <strong>of</strong> large retaining walls that this project will require. If Vareena is an example this project will be<br />
massive and out <strong>of</strong> synch with the neighborhood. Lastly, I am concerned about the increased traffic on Thomas Lake<br />
Harris and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway (section 3.13-1 <strong>of</strong> the EIR) due to estimated 400 plus trips per day as indicated in the<br />
EIR Volume II Appendix P. After over two years <strong>of</strong> development at Vareena lanes are still closed the majority <strong>of</strong> the time<br />
and traffic is slowed down and backed up<br />
frequently.<br />
I feel that this project could be mitigated by downscaling it considerable or by Aegis buying more adjacent land and putting<br />
in an underground garage.<br />
Thank you for your time and consideration, we remain,<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Thomas & Judith Glenn<br />
3591 Blackhawk Circle<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403<br />
file://C:\Documents and Settings\mgerut\My Documents\Fountain Grove\Comment_Letters\Glenn....<br />
Page 1 <strong>of</strong> 1<br />
8/1/2008<br />
GLENN – 2<br />
GLENN – 3<br />
GLENN – 4
Response to Comment Letter from Thomas and Judith Glenn<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) <strong>Impact</strong>s to visual resources are evaluated in Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and further<br />
detailed in Master Response Visual Resources. With implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation to<br />
provide a natural-appearing landscape composition along the periphery <strong>of</strong> the site,<br />
as described in the Draft EIR, impacts to visual resources will be less than significant.<br />
2) See Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland<br />
for discussion <strong>of</strong> impacts to heritage valley oaks and other native trees. The <strong>City</strong><br />
does not prohibit the removal <strong>of</strong> heritage trees. A Tree Removal Permit is required<br />
and trees can be approved for removal if certain findings can be made. The baseline<br />
oak mitigation requirements for all projects within the <strong>City</strong> limits are established by<br />
the <strong>City</strong>’s tree ordinance. With implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation, impacts to oak trees<br />
will be less than significant.<br />
3) Draft EIR Section 2.4.2, Project Design Features, discusses how the Project design<br />
includes limited contour grading <strong>of</strong> portions <strong>of</strong> the site so that buildings will blend<br />
in with the overall hillside nature <strong>of</strong> the surrounding area (p. 2-11). See Master<br />
Response Visual Resources for more detailed discussion <strong>of</strong> retaining walls and their<br />
appearance.<br />
4) Traffic impacts from the Project were evaluated in Section 3.13 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and<br />
are described in further detail in Master Response Local Traffic. See also Response to<br />
Comment Barr – 4.<br />
5) See Response to Comment McGuckin 7/18-2.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-63
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:48 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR, 7.24 Public Hearing<br />
Attachments: EIR response to Joel G and cc's to Commissioners (July 17).doc<br />
EIR response to<br />
Joel G and cc...<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: kyraj@aol.com [mailto:kyraj@aol.com]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:35 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Cc: scott@ballandbartley.com; ncaston@sonic.net; pacisco@aol.com; Vicki@15000inc.com;<br />
tk@mkgrp.com; davidpoulsen816@msn.com<br />
Subject: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR, 7.24 Public Hearing<br />
Joel Galbraith,<br />
I am sending this e-mail to you in hopes that the attachment will be included in the<br />
Public File to be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners tomorrow, in preparation for the<br />
Public Hearing at the PC meeting next Thursday.<br />
Thanks,<br />
Kyra Janssen<br />
546 1233<br />
1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
JANSSEN – 1<br />
JANSSEN – 2<br />
July 17, 2008<br />
To: Joel Galbraith, Supervising Planner<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Community Development<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, California<br />
From: Kyra Janssen, homeowner<br />
4406 Ballybunion Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA, 95403<br />
RE: Draft EIR for <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge (Aegis Senior Living<br />
Continuing Care Retirement Community<br />
I am writing this letter in anticipation <strong>of</strong> the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on July 24<br />
regarding the Draft EIR for the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge project. This proposed project is slated to be built across<br />
the street from my residence, with views <strong>of</strong> its massive 3-story Main Building, as well as <strong>of</strong> the 36-bed Assisted<br />
Living/Alzheimer’s Care Unit and <strong>of</strong> the main entry driveway to the Project visible from several perspectives in<br />
and around my home.<br />
In 2006 I was an active member <strong>of</strong> the group that participated in the Scoping Meeting with CH2MHill to put<br />
forth issues to be analyzed in the <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, and contributed to the follow-up document sent<br />
under the auspices <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Master Association (dated 12/27/06, final version).<br />
Now, since June 13 it was published, I have been studying the two Volumes <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR (a formidable<br />
document!) in search <strong>of</strong> substantive responses to our concerns. I have found it to be adequate and responsive to<br />
our issues in certain respects, but not in others. It is a given that there are limitations inherent in any EIR<br />
because they are bound by legalistic requirements expressed in bureaucratic language, e.g., 14 CEQA-mandated<br />
areas with specifications as to what must be (or cannot be) looked at, rigid criteria for rating the “Significance”<br />
<strong>of</strong> an identified <strong>Impact</strong>, and the use <strong>of</strong> generalized, “pre-packaged” proposed Mitigation Measures). These<br />
attributes are useful to assure objectivity and consistency among EIRs. However, the unique characteristics and<br />
conditions under which a specific Project is being proposed, become obscured. But, even within the limitations<br />
<strong>of</strong> a generic EIR, there are certain areas <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR that have been inadequately<br />
addressed in my opinion.<br />
At the Public Hearing on July 24 th I intend to present some <strong>of</strong> my specific ideas concerning those aspects <strong>of</strong><br />
this EIR that I feel have not been adequately addressed. I will be speaking not only as a homeowner who will<br />
be directly affected by whatever happens on this piece <strong>of</strong> property, but also as a citizen who feels that adherence<br />
to a planning process that assures transparency and accountability is vital to good governance in our city.<br />
cc: Scott Bartley, Chair, Planning Commission<br />
Nick Caston<br />
Patti Cisco, Vice Chair<br />
Vicki Duggan<br />
Tom Karsten<br />
David Poulsen<br />
John Walsh
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Kyra Janssen<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted. Areas that the commenter believes were inadequately addressed in<br />
the EIR were not identified in the comment letter.<br />
2) Comment noted.<br />
2-66 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
JOHNSON – 1<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:12 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
From: Niewald, Anette<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:07 AM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
Anette Niewald<br />
Community Development/Planning Division<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
(707) 543-3226<br />
aniewald@srcity.org<br />
From: Tom Karsten [mailto:tk@mkgrp.com]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:08 PM<br />
To: Niewald, Anette<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
From: Jim Johnson [mailto:jim@jimjohnsonassociates.com]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:38 PM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com; ncaston@sonic.net; pacisco@aol.com; Vicki@15000inc.com; Tom Karsten;<br />
davidpoulsen816@msn.com<br />
Subject: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
To the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Planning Commission:<br />
Page 1 <strong>of</strong> 2<br />
This letter is to call your attention to the oldest, most historical part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> that will be destroyed by the<br />
proposed development called the Lodge and point out the inappropriate size, style, and mass <strong>of</strong> this huge<br />
complex. We have lived in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> for almost 30 years. In 1996 we moved into Stonefield, a small compact<br />
neighborhood <strong>of</strong> modest homes near the bustling <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. My wife and I decided to spend the<br />
rest <strong>of</strong> our life in Stonefield for two reasons—the panorama <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> plain we see from our balcony;<br />
and the historic piece <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> on which we live.<br />
Unfortunately a gigantic commercial complex <strong>of</strong> densely-packed rooms and apartments, dining and food<br />
preparation facilities, noisy loading docks, and hundreds <strong>of</strong> outdoor parking lots—a overwhelming footprint on<br />
the land that would be several thousand feet long and as much as 100 feet high—may bury much <strong>of</strong> these<br />
historic acres and destroy hundreds <strong>of</strong> beautiful old trees, including irreplaceable native oaks. This proposed<br />
commercial facility would be so huge, with so much concrete, bricks, lumber, driveways, and parking lots that<br />
it will completely overwhelm this historical part <strong>of</strong> old <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, bringing more traffic, noise pollution, air<br />
pollution and, at night, light pollution.<br />
This is the land where one hundred fifty years ago stood the Victorian mansions, the unique Round Barn,<br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> acres <strong>of</strong> lush vineyards, and the original winery <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris and Kenaye Nagasawa.<br />
While city planners and developers have already destroyed much evidence <strong>of</strong> the buildings and vineyards <strong>of</strong> the<br />
remarkable historical settlement and habitations that stretch back to the earliest human settlements at Fountain<br />
Grove, these woods that The Lodge will replace are still what Fountain Grove must have looked like back in the<br />
seventeenth century when native Indians occupied the mountain overlooking the flat plain that was to become<br />
file://C:\Documents and Settings\mgerut\My Documents\Fountain Grove\Comment_Letters\Johnso...<br />
8/1/2008
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
JOHNSON – 1<br />
JOHNSON – 2<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, California. All <strong>of</strong> us are fortunate that this calm landscape—studded with ancient and gnarled<br />
heritage oaks—has been preserved. Those so interested that walk this area can find evidence <strong>of</strong> the settlements<br />
<strong>of</strong> those who lived, died, and were buried here over the years. We can find remnants <strong>of</strong> stone walls and old<br />
fences built a century ago as pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> this area’s precious history.<br />
These ten verdant acres are split by active earthquake faults and evidence <strong>of</strong> ancient landslides. If built, these<br />
buildings will block the creeks whose waters are restrained by two 50- year-old earthen dams. These buildings<br />
are so massive and tall that they would take this scenery away from sightseers, residents, and tourists. Imagine<br />
shoehorning a facility the size <strong>of</strong> Kaiser on Mendocino Avenue into a quiet wooded street only a few feet away<br />
from nearby homes. The Lodge would mean years <strong>of</strong> pollution from the extensive excavations, grading, and<br />
filling; hundreds <strong>of</strong> additional trucks, vans, and cars to the dangerous, overcrowded traffic hazards along the<br />
only non-residential access to the area; restricted emergency evacuation routes in the most dangerous section <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> with the greatest danger from wildfires.<br />
I cannot possible imagine any residential area in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> that would be more unsuitable and inappropriate<br />
for this intrusive commercial development.<br />
Jim Johnson<br />
Jim@JimJohnsonAssociates.com<br />
2107 Stine320 Tenth Street, Suite 303<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403<br />
t. 707.571.0226<br />
f. 707-526-7939<br />
file://C:\Documents and Settings\mgerut\My Documents\Fountain Grove\Comment_Letters\Johnso...<br />
Page 2 <strong>of</strong> 2<br />
8/1/2008
Response to Comment Letter from Jim Johnson<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) This comment contains references to multiple resources. <strong>Impact</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Project to oak<br />
trees were evaluated in Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; see also Master Response Oak<br />
Trees and Oak Woodland. <strong>Impact</strong>s to oak trees will be mitigated to less than<br />
significant.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Project to visual resources were evaluated in Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR; see also Master Response Visual Resources. The evaluation included the<br />
size and height <strong>of</strong> the buildings. For explanation <strong>of</strong> how <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-3 presents an<br />
accurate impact evaluation <strong>of</strong> the Project’s outdoor lighting plans, see Response to<br />
Community Comments – 13. <strong>Impact</strong>s to visual resources will be mitigated to less<br />
than significant.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s to air quality, noise, and traffic were evaluated in, respectively, Section 3.3,<br />
Section 3.10, and Section 3.13 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; see also Master Responses Noise and<br />
Local Traffic. Project impacts to air, noise, and traffic from Project construction and<br />
operation will be mitigated to less than significant.<br />
As described in Section 3.5 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, a cultural resources survey <strong>of</strong> the Project<br />
site was completed. Despite the potential for historic occupancy <strong>of</strong> the site, neither<br />
archival nor field research found evidence <strong>of</strong> archaeological, historic, or<br />
paleontological resources on the Project site.<br />
2) This comment contains references to multiple resources. Potential impacts associated<br />
with faulting and landslides are discussed in Section 3.6 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; see also<br />
Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. The nearest active fault is<br />
immediately southwest <strong>of</strong> the Project site, as shown in Figure 3.6-3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR.<br />
As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-1 in the Draft EIR, recent fault investigation study found<br />
no evidence <strong>of</strong> recent fault activity; potential impacts from surface rupture <strong>of</strong> a fault<br />
are less than significant.<br />
No construction activities or Project facilities will be located within 50 feet <strong>of</strong> Piner<br />
Creek and the creek will not be blocked; see Figure 2-3 in the Draft EIR.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Project to visual resources were evaluated in Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR; see also Master Response Visual Resources. <strong>Impact</strong>s to visual resources<br />
will be mitigated to less than significant.<br />
Construction impacts to air quality, as described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.3-2 in the Draft EIR,<br />
would be potentially significant; however, with implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation to<br />
control PM10 emissions, impacts would be less than significant. It should be noted<br />
that construction is estimated to last 19 months (see Section 2.4.3 in the Draft EIR).<br />
Potential traffic impacts from the Project were evaluated in Section 3.13 <strong>of</strong> the Draft<br />
EIR; see also Master Response Local Traffic. The large majority <strong>of</strong> Project traffic will<br />
be automobile traffic from residents and employees; with addition <strong>of</strong> the traffic light<br />
at Thomas Lake Harris Drive and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway, no significant impacts<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-69
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
would occur. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-3, traffic from the Project would not result<br />
in any significant hazards.<br />
The Project will not block emergency evacuation routes. As noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Draft EIR, the installation <strong>of</strong> a signal at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris<br />
and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway will improve emergency access to and from the site.<br />
2-70 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
KISLING – 1<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Kisling.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:42 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Residential Care Facility on Thomas Lake Harris<br />
From: Kirt Kisling [mailto:kirtk@lifelinepro.com]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:56 PM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com; Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: Residential Care Facility on Thomas Lake Harris<br />
Dear Sirs:<br />
Regarding: the Residential Care Facility on 10 acres <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris Drive.<br />
I am writing to ask that you deny the building <strong>of</strong> this commercial facility in this residential area. I am<br />
currently building a home <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> Llyn Glaslyn Place and was disheartened to see that the builders <strong>of</strong><br />
Varenna were not held to the same restrictions required <strong>of</strong> me regarding limits on the height <strong>of</strong> the building<br />
and requirements to maintain the slope and nature <strong>of</strong> the building site. It seems this double standard is<br />
what is allowing yet another large group <strong>of</strong> commercial buildings to be built. Please keep this area<br />
peaceful, quiet and residential.<br />
Respectfully,<br />
Kirt & Brenda Kisling<br />
1420 Snowy Cloud Way<br />
SR, 95409<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Kisling.htm8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Kirt and Brenda Kisling<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) There are a variety <strong>of</strong> acceptable building heights in the nonresidential designated<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch area. As described in Section 3.9.1 in the Draft EIR,<br />
the development plan that accompanies the FRPCD Policy, as adopted per<br />
Ordinance No. 2196, designates the Project site as a Cluster Residential Land Use<br />
Area. Maximum building height, lot coverage, and setbacks are not specified for<br />
Cluster Residential land uses, but are established for each project by its Use Permit.<br />
As a community care facility, the Project is considered a nonresidential land use,<br />
which is allowed in any zoning district through the Conditional Use Permit process.<br />
Residential areas in the vicinity are subject to different zoning requirements and<br />
different restrictions on land use such as building height. See also Master Response<br />
Land Use Compatibility.<br />
2-72 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MAGAGNA – 1<br />
MAGAGNA – 2<br />
MAGAGNA – 3<br />
MAGAGNA – 4<br />
MAGAGNA – 5<br />
MAGAGNA – 6<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Magagna.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:14 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project, File number MJP06-<br />
041<br />
From: Joseph Magagna [mailto:jbmagagna@sbcglobal.net]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:59 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Cc: scott@hallandbartley.com<br />
Subject: Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project, File number MJP06-041<br />
My name is Joseph Magagna and I live at 4956 Lakepointe Circle, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA. Following<br />
are my concerns regarding the above impact report.<br />
Assuming the Consultants were retained by the Applicants, it appears to me that the report in<br />
general is biased in favor <strong>of</strong> the Applicants. If I am correct about who is paying for the report,<br />
maybe the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> should retain a Consultant so there would be an independent report<br />
for review. The report submitted by the Consultants is very inaccurate.<br />
I understand that there will be medical services available around the clock. There appears to<br />
be nothing that prohibits medical services being provided to anyone who is not associated with<br />
the Lodge. It is my understanding that the services would only be limited to Lodge residents. I<br />
would like to know if I am correct in my assumption as to who would receive medical care.<br />
The Consultants seem to think that this would be a low noise project. If you think about all the<br />
activity which the Applicants say would occur, there is no way that there would be "low noise"<br />
project.<br />
The visual impacts shown at the meeting were ridiculous. We know from the Varenna<br />
experience that the final construction would give the appearance <strong>of</strong> a five story structure instead<br />
<strong>of</strong> a 3 story building. The solution to this issue would be to only allow a two story structure.<br />
Also, Why didn't the Consultant submit plans for a smaller project which I understand that the<br />
Law requires them to do so. Also the light from the huge parking lot would substantially alter the<br />
area and destroy the beauty <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
If the current report is approved, traffic on Thomas Lake Harris Drive and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> drive<br />
would become a nightmare. Between construction vehicles, delivery trucks, construction people,<br />
the noise and danger will become unbearable.<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Magagna.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MAGAGNA – 7<br />
MAGAGNA – 8<br />
MAGAGNA – 9<br />
MAGAGNA – 10<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Magagna.htm<br />
Between the proposed removal <strong>of</strong> 80% <strong>of</strong> the Heritage Oak Trees and the removal <strong>of</strong> various<br />
animals from the area, the entire area would be destroyed. It would be a very sad day to allow this<br />
to happen.<br />
In case <strong>of</strong> emergency...wildfire or earthquake, how can emergency personnel handle everyone<br />
living in the area.<br />
I have only lived here one year, but I understand that this would be the fourth residential care<br />
facility on the West end <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>. Do we really need this project???<br />
When you do approve this project, could you please limit the use <strong>of</strong> trucks coming and going via<br />
the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway to the SOUTHWEST entrance to Thomas Lake Harris drive<br />
Thank You<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Magagna.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
Response to Comment Letter from Joseph Magagna<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) The lead agency (in this case, the <strong>City</strong>) is responsible for the adequacy and<br />
objectivity <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15084 (e)). If the lead<br />
agency does not prepare the Draft EIR with its own staff, a number <strong>of</strong> options are<br />
provided by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15084 (d)(1 through 5)). The <strong>City</strong><br />
contracted directly with an outside consultant to prepare the EIR for the proposed<br />
Project. The consultant is not affiliated with the Applicant. Studies prepared by the<br />
Applicant were reviewed by the consultant and the <strong>City</strong> for adequacy. The Draft EIR<br />
reflects the <strong>City</strong>’s independent judgment. The Applicant is reimbursing the <strong>City</strong> for<br />
the costs <strong>of</strong> the EIR.<br />
2) No medical services will be provided as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed Project (see Draft EIR<br />
p. 2-1). <strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 21-05.040 (I)(8) considers community care facilities (such<br />
as the Project) as a nonresidential land use that provides nonmedical residential care.<br />
However, to reduce the <strong>City</strong> Fire Department’s need to respond to nonmedical<br />
emergency calls in community care facilities, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge will provide an<br />
Emergency Medical Technician qualified or equivalent personnel 24 hours per day in<br />
the main “assisted living” building and Care Center (see Draft EIR Mitigation<br />
Measure 3.11-2b on p. 3-132).<br />
3) See above response to Magagna – 3. In general, only residents and their guests will<br />
have access to the services and facilities included with the Project.<br />
4) Noise impacts were evaluated in Section 3.10 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; with mitigation, noise<br />
impacts will be less than significant. Also see Master Response Noise.<br />
5) See Master Response Visual Resources for additional detail on accuracy <strong>of</strong><br />
simulations portraying building height and visual impacts; with mitigation, impacts<br />
will be less than significant. For a discussion <strong>of</strong> a smaller project alternative to the<br />
Project, see Response to Comment McGuckin July 18 – 2. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.1-<br />
3 in the Draft EIR, the Project would add new sources <strong>of</strong> nighttime security lighting<br />
along driveways, in outdoor parking lots, and near building entrances. Conformance<br />
to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the Principles <strong>of</strong><br />
Low-impact Lighting Design (see Mitigation Measure 3.1-3), which minimize the<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> light that leaves the site, would reduce impacts to less than significant.<br />
6) As described in Section 3.13.3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the average number <strong>of</strong> construction<br />
workers onsite during any weekday is 97, and they would work from 7:00 AM to<br />
3:30 PM. Truck deliveries supplying materials would occur as <strong>of</strong>ten as four times a<br />
day, between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Equipment and materials would be staged in<br />
the outside parking areas and the proposed driveways would <strong>of</strong>fer turnaround<br />
locations for equipment and transport vehicles. Assuming most construction<br />
workers would drive alone, there could be on average 85 to 90 construction worker<br />
vehicles entering the site before 7:00 AM and leaving before 4:00 PM. Virtually no<br />
construction worker or truck traffic should occur during the AM or PM commute<br />
peak periods (from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM, respectively). Therefore, the<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-75
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Project construction-related traffic would have a less than significant impact on the<br />
critical commute traffic periods.<br />
7) As described in Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, impacts to oaks and wildlife would be<br />
less than significant with mitigation; see also Master Response Oak Trees and Oak<br />
Woodland.<br />
8) The <strong>City</strong>’s Fire Department reviewed the Draft EIR before its publication and Fire<br />
Department comments have been incorporated in the impact analysis and mitigation<br />
measures. The Project’s increased demand on emergency services is evaluated in<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.11-2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; with mitigation, impacts will be less than significant.<br />
As noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the installation <strong>of</strong> a signal at the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway will improve<br />
emergency access to and from the site.<br />
9) The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LUL-E-3, which addresses<br />
clustering <strong>of</strong> continuing care facilities. See Master Response Land Use Compatibility<br />
and Draft EIR Appendix C – Project Compatibility with General Plan Goals and<br />
Policies.<br />
10) Comment noted. The <strong>City</strong> agrees that <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway (West) and Thomas<br />
Lake Harris Drive intersection is the most direct access to the Project site and is<br />
assumed by the <strong>City</strong> as the primary access point for construction traffic. The <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
detailed limitations on the Contractor regarding construction traffic will occur in the<br />
final design plans and specifications.<br />
2-76 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MARGASON – 1<br />
MARGASON – 2<br />
MARGASON – 3<br />
Written Comments on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> report for the Lodge Project,<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:00 PM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Written Comments on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> report for the Lodge Project.doc<br />
From: Ed and Carol Margason [mailto:edmarg@pacbell.net]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:46 PM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com; ncaston@sonic.net; pascisco@aol.com; vicki@15000inc.com; tk@mkgrp.<br />
com; davidpoulsen816@msn.com; jgalbraith@srcity.com<br />
Cc: kyraj@aol.com<br />
Subject: Written Comments on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> report for the Lodge Project.doc<br />
Written Comments on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> report for the Lodge Project,. July 28, 2008<br />
My name is Edward Margason and I am commenting on Table ES-1 in DEIR volume I, for those<br />
impacts numbered 3.1 and 3.6 and the related report sections. These comments include points<br />
made in my 3 minute presentation to the Planning Commission on July 24, 2008 and applicable<br />
scoping comments given to the <strong>City</strong> on December 12, 2006 as contained in appendix B <strong>of</strong> DEIR<br />
volume II.<br />
Section 2.0, project description, pages 2-1 thru 2-16, is inadequate for determining the specifics<br />
<strong>of</strong> project layout and construction. Only three figures <strong>of</strong> general information, figures 2-1 thru 2-3,<br />
exist and they are inadequate. There is no figure showing building details such as elevations or<br />
setbacks; one must go back into the local geology map, figure 3.6-4 to obtain details and that<br />
figure is confused and obscure. This is a serious omission in the DEIR. Clear and readable site<br />
plans and elevations which are readily available from the <strong>City</strong> already show these details and<br />
must be included in the EIR. The building sketches in the DEIR are not adequate for this purpose.<br />
Section 3.0, site setting, gives only general views and photos <strong>of</strong> the site but does not provide the<br />
type <strong>of</strong> detailed visual analysis that is required to understand the overall project impact on the<br />
site. Items A-9 , A-12 and A-20 in our scoping comments specifically ask that architectural<br />
models and true scale cross sections be part <strong>of</strong> the mass and scale analyses <strong>of</strong> the DEIR report but<br />
they are absent and this is a serious flaw in the EIR. Actually at least two architectural models are<br />
needed: one that shows the graded site with retaining walls before building construction and one<br />
that shows the final buildout.<br />
On July 24 section “B”,enclosed, as drawn by us, was presented and shows the crowding <strong>of</strong><br />
retaining walls and the main building along Thomas Lake Harris,TLH, and the looming height <strong>of</strong><br />
50 to 80 foot-high structures within 15 feet <strong>of</strong>. TLH. A photo <strong>of</strong> the Varenna walls was shown to<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Margason.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 4)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MARGASON – 3<br />
MARGASON – 4<br />
MARGASON – 5<br />
MARGASON – 6<br />
MARGASON – 7<br />
Written Comments on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> report for the Lodge Project,<br />
demonstrate the harsh visual impact <strong>of</strong> such structural sitings. This fortress-like appearance has<br />
many <strong>City</strong> residents angry and they do not want more <strong>of</strong> such mass and bulk and this was not<br />
addressed in the lodge DEIR.<br />
The DEIR photos in section 3 do not address the views into the site nor do they show any<br />
structures because trees have inserted digitally in front; this is misleading and inaccurate. Photos<br />
should show the actual buildout appearance. The crowding <strong>of</strong> the walls along TLH does not allow<br />
any room for landscape screening <strong>of</strong> walls since some are within 3 feet <strong>of</strong> the street and yet the<br />
DEIR concludes in mitigation measure 3.1-2, page 3-23, that a landscape plan will provide a<br />
natural-appearing landscape composition along the periphery <strong>of</strong> the site thus mitigating the<br />
“significant” 3.1-2 impact. This is not effective mitigation and will do nothing to reduce this<br />
serious environmental impact on TLH and the existing Oaks and Stonefield neighborhoods. Such<br />
landscape mitigation has not worked at Varenna and it will not be effective at the lodge project.<br />
Page Two<br />
The DEIR does not address the fundamental assumption that project siting will require major<br />
regrading <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the 10-acre site by cutting at least 15 feet deep along the east golf course<br />
boundary and filling up to 15 feet deep along TLH; this is the only reason why the retaining walls<br />
are needed and yet the DEIR does not analyze this impact. The impact <strong>of</strong> such grading is not<br />
adequately addressed in the draft nor is the assumption that<br />
the lodge project must have a level cut-and-fill building pad. Such siting is fundamentally flawed<br />
because it’s typical <strong>of</strong> a 15-acre flat land site elsewhere but does not apply to the sloping and<br />
wooded 10-acre hillside site proposed for the lodge.<br />
In the alternatives discussed on page xi <strong>of</strong> the executive summary, there is no mention <strong>of</strong> a<br />
smaller size development having less living units. This is a major flaw in the DEIR and must be<br />
addressed according to CEQA law. An alternative without affordable employee housing must<br />
also be discussed since elimination <strong>of</strong> these structures would allow the senior living units to be<br />
spread out on the site thereby reducing the impact <strong>of</strong> concentrated unit construction .<br />
The cumulative impacts on page xii <strong>of</strong> the executive summary do not discuss the Lodge II project<br />
which will be sited across TLH on the opposite side <strong>of</strong> the Oaks where the sales <strong>of</strong>fice has been<br />
permitted by the <strong>City</strong>. This is also a serious flaw in the DEIR since this second phase will double<br />
the project size and number <strong>of</strong> living units when the entire lodge project is built out. CEQA<br />
Guidelines Section 15130(b) requires analysis <strong>of</strong> such cumulative impacts and this cannot be<br />
deferred nor ignored in the final EIR.<br />
Grading for unstable or compressible soil repair is mentioned as a generality in impact 3.6-5 on<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Margason.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 4)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MARGASON – 7<br />
MARGASON – 8<br />
MARGASON – 9<br />
MARGASON – 10<br />
Written Comments on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> report for the Lodge Project,<br />
page 3-92 but the extent <strong>of</strong> such soils is not yet defined hence the impact <strong>of</strong> such grading has not<br />
and cannot be addressed in the DEIR. This is unacceptable because the final extent <strong>of</strong> disturbance<br />
to the site topography hence environmental impact has not yet been determined. The EIR cannot<br />
defer the evaluation <strong>of</strong> such impacts until the design phase; they must be determined now by<br />
further on-site soils studies before a final EIR is completed.<br />
Section 3.6, pages 3-67 to 3-93, addresses geology and faulting and this section is one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
more extensive and responsive parts <strong>of</strong> the DEIR. Our 2A-1 thru 17 scoping comments in volume<br />
II apply as follows. Scope comments 2A1 thru 4 are addressed by the DEIR and according to<br />
Giblin and Associates no active fault was found by them on the lodge site, the nearest active trace<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Rogers Creek fault being across the street <strong>of</strong> TLH in the visible sag pond about 70 feet to<br />
the west. Bedrock faults were found on the site but Giblin dated them as pre-holocene hence they<br />
were rated as inactive. One would hope that no active faults were missed in non-trenched areas<br />
and Giblin should have to certify as to this in the final EIR..<br />
Page Three<br />
The DEIR does not appear to contain a map showing the locations <strong>of</strong> the Giblin fault trenches;<br />
this map is missing from his December 7, 2007 study, appendix K <strong>of</strong> vol. II, which curiously lists<br />
two plate 2’s. This seems to be an error and should be corrected in the EIR.<br />
Scope item 2A-5 was addressed as to very strong shaking from nearby 7+ magnitude<br />
earthquakes. The DEIR states that such hazards are significant and require mitigation. Mitigation<br />
impact 3.6-2 includes site-specific seismic analyses during design but does not specify if such<br />
analyses will include such details as response spectra, computer simulations and finite-element<br />
modeling all <strong>of</strong> which are needed in this near-fault setting. The EIR is not clear that its<br />
recommended mitigation <strong>of</strong> “site-specific seismic analyses in project design” goes well beyond<br />
normal building code seismic design. The EIR must indicate that code design alone is not<br />
sufficient for public safety at this site which is in the State <strong>of</strong> California’s designated Alquist-<br />
Priolo active fault zone. CEQA law does not allow this consideration to be deferred but must be<br />
included in the EIR.<br />
Site and soil stability during earthquakes has not been evaluated in the DEIR but instead is<br />
deferred to the design phase; also the seismic stability <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>-owned earth dams impounding<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lake has not been evaluated. Scoping items 2A6 thru 11 asked that these items be<br />
addressed in the DEIR but they are not. It is not clear that scoping items 2A14 and 15 were<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Margason.htm (3 <strong>of</strong> 4)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MARGASON – 10<br />
Written Comments on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> report for the Lodge Project,<br />
covered in the DEIR. Item 2A16 was not even mentioned in the DEIR and field fault trench<br />
inspections were prohibited to outside consultants; no trespassing signs were posted on the site.<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Margason.htm (4 <strong>of</strong> 4)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
Response to Comment Letter from Edward Margason<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1. Several figures and text in the Draft EIR provide information on Project layout and<br />
construction. Figure 2-3 shows the location and footprint <strong>of</strong> all buildings included in the<br />
Project; a detailed description <strong>of</strong> each building, including dimensions and design<br />
features, is included in Section 2.4.1. Pr<strong>of</strong>iles and elevations <strong>of</strong> the Project buildings are<br />
shown in Figure 2-4. Visual simulations <strong>of</strong> the Project are shown in Figures 3.1-4<br />
through 3.1-7. CEQA does not specifically require provision <strong>of</strong> detailed site plans.<br />
2. See Master Response Visual Resources.<br />
3. See Master Response Visual Resources. The height <strong>of</strong> the main building closest to<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive would be approximately 29 feet above grade as shown in<br />
Figure 2-4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. There would not be “50 to 80 foot-high structures within 15<br />
feet” <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris Drive.<br />
4. The proposed grading for the site, as well as plans for retaining wall construction, was<br />
taken into account during the analysis <strong>of</strong> the Project’s environmental impacts. See<br />
Sections 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources and 3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismicity in the<br />
Draft EIR, as well as Master Responses Soils and Seismic Mitigation and Visual<br />
Resources. As shown in Figure 2-4 and described in Section 2.4.2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the<br />
design includes limited contour grading <strong>of</strong> portions <strong>of</strong> the site so that buildings will<br />
blend in with the overall hillside nature <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
5. See Response to Comment Epperly – 23; a Project alternative that would avoid or<br />
substantially lessen most impacts from the Project would not meet most <strong>of</strong> the Project<br />
objectives. The affordable employee housing only occupies a footprint <strong>of</strong> 4,500 square<br />
feet, approximately 2 percent <strong>of</strong> the proposed lot coverage (buildings, parking lots,<br />
circulation ways, paved walkways, and patios). Eliminating the employee housing<br />
would make very little difference in the level <strong>of</strong> Project impacts, would not leave enough<br />
room to allow the remaining structures to be “spread out,” and would not meet one <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project objectives. It would also result in an increase in traffic impacts (with<br />
additional workers driving to the site) and a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas<br />
emissions compared to the Project as described in the Draft EIR.<br />
6. The Project does not include a “Lodge II.” Cumulative effects and the cumulative<br />
scenario analyzed are described in Section 4.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR; as allowed under CEQA,<br />
the cumulative scenario is the build-out <strong>of</strong> the General Plan Area within the Urban<br />
Growth Boundary and build-out <strong>of</strong> the FRPCD Policy Statement’s Land Use and<br />
Circulation Plan, not a list <strong>of</strong> projects. As described in Section 4.1, only cumulative traffic<br />
impacts to U.S. 101 ramps would be significant; all other cumulative impacts would be<br />
less than significant.<br />
7. See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation.<br />
8. Comment noted. The <strong>City</strong> agreed with scoping comments and similarly determined that<br />
additional seismic analysis was required to determine the location <strong>of</strong> potential faults.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-81
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
For this reason, further studies by Giblin were performed, including additional<br />
trenching excavation and logging to resolve discrepancy regarding a possible faulting<br />
through the northeast portion <strong>of</strong> the Project site. The report was reviewed for technical<br />
accuracy by a third party and the results were determined sufficient for completing the<br />
Draft EIR analysis.<br />
9. Draft EIR Appendix K, Geologic Studies, has been amended to include Plate 3. Also see<br />
Response to Comment Aegis – 12.<br />
10. See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. Questions regarding the seismic<br />
stability <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Dam are outside <strong>of</strong> the scope <strong>of</strong> this EIR because the Project<br />
will not change or otherwise affect <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Dam. Potential impacts from a dam<br />
failure event are addressed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. Because no buildings or<br />
facilities are proposed for the southern end <strong>of</strong> the site, no significant impacts would<br />
occur.<br />
2-82 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 18 – 1<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 18 – 2<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 18 – 3<br />
Adequacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:37 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Adequacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR<br />
From: Hank McGuckin [mailto:chezmac@earthlink.net]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:00 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: Adequacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR<br />
July, 18, 2008<br />
Subject: Adequacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR<br />
To the Planning Commission:<br />
The EIR at issue is cavalier at best regarding the significance <strong>of</strong> environmental impacts.The<br />
sheer size <strong>of</strong> the proposed retirement facility will result in an ecological disaster for a prime six<br />
acre strip <strong>of</strong> wild woods, including a stream, some wetlands, hundreds <strong>of</strong> oaks and heritage<br />
classified trees and a myriad <strong>of</strong> special status plants and animals. The extent <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
parking areas alone, will require extensive bulldozing and earth movement not at all compatible<br />
with successfully saving trees and habitat nor is ecological "sensitivity training" <strong>of</strong> construction<br />
workers likely to mitigate the impending destruction <strong>of</strong> flora and fauna.<br />
Even a downsized version <strong>of</strong> the proposal would be ecologically harmful, but at least the extent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the damage would be mitigated. As it stands, the proposal is grossly oversized for the site and<br />
will effectively destroy it.<br />
In an era when environmental issues must be weighed along with commercial interests, it would<br />
be short sighted indeed to ignore the heavy, crushing footprint being proposed for the purely<br />
commercial interests <strong>of</strong> a few. A few large cities such as Portland, Oregon, have been able to find<br />
a equitable balance between growth and ecological costs which has resulted in both responsible<br />
development and preservation <strong>of</strong> the irreplaceable. Surely a smaller community such as <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> can do as well.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Dr. Henry E. McGuckin<br />
4450 Lahinch Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/McGuckin.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Adequacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR<br />
7-7=578=6050<br />
chezmac@earthlink.net<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/McGuckin.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:09
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Henry McGuckin (letter dated July 18, 2008)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Project impacts on biological resources are discussed in Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR;<br />
impacts to oak trees and oak woodland are further detailed in Master Response Oak<br />
Trees and Oak Woodland. No significant impacts to biological resources would<br />
occur as a result <strong>of</strong> Project implementation. <strong>Impact</strong>s to oak and heritage trees would<br />
be less than significant with implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation, including replanting <strong>of</strong><br />
native trees onsite. Implementation <strong>of</strong> Best Management Practices (BMP), described<br />
in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c, would protect trees and habitat to be preserved during<br />
construction. As noted in Section 3.4, no direct impacts to Piner Creek would occur<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> the Project. No wetlands or waters under the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the U.S.<br />
Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers (USACE) would be impacted by the Project (USACE, 2008.<br />
February 20 letter to Amy Paravano at WRA on USACE jurisdictional<br />
determination). Potential impacts from construction <strong>of</strong> the Project to nesting birds,<br />
roosting bats, and northwestern pond turtle will be mitigated to a less than<br />
significant level through preconstruction surveys, avoidance, monitoring during<br />
construction, and/or other measures.<br />
2) See response to Comment Epperly-23.<br />
3) Comment noted. As described in Section 2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the purpose <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project is help to meet housing and service needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s senior community,<br />
consistent with the policies and goals in the General Plan that call for projects and<br />
services to support the needs <strong>of</strong> seniors in the <strong>City</strong>. Specific Project objectives are to<br />
create approximately 135 community care facility units; provide progressive care<br />
and a range <strong>of</strong> services to allow seniors to remain within the community; provide<br />
quality senior care licensed by the state <strong>of</strong> California; provide employee housing that<br />
is affordable to the full-time employees needed to operate the facility; and provide<br />
housing for seniors with convenient access to medical care facilities, highways,<br />
transportation, retail, and recreation amenities. As discussed in Section 3.9 Land Use<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master Response Land Use Compatibility, the development<br />
<strong>of</strong> the site is consistent with the land uses designated in the <strong>City</strong>’s General Plan and<br />
the FRPCD Policy Statement, which was originally adopted in 1972 and amended in<br />
1981 and 1992. Development has been planned for the Project site for several<br />
decades.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-85
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:44 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Statement To Planning commission Regarding <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
Attachments: STATEMENT TO THE PLA#137846.doc<br />
STATEMENT TO<br />
HE PLA#137846.do.<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: Hank McGuckin [mailto:chezmac@earthlink.net]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:38 AM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: Statement To Planning commission Regarding <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge EIR<br />
Dear Mr. Galbraith,<br />
Please forward the attached statement to the planning commission.<br />
Thank you,<br />
Dr. Henry E. McGuckin<br />
4450 Lahinch Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403<br />
707-578-6050<br />
1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 25 – 1<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 25 – 2
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 25 – 3<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 25 – 4
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 25 – 4<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 25 – 5<br />
MCGUCKIN<br />
JULY 25 – 6
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Henry McGuckin (letter dated July 25, 2008)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) See Response to Comment McGuckin July 18-1.<br />
2) See Responses to Comments McGuckin July 18-1 and McGuckin July 18-2 and<br />
Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.<br />
3) See Response to Comment McGuckin July 18-1 and Master Response Oak Trees and<br />
Oak Woodland. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 in the Draft EIR includes pre-construction<br />
surveys, avoidance as feasible during breeding season, and buffer zones to minimize<br />
impacts to raptors and nesting birds. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 and Mitigation<br />
Measure 3.4-4, provide protection for roosting and maternity colonies for<br />
special-status bat species, both require tree removal outside <strong>of</strong> breeding seasons to<br />
avoid impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats. Trees to be removed are those<br />
required for removal to construct the Project.<br />
4) As shown in Figure 2-3 in the Draft EIR, a 50-foot buffer will be established on both<br />
sides <strong>of</strong> Piner Creek. This buffer will be maintained during Project construction, and<br />
no construction activity would take place in the buffer area. Riparian vegetation,<br />
which extends less than 50 feet from Piner Creek (see Figure 3.4-1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR),<br />
would not be removed.<br />
As discussed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project could increase pollutants in stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f, including in Piner Creek.<br />
These potential impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level through<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> Mitigation Measure 3.8-2, Comply with all applicable state and<br />
local regulations for stormwater management. These regulations require the<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines BMPs<br />
to be used during construction, including BMPs for erosion control, sediment<br />
control, tracking control, wind erosion, and non-stormwater discharges. Regulations<br />
also require preparation <strong>of</strong> a Storm Water Mitigation Plan to address<br />
post-construction water quality impacts per <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Area Standard Urban<br />
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Also see the Responses to Comments<br />
NCRWQCB-1, 2, and 3.<br />
5) As discussed in Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, special-status plants species are defined<br />
as species that are: federal- or-state listed or are proposed for listing as rare,<br />
threatened, or endangered; included in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)<br />
Inventory (CNPS List 1 through 3 Plants); or qualifying under the definition <strong>of</strong><br />
“rare” in the CEQA, Section 15380. As discussed in Section 3.4.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, no<br />
special-status plants were found on the Project site during the rare plant surveys<br />
performed. As evaluated in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-6, potential impacts to special-status plant<br />
species will be less than significant.<br />
As discussed in Appendix I to the Draft EIR, Biological Resources Assessment <strong>Report</strong>,<br />
special-status wildlife species are defined as: species that have been listed as<br />
endangered or threatened, are proposed for listing, or are candidates for such<br />
2-90 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
listings at the federal or state level. In addition, special status species evaluated<br />
included species tracked by CDFG in the California Natural Diversity Database as<br />
Species <strong>of</strong> Special Concern, Threatened or Endangered Species, Fully Protected<br />
Species, or USFWS Birds <strong>of</strong> Conservation Concern; or species protected by the<br />
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As evaluated in Section 3.4.3, impacts to these species<br />
will be less than significant with mitigation.<br />
6) See Responses to Comments McGuckin July 18-1, McGuckin July 18-2, McGuckin<br />
July 25-3, and McGuckin July 25-5.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-91
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho MCREYNOLDS – 1
Response to Comment Letter from Carmen McReynolds, M.D.<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) See Response to Comment Magagna–8.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-93
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NAHC – 1
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) As discussed in Section 3.5 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, a surface survey <strong>of</strong> the Project site was<br />
completed and archival research was conducted at the Northwest Information<br />
Center at Sonoma State University to evaluate cultural resources that might be<br />
present on the Project site. Detailed results <strong>of</strong> the study are described in the cultural<br />
resources study in Appendix J to the Draft EIR. Despite the potential for historic<br />
occupancy <strong>of</strong> the site, neither archival nor field research found evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources onsite. Mitigation Measures<br />
3.5-1a and 3.5-1b include provisions to address archaeological resources or human<br />
remains accidentally discovered during construction.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-95
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:40 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> EIR<br />
Attachments: EIR <strong>Report</strong>-Traffic Comments.doc<br />
EIR <strong>Report</strong>-Traffic<br />
Comments.do...<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: Dewey Nelson [mailto:deweynelson@juno.com]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:28 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> EIR<br />
Dear Joel,<br />
Attached are my comments and recommedations aimed at Appendix P <strong>of</strong> the EIR for The Lodge<br />
at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Dewey Nelson<br />
2003 Stonefield Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403-0952<br />
707-544-6327<br />
____________________________________________________________<br />
Great pay, great benefits, rewarding. Click for information on a healthcare career.<br />
http://thirdparty<strong>of</strong>fers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oH0aJVCMmHA6OuURfAIBT<br />
sUrQn0aglyNwD1yGONxqa4sfyV/<br />
1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 1<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 2<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 3<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 4<br />
Dated October 18, 2007<br />
Prepared by Dewey Nelson<br />
DeweyNelson@Juno.Com<br />
Observations on EIR content:<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
1) The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as indicated in EIR Volume II,<br />
Appendix P, Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8) and to assess the impact on the intersections with<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive (TLH) and its numerous intersections with cross streets and side streets.<br />
The analysis needs to consider crosswalks, stop signs, speed bumps, etc. as opposed to just traffic<br />
signals. And decide if the 494 trips per day in EIR Volume II, Appendix D, Table D-1 is accurate.<br />
2) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. States:<br />
“TLH Drive (East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway – Unacceptable Level <strong>of</strong> Service & Signal Warrant:<br />
Drivers using the unsignalized TLH Drive (East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway intersection have the option<br />
<strong>of</strong> using Fir Ridge Drive to access a signalized intersection with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. Based upon<br />
input from <strong>City</strong> traffic engineering staff, it is not the <strong>City</strong>’s desire that the TLH Drive<br />
(East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway intersection be considered for signalization due to the ease <strong>of</strong> access to<br />
the Fir Ridge Drive intersection with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway.”<br />
Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant by stating drivers have the option to drive through a<br />
long out-<strong>of</strong>-the-way loop in a residential area is ludicrous and totally unacceptable. We are,<br />
after all, concerned about the safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens. In addition, Volume I Executive Summary<br />
Table ES-1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change the impact from “Significant” to Less<br />
than Significant”.<br />
3) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. States:<br />
“TLH Drive (West)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway – Unacceptable Level <strong>of</strong> Service & Signal Warrant:<br />
Although AM peak hour volumes at the TLH Drive (West)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway would be<br />
approaching signal warrant criteria, the number <strong>of</strong> vehicles experiencing LOS F delay for left<br />
turns from TLH Drive (West) will be small. In addition, the intersections along <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway immediately east and west <strong>of</strong> TLH Drive (West), at Altruria Drive and Round Barn<br />
Boulevard, are now both signalized and provide some gaps in traffic flow along <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway. For this reason, <strong>City</strong> traffic engineering staff have indicated their desire not to signalize this<br />
intersection. Should the <strong>City</strong> wish to provide an improvement measure, consideration could be given<br />
to providing a median refuge area along <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway just east <strong>of</strong> the intersection to<br />
facilitate left turns from TLH Drive (West). Resultant operation <strong>of</strong> left turn movements from TLH<br />
Drive (West) to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway would be an acceptable LOS D during both the AM and PM<br />
peak hours.”<br />
Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant because there are nearby traffic lights makes little<br />
sense and is totally unacceptable. Again, we are concerned about the safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens. In<br />
addition, Volume I Executive Summary Table ES-1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change<br />
the impact from “Significant” to Less than Significant”.<br />
4) The EIR traffic engineer needs to make his own conclusions rather than rely on the city traffic<br />
engineer’s “opinions” while ignoring his own data. See EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong><br />
<strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. and A.3
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 5<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 6<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 7<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 8<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 17 – 9<br />
Dated October 18, 2007<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Continued<br />
The Planning Commission needs to have the Crane Transportation Group<br />
revise their EIR to include:<br />
FRMA Positions<br />
1) EIR Volume I, Executive Summary, Potential <strong>Impact</strong>s and Mitigations, Table ES-1,<br />
3.13 Transportation and Traffic resolves <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1 with traffic signals for the<br />
intersections <strong>of</strong> east and west Thomas Lake Harris Drive (TLH) with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway and needs to be adopted. However, there is no time frame for installation<br />
and the project needs to install those traffic signals as a first step in the<br />
construction process. In my view the increased traffic from construction trucks and<br />
construction workers will increase traffic to the levels projected when the development<br />
is complete.<br />
2) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with Stonefield<br />
Lane. The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as shown in<br />
Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8) and assess the impact on the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> TLH with Stonefield Lane. There are 122 residents living on Stonefield<br />
Lane with a greater number <strong>of</strong> owner vehicles--each home has a two car garage. Those<br />
residents, along with their guests, service vehicles, etc. create a great deal <strong>of</strong> traffic, not<br />
to mention the pedestrian traffic as the spa, tennis court, and pool are on opposite sides<br />
<strong>of</strong> TLH Drive. When making left hand turns or crossing TLH Drive, the sight distance<br />
is limited in both directions. To the north TLH curves downhill while to the south TLH<br />
is curved and with a steep downhill, both limiting the visibility <strong>of</strong> oncoming vehicles.<br />
3) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with Cross Creek<br />
Road. The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as shown in<br />
Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, table 8) and assess the impact on the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> TLH with Cross Creek Road. In addition, the latest study indicates there<br />
are 1000 round trips per day on Cross Creek which means there are 500 vehicles that<br />
need to enter TLH each day without the benefit <strong>of</strong> any mitigating action.<br />
4) The project needs a total TLH traffic study including residents, guests, and service<br />
vehicles with their impacts on all intersections. Stonefield and Cross Creek are just<br />
the most obvious intersections needing mitigation for the 422 trips increase projection<br />
as indicated in EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8.<br />
5) The project needs to make a recommendation on parking safety as cited in<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VI Project <strong>Impact</strong>s, A. Significant Criteria 8., 9., &<br />
10.
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Location <strong>of</strong> Intersections:<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Continued<br />
1) West Thomas Lake Harris Drive & <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway<br />
2) Thomas Lake Harris Drive & Stonefield Lane<br />
3) Thomas Lake Harris Drive & Cross Creek Road<br />
4) East Thomas Lake Harris Drive & <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 17, 2008)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) See Master Response Local Traffic. The Emissions Calculations incorrectly assumed a<br />
greater number <strong>of</strong> trips generated by the Project than what was used for the Traffic<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Analysis. This over-estimate occurred because <strong>of</strong> a double-count <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsite<br />
workers commuting to the site, which are included in the 382 Community Care<br />
Center trips in the traffic analysis (Table 3.13-2). Although the emissions analysis<br />
over-estimated the traffic count, it provided a more conservative evaluation <strong>of</strong><br />
potential air quality impacts. The Project was determined to have<br />
less-than-significant operational emissions (assuming the greater number <strong>of</strong><br />
494 trips), and no measures to reduce vehicle trips and miles are required (see<br />
Draft EIR p. 3-37). The conclusion that there is no significant air quality impact from<br />
trips generated by the project remains unchanged.<br />
2) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
3) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
4) See Master Response Local Traffic. Although data and analysis from the traffic<br />
report in Appendix P to the Draft EIR were used in preparation <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the<br />
conclusions presented in the Draft EIR were drawn independently by the <strong>City</strong>’s EIR<br />
consultant and the <strong>City</strong> after considering the study data. The significance criteria<br />
used for the EIR analysis are listed in Section 3.13.2 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR.<br />
5) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
6) See Response to Comment Epperly–14 and Master Response Local Traffic. The<br />
Project will not result in an increase in hazards due to design features or<br />
incompatible uses; see <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-3 in the Draft EIR.<br />
7) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
8) See Master Response Local Traffic. A detailed traffic study was conducted for the<br />
Project and is provided as Appendix P <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR.<br />
9) As described in Section 3.13.3, the parking proposed for the Project exceeds the<br />
parking required by the <strong>City</strong>. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3-13.3 in the Draft EIR, the<br />
Project would not result in any significant increases in hazards.<br />
2-100 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 19 – 1<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:36 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> EIR<br />
From: Dewey Nelson [mailto:deweynelson@juno.com]<br />
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:37 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> EIR<br />
Dear Joel,<br />
Below are my comments and recommedations aimed at Appendix P <strong>of</strong> the EIR for The Lodge at<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Dewey Nelson<br />
2003 Stonefield Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403-0952<br />
707-544-6327<br />
Dated October 18, 2007<br />
Prepared by Dewey Nelson<br />
DeweyNelson@Juno.Com<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
Observations on EIR content:<br />
1) The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as indicated<br />
in EIR Volume II, Appendix P, Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8) and to assess the<br />
impact on the intersections with Thomas Lake Harris Drive (TLH) and its<br />
numerous intersections with cross streets and side streets. The analysis needs to<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 5)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 19 – 1<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm<br />
consider crosswalks, stop signs, speed bumps, etc. as opposed to just traffic<br />
signals. And decide if the 494 trips per day in EIR Volume II, Appendix D,<br />
Table D-1 is accurate.<br />
2) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended<br />
Improvements A.2. States: “TLH Drive (East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway –<br />
Unacceptable Level <strong>of</strong> Service & Signal Warrant: Drivers using the<br />
unsignalized TLH Drive (East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway intersection have the<br />
option <strong>of</strong> using Fir Ridge Drive to access a signalized intersection with<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. Based upon input from <strong>City</strong> traffic engineering staff, it<br />
is not the <strong>City</strong>’s desire that the TLH Drive (East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway<br />
intersection be considered for signalization due to the ease <strong>of</strong> access to the Fir<br />
Ridge Drive intersection with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway.”<br />
Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant by stating drivers have the<br />
option to drive through a long out-<strong>of</strong>-the-way loop in a residential area is<br />
ludicrous and totally unacceptable. We are, after all, concerned about the<br />
safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens. In addition, Volume I Executive Summary Table ES-<br />
1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change the impact from “Significant”<br />
to Less than Significant”.<br />
3) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended<br />
Improvements A.2. States: “TLH Drive (West)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway –<br />
Unacceptable Level <strong>of</strong> Service & Signal Warrant: Although AM peak hour<br />
volumes at the TLH Drive (West)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway would be approaching<br />
signal warrant criteria, the number <strong>of</strong> vehicles experiencing LOS F delay for left<br />
turns from TLH Drive (West) will be small. In addition, the intersections along<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway immediately east and west <strong>of</strong> TLH Drive (West), at Altruria Drive and<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 5)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 19 – 1<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm<br />
Round<br />
Barn Boulevard, are now both signalized and provide some gaps in traffic flow<br />
along<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. For this reason, <strong>City</strong> traffic engineering staff have<br />
indicated<br />
their desire not to signalize this intersection. Should the <strong>City</strong> wish to provide an<br />
improvement measure, consideration could be given to providing a median refuge<br />
area<br />
along <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway just east <strong>of</strong> the intersection to facilitate left turns<br />
from<br />
TLH Drive (West). Resultant operation <strong>of</strong> left turn movements from TLH Drive<br />
(West)<br />
to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway would be an acceptable LOS D during both the AM and<br />
PM<br />
peak hours.”<br />
Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant because there are nearby traffic<br />
lights makes little sense and is totally unacceptable. Again, we are<br />
concerned about the safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens. In addition, Volume I Executive<br />
Summary Table ES-1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change the impact<br />
from “Significant” to Less than Significant”.<br />
4) The EIR traffic engineer needs to make his own conclusions rather than rely<br />
on the city traffic engineer’s “opinions” while ignoring his own data. See EIR<br />
Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended<br />
Improvements A.2. and A.3<br />
Dated October 18, 2007<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Continued<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm (3 <strong>of</strong> 5)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 19 – 1<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm<br />
The Planning Commission needs to have the Crane Transportation<br />
Group revise their EIR to include:<br />
FRMA Positions<br />
1) EIR Volume I, Executive Summary, Potential <strong>Impact</strong>s and Mitigations, Table<br />
ES-1, 3.13 Transportation and Traffic resolves <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1 with traffic signals<br />
for the intersections <strong>of</strong> east and west Thomas Lake Harris Drive (TLH) with<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and needs to be adopted. However, there is no time<br />
frame for installation and the project needs to install those traffic signals as<br />
a first step in the construction process. In my view the increased traffic from<br />
construction trucks and construction workers will increase traffic to the levels<br />
projected when the development is complete.<br />
2) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with<br />
Stonefield Lane. The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per<br />
day as shown in Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8) and<br />
assess the impact on the intersection <strong>of</strong> TLH with Stonefield Lane. There are<br />
122 residents living on Stonefield Lane with a greater number <strong>of</strong> owner<br />
vehicles--each home has a two car garage. Those residents, along with their<br />
guests, service vehicles, etc. create a great deal <strong>of</strong> traffic, not to mention the<br />
pedestrian traffic as the spa, tennis court, and pool are on opposite sides <strong>of</strong> TLH<br />
Drive. When making left hand turns or crossing TLH Drive, the sight distance is<br />
limited in both directions. To the north TLH curves downhill while to the south<br />
TLH is curved and with a steep downhill, both limiting the visibility <strong>of</strong><br />
oncoming vehicles.<br />
3) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with<br />
Cross Creek Road. The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips<br />
per day as shown in Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, table 8) and<br />
assess the impact on the intersection <strong>of</strong> TLH with Cross Creek Road. In<br />
addition, the latest study indicates there are 1000 round trips per day on Cross<br />
Creek which means there are 500 vehicles that need to enter TLH each day<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm (4 <strong>of</strong> 5)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 19 – 1<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm<br />
without the benefit <strong>of</strong> any mitigating action.<br />
4) The project needs a total TLH traffic study including residents, guests,<br />
and service vehicles with their impacts on all intersections. Stonefield and<br />
Cross Creek are just the most obvious intersections needing mitigation for the<br />
422 trips increase projection as indicated in EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8.<br />
5) The project needs to make a recommendation on parking safety as cited<br />
in Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VI Project <strong>Impact</strong>s, A. Significant Criteria<br />
8., 9., & 10.<br />
____________________________________________________________<br />
Explore all <strong>of</strong> Europe's beauty! Click now for great vacation packages!<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson19July.htm (5 <strong>of</strong> 5)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 19, 2008)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comments noted. The <strong>City</strong> could not identify any differences between the comments<br />
presented in this July 19 letter from the previous letter dated July 17. Please refer to<br />
the Responses to Comments Nelson July 19 – 1 through 9.<br />
2-106 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 22 – 1<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:56 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> EIR<br />
From: Dewey Nelson [mailto:deweynelson@juno.com]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:32 AM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> EIR<br />
I'm very sorry, but the previous message had errors in the detail which have now been corrected. Dewey<br />
DeweyNelson@juno.com><br />
To: JGalbraith@srcity.org<br />
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:37:23 -0700<br />
Subject: The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> EIR<br />
Dear Joel,<br />
Below are my comments and recommedations aimed at Appendix P <strong>of</strong> the EIR for The Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Dewey Nelson<br />
2003 Stonefield Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403-0952<br />
707-544-6327<br />
Dated October 18, 2007<br />
Prepared by Dewey Nelson<br />
DeweyNelson@Juno.Com<br />
Observations on EIR content:<br />
8/8/2008<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
1) The EIR failed to consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as indicated in EIR Volume II, Appendix P,<br />
Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8) and to assess the impact on the intersections with Thomas Lake Harris Drive<br />
(TLH) and its numerous intersections with cross streets and side streets. The analysis needs to consider<br />
crosswalks, stop signs, speed bumps, etc. as opposed to just traffic signals. And decide if the 494 trips per<br />
day in EIR Volume II, Appendix D, Table D-1 is accurate.<br />
2) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. States: “TLH Drive<br />
(East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway – Unacceptable Level <strong>of</strong> Service & Signal Warrant: Drivers using the unsignalized<br />
TLH Drive (East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway intersection have the option <strong>of</strong> using Fir Ridge Drive to access a<br />
signalized intersection with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. Based upon input from <strong>City</strong> traffic engineering staff, it is<br />
not the <strong>City</strong>’s desire that the TLH Drive (East)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway intersection be considered for<br />
signalization due to the ease <strong>of</strong> access to the Fir Ridge Drive intersection with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway.”<br />
Not resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant by stating drivers have the option to drive through a long out-<strong>of</strong>-the-way<br />
loop in a residential area is ludicrous and totally unacceptable. We are, after all, concerned about the safety <strong>of</strong> our<br />
citizens. In addition, Volume I Executive Summary Table ES-1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change the impact from<br />
“Significant” to Less than Significant”.<br />
3) In EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. States: “TLH Drive<br />
(West)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway – Unacceptable Level <strong>of</strong> Service & Signal Warrant: Although AM peak hour volumes at the<br />
TLH Drive (West)/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway would be approaching signal warrant criteria, the number <strong>of</strong> vehicles experiencing<br />
LOS F delay for left turns from TLH Drive (West) will be small. In addition, the intersections along <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway immediately east and west <strong>of</strong> TLH Drive (West), at Altruria Drive and Round<br />
Barn Boulevard, are now both signalized and provide some gaps in traffic flow along<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. For this reason, <strong>City</strong> traffic engineering staff have indicated<br />
their desire not to signalize this intersection. Should the <strong>City</strong> wish to provide an<br />
improvement measure, consideration could be given to providing a median refuge area
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 22 – 1<br />
along <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway just east <strong>of</strong> the intersection to facilitate left turns from<br />
TLH Drive (West). Resultant operation <strong>of</strong> left turn movements from TLH Drive (West)<br />
to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway would be an acceptable LOS D during both the AM and PM<br />
peak hours.”<br />
Not resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant because there are nearby traffic lights makes little sense and is totally<br />
unacceptable. Again, we are concerned about the safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens. In addition, Volume I Executive Summary Table<br />
ES-1 3.13-1 states a traffic signal would change the impact from “Significant” to Less than Significant”.<br />
4) The EIR traffic engineer needs to make his own conclusions rather than rely on the city traffic engineer’s “opinions” while<br />
ignoring his own data. See EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, VII Recommended Improvements A.2. and A.3<br />
Dated October 18, 2007<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Draft EIR<br />
Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Continued<br />
The Planning Commission needs to have the Crane Transportation Group revise their EIR to include:<br />
FRMA Positions<br />
1) EIR Volume I, Executive Summary, Potential <strong>Impact</strong>s and Mitigations, Table ES-1, 3.13 Transportation and Traffic resolves<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1 with traffic signals for the intersections <strong>of</strong> east and west Thomas Lake Harris Drive (TLH) with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway and needs to be adopted. However, there is no time frame for installation and the project needs to install those<br />
traffic signals as a first step in the construction process. In my view the increased traffic from construction trucks and<br />
construction workers will increase traffic to the levels projected when the development is complete.<br />
2) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with Stonefield Lane. The EIR failed to<br />
consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as shown in Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>,<br />
Table 8) and assess the impact on the intersection <strong>of</strong> TLH with Stonefield Lane. There are 122 residents living<br />
on Stonefield Lane with a greater number <strong>of</strong> owner vehicles--each home has a two car garage. Those residents,<br />
along with their guests, service vehicles, etc. create a great deal <strong>of</strong> traffic, not to mention the pedestrian traffic<br />
as the spa, tennis court, and pool are on opposite sides <strong>of</strong> TLH Drive. When making left hand turns or crossing<br />
TLH Drive, the sight distance is limited in both directions. To the north TLH curves downhill while to the south<br />
TLH is curved and with a steep downhill, both limiting the visibility <strong>of</strong> oncoming vehicles.<br />
3) The project needs to install stop signs on TLH at the intersection with Cross Creek Road. The EIR failed to<br />
consider the increased traffic (422 trips per day as shown in Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, table<br />
8) and assess the impact on the intersection <strong>of</strong> TLH with Cross Creek Road. In addition, the latest study<br />
indicates there are 1000 round trips per day on Cross Creek which means there are 500 vehicles that need to<br />
enter TLH each day without the benefit <strong>of</strong> any mitigating action.<br />
4) The project needs a total TLH traffic study including residents, guests, and service vehicles with their impacts<br />
on all intersections. Stonefield and Cross Creek are just the most obvious intersections needing mitigation for<br />
the 422 trips increase projection as indicated in EIR Volume II, Appendix P Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Table 8.<br />
____________________________________________________________<br />
Looking for insurance? Click to compare and save big.<br />
8/8/2008<br />
Page 2 <strong>of</strong> 2
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 22, 2008)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comments noted. The <strong>City</strong> could identify only one difference between the comments<br />
presented in this July 22 letter from the previous letters, a change in the phrase<br />
“Resolving an Unacceptable Signal Warrant…” to “Not resolving an Unacceptable<br />
Signal Warrant.…” This change does not require a modification in responses; please<br />
refer to the Responses to Comments Nelson July 19 – 1 through 9.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-109
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:36 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Fw: EIR <strong>Report</strong> to PC<br />
Attachments: EIRTrafficPresentation.doc<br />
From: Gigi LaFontaine [mailto:gigi.lms@sbcglobal.net]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com; ncaston@sonic.net; pacisco@aol.com; vicki@15000inc.com; tk@mkgrp.com; davidpoulsen816@msn.com; Galbraith, Joel; Meredith,<br />
Marie; Morris, Erin<br />
Cc: 'Dewey Nelson'; Skip Epperly<br />
Subject: Fw: EIR <strong>Report</strong> to PC<br />
Comments on the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
Dewey Nelson
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 28 – 1<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 28 – 2
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 28, 2008)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) See Master Response Local Traffic and Response to Comment Nelson July 17 – 1.<br />
2) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
2-112 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 31 – 1<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 31 – 2<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:25 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Input to the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR<br />
Mary,<br />
This just came in.<br />
It is after the deadline, but we should respond if there is anything significant.<br />
Joel<br />
From: Dewey D Nelson [mailto:deweynelson@juno.com]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:46 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel; tk@mkgrp.com; davidpoulsen816@msn.com; Vicki@15000inc.com;<br />
scott@hallandbartley.com; pacisco@aol.com; ncaston@sonic.net<br />
Subject: Input to the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge DEIR<br />
Dear Planning Department and Planning Commision,<br />
The final input from the Advocates for Resposible Development inadvertally did not include my<br />
comments to the Planning Commision at the July 24th public hearing and so those comments are<br />
included below. Also, there was a rather huge error on the final page about the need for a traffic<br />
light at EAST TLH and FGP while it should have said both intersections <strong>of</strong> TLH (west/east)<br />
with FGP--you'll see what I mean by reading the last paragraph <strong>of</strong> my comments.<br />
Thanks for listening.<br />
Dewey Nelson<br />
2003 Stonefield Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403<br />
707-544-6327<br />
Planning Committee Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
EIR<br />
07/24/08<br />
My name is Dewey Nelson and I live at 2003 Stonefield Lane. My primary<br />
concerns with the EIR are with traffic which is covered in detail in Appendix P. the<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 3)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NELSON<br />
JULY 31 – 2<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm<br />
Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> and also in the Executive Summary under 3.13 the Traffic &<br />
Transportation<br />
According to the EIR impact report but, depending on where you read, there will be<br />
an increase <strong>of</strong> 422 or 494 vehicle trips per day TLH. And yet the report did not<br />
evaluate the impact <strong>of</strong> that increase in traffic on all <strong>of</strong> the intersections with TLH.<br />
Cross Creek alone has 1000 trips per day, while Stonefield Lane is fed by 122 units<br />
each with a two car garage—we are talking 200+ vehicles not counting guests and<br />
service vehicles that are using this one intersection. The EIR <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> needs<br />
to evaluate the traffic exposures on all <strong>of</strong> these intersections with TLH, not just the<br />
two mentioned, and with emphasis on all left hand turns including those into the<br />
Lodge and the dental <strong>of</strong>fice on TLH and FGP.<br />
In Appendix P, both the east and west intersections <strong>of</strong> TLH with FGP were studied<br />
and met the requirements for a traffic signal, but no traffic signals were<br />
recommended. In both cases, input from the city’s traffic engineering department<br />
was cited and, in my opinion, both reasons are unacceptable.<br />
But, the Executive Summary Mitigation measure 3.13-1 does state there shall be a<br />
traffic signal at TLH and FGP, but fails to include both intersections. However,<br />
also in the Executive Summary table ES-1 3.13-1 it is stated that the traffic signals<br />
would improve the status <strong>of</strong> these two intersections from unacceptable to<br />
acceptable. Not noted is that there will also be a sudden increase <strong>of</strong> traffic from<br />
construction workers and heavy construction vehicles which will create an<br />
immediate safety hazard at the intersections. We, therefore, not only need<br />
traffic signals at both <strong>of</strong> these intersections, but they are needed at the<br />
beginning <strong>of</strong> construction.<br />
We are, after all, talking about the safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens.<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 3)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm<br />
Thank you for listening!<br />
____________________________________________________________<br />
Fly cheap! Click here for great airfare deals.<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Doc...nts/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Nelson31July.htm (3 <strong>of</strong> 3)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 31, 2008)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter. Note that this letter was postmarked after the deadline to submit comments to the Draft EIR.<br />
However, to be responsive to its citizens, the <strong>City</strong> will include this letter in the list <strong>of</strong> comment letters<br />
received.<br />
1) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
2) Comments noted. The <strong>City</strong> could not identify any differences between the comments<br />
presented in this July 31 letter from the previous letter dated July 28. Please refer to<br />
the Responses to Comments Nelson July 28 – 1 and 2.<br />
2-116 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NEUMAN – 1<br />
NEUMAN – 2<br />
NEUMAN – 4<br />
NEUMAN – 5<br />
NEUMAN – 6<br />
NEUMAN – 7<br />
NEUMAN – 8<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Neuman.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:17 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: EIR meeting Aegis<br />
From: Ryan J Neuman [mailto:r_neuman@msn.com]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:03 PM<br />
To: scott@hallandbartley.com; Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: EIR meeting Aegis<br />
We are unable to attend the meeting today. We however would like to voice our VERY STRONG OPINION<br />
AGAINST any large projects on Thomas Lake Harris. We are horrified each time we look <strong>of</strong>f our back<br />
deck to see Varenna a very large eyesore sticking up in what used to be an upscale neighborhood.<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> is the only upscale neighborhood in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> and it is being turned from an enjoyable<br />
place to live to a nightmare. We had hours and hours <strong>of</strong> horrible pounding with the Varenna building.<br />
We have young children and are not looking to raise them in a commercial setting. The city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> cannot make another mistake on our hill. We have too many elder care facilities as it is. The traffic<br />
and noise would be horrible if a 24 hour a day facility were allowed to be put in. We did not buy our<br />
home in a commercial area we bought in a neighborhood and would like to keep it that way. The park in<br />
our neighborhood is directly across from the proposed site. This facility would not be good for our sleep,<br />
increased traffic, people and services to a facility like this would be unbearable. Someone has to stop<br />
these people from taking out trees, I think it is the city's job to protect the Heritage Oaks. PLEASE STOP<br />
THIS PROJECT FROM GOING FORWARD AND RUINING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.<br />
Ryan and Sheri Neuman<br />
3776 Skyfarm Drive<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Neuman.htm8/1/2008 2:10:10 PM<br />
NEUMAN – 3
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Ryan and Sheri Neuman<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted.<br />
2) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
3) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
4) See Master Responses Noise and Traffic.<br />
5) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
6) The comment refers to <strong>City</strong>-owned land west <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris Drive across<br />
from the Project site; given the Project’s separation from the parkland via Thomas<br />
Lake Harris Drive, it is not anticipated that the Project would affect the use <strong>of</strong> the<br />
parkland . <strong>Impact</strong>s to public recreation, including parks, are addressed in Draft EIR<br />
Section 3.12. The Draft EIR analyzed whether the Project could increase the use <strong>of</strong><br />
existing neighborhood parks such that substantial physical deterioration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
facility would occur or be accelerated. <strong>Impact</strong>s were considered temporary and less<br />
than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures were required (Draft EIR p. 3-<br />
139).<br />
7) Comment noted. See Master Response Local Traffic. The traffic generated by the<br />
project will not have any significant impact after mitigation is incorporated.<br />
8) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.<br />
2-118 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NCRWQCB – 1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NCRWQCB – 1<br />
NCRWQCB – 2<br />
NCRWQCB – 3<br />
NCRWQCB – 4
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
NCRWQCB – 5<br />
NCRWQCB – 6
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from North Coast Regional Water Quality Control<br />
Board (NCRWQCB)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) The <strong>City</strong> acknowledges the RWQCB’s support <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and “the very<br />
positive programs and improvements” suggested in it. The <strong>City</strong> also acknowledges<br />
the RWQCB’s concerns about potential significant impacts to water quality.<br />
Potential impacts to water quality are addressed in Section 3.8.3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and<br />
include one potentially significant impact, <strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-2, Construction and operation <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project could increase pollutants in stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f. Mitigation Measures 3.8.2,<br />
Comply with all applicable State and Local Regulations for stormwater will minimize<br />
water quality impacts from stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f and fully mitigate this potential<br />
impact. Mitigation measures shall include the preparation <strong>of</strong> SWPPP and a SUSMP,<br />
as discussed in the Draft EIR. These plans will specify site specific management<br />
activities to be implemented both during and after construction.<br />
2) The <strong>City</strong> understands that a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan describing the process<br />
that has been or will be taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss <strong>of</strong> or<br />
significant adverse impacts to beneficial uses <strong>of</strong> waters <strong>of</strong> the State should be<br />
included in the submittal <strong>of</strong> any permit applications. See Response to Comment<br />
NCRWQCB-3 for additional information concerning potential impacts to State<br />
waters within the Study Area.<br />
3) The <strong>City</strong>’s zoning regulations do not allow construction with 50 feet <strong>of</strong> the creek, so<br />
the Piner Creek buffer zone will be preserved. <strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-2, Construction and operation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project could increase pollutants in stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f, documents the potential<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> development. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2 in the Draft EIR includes<br />
measures to reduce and minimize these impacts. The mitigation measure has been<br />
revised to add a requirement for informational signage for pedestrians walking near<br />
the creek as follows:<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Comply with all applicable State and local<br />
regulations for stormwater management.<br />
As described above, compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit,<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s municipal stormwater NPDES permit, the grading ordinance, the<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Area SUSMP, and the Storm Water Mitigation Plan will minimize any<br />
water quality impacts. Informational signage will be added along Project<br />
pathways located near the creek that describe the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the buffer area<br />
and establish appropriate restrictions.<br />
4) As stated in the Draft EIR, a wetland delineation conducted by WRA in 2006 and<br />
verified by USACE in February 2008 indicated that there are no wetlands or other<br />
waters <strong>of</strong> the U.S., other than Piner Creek, in the Study Area. There will be no direct<br />
impacts to Piner Creek or its associated riparian vegetation. Three man-made<br />
stormwater drainages located adjacent to Thomas Lake Harris Drive were<br />
determined not to be waters <strong>of</strong> the U.S by USACE. Because these drainages are man-<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-125
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
made stormwater drainages and were not considered waters <strong>of</strong> the U.S. by the<br />
USACE, it is presumed these drainages are not under the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the RWQCB.<br />
Based on the presumed lack <strong>of</strong> State waters within the Study Area, this potential<br />
impact is considered less than significant. However, the <strong>City</strong> will coordinate with the<br />
RWQCB to verify that these drainages are not considered State waters prior to<br />
construction. Should these drainages be determined to be waters <strong>of</strong> the State by the<br />
RWQCB, the applicant will coordinate with the RWQCB to mitigate for the<br />
drainages at a minimum <strong>of</strong> a 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise agreed upon with regulatory<br />
agencies.<br />
5) The <strong>City</strong> acknowledges the commenter’s attached list <strong>of</strong> Storm Water and Low<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> Development Resources. As noted in Response to Comment NCRWQCB-3,<br />
the Piner Creek buffer zone will be protected. As noted in Response to Comment<br />
NCRWQCB – 1, mitigation measures will help minimize impacts from stormwater<br />
run<strong>of</strong>f. As described in Mitigation Measures 3.1-2 and 3.4-1a <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR,<br />
landscaping will include primarily native species and the landscaping plan must be<br />
approved by the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
6) The <strong>City</strong> understands that the Project will need to meet water quality objectives to<br />
state and federal antidegradation requirements, and that the NCRWQCB may<br />
require additional project permits, depending on expected project impacts.<br />
2-126 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:15 PM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Lodge project<br />
Attachments: letter to Mr. Galbraith.rtf<br />
letter to Mr.<br />
Galbraith.rtf<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: lynn and william rood [mailto:lynn.william@mac.com]<br />
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:26 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: Lodge project<br />
Mr. concerns <strong>of</strong> the DEIR are attached, Lynn and William Rood<br />
1
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
ROOD – 1<br />
ROOD – 2<br />
ROOD – 3<br />
ROOD – 4<br />
ROOD – 5<br />
ROOD – 6<br />
Mr. Galbraith,<br />
After reading the Draft EIR for the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Volume I, we<br />
have concerns.<br />
Figure 2-1 Regional Map is incorrect as the Project location is depicted on the<br />
West side <strong>of</strong> Highway 101 and Figure 2-3 Project Layout <strong>of</strong> 2006 is incomplete<br />
since it does not show the Oaks Development built out as Figure 3.1-1 Project<br />
Site and Vicinity Location Viewpoints does, <strong>of</strong> 2006. Could not these erroneous<br />
maps put in question other information presented in the EIR?<br />
The 242 parking spaces planned for the Lodge is inadequate for a project <strong>of</strong> this<br />
size given the number <strong>of</strong> visitors to the facility, resident vehicles, cars and trucks<br />
for other purposes. The description <strong>of</strong> the planned parking is different throughout<br />
the EIR: page 2-8, page 2-11 Parking and Transportation and page 3-157. Why?<br />
Approximately 97 construction workers will temporarily be working at the site,<br />
where will their vehicles be parked?<br />
2.4.3 Project Construction states approximately 8 acres <strong>of</strong> land will be affected<br />
by grading, would this not infer that a great many more trees would be removed<br />
than 66% as stated in the EIR?<br />
A CH2M HILL wildlife biologist conducted a reconnaissance survey on<br />
March 30, 2007. Why weren't the surveys conducted on different days and<br />
months <strong>of</strong> the year and why were no protocol surveys conducted? This brief<br />
study was inadequate to make a valid wildlife survey.<br />
3.9 states the Project is not expected to conflict or affect negatively the character<br />
<strong>of</strong> the residential neighborhoods. How can this not negatively affect the<br />
neighborhoods when there will be expected trip rates <strong>of</strong>:<br />
40 trips due to employee housing, 382 trips due to visitors to the facility, 68 the<br />
assumed remaining number <strong>of</strong> workers living <strong>of</strong>fsite and would contribute 1 trip<br />
per day, 4 delivery truck trips (only 4?), additionally transportation services<br />
would be available to residents requiring medical attention or other purposes.<br />
Are these figures for round trips or one-way trips?<br />
The addition <strong>of</strong> 494+ vehicles added to the existing traffic on Thomas Lake would<br />
negatively affect the area and cause a great inconvenience to the Stonefield<br />
Development.<br />
3.13-1 under Mitigation Measures it states that drivers also have the option <strong>of</strong><br />
using the nearby Fir Ridge Drive intersection for signalized access to the<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway. This statement shows a lack <strong>of</strong> judgement for the<br />
following reasons: 1. the statement infers if traffic does use the FRD intersection<br />
TLHD would not be able to handle the traffic congestion that would occur with
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
ROOD – 6<br />
ROOD – 7<br />
ROOD – 8<br />
additional vehicles 2. and if vehicles use FRD, traffic would become congested<br />
there not only because <strong>of</strong> the existing but because the Fir Ridge Housing Project<br />
is estimated to add a volume <strong>of</strong> 346 daily 2-way trips, (Base Case <strong>of</strong> 2010 Trip<br />
generation table 3.13-1).<br />
4.1.13 states any incremental traffic condition by the Project to the existing<br />
traffic no matter how minute is considered significant and unavoidable and<br />
after mitigation measures it is significant and unavoidable.<br />
4.3 states no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts would occur as a<br />
result <strong>of</strong> the Project implementation. These statements contradict each other,<br />
what is being said here?<br />
In summation, the Draft EIR has made unclear and inexact presentations and<br />
has inadequately assessed the problems that a Project <strong>of</strong> this size would<br />
generate with Thomas Lake Harris Drive and the surrounding areas. It seems<br />
that a large project such as this should be located in a more convenient area,<br />
rather than on a 2 lane road.<br />
Respectfully,<br />
William C. and Lynn M. Rood<br />
2084 Stonefield Lane<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403<br />
ROOD – 9
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Lynn and William Rood<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) The “Project Location” label on Figure 2-1 should be pointing to the star, which<br />
shows the Project location. This label has been moved and the revised figure is<br />
shown in Section 3 Errata and Revisions in this Final EIR.<br />
2) <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge is designated by the <strong>City</strong> as a Community Care Facility. <strong>City</strong><br />
code for such facilities requires one space per three beds. With 235 beds proposed<br />
the Project is required to supply at least 79 parking spaces, significantly less than the<br />
217 spaces being provided for Project residents. For the apartments reserved for<br />
onsite staff, the <strong>City</strong> Code requires one space and 0.5 visitors spaces per studio/onebedroom<br />
unit and one space and 1.5 visitors spaces for two-bedroom units. Because<br />
there will be eight single-bedroom units and four two-bedroom units, 22 parking<br />
spaces would be required. The Project will comply with this parking requirement.<br />
Therefore, the Project exceeds the overall parking requirements and no significant<br />
impacts to parking would occur.<br />
The Draft EIR breaks the total parking down in several different ways. A summary<br />
<strong>of</strong> these breakdowns is provided below. A total <strong>of</strong> 242 parking spaces are planned<br />
for the Project.<br />
Resident/Visitor Parking Total<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> Spaces<br />
Main Building Covered Spaces 99<br />
Flats Building Covered Spaces 18<br />
Surface spaces (various locations) 89<br />
Resident parking – cottage garages 14<br />
Employee Parking Total 22<br />
Total Spaces 242<br />
3) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland. Onsite trees are concentrated in<br />
woodland areas, which were avoided to the degree feasible in Project design. For<br />
this reason, percent <strong>of</strong> land graded is not equal to percent <strong>of</strong> trees impacted.<br />
4) The wildlife study conducted by CH2M HILL on March 30, 2007, was a<br />
reconnaissance survey. A reconnaissance survey is a preliminary visual survey<br />
conducted to identify the occurrence and condition <strong>of</strong> general habitat types as well<br />
as potential species that could be present or otherwise use the surveyed area.<br />
As stated in the Draft EIR, the reconnaissance survey and several other sources <strong>of</strong><br />
data (see p. 3-51) were used to identify potential habitat for special-status wildlife<br />
species known to occur in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Study Area and to determine specialstatus<br />
species potential to occur within the Study Area (see p. 3-51). The information<br />
2-130 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
obtained from data sources and the reconnaissance survey was sufficient to identify<br />
special-status wildlife species potentially present in the Study Area, to evaluate<br />
potential impacts, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. See <strong>Impact</strong> and<br />
Mitigation Measures 3.4-3, 3.4-4, and 3.4-5. Mitigation measures include preconstruction<br />
surveys, as needed, for nesting birds, roosting bats, and western and<br />
northwestern pond turtle.<br />
5) See Master Response for Local Traffic. The traffic generated by the Project will not<br />
have any significant impact after mitigation is incorporated. The trip numbers listed<br />
in Table 3.13-2 Project Trip Generation in the Draft EIR represent two-way trips<br />
(roundtrips). The Draft EIR figures provided show one-way trips occurring during<br />
the peak hours.<br />
6) The analysis <strong>of</strong> the traffic impacts, the development <strong>of</strong> the mitigation, and the<br />
conclusion regarding level <strong>of</strong> impact described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1 did not assume the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> Fir Ridge Drive intersection to avoid the Thomas Lake Harris<br />
Drive/<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway intersection. The analysis was based on a trip<br />
distribution model to primary roadways (see Table 3.13-3). It should be noted that<br />
the turns at the Fir Ridge Drive intersection with the Project and the Fir Ridge<br />
Housing Project will be operating at high levels <strong>of</strong> service, as shown in Table 3.13-5<br />
(see Base Case plus Project data).<br />
7) See Response to Comment Aegis – 22.<br />
8) Comment noted. See Master Responses Local Traffic, Land Use Compatibility, and<br />
Visual Resources.<br />
9) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-131
SCHARF – 3<br />
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Scharf.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:40 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: gay retirees on TLH Dr.<br />
From: lsantarosa@aol.com [mailto:lsantarosa@aol.com]<br />
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:10 AM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: gay retirees on TLH Dr.<br />
Dear planning dep't supervisor: I did not attend the meeting yesterday, but have downloaded the<br />
EIR, and want to let you know that a fourth senior residential complex and/or assisted<br />
living project in our neighborhood goes violently against my wishes. Filling in vacant land just<br />
because it may pass the zoning test for what the owner or his sponsor/developer envisions is not<br />
really urban planning. You may have worked at city hall long enough to dismiss NIMBY<br />
objections to so many <strong>of</strong> the projects you manage as a planner, so I may be wasting my<br />
bandwidth here. Please consider balancing the fact this lot may be zoning-suitable for a facility<br />
such as this, with the detrimental effects this would have in the hills in which we chose to live. I<br />
grew up in this part <strong>of</strong> town, am over 55, and am discouraged and upset each time I drive FG<br />
Pkwy and see the Monster which took over the lake & overwhelmed the hillsides, Jim Gallaher's<br />
Varenna may or may not prove to be financially successful, but his years <strong>of</strong> contributions to the<br />
city's leaders running for <strong>of</strong>fice did have a pay-<strong>of</strong>f in the form <strong>of</strong> this shocking retirement city in<br />
what was <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>. Can we weigh the rights <strong>of</strong> the landowner to make use <strong>of</strong> land and the<br />
city's need for prop. tax revenue and other fees, against the irreversible destruction <strong>of</strong> nature?<br />
Isn't it nature and the things these projects threaten & destroy which attracted us here? My name<br />
is Larry Scharf, I do support property rights and the need to develop the city, but am against<br />
ripping up this 10 acre wooded parcel. My address is 1960 Fountainview Cir. Thank You.<br />
The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Now!<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Scharf.htm8/1/2008 2:10:10 PM<br />
SCHARF – 1<br />
SCHARF – 2
Response to Comment Letter from Larry Scharf<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted.<br />
2) Comment noted. The Project site has been planned for development since at least<br />
1972, when the FRPCD Policy Statement was adopted. The site has been part <strong>of</strong><br />
extensive urban planning efforts, including updates to the FRPCD Policy Statement<br />
in 1981 and 1992 and in the General Plan, as well as prior versions <strong>of</strong> the General<br />
Plan. As discussed in Section 3.9 Land Use in the Draft EIR and in Master Response<br />
Land Use Compatibility, the Project is consistent with the land uses designated in<br />
the FRPCD Policy Statement, which would allow a range <strong>of</strong> uses including singlefamily<br />
and multi-family housing, community oriented uses such as health care<br />
facilities, and private recreational facilities. As a community care facility, the Project<br />
is considered a nonresidential land use, which is allowed in any zoning district<br />
through the Conditional Use Permit process.<br />
3) See Response to Comment McGuckin July 18-3. As described in Section 2 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR, the purpose <strong>of</strong> the Project is help to meet housing and service needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>City</strong>’s senior community, consistent with the policies and goals in the General Plan<br />
that call for projects and services to support the needs <strong>of</strong> seniors in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. As<br />
discussed in Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master Response Oak Trees and Oak<br />
Woodland, impacts to biological resources from the Project will be less than<br />
significant with mitigation.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-133
SCIGLIANO – 1<br />
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Scigliano.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:32 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Aegis Construction Plans for <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
From: Lynda Scigliano [mailto:lscigliano@sonomaselpa.org]<br />
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:01 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel; scott@hallandbartley.com<br />
Subject: Aegis Construction Plans for <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council Members:<br />
Joel Galbraith, Supervising Planner<br />
Scott Bartley, Planning Department<br />
As a <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> resident, I am outraged to hear there is yet another retirement facility planned in<br />
the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> area by Aegis Construction!<br />
This once beautifully wooded area has been over-built with no regard for the countless number <strong>of</strong><br />
trees that have been removed by greedy builders trying to squeeze as many homes and facilities<br />
in as possible. Not to mention, the increased traffic, air pollution, and demise <strong>of</strong> a once upscale<br />
residential neighborhood now becoming commercial!<br />
Varenna is massive, yet construction continues! Will it ever stop? Who approved this monster?<br />
Another major annoyance occurs Monday through Friday when Varenna contractors block one<br />
lane <strong>of</strong> the Parkway with no regard for the residents trying to get to work at 8:00 a.m.<br />
Do our <strong>City</strong> Planners think <strong>of</strong> nothing beyond increasing revenue at the expense <strong>of</strong> the<br />
community? Please consider rersponsible development; the infrastructure just isn't in place for<br />
continued commercial construction. Thank you.<br />
Lynda Scigliano<br />
3704 Newbury Court<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 95404<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Scigliano.htm8/1/2008 2:10:10 PM
Response to Comment Letter from Lynda Scigliano<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted. As described in Draft EIR Sections 3.3 (Air Quality), 3.4 (Biological<br />
Resources), 3.9 (Land Use), and 3.13 (Traffic and Transportation), Project impacts to<br />
air quality, biological resources, land use, and traffic will be less than significant with<br />
mitigation. Also see Master Responses Local Traffic and Land Use Compatibility.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-135
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
SPENCER – 1<br />
SPENCER – 2<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Spencer.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:53 AM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
From: sonomarealty8@juno.com [mailto:sonomarealty8@juno.com]<br />
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 3:18 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel; scott@hallandbartley.com<br />
Subject: <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
Dear Sir,<br />
As a resident <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> area I am concerned about the flawed EIR and its<br />
inadequacy to project the impact <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge will have. Most aspects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development are significant, not insignificant.<br />
1. visual pollution<br />
2. noise pollution<br />
3. traffic impact<br />
4. natural disturbance<br />
I think the size and scope <strong>of</strong> the project should be scaled down. A more sensible balance<br />
between the development and the site should be established.<br />
Respectfully submitted,<br />
Alan Spencer<br />
3710 Autumn Glen Court<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95403<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Spencer.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:10 PM
Response to Comment Letter from Alan Spencer<br />
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) Comment noted. Without specific comments defined, the <strong>City</strong> cannot provide a<br />
more detailed response. As described in the Draft EIR, the <strong>City</strong> determined that the<br />
Project would have less than significant impacts, with the incorporation <strong>of</strong><br />
mitigation, to aesthetics, noise, traffic, and biological resources. See also the Master<br />
Responses presented in this Final EIR.<br />
2) See Response to Comment Epperly-23.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-137
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Sturgeon.htm<br />
From: Galbraith, Joel [JGalbraith@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]<br />
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:40 PM<br />
To: Gerut, Mary/BAO<br />
Subject: FW: Comments re <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
Here is another late one.<br />
I don’t see anything new in this one.<br />
Joel<br />
From: jets4@aol.com [mailto:jets4@aol.com]<br />
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 12:59 PM<br />
To: Galbraith, Joel<br />
Subject: Comments re <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
Dear Joel, I am resending as not sure micros<strong>of</strong>t outlook which your address put me in sent comments.<br />
Jim<br />
STURGEON – 1<br />
STURGEON – 2<br />
STURGEON – 3<br />
STURGEON – 4<br />
STURGEON – 5<br />
STURGEON – 6<br />
STURGEON – 7<br />
Dear Joel,<br />
My wife and I attended the EIR hearing last week on the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project and have some<br />
questions/issues with the project.<br />
1) The density <strong>of</strong> the project is overwhelming for that small piece <strong>of</strong> land. The size and height<br />
should be scaled back to something suitable. The retaining walls will be unsightly. The buildings<br />
overlooking the residences already there cannot be allowed, especially overlooking the adjacent<br />
Oaks community pool.<br />
2) The visuals on the project should be just post <strong>of</strong> construction before landscaping to show what<br />
natural landscaping is left e.g., heritage oaks. Then a visual showing added landscaping post<br />
construction, one year out and then 5 years. Not 20+ years as the current visual depicts. There<br />
must be an issue with all wildlife.<br />
3) 24 hour lighting has to be an ongoing issue with nighttime glare, etc.<br />
4) 24 hour noise has to be an ongoing issue with traffic and delivery vehicles. Traffic is already an<br />
issue on FG Parkway.<br />
5) Just adding a streetlight on the corner <strong>of</strong> TLH Drive and FG Parkway will not mitigate all the<br />
traffic this 4 th senior facility will bring to the residential area. Why not another type <strong>of</strong> project e.g.,<br />
residential housing? Then Aegis is planning a 5 th ? We already have a Dr. Office, strip mall and<br />
Varenna in a residential neighborhood. I moved here for the country feel.<br />
6) How will this benefit Sonoma County outside <strong>of</strong> taxes given most <strong>of</strong> the residents will likely be<br />
out <strong>of</strong> county given the cost to be a resident and the narrow use <strong>of</strong> land. One speaker moved from<br />
Florida to be a potential resident.<br />
7) One speaker addressed the safety <strong>of</strong> these potential residents in other existing facilities such<br />
as Varenna, Vineyard Commons and Brighton Gardens. Perhaps this safety issue should be<br />
addressed before adding any additional designated Residential Care. I do not believe we need<br />
designated facilities as someone should be able to be safe and live anywhere.<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Sturgeon.htm (1 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:10 PM
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Sturgeon.htm<br />
Just some questions.<br />
Jim Sturgeon<br />
3631 Helford Place, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, CA 95404<br />
It's time to go back to school! Get the latest trends and gadgets that make the grade on AOL Shopping.<br />
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Sturgeon.htm (2 <strong>of</strong> 2)8/1/2008 2:10:10 PM
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Comment Letter from Jim Sturgeon<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter. Note that this email was delivered after the deadline to submit comments to the Draft EIR.<br />
However, to be responsive to its citizens, the <strong>City</strong> has included this email in the list <strong>of</strong> comments<br />
received.<br />
1) See Master Responses to Comments Land Use Compatibility and Visual Resources.<br />
2) See Master Response Visual Resources. The visual simulations included in the<br />
Draft EIR show the landscaping at 5 to 10 years.<br />
3) As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.1-3 in the Draft EIR, the Project would add new sources <strong>of</strong><br />
nighttime security lighting along driveways, in outdoor parking lots, and near<br />
building entrances. Conformance to the <strong>City</strong>’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the<br />
Principles <strong>of</strong> Low-impact Lighting Design (see Mitigation Measure 3.1-3), which<br />
minimize the amount <strong>of</strong> light that leaves the site, would reduce impacts to less than<br />
significant.<br />
4) See Master Responses Noise and Local Traffic.<br />
5) See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Local Traffic. A residential<br />
housing project similar to the neighboring Oaks Phases I and II was evaluated as the<br />
No Project Alternative; see Section 5.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. Such a development could<br />
result in environmental impacts greater than for the Project on traffic, air quality and<br />
noise; similar to or greater impacts than the Project on biological resources; and<br />
lesser impacts than the Project on visual resources.<br />
6) See Response to Comment McGuckin July 18-3. As described in Section 2 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR, the purpose <strong>of</strong> the Project is help to meet housing and service needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>City</strong>’s senior community, consistent with the policies and goals in the General Plan<br />
that call for projects and services to support the needs <strong>of</strong> seniors in the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
7) It is unclear what the commenter means by “safety.” See Draft EIR <strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-4 for<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> impacts to emergency evacuation plans for residents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Lodge; impacts would be less than significant. <strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-5 discusses how operation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project could subject its residents to hazards inherent in facility design;<br />
impacts would be less than significant. Analysis <strong>of</strong> potential impacts to fire and<br />
emergency services is included in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.11-2; with mitigation, impacts would be<br />
less than significant. <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4 provides analysis <strong>of</strong> traffic-related issues during<br />
an emergency; impacts would be less than significant. Residential health is governed<br />
by licensing and permitting requirements set forth by the Community Care<br />
Licensing Division <strong>of</strong> the California Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services (p 3-99).<br />
2-140 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 1<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 2<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 3
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 3<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 4<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 5<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 6
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 6<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 7<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 8<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 9
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 9<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 10<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 11<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 12
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 12<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 13<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 14
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 15<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 16<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 17
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 18<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 19<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 20<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 21<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 22<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 23<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 24
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 25<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 26<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 27<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 28<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 29
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 30<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 31<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 32<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 33
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 34<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 35<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 36<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 37<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 38<br />
COMMUNITY<br />
COMMENTS – 39
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to Community Comments Letter (as submitted by Dewey Nelson)<br />
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
letter.<br />
1) See Master Response Noise.<br />
2) See Master Response Noise.<br />
3) Because residents are assumed to be at home during the night, the mitigation<br />
measure correctly identifies daytime hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through<br />
Saturday) as the time when the number <strong>of</strong> people in the neighborhood is at its<br />
lowest. This is consistent with the <strong>City</strong>’s Noise Ordinance, which has established<br />
criteria for acceptable noise levels throughout <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s residential areas<br />
according to the time <strong>of</strong> day: daytime hours 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, evening hours<br />
7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and nighttime hours 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM (see Draft EIR<br />
p. 3-124). The highest noise levels are allowed during daytime hours.<br />
4) See Response to Comment Nelson July 17-1. As described in Section 3.3 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft EIR, impacts to air quality will be less than significant with mitigation.<br />
5) See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual Resources, and Response<br />
to Comment Kisling – 1.<br />
6) See Master Response Noise.<br />
7) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.<br />
8) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
9) See Master Response Visual Resources.<br />
10) See Response to Comment Margason-4.<br />
11) Comment noted. The <strong>City</strong> disagrees; see responses above to Community Comments<br />
1 through 10.<br />
12) Comment noted. See Master Response for Visual Resources.<br />
13) As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.1-3 in the Draft EIR, the Project would add new sources <strong>of</strong><br />
nighttime security lighting along driveways, in outdoor parking lots, and near<br />
building entrances, a potentially significant impact. CEQA Guidelines Section<br />
15126.4(B) states that “[f]ormulation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures should not be deferred<br />
until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards<br />
which would mitigate the significant effect <strong>of</strong> the project and which may be<br />
accomplished in more than one specified way.” Mitigation Measures 3.1-3, Conform<br />
to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the Principles <strong>of</strong> Low-impact<br />
Lighting Design, is based on design standards that minimize the amount <strong>of</strong> light that<br />
leaves the site; this reduces impacts to less than significant.<br />
14) Section 15126.4 <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe feasible<br />
measures that could minimize significant adverse impacts. As described in the<br />
Draft EIR and in various responses throughout this Final EIR, the mitigation<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-151
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
measures proposed for the Project are feasible and will reduce Project impacts to a<br />
less than significant level. How each mitigation measure will be implemented and<br />
success determined, who is responsible for its implementation, where it will occur,<br />
and when it will occur are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing<br />
Program in Section 4.0 <strong>of</strong> this Final EIR.<br />
15) See Response to Comment Community Comments – 13. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s<br />
Lighting Design Guidelines and the Principles <strong>of</strong> Low-impact Lighting Design apply<br />
to all land uses.<br />
16) The Project is subject to all Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)<br />
prohibitory rules and regulations, even though permits may not be required (see<br />
Draft EIR p. 3-33). During construction, PM10 emissions from construction activities<br />
would be mitigated using the control measures set forth in the BAAQMD CEQA<br />
Guidelines as described in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2. BAAQMD established the<br />
guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation <strong>of</strong> its<br />
control measures would reduce fugitive PM10 emissions during construction to a less<br />
than significant level; see p. 3-38 for a list <strong>of</strong> control measures that would be used at<br />
the Project site.<br />
As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.3-2, exhaust emissions from construction equipment and<br />
heavy-duty diesel trucks used to construct the Project would result in short-term<br />
emissions <strong>of</strong> ozone precursors (NOX and ROG). Construction equipment emissions<br />
(NOX and ROG) are included in the emissions inventory that is the basis for the<br />
regional air quality plans and are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ozone standards in the Bay Area. No mitigation is necessary for this less than<br />
significant impact.<br />
17) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland. See Final EIR Section 4.0<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program, which is a CEQA-required<br />
document, for a list <strong>of</strong> all mitigation requirements and identified responsibilities for<br />
implementation and enforcement mechanisms.<br />
18) See Response to Comment NCRWQCB – 4.<br />
19) As stated in the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 provides protection <strong>of</strong> nesting<br />
raptors and migratory birds and nesting non-special-status birds by implementing<br />
measures to minimize and avoid impacts to avian species during their nesting<br />
season. Similarly, Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 protects roosting bats.<br />
Tree removal will be done during the non-nesting season. As described in<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-3, most birds such as observed on the Project site have large home ranges,<br />
and existing adjacent habitat could provide alternative habitat during Project<br />
construction. For information on implementation responsibilities for mitigation<br />
measures for avian species, see Final EIR Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and<br />
<strong>Report</strong>ing Program.<br />
20) Deer are protected and managed by CDFG as a game species under their Deer<br />
Management Program. Deer have no special-status conservation designation, such<br />
as endangered or threatened in California.<br />
2-152 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Wildlife movement corridors used by deer and other wildlife are evaluated under<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-7 (Draft EIR p. 3-61). The most important existing wildlife corridor is<br />
Piner Creek and its associated wildlife habitat. The <strong>City</strong>’s zoning regulations do not<br />
allow construction within 50 feet <strong>of</strong> the creek, so the Piner Creek buffer zone will be<br />
preserved. <strong>Impact</strong>s to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. As stated in<br />
the Draft EIR, no defined wildlife corridor exists within the Project site in a<br />
north-south direction, primarily because areas to the north and south <strong>of</strong> the project<br />
site are developed residences.<br />
21) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation.<br />
22) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. Implementation responsibility,<br />
timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in Section 4.0<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program in this Final EIR.<br />
23) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. Implementation responsibility,<br />
timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in Section 4.0<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program in this Final EIR.<br />
24) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation.<br />
25) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. Implementation responsibility,<br />
timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in Section 4.0<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program in this Final EIR.<br />
26) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B) states that “[f]ormulation <strong>of</strong> mitigation<br />
measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may<br />
specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” Mitigation<br />
Measures 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3 require conformance with such performance<br />
standards, and reduce impacts to less than significant. Implementation<br />
responsibility, timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in<br />
Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program in this Final EIR.<br />
27) Potential impacts associated with wildland fires are evaluated in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-3.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 will minimize fire risk. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-4, no<br />
significant impacts limiting emergency evacuation would occur from Project<br />
implementation. As noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the installation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
signal at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway will<br />
improve emergency access to and from the site.<br />
28) As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-1, less than half (45.8 percent) <strong>of</strong> the site will consist <strong>of</strong><br />
hardscapes. The resulting increased run<strong>of</strong>f would flow to a new system <strong>of</strong> storm<br />
drains and vegetated swales on the site. These new stormwater drainage facilities<br />
will be designed and sized appropriately to handle this increase in run<strong>of</strong>f. In<br />
addition, the drainage facilities will not change the overall drainage patterns on the<br />
site. Implementation responsibility, timing, and enforcement mechanisms for<br />
mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure 3.8-2, are described in Section 4.0<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program in this Final EIR. Also see Response<br />
to Comment NCRWQCB – 1.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-153
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
29) No specific comment was made. Potential impacts to groundwater recharge are<br />
addressed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-3; impacts would be less than significant.<br />
30) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
31) See Master Response Noise. Noise from traffic was considered as part <strong>of</strong> the Noise<br />
Analysis (see Appendix O Noise Study in the Draft EIR, p. 6); traffic from the Project<br />
would increase noise levels by less than 1 decibels A scale (dBA) over current levels,<br />
and impacts would be less than significant.<br />
32) See Master Response Noise.<br />
33) See Master Response for Noise and Response to Comment FRMA – 16.<br />
34) A Community Services District is a tax district that may be created under the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
Special Tax Financing Code, Chapter 4-56 to perpetually fund the <strong>City</strong> Police<br />
Department, Fire Department, and/or other <strong>City</strong> General Fund operations to<br />
mitigate significant service impacts. Implementation responsibility, timing, and<br />
enforcement mechanisms for mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure<br />
3.11-2a, are described in Section 4 Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program in<br />
this Final EIR.<br />
As described in Mitigation Measure 3.11-2b, providing an onsite Emergency Medical<br />
Technician would reduce the Fire Department’s need to respond to non-medical<br />
emergency calls in community care facilities. Emergency responses to non-medical<br />
emergency calls in senior living facilities impact Fire department Response times. In<br />
some cases residents fall or request assistance when they are not injured. Staff must<br />
have the ability to medically assess the resident to determine if the request is a<br />
medical emergency or a routine care assistance issue. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-4,<br />
no significant impacts limiting emergency evacuation would occur from Project<br />
implementation. As noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the installation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
signal at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway will<br />
improve emergency access to and from the site.<br />
35) Parking is discussed on pages 3-157 and 3-163 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. The parking<br />
provided exceeds the <strong>City</strong>’s parking requirements; therefore, adequate parking<br />
capacity is provided and no significant impacts would occur. Also see Response to<br />
Comment Rood – 2.<br />
36) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
37) A safety analysis was completed by The Crane Transportation Group as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
traffic study (see Appendix P to the Draft EIR). In particular, sight distances were<br />
evaluated using the speed observed (35 mph), not the theoretical speed limit <strong>of</strong><br />
25 mph and no hazard was identified. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-3, the minimum<br />
required sight distance is 155 feet, which is lower than <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge’s<br />
driveway design (which ranges from 285 feet to 480 feet) on Thomas Lake Harris<br />
Drive. Construction equipment will use the onsite staging area to turn around. As<br />
noted in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-3, although the Project would not result in a significant increase<br />
in traffic along Thomas Lake Harris Drive, to further reduce potential hazards to<br />
pedestrians who want to cross Thomas Lake Harris Drive, a new pedestrian crossing<br />
2-154 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
will be included as a condition <strong>of</strong> Project approval. The crossing would be a raised<br />
speed table marked as a pedestrian crossing equipped with a pedestrian-activated<br />
flasher, located on Thomas Lake Harris Drive between the Flats Building and<br />
Employee Housing (Lot 3).<br />
38) No specific comment was made. Potential impacts to emergency access are<br />
addressed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-4, no significant impacts would occur. As noted in<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the installation <strong>of</strong> a signal at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
Thomas Lake Harris and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway will improve emergency access to<br />
and from the site.<br />
39) The state <strong>of</strong> California has published a technical advisory to provide guidance on<br />
addressing climate change in CEQA review (Office <strong>of</strong> Planning and Research, CEQA<br />
and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality<br />
Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008). The guidance suggests that a Project’s greenhouse<br />
emissions be quantified and their significance be determined; it does not direct that<br />
climate change effects on water supply or other utilities be evaluated. The Project’s<br />
contribution to cumulative climate change effects is discussed in Section 3.3 Air<br />
Quality in the Draft EIR and in Response to Comment Public Hearing – 58.<br />
Operation <strong>of</strong> the Project may result in a net positive benefit for operational<br />
greenhouse gas emissions.<br />
Section 15145 <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines states that if a lead agency finds that a<br />
particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, this conclusion should be noted<br />
and no further discussions is required. The Climate Action Team <strong>Report</strong> to Governor<br />
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (California <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency,<br />
March 2006) analyzed the effects <strong>of</strong> potential climate change scenarios on<br />
California’s weather, among other areas. The report states that “There is no clear<br />
trend in precipitation projections for California over the next century. However the<br />
consensus <strong>of</strong> the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model<br />
projections, including several models that were not selected for the present study, is<br />
for relatively little change in total precipitation, with a tendency toward a slightly<br />
greater winter and lower spring precipitation” but that “[h]igher temperatures will<br />
result in more precipitation as rain instead <strong>of</strong> snow and earlier melt <strong>of</strong> the snow that<br />
does fall…Declining snowpack will aggravate the already overstretched water<br />
resources in California. The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides natural water<br />
storage equal to about half the storage capacity in California’s major man-made<br />
reservoirs. The snowpack holds the winter precipitation in the form <strong>of</strong> snow and,<br />
historically, has released it in the spring and early summer as the snow melts. This<br />
loss in storage could mean more water shortages in the future. However, the full<br />
effect <strong>of</strong> this storage loss will depend in part on whether reservoirs can be managed<br />
to capture the earlier snowmelt while loosing flood control capacity.” The climate<br />
change scenarios vary widely in their potential consequences on snowpack, and the<br />
ability <strong>of</strong> water agencies around the state to store greater rainfall quantities will<br />
depend on how much additional storage is constructed and how storage is operated.<br />
Therefore, a reasonable estimate <strong>of</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> climate change on the <strong>City</strong>’s water<br />
supply cannot be made, and no further discussion is required. As described in<br />
Section 3.14 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, the SCWA provides the <strong>City</strong> with its potable water<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-155
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
supply. The water demands for the Project were included in SCWA’s Urban Water<br />
Management Plan, which is also <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s Urban Water Management Plan. The<br />
SCWA has policies to encourage water conservation and plans to work with<br />
customers to address water supply shortages. The <strong>City</strong> has programs and policies<br />
for water conservation, water recycling, and others. Such plans and policies will be<br />
important components in developing a more comprehensive approach to addressing<br />
potential climate change effects.<br />
The potential for climate change to affect the ability to provide wastewater treatment<br />
or solid waste management is highly speculative and cannot be evaluated further.<br />
2-156 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 1<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 2<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 3<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 4<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 5<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 6<br />
Oral Comments made at July 24, 2008 Planning Commission<br />
Meeting<br />
Note: This transcript has been created based on tapes from the Planning Commission hearing. Its<br />
purpose is to record the comments for response purposes. Any errors in spelling or grammar are<br />
unintended; the transcript was not reviewed by speakers for accuracy. The <strong>City</strong> apologizes for any<br />
misrepresentation <strong>of</strong> speaker quotes.<br />
Skip Epperly<br />
I live at 1986 West Bristlecone Court in the city. The community as a whole I believe does<br />
not object to development <strong>of</strong> this property but really would encourage any development to<br />
be a good fit and it be appropriate in size and scope for the area to be developed. We also<br />
seek to ensure that the projects true environmental impacts are fairly flushed out and<br />
analyzed so that appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives can be considered by the<br />
city that reduce the impacts to the greatest extent feasible prior to approval. The proposed<br />
Draft EIR impact report does not adequately analyze environmental impacts in the areas <strong>of</strong><br />
air quality, aesthetics, biology, greenhouse gases, seismicity, and traffic and has not crafted<br />
appropriate mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce these impacts.<br />
In the areas <strong>of</strong> aesthetics, the EIR concedes that the construction <strong>of</strong> the project components’<br />
removal <strong>of</strong> trees would degrade the existing visual character and quality <strong>of</strong> the project site<br />
and its surroundings, constituting a significant environmental impact. However the analysis<br />
appears to be inadequate in its determinations. How the impacts have been reduced to<br />
insignificant is indeed incorrect.<br />
In biology the DEIR is inadequate and incomplete in its analyses and mitigation <strong>of</strong> impacts<br />
to biological resources. Just one <strong>of</strong> those I'll highlight - the Woodlands habitat area. The<br />
DEIR neglected to analyze the impacts to the 6.08 acres <strong>of</strong> the Oak Woodland habitat and<br />
admitted sensitive biological community on the subject site or to recommend proportionate<br />
mitigation. Constitutionally mitigation measures must be roughly proportional to the<br />
impact. Omission <strong>of</strong> the project’s impacts on habitat loss renders the true proportional<br />
mitigation inefficient to reduce the project’s impact to biological resources to insignificance<br />
The riparian habitat we find similarly that the DEIR acknowledges the existence <strong>of</strong> 0.8 acres<br />
<strong>of</strong> riparian habitat but does not analyze it. In addition we failed to see any <strong>of</strong> the required<br />
comments from the Dept <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game. The assessment that was done states that it<br />
likely meets the definition <strong>of</strong> the riparian habitat as described by the Fish and Game Code<br />
and the California Code <strong>of</strong> Regulations and would require compensatory mitigation for<br />
habitat losses. CEQA disallows deferral <strong>of</strong> mitigation that entails study <strong>of</strong> analyses which is<br />
being recommended here.<br />
Seismicity concerns me the most. We find that this area defers study. The deferral is not<br />
authorized under CEQA law and we encourage the site be studied more completely.<br />
Edward Margason<br />
My address is 3635 Thornberry Circle. I'm a registered civil engineer and geologist and I'm<br />
commenting today on siting retaining walls and grading for the proposed Lodge project in
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 6<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 7<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 8<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 9<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 10<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 11<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 12<br />
accordance with the CEQA guide sections. The site plans on the Lodge Draft EIR are<br />
incomplete, contradictory, and misleading because the environmental impact and mass and<br />
bulk <strong>of</strong> the Lodge Project are not adequately covered. In order to site the project, about 2500<br />
lineal feet, 5 to 7 foot high concrete retaining walls are proposed. This will result in a view <strong>of</strong><br />
about 13,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> wall face area, which is directly visible from Thomas Lake Harris<br />
Drive. This impact is not covered by the Draft. Sections <strong>of</strong> the site are not given in the Draft<br />
but they should be. If they would, they would look like this (holds up a picture). Two<br />
retaining walls are proposed within 3 feet <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris Drive, which is on the left<br />
at an elevation <strong>of</strong> 450. The nearest building is only 15 feet back and looms about 50 feet<br />
above the street. The main 3 story building further back is over 80 feet above Thomas Lake<br />
Harris Drive. The walls at the street are so close together there is no room for effective<br />
landscaping and screening. Now, the environmental impact <strong>of</strong> the 50 to 80 foot high walls<br />
and building in the narrow Lodge site would look like this. We all recognize this picture. It's<br />
Varenna done by the Aegis company and it now proposes to a force a 15 foot acre project<br />
onto a 10 foot acre site.<br />
The Draft also fails to adequately address the impact in the extent <strong>of</strong> grading which is<br />
required to repair the large landslides reported between the building sites by the soil<br />
engineers <strong>of</strong> Giblin and Associates.<br />
In conclusion, the Draft EIR is inadequate and insufficient regarding the environmental<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> the mass and extent <strong>of</strong> grading, retaining walls, buildings, tree removal and<br />
topography modification which would be required if the Lodge Project were to go ahead.<br />
Susan Nowacki<br />
I live at 3734 Skyfarm Drive. I’m here to give a seven point response to the DEIR regarding<br />
visual impact and the land degradation for the Lodge at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
1. Three alternatives were considered: No Project, Smaller Footprint with a taller building<br />
and three, Higher Bonus Density. The Draft EIR is inadequate because it failed to consider a<br />
less significant project. It’s imperative the DEIR include a full assessment <strong>of</strong> the impacts<br />
associated with the mitigated or reduced project with less impact on its surroundings.<br />
2. The project would have a significant effect on the environment according to CEQA<br />
Guidelines if built as proposed. The developer’s estimate <strong>of</strong> 66% <strong>of</strong> trees being removed is<br />
highly inaccurate. If a transparency is placed over the project, it becomes evident 95% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing trees will have to be removed to accommodate the parking areas and the buildings<br />
as well as earth moving equipment and retaining walls. Even with mitigation <strong>of</strong> the tree<br />
removal, it will take 100 years to replace ancient oaks and other trees on the site. The DEIR<br />
is flawed because it failed to consider the visual impact <strong>of</strong> this.<br />
3. The EIR comments on the horizontal mass <strong>of</strong> the buildings; however, no mitigation is<br />
proposed to reduce the huge bulk and mass <strong>of</strong> the buildings.<br />
4. The city is responsible for certifying the EIR, including grading permits. Massive grading<br />
was done on the neighboring Varenna project against the city and planning and engineering<br />
recommendations. This same kind <strong>of</strong> grading is proposed on the Lodge Project. <strong>City</strong><br />
Ordinance 2196 Section B and B(1) states all land use areas shall seek and retain enhanced<br />
the hillside character <strong>of</strong> the site. The DEIR is flawed due to lack <strong>of</strong> response to this issue.
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 13<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 14<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 15<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 16<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 17<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 18<br />
5. Homeowners are required to build respecting the slope <strong>of</strong> the land and the existing trees.<br />
The DEIR does not address allowing commercial developers to cut and fill at-will, which is<br />
what the project is proposing to do, again in conflict with <strong>City</strong> Ordinance 2196.<br />
6. The DEIR does not address the suitability <strong>of</strong> a massive quasi-institutional commercial<br />
enterprise in the middle <strong>of</strong> a residential neighborhood and finally the DEIR does not<br />
acknowledge the current existence <strong>of</strong> 3 huge retirement centers within a one mile radius <strong>of</strong><br />
this intended project. It is our understanding Aegis plans on building a second phase to the<br />
Lodge just across and down the street between cluster housing and custom homes. The<br />
DEIR failed to address the cumulative impact <strong>of</strong> the intended 5th such facility. Additional<br />
large retirement centers would forever change the character <strong>of</strong> the residential neighborhood.<br />
The <strong>City</strong>’s general plan does not propose this area to be another Oakmont. Thank you.<br />
Dewey Nelson<br />
I live at 2003 Stonefield Lane. My primary concern with the EIR is traffic and traffic is<br />
covered in detail in Appendix P as well as it’s covered in the Executive Summary in section<br />
3.13. According to the impact report and depending on where you read it there will be an<br />
increase <strong>of</strong> 422 vehicles or 494 vehicles per day on Thomas Lake Harris Drive and yet with<br />
that increase in traffic the impact report did not evaluate the increase in traffic all the<br />
intersections on Thomas Lake Harris Drive. You can just think about Cross Creek; no doubt<br />
you’ve talked about it. There are over a thousand vehicles per day coming out <strong>of</strong> there.<br />
Stonefield Lane alone has over 200 vehicles that use that one little intersection to get in and<br />
out. So we need to have a complete study <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris, the impact on all the<br />
intersections it crosses probably emphasizing the left hand turns which are the most<br />
dangerous and includes left hand turns into the Lodge as well as out <strong>of</strong> the Lodge and our<br />
dental <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
Moving away from that, the Thomas Lake Harris intersection with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway<br />
was evaluated and met the requirements for having traffic signals in those two locations.<br />
There is an east and west <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris. They were studied but there were no<br />
requirements for traffic signals in Appendix P. I cited some information from both in both<br />
cases from the city engineering and I disagree with both <strong>of</strong> those items they discussed but I<br />
was encouraged a little bit when I got back to the executive summary and Section 3.1.-3<br />
Mitigation. It states there shall be a traffic signal at Thomas Lake Harris Drive and<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway, but it doesn’t say which one, or both <strong>of</strong> them. However, I'm<br />
encouraged if I go back in to the Executive Summary little bit and I see table ES-1 Section 3.1<br />
3-1 and it states that if there are traffic signals installed in both <strong>of</strong> those it moves from<br />
unacceptable to acceptable.<br />
Not noted was the fact that there is a significant increase <strong>of</strong> traffic when construction starts.<br />
We really need those traffic signals now, immediately when construction starts. We are,<br />
after all, talking about the safety <strong>of</strong> our citizens.<br />
Ulrike Gantz<br />
I live at 2046 Gardenview Place. Unlike those who live in Stonefield and the Oaks, I live<br />
between Varenna and the proposed <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge. For the last 4 years I have been<br />
listening to the intrusive sounds <strong>of</strong> construction from Varenna, only to learn that this
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 18<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 19<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 20<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 21<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 22<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 23<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 24<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 25<br />
aggravation can continue for another 4 years during construction <strong>of</strong> the Lodge. I feel that the<br />
Draft EIR has failed to adequately study the impact <strong>of</strong> the noise assessment in Section 3.10 in<br />
the following ways.<br />
First, how can a mitigation measure be stated as not-required based on a one day study <strong>of</strong> a<br />
quiet residential neighborhood and not be compared to that <strong>of</strong> noise during normal<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> an institutional commercial facility like the Lodge that will be staffed 24/7, will<br />
receive multiple deliveries, that services four dining outlets, a country store, business center,<br />
fitness centers, a continued medical care center, etc. and all that to at least 2 loading docks?<br />
Secondly, how will we be guaranteed the manufacturer’s low noise options for ro<strong>of</strong> top<br />
mechanical equipment will be installed on a flat ro<strong>of</strong> since the building plans show peaked<br />
ro<strong>of</strong> tops on all the buildings? There is a history <strong>of</strong> ongoing issues with Metronics Ro<strong>of</strong>top<br />
Equipment in relation to the Stonefield Development directly above.<br />
Thirdly, how can a construction schedule <strong>of</strong> 7 AM -7 PM Monday - Saturday be considered<br />
the time when the number <strong>of</strong> persons in the adjacent residential area is at its lowest? Please<br />
note that a large percentage <strong>of</strong> residents here are retired.<br />
I question the calculations <strong>of</strong> the operation emissions table in section D1. It states 68 workers<br />
comminuting to the site per day but failed to mention that they leave 68 more times. The<br />
onsite workers would leave 40 times a day. If they live onsite why would they be leaving so<br />
many times a day?<br />
There are 146 units to accommodate approximately 221 full time residents and 242 parking<br />
spaces. The chart shows 382 daily visitors and who are these visitors and where would<br />
everyone be parking, on the street?<br />
To service approximately 221 residents and 85 employees there are only going to be 4<br />
delivery trucks per day? In my hotel purchasing experience, the loading dock was a busy<br />
place which received multiple deliveries, such as at least 5 types <strong>of</strong> food and beverages<br />
service trucks, janitorial services, laundry and dry cleaning restaurant supplies, UPS, Fed-<br />
Ex, U.S. Postal Service, DHL, messenger yellow freight, to name a few. Equipment rentals,<br />
copier/printer services, moving vans and the list can go on and on. I hardly think that these<br />
emissions will be less then the thresholds <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Henry McGuckin<br />
Lovely <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Creek was in effect destroyed decades ago by reckless development<br />
blunders and steps are presently underway at the cost <strong>of</strong> millions to repair some <strong>of</strong> that<br />
damage. In these greener times, we really ought to avoid such mistakes in the first place.<br />
The almost 10 acre site at issue is heavily wooded with oaks. Of the 513 trees counted there,<br />
338 are slated for destruction including at least 120 heritage trees, which are alive and black<br />
oaks about a century old with diameters <strong>of</strong> about 1.5 feet or more and a circumference <strong>of</strong> 5<br />
feet or more. Mitigation for this loss <strong>of</strong> precious woodland is proposed to be hundreds <strong>of</strong> 15<br />
gallon replacement trees planted around town or payment to the city <strong>of</strong> $100 for each 15<br />
gallon transplant. But century old trees are beyond price and neither 15 gallon transplants<br />
nor a few thousand dollars can possibility compensate for their destruction. Please don't<br />
permit it.
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 26<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 27<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 28<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 29<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 30<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 31<br />
The reptiles, birds, and mammals which inhabit the woods are also slated for destruction.<br />
Lizards, frogs, snakes, turtles, deer, skunks, rabbits, foxes, squirrels, turkey, quails, hawks,<br />
vultures, crows, warblers, finches, mocking birds, blue birds, chickadees, and many more all<br />
will loose their foraging and nesting sites, and we will loose their presence among us<br />
forever. The report is cavalier to say the least regarding this loss.<br />
It tells us, for example, that no raptor has a high potential to occur or nest at this sight and<br />
only a few cooper’s hawks, white tail kites and long ear owls have moderate potential. But I<br />
have personally identified each <strong>of</strong> these species on my walks by the woods. Moderate<br />
potential, they are already there. The mitigation suggested for the lost nesting sites for<br />
raptors is to avoid construction activity during the breeding season March 1 - Sept 15, but<br />
that leaves only late fall and wet winter for heavy construction, so the report suggests an<br />
alternative, hire a biologist to find all active nests and create buffer zones to protect them.<br />
But given the narrow shape <strong>of</strong> the site, adequate buffer zones could completely halt<br />
construction. So the report <strong>of</strong>fers yet a third suggestion, simply cut down all the trees with<br />
nesting potential during the winter. No trees, no nest, problem solved.<br />
Suffice it to say that the Draft <strong>Report</strong> is woefully inadequate. At the very least this project<br />
requires significantly downsizing to salvage more <strong>of</strong> our irreplaceable heritage oaks and all<br />
the creatures that dwell among them.<br />
Abe Farkas<br />
I live at 4434 Bally Bunion Lane. The EIR report does not address <strong>Impact</strong>s 3.1-1 and 3.1.-2<br />
aesthetics visual resources in so far as this project calls for the construction <strong>of</strong> a 3 story<br />
building in a neighborhood that is comprised <strong>of</strong> only 2 story homes. The current height<br />
limits should be respected. The sheer 3 story height, let alone and the mass and size <strong>of</strong> these<br />
buildings, must have a substantial negative impact on the aesthetics <strong>of</strong> our neighborhood.<br />
Per page 2-7 <strong>of</strong> the report, the 3 story main building will rise to the height <strong>of</strong> 49 feet and may<br />
run to some 600 feet in length. Imagine such a structure being dropped into the residential<br />
neighborhood in where you live (shows photo) and then also imagine a 3 story care center<br />
building over looking your swimming pool and being told there will be no significant<br />
impact on your neighborhood aesthetics. Just imagine that.<br />
The report fails to adequately address <strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-2, noises from operating the building on<br />
adjacent property. The mitigation measure recommended is to place the mechanical<br />
equipment on the ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the buildings, yet the photos supplied in Figures 3.1-4 and 3.1-7<br />
clearly show sloped ro<strong>of</strong>s with no provisions for any mechanical equipment. Given the near<br />
50 foot height <strong>of</strong> the proposed building, in addition to the noise this will compound the<br />
negative impacts on the aesthetics that was to have been addressed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.1. (shows<br />
photo) You cannot hardly see the brown ro<strong>of</strong> tops unless you are looking at the actual<br />
photo but they are clearly 30 feet or more up in the air, clearly visible.<br />
Next, this report fails to recognize the mitigation measure called for in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-1 loss <strong>of</strong><br />
protected heritage valley oaks is inadequate and also it does not protect our aesthetic and<br />
visual resources. Table 3.4-3 calls for 2,107 15 gallon replacement trees, while the data in the<br />
same report states that 45.8 percent <strong>of</strong> the total development site will be covered with<br />
improvements. Where will these thousands <strong>of</strong> trees go? I ask this question because the<br />
placement <strong>of</strong> the building is basically on the zero lot line with three feet or less from the
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 31<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 32<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 33<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 34<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 35<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 36<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 37<br />
building to the property line. The report fails to show in a realistic way how 2,107 trees can<br />
be planted in a narrow 3 foot or less strip <strong>of</strong> land and possibly provide an aesthetic partition<br />
to shield the neighborhood from view <strong>of</strong> building that are nearly 50 feet in height.<br />
The report as presented is inadequate as to <strong>Impact</strong> 3.9 land use planning in that it ignores<br />
the cumulative effect <strong>of</strong> having a disproportionate number <strong>of</strong> assisted living facilities<br />
concentrated into a single area. There currently exists the major facility <strong>of</strong> Varenna as well as<br />
Brighton Gardens and Vineyard Commons. The proposed Aegis Lodge to be followed by<br />
Lodge II across the way would install 5 facilities within 1 mile <strong>of</strong> each other. Neighborhoods<br />
which could use a facility to balance their land use should be identified.<br />
Kyra Janssen<br />
I live at 4406 Bally Bunion Lane. My comments on the Draft EIR pertain again to aesthetics<br />
and visual resources. Some <strong>of</strong> things I was going to say have been said. Regarding the<br />
mitigation to revise the landscape plan to provide a natural appearing landscape along the<br />
periphery, would that be satisfied when the site has been radically regraded, removing the<br />
natural contours <strong>of</strong> the site and most <strong>of</strong> the trees, and imposing a structural footprint<br />
referred to by Mr. Margason and Mr. Farkas, leaving little space along the periphery to<br />
achieve any natural appearing landscapes. So much for the sites.<br />
Concerning the surroundings, there is no sensitivity to the fact my home and 4 others along<br />
Gullane Drive would be directly facing the 36 bed 2 story care center facility. In my case, it<br />
would be from my bedroom window and from my driveway, hardly the typical view across<br />
the street in a residential neighborhood.<br />
The picture that Mr. Farkas showed was one <strong>of</strong> three in Volume 1 that are very misleading<br />
about the actual impact on the swimming pool on the houses on Gullane and from Thomas<br />
Lake Harris. In addition, this proposed enterprise fails to take into consideration that the<br />
community pool and spa for the Oaks homeowners would be hemmed in on the east<br />
property line by the care center building and on the south by the main entry driveway, to<br />
the entire project from Thomas Lake Harris with all sorts <strong>of</strong> different kinds <strong>of</strong> traffic coming<br />
and going. Again note those photographs and what they do and do not show.<br />
A third identified impact in this section not previously discussed concerns lighting. It rates<br />
as significant that the project would result in new sources <strong>of</strong> light and glare but less then<br />
significant if the developers “conform to <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> lighting design guidelines and<br />
the principles <strong>of</strong> low impact lightning designed.” That's the mitigation. This is a perfect<br />
example <strong>of</strong> a pattern throughout the Draft EIR in which formulated boiler-plate (call them<br />
what you will) mitigation measures are <strong>of</strong>fered but don’t respond to the specific situation<br />
and what actually needs to be done. The reality <strong>of</strong> a 24/7 care center operation, as well as<br />
extensive outdoor parking areas walkways and driveways that must remained lit all night,<br />
are simply not addressed. Consider the parking lot at the dental building on the corner.<br />
Much smaller but the same problem.<br />
In conclusion, I would point out that <strong>of</strong> the 49 identified impacts, 22 <strong>of</strong> them are initially<br />
rated as significant yet all 22 effortlessly become less then significant, most <strong>of</strong> them on the<br />
basis <strong>of</strong> generic cut and past mitigations. None <strong>of</strong> these mitigations <strong>of</strong>fer any guarantee that<br />
the prescribed functions would actually be meaningfully implemented, monitored or<br />
enforced with restitution if indicated. Unfortunately this gives little assurance that we as
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 37<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 38<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 39<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 40<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 41<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 42<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 43<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 44<br />
citizens can trust that the findings <strong>of</strong> the EIR will be respected and adhered to.<br />
Unfortunately recent past history, including the Varenna project, gives the public meager<br />
cause for optimism in this regard.<br />
Thomas Glenn<br />
I live at 3159 Blackhawk Circle. Four small short points:<br />
- No report from CA Dept <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game in the EIR report;<br />
- The removal <strong>of</strong> over 100 irreplaceable native heritage oak trees;<br />
- No alternative plan <strong>of</strong>fered for a less significant development is considered in the EIR<br />
and;<br />
- Lastly, traffic flow problems have existed for the past 4 years along side Varenna with one<br />
lane constantly closed before this project was considered.<br />
Patricia Eastes<br />
I live at 4550 Kilarney Circle. I want to address <strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-4, inadequate emergency access<br />
and <strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-3, hazard, the project would expose people or structures to a significant risk<br />
<strong>of</strong> loss injury or death including wildland fires. According to the EIR, they would be less<br />
then significant with mitigation. I disagree. An article in the SF Chronicle July 9th 2008 with<br />
the caption “Wildfire don't let this happen to you” talks about the 1991 firestorm in an<br />
Oakland area one mile wide which killed 25 people and destroyed over 3,000 homes. I am a<br />
survivor <strong>of</strong> that fire. Our neighborhood <strong>of</strong> 100 homes was the first to go. All 100 homes<br />
burned to the ground in 16 minutes. Our homes were 10 to 15 yrs old, completely up to<br />
code, all had smoke detectors and we had been very meticulous about following the city’s<br />
mandates for clearing brush, cutting tree ladders, etc. We had good, wide roads and easy<br />
access to them, unlike most <strong>of</strong> the narrow winding roads so common in the Oakland-<br />
Berkeley hill area. In the 3,000 degree heat it does not matter much what kind <strong>of</strong> building<br />
material has been used; even steel will melt at 2500 degrees. Getting out <strong>of</strong> the area was<br />
sheer pandemonium. People panicked; they were going through red lights, making illegal<br />
turns. It was every man for himself. We were literally running for our lives.<br />
I’m talking about this because <strong>of</strong> our situation at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>, we do interface with<br />
wildland. We are in a high fire area. We have a two-way street for evacuation and the fire<br />
equipment to get in and with another 422 plus cars on the road (that’s the number <strong>of</strong><br />
parking spaces for <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>) our chances <strong>of</strong> getting out in time are severely impacted.<br />
This is California. We have dry seasons. We have droughts. We have wildfires and<br />
according to the Chronicle article, between June 20th and July 9th <strong>of</strong> this year there have<br />
been 1781 wildfires. Is it fair to either the people who move in here or to us who already live<br />
here to risk our lives with the high density development? My hope is you will consider this<br />
matter very carefully.<br />
Frank Miles<br />
I live at 3640 Kelsey Knolls Drive. I guess I’m the first one to have a positive spin on things. I<br />
recently moved here a couple <strong>of</strong> months ago in anticipation <strong>of</strong> the Lodge being built.<br />
Unfortunately, I see it will be delayed for a while. Looking at the EIR report I was very
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 44<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 45<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 46<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 47<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 48<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 49<br />
pleased to see, although I feel for some <strong>of</strong> these people talking about the oak trees. I<br />
understand development was going to go in there anyway, so those trees would have been<br />
impacted. But at least the report states there will be trees replaced. Granted they will not be<br />
as old as the tress there, and that extensive landscaping will take place.<br />
In addition to that I can understand that with a facility such as that is proposed there will be<br />
probably more people then were anticipated. With the condos I believe I understood were<br />
going to go up and down but the activities will be controlled there, which you can’t say for<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the private facilities and I believe that would be a big benefit. I’m not an engineer,<br />
not by education like the presentation that you saw, but I was surprised to see the<br />
presentation by the lady that was sitting right here that stated what <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> was<br />
originally planed for and I was pleasantly surprised to see that it said it was planned for<br />
senior care facilities and such. I’m not quite clear on a lot <strong>of</strong> the home owners that are<br />
nearby that bought in that area without seeing this and understanding that this is a<br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> this being built in their neighborhood.<br />
I am looking forward to hopefully see that Lodge built because I recently moved here from<br />
Florida after selling my house and getting out here with the anticipation that this facility<br />
will be soon be completed, but as I can see now it is being stretched out into a future date. I<br />
have enjoyed getting familiar with <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. I find it a very pleasant place to live. I’ve<br />
lived in the Bay Area for over 25 years and moved to Florida being a retiree, but now I see<br />
this is the place to retire and I hope to soon be retiring in the Lodge.<br />
Jim Eimers<br />
I'm a practicing attorney here in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. Before that I was a hospital administrator and<br />
have been involved in health care and the care <strong>of</strong> elderly, especially senior housing, in the<br />
last 25 years. I’m speaking today in hopes that you will look at the EIR in those terms and<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the terms is that the elderly population both in this county in the U.S. is growing very<br />
fast. The number <strong>of</strong> people over 80 is projected to quintuple in the next 20 years and people<br />
over 80 are the ones who will need this type <strong>of</strong> housing. I have been involved with Aegis<br />
before; I have referred many clients to them. I do estate planning in addition to other work<br />
and many <strong>of</strong> my clients are the elderly in the Bay Area and I referred them to Aegis facilities<br />
all over. I have had nothing but excellent comments back from them.<br />
I am also a resident on the east side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> and I drive over <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway<br />
everyday to my <strong>of</strong>fice on <strong>Fountaingrove</strong>. I'm in the O’Brian Waters Building. I can say the<br />
additional traffic lights on <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> have helped that street immensely. I have been<br />
doing this for almost 7 years and I believe the light that is slated to be going into Thomas<br />
Lake Harris, which is right above my <strong>of</strong>fice where the dentist <strong>of</strong>fice is from where I<br />
understand, will help slow that whole area down and make it that much safer. I hope that<br />
you will look at the EIR in those terms thank you.<br />
Shirley Zane<br />
I’m the C.E.O on the Council <strong>of</strong> Aging and I’d like to put my comments on the Draft EIR,<br />
especially in terms <strong>of</strong> the advantages <strong>of</strong> this site being a senior housing, but I’m really going<br />
to speak why this particular senior housing project is very much needed here in Sonoma<br />
County and other parts <strong>of</strong> our county. Elderly gay people living in nursing homes or
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 49<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 50<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 51<br />
assisted living centers or receiving home care increasingly report that they have been<br />
disrespected, shunned or mistreated in ways that range from hurtful to deadly and even<br />
leading some to commit suicide. Some have seen their partners and friends insulted or<br />
isolated, and others live in fear <strong>of</strong> the day when they are dependent on strangers for their<br />
most personal care. That dread alone can be damaging, physically and emotionally.<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge presents us with a unique opportunity to provide a very<br />
compassionate response to the challenges <strong>of</strong> aging in the gay and lesbian community. The<br />
unique mission <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge really must not be understated. I frequently get<br />
mail and emails from gay and lesbian seniors that talk about the difficulties <strong>of</strong> aging as a<br />
minority. Many older adults in the LGBT community do not have strong ties to their<br />
families and some have been completely cut <strong>of</strong>f from their families on account <strong>of</strong> their<br />
sexual orientation. The loneliness and feelings <strong>of</strong> isolation that have been expressed to me in<br />
letters I have received are really heart breaking. We talk a lot about diversity but here’s a<br />
project that quite frankly exemplifies it. The onsite affordable housing for the workers, the<br />
green construction, the 1.7 million dollars <strong>of</strong> fees for the city, and many new jobs in both the<br />
construction and the service industry are also huge added bonus stated in the EIR. As the<br />
chief advocate for seniors in Sonoma County I really want to say that I support this EIR<br />
Draft because we very much need this type <strong>of</strong> special needs housing for our aging<br />
population. Thank you.<br />
Susan Moore<br />
I live at 3739 Woodborn Place. Up in <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> it’s pretty obvious to me from the EIR<br />
that there is going to be development in that area. There is not going to be a green zone, so<br />
we start talking about trees and all the rest <strong>of</strong> this, it has already been planned to be<br />
developed. It’s going to be developed. As a resident <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> I would far rather see<br />
a senior housing project then the sprawl <strong>of</strong> town houses and I have to follow up with what<br />
Shirley Zane just said. There was a tremendous AIDS epidemic. The people that are now<br />
retiring lost most <strong>of</strong> their friends; many <strong>of</strong> their families abandoned them. This is a place for<br />
them to go where they can reconnect with people that will love and care for them in the<br />
final years <strong>of</strong> their lives. To me this is extremely important. This is a community that says<br />
that we really value diversity, that we really value compassion. I think economically it’s a<br />
very good deal. They are going to develop it; we are going to get their taxes. A lot <strong>of</strong> other<br />
projects they are talking about developing may never come to pass in this economy. We<br />
need the income from this, but much more importantly, much more importantly, you need<br />
to think about these people that are coming here, that will be wonderful community people,<br />
they will serve, they will volunteer, they will be an asset to this community. Thank you.<br />
Annette Cooper<br />
I’m here because I think it is very important that we support this project. As many people<br />
have echoed, and I’m going to echo, this site has already been poised for development and<br />
we face a crisis here in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> for housing. I deal with it every day. That’s part <strong>of</strong> what I<br />
do as a real estate broker; we try to figure out ways to create more affordable housing, find<br />
places for affordable housing and create really new models for the 21st century. One thing<br />
nice about the community that’s being proposed is that it creates an infill that keeps the<br />
residents there. The residents don’t have to be driving around, they don’t have to go back<br />
and forth, they can stay right where they are and have most <strong>of</strong> their needs met. I appreciate
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 51<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 52<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 53<br />
and realize I appreciate the concerns <strong>of</strong> all the people who expressed themselves. Regarding<br />
the EIR, I do not know and I don’t care to argue the merits <strong>of</strong> how that EIR should be<br />
tweaked, because it will probably have to be. Nonetheless, it’s important to realize that that<br />
site is posed for development. I think its also important to realize that right now the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> and Sonoma County is in an economic doldrum, just like most <strong>of</strong> the U.S. and I<br />
think that this kind <strong>of</strong> a project shows the rest <strong>of</strong> the country that we are willing to take<br />
creative steps to try to expand our community base and do something different and creative<br />
that will create basically more economic potential for our area. Thank you.<br />
Ann McGiverin<br />
I’m very much in support <strong>of</strong> the project and I haven’t studied the EIR. I have read through<br />
some <strong>of</strong> it and I’m quite impressed by the way they are mitigating many <strong>of</strong> the objections. I<br />
also want to support the idea that this community really not only welcome, but pave the<br />
way for such a unique project. One <strong>of</strong> the things that really impresses me is the beautiful<br />
architectural design and craftsman style; I think that it is going to look gorgeous up there.<br />
The trees are going to go one way or the other. If the trees are going to be replaced by some<br />
trees, it is going to take a long time for them to be as gorgeous as the ones that are leaving.<br />
But I would rather see a beautifully architecturally designed complex there rather than<br />
townhouses that are for sale.<br />
David Hagele<br />
I live at 5040 Point Place. The Point Place is a cul-de-sac that has had a front row seat to the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> Varenna, not from the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> side that the majority <strong>of</strong> the people<br />
see, but from my deck I’ve been able to see the development and the carving up <strong>of</strong> the<br />
hillside, the digging and everything that has been going on there. I was presented with a<br />
packet when Varenna was first proposed, similar to some <strong>of</strong> the pictures that you saw here<br />
with the computer, enhancement the video with the cars driving, all that kind <strong>of</strong> stuff. I<br />
have to tell you, what you see in a picture like that is completely different then what<br />
actually ends up being there. I’m looking at a hillside being carved up now, which I’m sure<br />
will eventually look good for a mall, but not when you’re replacing something that’s natural<br />
and what’s already there. Again I understand this site is slated for development. It’s going<br />
to happen. I moved into <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> in 1996 , when I first moved into Stonesfield. I have<br />
been driving past this parcel for over 10 years now and I understand the development is<br />
going to happen. I want everybody to know that when they say it’s going to be a 3 story<br />
building you are more than welcome to come stand on my deck and see what a real 3 story<br />
building really looks like. What you’re not focusing on is it is not being counted from the<br />
lowest spot and the way the slope goes. It slopes down to Thomas Lake Harris. The view<br />
from Thomas Lake Harris you’re going to be looking at will appear like a 5 story building,<br />
like what I’m looking at. From the golf course, when you’re teeing <strong>of</strong>f, “hey that’s a nice 3<br />
story building.” I just want to make sure that before this thing gets finalized it would be<br />
great if the whole thing could be chopped down a level. That’s just my personal opinion<br />
because I’m not going to see it on a day to day basis except driving by, but what I look at I<br />
know is not a 3 story building and it kind <strong>of</strong> bothers me a little. Thank you.
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 54<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 55<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 56<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 57<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 58<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 59<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 60<br />
Commissioner Cisco<br />
I don’t have a whole lot. One thing I did notice here was the inconsistency <strong>of</strong> the body <strong>of</strong> the<br />
report stating it’s two-story vs. the executive summary which says it’s three. I think that<br />
needs to be cleared up for me.<br />
I think would prefer to see more elaboration in the tables where you do the general plan<br />
consistency analysis, which stands out inconsistent because <strong>of</strong> the prohibition against<br />
grading on 25% slopes and I think having a bit more discussion there about the relationship<br />
with the zoning code and how all <strong>of</strong> that works together would be much clearer about why<br />
you can proceed if at first it was deemed inconsistent with the General Plan.<br />
Lastly under public services, it did indicate a Community Facility District would be formed<br />
and I guess I’d like a bit more discussion about that. I know there was suppose to be one<br />
created for Varenna. I don't know if that has happened and would this project join that<br />
particular Community Facility District or would it become one <strong>of</strong> its own…just a bit more<br />
elaboration there. That’s all I have.<br />
Commissioner Caston<br />
A few additions: I noticed the same inconsistencies on project description and there are a<br />
couple <strong>of</strong> others inconsistencies I’ll forward on in writing if I don’t see them in other<br />
comments.<br />
To more substantive comments on the air quality section, the discussion on green house gas<br />
emission on AB32, there’s a few things to note. 1) This requirement was passed in 2006, now<br />
it’s 2008. It’s about time to get these levels <strong>of</strong> significance figured out and even though we<br />
don’t have them on a state-wide level, the capacity to do so at a local level is in existence<br />
and we need to use it. We already have existing inventories for the <strong>City</strong> and all 9<br />
jurisdictions in the County, so we know what’s there; we know what’s going to be added.<br />
There’s a decent analysis per residential unit how much greenhouse gases will be created.<br />
We know how that’s going to impact the existing inventory that the <strong>City</strong>’s created and the<br />
<strong>City</strong> also has goals for reductions <strong>of</strong> greenhouse gas emissions, which presents us in the<br />
position where we can actually establish a threshold <strong>of</strong> significance locally.<br />
Adding on to that, under regional local regulations on page 3-32, there’s no reference to any<br />
<strong>of</strong> those local incentives including our local goals for reduction and I believe that an analysis<br />
<strong>of</strong> how this project and any project that comes forward with an EIR will impact the<br />
inventory that has been taken and our ability to meet our goals under that, establish levels<br />
<strong>of</strong> significance consistent with the goals that have been adopted by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
for reductions in green house gas emissions overall.<br />
Additionally to working on the greenhouse gases emission section, I think it is also<br />
important that we take into consideration the mitigation measures that are more unique to<br />
the project site. Along with the analyses, things such as providing on site housing should be<br />
analyzed for what their benefits are as a mitigation to greenhouse gas emissions.<br />
Additionally in the traffic section I noticed that the provision on on-site housing employees<br />
was not listed as a potential mitigation or at least partial mitigation for the traffic elements<br />
and I think that should be analyzed and at least discussed as to the reductions that are<br />
created by providing housing on site.
ES082008001BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 61<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 62<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 63<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 64<br />
PUBLIC<br />
HEARING – 65<br />
And last, this is more <strong>of</strong> a social demographics issue, but we do live in a county that has per<br />
capita the highest amount <strong>of</strong> same sex couples living in it. We have a region within our<br />
county that has the highest per capita region same sex couples and on that how does that<br />
factor into our provision <strong>of</strong> aging facilities for that demographic group and how does that<br />
impact the environment <strong>of</strong> our county? So I think that is something that is reasonable to<br />
examine with this EIR and was brought up in public testimony.<br />
Commissioner Karsten<br />
First I’m very imprested with everything I’ve heard from all speakers and I found it very<br />
helpful. The a couple <strong>of</strong> things, in addition to what has already been commented on, I<br />
presume this is the case, but I think it would be helpful to make it very clear that the care<br />
center and this facility and everything is related to this care center is for the residents only. I<br />
presume that’s the intent here but reading it causes me some…”concerns” is not the correct<br />
word…but I question whether or not it really is just for the residents only and is not going<br />
to be turned into a broader based service provider, if you will, which in turn would<br />
obviously impact traffic and those types <strong>of</strong> things.<br />
The other thing in listening to some <strong>of</strong> the other comments made here was the issue <strong>of</strong> the<br />
schematics and the visual components that you have been provided here. It appeared to me<br />
there is a bit <strong>of</strong> an inconsistency with some <strong>of</strong> the materials that have been provided in the<br />
packet, especially the elevation <strong>of</strong> the project Figure 2.4 and 3.14, the scope, the size, the<br />
elements <strong>of</strong> architecture, all <strong>of</strong> these things seem to be what I hear a significant concern to<br />
from many <strong>of</strong> the people here. So if we can see if there’s consistency? If I’m wrong about<br />
that then I’m wrong it appears just looking at them it appears to be inconsistent and maybe<br />
different generations if you will <strong>of</strong> schematics, in also additional schematics and visuals, so<br />
that the community really does have a really good feel for what this project is going to look<br />
like, not just from 2 or 3 vantage points but I would say half a dozen to 10 or 12 so that<br />
everybody is fully well versed and informed about how this project really will look like<br />
when it is done.<br />
Commissioner Poulsen<br />
For the most part I think this is fine, but my concern is with the surrounding neighborhood<br />
and neighbors and how they will be affected. Especially towards lighting, I would like to see<br />
a better lighting plan provided. Noise, not only after it is built, but during construction, and<br />
then the other thing was looking at the tree report. It does not come out and list which ones<br />
are heritage oak trees. That term has been thrown about quite a bit and I would like to see<br />
what’s happening to "heritage oak trees."<br />
Chairman Bartley<br />
I do have a concern about the visual analysis that I think that echoes what Mr. Karsten was<br />
saying. What jumps at me, and maybe it’s just previous experience has made me wary, but I<br />
did notice some inconsistencies and I know it is provided by the applicant in terms <strong>of</strong> the<br />
graphics but one <strong>of</strong> the things I noted on the graphics on the 3D simulation is there are a lot<br />
<strong>of</strong> rather mature trees have been strategically planted in the simulation and that gives an<br />
accurate view 20 yrs from now, but doesn’t give an accurate view the day its finished, so I<br />
think there would be a benefit to see it without some <strong>of</strong> that extra embellishment.
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
Response to oral comments made during the Public Hearing (July 24, 2008)<br />
1) Comment noted. The Draft EIR analysis regarding the Project’s impacts to air<br />
quality, aesthetics, biology, greenhouse gases, seismicity, traffic, and land use<br />
compatibility indicates that the mitigation measures provided mitigate potentially<br />
significant levels to less than significant. See specific responses to these issues as<br />
follows: aesthetics (Response to Comment Epperly-2 and Epperly-3), biology<br />
(Response to Comment Epperly-4 through Epperly-11), seismicity (Response to<br />
Comment Epperly-13), and consistency with area plans (Response to Comment<br />
Epperly-16 through Epperly-22). No oral comments specific to traffic, greenhouse<br />
gases, or air quality appear to have been made by the commenter.<br />
2) Aesthetic impacts are evaluated in Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and are further<br />
discussed in Master Response Visual Resources; with mitigation, no significant<br />
aesthetic impacts would occur.<br />
3) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.<br />
4) There will be no direct impacts to Piner Creek or its associated 0.5 acre <strong>of</strong> riparian<br />
vegetation (See <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-2) and no mitigation is required.<br />
As required in Section 15082(a) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines, the <strong>City</strong> mailed a copy <strong>of</strong><br />
the Notice <strong>of</strong> Preparation that an EIR would be prepared for the Project, as well as a<br />
copy <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, to the CDFG. While CEQA requires notification <strong>of</strong> affected,<br />
responsible, and/or interested agencies, there is no legal requirement for such<br />
agencies to respond. No comments were received from CDFG.<br />
5) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation.<br />
6) See Master Response Visual Resources.<br />
7) The proposed grading for the site was taken into account during the analysis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project’s environmental impacts. As described in the revised Mitigation<br />
Measure 3.6-3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, a site-specific slope stability analysis that will<br />
evaluate landslide potential will be incorporated into final design. Depending on the<br />
findings, slope stability measures may consist <strong>of</strong> regrading slopes. See Master<br />
Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation.<br />
8) Comment noted. The <strong>City</strong> disagrees and believes that the Draft EIR is consistent<br />
with CEQA requirements for analysis <strong>of</strong> the Project’s impacts from grading,<br />
retaining walls, buildings, tree removal, and topography modification, and that the<br />
mitigation measures provided will mitigate potentially significant levels to less than<br />
significant. See specific responses to these issues as follows: grading (Response to<br />
Comment Public Hearing-7 and Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation),<br />
retaining walls (Response to Comment Margason-4), buildings (Response to<br />
Comment Margason-1), tree removal (Master Response Oak Trees and Oak<br />
Woodland) and topography modification (Responses to Comments Public Hearing-<br />
7, Glenn-3, and Margason-4).<br />
9) See Response to Comment Epperly–23.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-169
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
10) Onsite trees are concentrated in woodland areas, which were avoided to the degree<br />
feasible in Project design. For this reason, percent <strong>of</strong> land graded is not equal to<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> trees impacted. See also Master Response Visual Resources for additional<br />
detail on accuracy <strong>of</strong> simulations portraying visual impacts; with mitigation, impacts<br />
will be less than significant.<br />
11) As described in Section 2.4.2, the site will be contour-graded so that the buildings<br />
will blend into the hillside to the degree feasible. Visual impact analysis has<br />
determined that the building massing creates good scalar transition (see Draft EIR<br />
p. 3-23). <strong>Impact</strong>s to aesthetics and views will be less than significant with the<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> appropriate landscaping. Therefore, mitigation to reduce building<br />
mass is not required.<br />
12) Draft EIR Section 2.4.2, Project Design Features, discusses how the Project design<br />
includes limited contour grading <strong>of</strong> portions <strong>of</strong> the site so that buildings will blend<br />
in with the overall hillside nature <strong>of</strong> the surrounding area (p. 2-11). See Response to<br />
Comment FRMA-2 and Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
13) See Response to Comment FRMA-2 and Master Response Land Use Compatibility.<br />
The Project will be subject to Design Review by the <strong>City</strong> for approval <strong>of</strong> building<br />
design and grading plans.<br />
14) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility and Response to Comment FRMA-9.<br />
15) See Response to Comment Nelson July 17-1 for explanation <strong>of</strong> trips assumed in the<br />
Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> Analysis and Emissions Calculation. See Response to Comment<br />
Epperly – 14 for discussion <strong>of</strong> intersection evaluations.<br />
16) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
17) See Master Response Local Traffic.<br />
18) Comment noted. As described in Section 2.4.3, construction is expected to last<br />
approximately 19 months.<br />
19) See Response to Community Comment-31.<br />
20) See Master Response Noise.<br />
21) See Response to Community Comments–3.<br />
22) See Response to Comment Nelson (July 17)–1.<br />
23) Appendix P (Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>) describes the basis for trip generation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project using the traffic engineering pr<strong>of</strong>ession’s standard source <strong>of</strong> trip rate data:<br />
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute <strong>of</strong> Transportation Engineers (ITE). As<br />
shown in Table 8 in the Traffic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, an estimated 382 non-employee<br />
round-trips per day would be generated. The 382 trips shown for “Visitors” in<br />
Table D-1 in Appendix D are for all resident and visitor trips; the “Visitors” label in<br />
Table D-1 should read “Residents and Visitors.”<br />
As described in Section 3.13.3, the parking proposed for the Project exceeds the<br />
parking required by the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
2-170 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
24) As described in the Master Response Local Traffic and Response to Comment Public<br />
Hearing – 23, the number <strong>of</strong> trips generated by the project were estimated using a<br />
standard estimation measure (based on facility type) generated by Trip Generation<br />
Handbook, a national publication from the ITE. The Handbook is a collection <strong>of</strong><br />
information about vehicular traffic that is generated by different land uses. This<br />
information is based on studies made to determine how many vehicles enter and exit<br />
a site devoted to a particular land use, and is currently in its 7 th updated edition. The<br />
total trips for a specific land use in the ITE would include all associated trips. Based<br />
on their other community care facilities, the Applicant has estimated that, within the<br />
total trips generated, an average <strong>of</strong> approximately four delivery trucks per day<br />
would occur.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.3-2 evaluates long-term emissions from operation <strong>of</strong> the Project; this impact<br />
will be less than significant.<br />
25) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.<br />
26) Significant impacts to wildlife species are addressed in Section 3.4 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR.<br />
Potential impacts from construction <strong>of</strong> the Project to nesting birds, roosting bats, and<br />
northwestern pond turtle will be mitigated to a less than significant level through<br />
preconstruction surveys, avoidance, monitoring during construction, and/or other<br />
measures (see Mitigation Measures 3.4-3, 3.4-4, and 3.4-5). As evaluated in<br />
Section 3.4.3, impacts to these species will be less than significant with mitigation.<br />
27) Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 in the Draft EIR includes pre-construction surveys,<br />
avoidance as feasible during breeding season, and buffer zones to minimize impacts<br />
to raptors and nesting birds; impacts to these species will be less than significant<br />
with mitigation.<br />
28) See Response to Comment Epperly-23.<br />
29) See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual <strong>Impact</strong>s, as well as<br />
Response to Comment FRMA-19.<br />
30) See Master Responses Visual <strong>Impact</strong>s and Noise.<br />
31) See Master Responses Visual <strong>Impact</strong>s and Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and<br />
Response to Comment Glenn-2.<br />
32) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility and Response to Comment<br />
Margason-6.<br />
33) Comment noted. The Draft EIR has addressed the Project’s impacts from grading,<br />
buildings, landscaping, and topography modification; the mitigation measures<br />
provided mitigate potentially significant levels to less than significant. See specific<br />
responses to these issues as follows: grading (Response to Comment Public<br />
Hearing-7 and Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation), landscaping (Master<br />
Responses Visual Resources and Oak Trees and Oak Woodland), buildings<br />
(Response to Comment Margason-1), and topography modification (Responses to<br />
Comments Public Hearing-7, Glenn-3, and Margason-4).<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-171
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
34) Comment noted. See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual<br />
Resources.<br />
35) See Response to Comment FRMA-19.<br />
36) As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.1-3 in the Draft EIR, the Project would add new sources <strong>of</strong><br />
nighttime security lighting along driveways, in outdoor parking lots, and near<br />
building entrances. Conformance to the <strong>City</strong>’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the<br />
Principles <strong>of</strong> Low-impact Lighting Design (see Mitigation Measure 3.1-3), which<br />
minimize the amount <strong>of</strong> light that leaves the site, would reduce impacts to less than<br />
significant. See also Response to Community Comment-13.<br />
37) See Response to Community Comment-14.<br />
38) As required in Section 15082(a) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines, the <strong>City</strong> mailed a copy <strong>of</strong><br />
the Notice <strong>of</strong> Preparation that an EIR would be prepared for the Project, as well as a<br />
copy <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR, to CDFG. While CEQA requires notification <strong>of</strong> affected,<br />
responsible, and/or interested agencies, there is no legal requirement for such<br />
agencies to respond. No comments were received from CDFG.<br />
39) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and Response to Comment<br />
Glenn-2.<br />
40) See Responses to Comments Epperly–23.<br />
41) Comment noted. See Response to Comment Barr-4.<br />
42) Comment noted. See Response to Community Comment-27.<br />
43) The Draft EIR notes the location <strong>of</strong> the Project as being in a Very High Fire Severity<br />
Zone (see p. 3-98) and evaluates the evacuation needs <strong>of</strong> Lodge residents (see<br />
p. 3-100) as well as evacuation <strong>of</strong> neighboring homes (see p. 3-165). With mitigation<br />
incorporated, these impacts were determined less than significant. See also Response<br />
to Comment FRMA-26.<br />
44) Comment noted.<br />
45) Comment noted.<br />
46) Comment noted.<br />
47) Comment noted.<br />
48) Comment noted.<br />
49) Comment noted.<br />
50) Comment noted.<br />
51) Comment noted.<br />
52) Comment noted.<br />
53) Comment noted. Potential impacts <strong>of</strong> the Project on views are described in<br />
Section 3.1 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR and in Master Response Visual Resources <strong>of</strong> this Final<br />
2-172 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
EIR document. As noted in Master Response Visual Resources, the visual<br />
simulations were done correctly and present an accurate depiction <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />
54) See Response to Comment Aegis–1.<br />
55) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility. As described in Appendix C, the<br />
Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy UD-H-3. The <strong>City</strong> has considered the<br />
Applicant’s site plans as drawn since only 5 percent <strong>of</strong> the site area contains slopes<br />
over 25 percent, and <strong>of</strong> those only about one-third would be altered. In addition,<br />
none <strong>of</strong> the areas with slopes over 25 percent would be visually prominent or<br />
significant. Other design measures to reduce the impact include placement <strong>of</strong><br />
buildings and parking facilities to maximize retention <strong>of</strong> existing tree clusters that<br />
best blend with the natural setting; prioritized grading; stepped building design; and<br />
architectural features. Final design will be subject to approval by the Design Review<br />
Board.<br />
56) See Response to Comment Aegis–19.<br />
57) Comment noted.<br />
58) The potential impacts <strong>of</strong> the greenhouse gas emissions from the Project are described<br />
in Section 3.3.3 <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. The <strong>City</strong> has not yet established significant<br />
thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions, which should be done after formal<br />
consideration and adoption <strong>of</strong> possible significant thresholds and not on a project<br />
EIR. The <strong>City</strong> has been developing programs and policies, alone and in conjunction<br />
with Sonoma County, to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.<br />
59) On December 18, 2007, the <strong>City</strong> adopted a Green Building Ordinance that requires<br />
nonresidential buildings such as the proposed community care facility to achieve a<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 20 credits in accordance with the LEED® Commercial Green Building<br />
Rating System. Green building is a method that reduces carbon emissions by using<br />
materials and construction techniques that promote natural resource conservation.<br />
The Green Building Ordinance adopted by the <strong>City</strong> provides a local incentive for<br />
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction. See also Response to Comment Public Hearing –<br />
58 above.<br />
To support the <strong>City</strong>’s efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Project<br />
includes several measures to reduce operational GHG emissions, including energyefficient<br />
lighting and appliances. GHG emissions associated with the Project were<br />
estimated for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).<br />
Emissions <strong>of</strong> hydr<strong>of</strong>luorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur<br />
hexafluoride (SF6) were not separately estimated and were assumed to be minimal in<br />
comparison to CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions since the Project would not have the<br />
types <strong>of</strong> sources associated with large amounts <strong>of</strong> HFC, PFC, or SF6 fugitive<br />
emissions (e.g. large chillers or electrical transmission).<br />
CO2 emissions associated with Project construction were estimated using the<br />
URBEMIS2007 version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS) model. At this time, URBEMIS does not<br />
include CH4 or N2O emission estimates. Construction emissions were calculated for<br />
exhaust emissions from construction equipment and exhaust emissions from haul<br />
trucks in the year 2009. Project construction would be expected to result in a<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-173
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
temporary increase <strong>of</strong> 279 metric tons <strong>of</strong> CO2 per year during the 19-month<br />
construction period.<br />
For operational emissions, CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from residential electricity<br />
use were estimated using the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) average kilowatt hour<br />
(kWh) consumption per residential customer in 2005 (CEC, 2007). CO2, CH4, and<br />
N2O emissions from residential natural gas use were estimated using the URBEMIS<br />
model multifamily natural gas consumption value. The same vehicle assumptions<br />
used to generate the criteria pollutant operation emissions were used to estimate<br />
GHG emissions. The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General <strong>Report</strong>ing<br />
Protocol emission factors were used to estimate emissions from electricity use,<br />
natural gas use, and vehicle use (CCAR 2008).<br />
Operation <strong>of</strong> the Project would be expected to result in 3,140 metric tons <strong>of</strong> CO2equivalent<br />
emissions per year. Project CO2 equivalent emissions would account for<br />
less than 0.01 percent <strong>of</strong> the 2004 GHG emissions for the entire state <strong>of</strong> California.<br />
Therefore, the Project would be expected to be an insignificant source <strong>of</strong> global GHG<br />
emissions.<br />
TABLE 2-1.<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong> GHG operational emissions<br />
Emission Source CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons per year)<br />
Natural Gas Use 387<br />
Electricity Use 387<br />
Transportation Fuel Use 2,366<br />
Note: Both electricity use and transportation fuel use are indirect sources <strong>of</strong> GHG emissions because<br />
these emissions result from sources outside <strong>of</strong> the control <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />
The Project would not be expected to result in a substantial incremental contribution<br />
to global atmospheric GHG concentrations. The Project would result in minor GHG<br />
emissions but these emissions are not necessarily new emission sources. In many<br />
cases, these GHG emissions would be “redistributed” from existing developments in<br />
other locations, although the extent <strong>of</strong> this redistribution is uncertain. The Project is<br />
located in Sonoma County, which is not a substantial contributor to California<br />
transportation fuel consumption, natural gas consumption, and electricity use.<br />
Sonoma County accounts for 1.2 percent <strong>of</strong> gasoline fuel use and 1 percent <strong>of</strong> diesel<br />
fuel use in California (BOE, 2007). Also, Sonoma County accounts for 1.4 percent <strong>of</strong><br />
the state residential electricity use and 1.6 percent <strong>of</strong> the residential natural gas use<br />
(CEC, 2008). Therefore, redistributing these emission sources from either within the<br />
County or from outside <strong>of</strong> the County, with operation <strong>of</strong> the Project, would not be<br />
expected to result in a significant net increase in global GHG emissions.<br />
Draft EIR Table 3.3-1 has been modified with information acquired since the<br />
publication <strong>of</strong> the Draft EIR. See Section 3.0 Errata.<br />
2-174 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS<br />
60) Comment noted. CEQA does not require analysis <strong>of</strong> social demographics as part <strong>of</strong><br />
an environmental impact assessment. As described in Section 2.1 in the Draft EIR,<br />
the Project supports the goals and policies established in the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 2020: General<br />
Plan that call for projects and services to support the needs <strong>of</strong> seniors in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>.<br />
61) No medical services will be provided as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed Project; medical<br />
services are therefore unavailable for both residents and nonresidents alike (see<br />
Draft EIR p. 2-1). The Project is a private facility with amenities for residents only.<br />
62) See Master Response Visual Resources.<br />
63) See Response to Comment Public Hearing-36 on site lighting.<br />
Noise impacts during construction are addressed in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-3. Construction <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project would temporarily but significantly increase noise levels in the vicinity <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project site and along transportation corridors used by construction equipment<br />
and workers during the construction period (see Draft EIR p. 3-126). With<br />
incorporation <strong>of</strong> Mitigation Measure 3.10-3, construction noise impacts would be<br />
reduced to less than significant levels. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-1, the effects <strong>of</strong><br />
traffic on noise levels would be less than significant. As described in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-2,<br />
noise from operation <strong>of</strong> building equipment will be less than significant with<br />
mitigation. See also Master Response for Noise.<br />
Heritage oak trees are defined in the Draft EIR p. 3-47 and 3-48. <strong>Impact</strong>s to heritage<br />
oak trees are address in <strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-1; approximately 120 native heritage trees would<br />
be removed. See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and Response to<br />
Comment Glenn-2.<br />
64) See Master Response Visual <strong>Impact</strong>s.<br />
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-175
3.0 Errata and Revisions<br />
This section contains those pages <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Draft EIR that have been<br />
revised based on the comments received during the public review period. Text deleted from<br />
the Draft EIR is shown in strike-out mode; text that has been added is shown in underline.<br />
These revisions supersede the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Draft EIR dated June 2008.<br />
The following pages and figures <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Draft EIR are included in<br />
this section.<br />
Page iii<br />
Page 2-1<br />
Figure 2-1<br />
Page 2-7<br />
Page 2-11<br />
Page 3-30<br />
Page 3-31<br />
Page 3-61<br />
Page 3-68<br />
Page 3-69<br />
Page 3-70<br />
Page 3-84<br />
Page 3-86<br />
Page 3-91<br />
Page 3-92<br />
Page 3-93<br />
Page 3-94<br />
Page 3-110<br />
Page 3-120<br />
Page 3-164<br />
Figure 3.6-4 Local Geology Map<br />
BAO\082970001 3-1
Executive Summary<br />
Project<br />
The Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care Retirement Community - <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
Project (henceforth referred to as the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project, or the Project), formerly<br />
known as Oaks 4 and 5, is a proposed community care facility located in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> (the <strong>City</strong>), in central Sonoma County, California. The Project is located within<br />
incorporated northeast <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> at 4110 and 4210 Thomas Lake Harris Drive. The<br />
9.85-acre Project site currently consists <strong>of</strong> undeveloped land. The Project would create a total<br />
<strong>of</strong> 136 community care units and 12 residential units to be used for employee housing. The<br />
Project applicant has indicated that the facility will be marketed to the gay, lesbian, bisexual,<br />
and transgender community.<br />
Project Objectives<br />
The objectives for the Project are to:<br />
• Create approximately 135 community care facility units, consistent with the land uses<br />
designated in the <strong>City</strong>’s General Plan and the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Planned<br />
Community District (FRPCD) Policy Statement.<br />
• Provide progressive care and a range <strong>of</strong> services to allow seniors to remain within the<br />
community.<br />
• Provide quality senior care licensed by the State <strong>of</strong> California.<br />
• Provide employee housing that is affordable to the full-time employees needed to<br />
operate the facility.<br />
• Provide housing for seniors with convenient access to medical care facilities, highways,<br />
and transportation, retail, and recreation amenities.<br />
Project Components<br />
The Project includes a community care facility involving four types <strong>of</strong> units for seniors;<br />
employee housing; and a range <strong>of</strong> amenities and services. Community care facilities are<br />
considered a non-residential land use that provides non-medical residential care. Specific<br />
components <strong>of</strong> the Project include:<br />
• A three-story Main Building with 74 one- and two-bedroom community care units, two<br />
dining rooms, resident amenities, housekeeping facilities, administrative <strong>of</strong>fices, and<br />
above and belowground parking areas.<br />
• A “Flats” building containing 18 one- and two-bedroom community care units.<br />
Eight Six two-bedroom community care units in the form <strong>of</strong> duplexes and detached<br />
cottages.<br />
BAO\082970001 iii
2.0 Project Description<br />
This section describes the origin <strong>of</strong> the Project and approved land uses for the site, the Project<br />
objectives, the Project location, construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the Project, and required approvals.<br />
2.1 Background and Project Origin<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch is a 1,970-acre area in the North <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Planning Area, within the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> in Sonoma County, California. A development plan for <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch was first<br />
proposed in 1972, and the FRPCD Policy Statement (with its accompanying “<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch<br />
Amended Planned Community Map—Land Use and Circulation Plan”) were adopted in 1981 and<br />
subsequently amended in 1992. The Policy Statement identified, among other things, basic<br />
development objectives and land uses (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 1992).<br />
The Project site is defined as two three lots designated in the Development Concept Plan as Cluster<br />
Residential land use. The intent <strong>of</strong> this land use is to create and enhance areas for a range <strong>of</strong><br />
attached and detached single-family and multiple-family dwelling types; it permits apartments,<br />
group dwellings, and health care facilities, among other uses. With the overlain Housing Bonus<br />
Area in the Development Concept Plan, the allowed residential density on the Project site is 15<br />
dwelling units per acre (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 1992).<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> <strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 21-05.040 (I)(8) defines a community care facility as “any facility,<br />
place or building which is maintained and operated to provide non-medical residential care, day<br />
care, and/or home-finding services for children, adults, or children and adults” (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong>, 2007).<br />
Several parts <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 2020: General Plan call for projects and services to support the needs<br />
<strong>of</strong> seniors in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 2002). These include:<br />
• Policy H-D-14: “Provide incentives for development <strong>of</strong> housing for the elderly, particularly for<br />
those in need <strong>of</strong> assisted and skilled nursing care. Incentives may include density bonus,<br />
reduced parking requirements, or deferred development fees.”<br />
• Goal YF-E: “Establish and continue to pursue programs, mechanisms, and liaison activities<br />
which will increase the provision <strong>of</strong> modern senior citizen services in the community, in<br />
accordance with local and State codes.”<br />
• Policy YF-E-1: “Continue to develop, manage, and expand the <strong>City</strong>’s senior services and<br />
programs as an important social service within the community.”<br />
• Policy YF-E-2: “Continually monitor and analyze the overall needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s senior citizen<br />
population, in order to investigate and implement new and additional programs and activities<br />
and meet the needs <strong>of</strong> this segment <strong>of</strong> the community in an aggressive and effective manner.”<br />
BAO\082970001 2-1
Mendocino<br />
£¤ 101<br />
0 ± 5 10<br />
Miles<br />
£¤ 101<br />
Lake<br />
£¤ 101<br />
Austin Creek State Rec Area<br />
Sonoma<br />
Point Reyes Natl Seashore<br />
Marin<br />
£¤ 101<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Golden Gate National Rec Area<br />
^_<br />
Petaluma<br />
Project Location<br />
£¤ 101<br />
Napa<br />
Vallejo<br />
San Rafael--Novato Antioch<br />
Mount Tamalpais State Park<br />
Napa<br />
£¤ 101<br />
San Francisco<br />
§¨¦ 580<br />
San Francisco--Oakland<br />
£¤ 1<br />
§¨¦ 280<br />
£¤ 101<br />
Glenn<br />
§¨¦ 980<br />
San Francisco Intl<br />
Colusa<br />
San Mateo<br />
§¨¦ 880<br />
§¨¦ 5<br />
Vacaville<br />
Fairfield<br />
§¨¦ 80<br />
Yolo<br />
Solano<br />
Concord<br />
Contra Costa<br />
§¨¦ 680<br />
FIGURE 2-1<br />
Alameda<br />
REGIONAL MAP<br />
Butte<br />
Sutter<br />
Li vermore<br />
FOUNTAINGROVE LODGE PROJECT<br />
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA<br />
BAO \\ZINFANDEL\PROJ\SANTAROSACACITYOF\352095FOUNTAINGROVE\GIS\MAPFILES\PROJECT_AREA_WIDE.MXD REGIONAL_MAP.PDF 4/9/2007 15:58:18<br />
§¨¦ 505
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION<br />
use is located west <strong>of</strong> the Project site across Thomas Lake Harris Drive. The Stonefield<br />
development tennis courts and common space form the southern border <strong>of</strong> the property. The Oaks<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Association swimming pool and recreation facility is immediately to the north <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project site. The closest residential area comprises duplex buildings located to the north <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site across Gullane Drive and is referred to as Oaks Phase I. Other residential areas in the vicinity<br />
consist primarily <strong>of</strong> single- and multi-family homes and condominiums. A seasonal creek, Piner<br />
Creek, originates in the uplands to the east and crosses the southern extent <strong>of</strong> the Project site from<br />
east to west. An AT&T facility that fronts on Thomas Lake Harris Drive is currently located on the<br />
southern tip <strong>of</strong> the parcel.<br />
The Project site is approximately 1,900 feet long and is roughly 40 feet wide at its narrowest at the<br />
southern end and 350 feet wide at the broadest point toward the north. The site is undeveloped<br />
and is covered by areas <strong>of</strong> dense, medium-height annual grasses, tall thickets <strong>of</strong> dense brush and<br />
tree stands containing mostly native oak trees. Vegetation is lightest at the northern portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property near Gullane Drive and in the central area <strong>of</strong> the site. The Project site is characterized by<br />
rolling terrain. Elevations on the site range from roughly 400 to 500 feet above mean sea level with<br />
the northern extent <strong>of</strong> the property higher than the southern. The site slopes generally upward to<br />
the east from Thomas Lake Harris Drive. The average slope on the site is 16.58 percent.<br />
2.4 Project Description<br />
2.4.1 Project Components<br />
The Project includes four types <strong>of</strong> community care facilities for seniors, employee housing, and a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> amenities and services. All units will be rented on a month-to-month basis. Specific<br />
components <strong>of</strong> the project are shown in Table 2-1.<br />
The Project site layout is shown in Figure 2-3. Details <strong>of</strong> the Project components and other Project<br />
features are as follows:<br />
• Main Building. The Main Building will contain 74 one- and two-bedroom community care<br />
units in two main wings that extend north and south from the building center. The building<br />
will be two and three stories over a lower-level parking structure and will have a maximum<br />
height <strong>of</strong> 49 feet. The Main Building will contain two dining rooms, a café, entertainment and<br />
activity rooms, exercise rooms, a beauty salon, housekeeping facilities, and administrative<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices. The building footprint is approximately 61,000 square feet.<br />
• Flats. The Flats Building will contain 18 one- and two-bedroom community care units. The two<br />
and three-story building will have a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 37 feet, with two tower exceptions<br />
(elevator tower at 46 feet and stairway tower at 41 feet) that total 5 percent <strong>of</strong> the building<br />
footprint. The building footprint is approximately 18,000 square feet.<br />
Cottages. The Project will include eight two-bedroom community care units in the form <strong>of</strong><br />
cottages, each one-story with a 25-foot height maximum. Six <strong>of</strong> the cottages will be provided in the<br />
form <strong>of</strong> duplexes; two will be in the form <strong>of</strong> detached units. The total building footprint <strong>of</strong> the<br />
cottages is approximately 15,000 square feet.<br />
BAO\082970001 2-7
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION<br />
• Swimming Pool. The pool will be located on the south side <strong>of</strong> the Main Building. The approximate<br />
dimensions <strong>of</strong> the swimming pool are 50 feet long and 20 feet wide at the south end and 35 feet at the<br />
north end. A patio area will surround the pool.<br />
• Parking and Transportation. Ninety-nine parking spaces, including three handicapped spaces, will be<br />
provided with the Main Building. Eighteen underground parking spaces, including one handicapped<br />
space, will be provided with the Flats Building. Another 106 parking spaces, including five<br />
handicapped spaces, are provided throughout the site, with the majority near the Main Building.<br />
Fourteen garage spaces are provided with the cottages. Onsite shuttle service will be provided using<br />
electric golf carts.<br />
• Landscaping. Trees and shrubs will be planted throughout the Project site to provide visual screening<br />
and vertical relief to the horizontal mass <strong>of</strong> the buildings. The existing vegetation will be preserved to<br />
the degree feasible.<br />
• Site Improvements. Site improvements include the addition <strong>of</strong> sidewalk, curb, and gutter along<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive; vehicle site access from Thomas Lake Harris Drive; sewer and water<br />
connections; and stormwater drainage and retention facilities.<br />
• Offsite Improvements. Several <strong>of</strong>fsite transportation and pedestrian improvements will be made. A<br />
three-legged signal will be added at the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Thomas Lake<br />
Harris Drive that interconnects with the signals to the east and west <strong>of</strong> this intersection. The radius <strong>of</strong><br />
the curb return at the intersection will be increased from 30 to 35 feet to facilitate better turning<br />
movement from westbound <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway onto northbound Thomas Lake Harris Drive. A<br />
raised crosswalk on Thomas Lake Harris Drive between the Flats Building and Employee Housing<br />
(Lot 3)at Gullane Drive will be added. Improved ADA-compliant curb cuts leading to an improved<br />
striped pedestrian crosswalk will be added on the easterly side <strong>of</strong> the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway and Thomas Lake Harris Drive to assist pedestrians crossing <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway.<br />
• Loading/Staging Area and Trash/Recycling Enclosures. During facility operations, loading/ staging<br />
areas will be located at the southwest corner <strong>of</strong> the Care Center (approximately 585 square feet [ft 2])<br />
and in the covered parking area under the west wing <strong>of</strong>next to the Main Building (approximately<br />
2,175 ft 2). Trash and recycling enclosures are provided in three major locations: at the southwest<br />
corner <strong>of</strong> the Care Center, in the covered parking area under the west wing <strong>of</strong>next to the Main<br />
Building and at the northwest corner <strong>of</strong> the employee housing. In addition, smaller trash/recycle<br />
rooms will be located within the main building, flats building, and care center. in an area <strong>of</strong> The total<br />
area <strong>of</strong> all trash/recycling locations is approximately 810 ft 2.<br />
• Onsite Amenities and Facilities. Housekeeping services, residential and grounds maintenance,<br />
emergency response system, and 24-hour onsite management will be included in services provided to<br />
residents. Programs and services such as aqua aerobics, walking, health screenings, podiatrist services,<br />
massage therapy, and hydro tub will be provided. Other amenities include private and formal dining<br />
rooms, a café, entertainment and activity rooms, beauty salon/barber shop, and reading rooms in the<br />
Main Building. Walking paths and small courtyards are located throughout the site. Other facilities<br />
include a pet park and a bocce court. Services and site management will be provided by<br />
approximately 85 full-time employees.<br />
2.4.2 Project Design Features<br />
The Project design includes limited contour grading <strong>of</strong> portions <strong>of</strong> the site so that buildings will<br />
blend in with the overall hillside nature <strong>of</strong> the surrounding area, as shown in<br />
BAO\082970001 2-11
3.3 AIR QUALITY<br />
Federal Regulations. Federal air quality policies are regulated through the federal Clean Air<br />
Act (CAA). Pursuant to this act, the United States <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (USEPA)<br />
has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following air<br />
pollutants (termed “criteria” pollutants): carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide<br />
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter defined as particulate matter less<br />
than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter defined as<br />
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), and lead. The act<br />
was amended in 1977 to require each state to maintain a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for<br />
achieving compliance with the NAAQS. In 1990, the act was amended again to strengthen<br />
regulation <strong>of</strong> both stationary and motor vehicle emission sources. Conformity to the SIP is<br />
defined under the 1990 CAA amendments as conformity with the plan’s purpose in<br />
eliminating or reducing the severity and number <strong>of</strong> violations <strong>of</strong> the NAAQS and in<br />
achieving expeditious attainment <strong>of</strong> these standards. The federal CAA also requires the<br />
USEPA to designate areas (counties or air basins) as attainment or nonattainment with<br />
respect to each criteria pollutant, depending on whether the area meets the NAAQS. An area<br />
that is designated nonattainment means the area is not meeting the NAAQS and is subject to<br />
planning requirements to attain the standard.<br />
State Regulations. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) oversees California air quality<br />
policies and is responsible for preparing and submitting the SIP to the USEPA. California<br />
established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) in 1969. These standards are<br />
generally more stringent and include more pollutants than the NAAQS. The California CAA<br />
was approved in 1988 and requires each local air district in the state to prepare an air quality<br />
plan to achieve compliance with the CAAQS. Similar to the USEPA, the ARB designates<br />
counties in California as attainment or nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS.<br />
The federal and state ambient air quality standards represent levels established to avoid<br />
specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. Table 3.3-1 presents the federal<br />
and state attainment status for each pollutant.<br />
TABLE 3.3-1<br />
Ambient Air Quality Standards<br />
Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care Retirement Community – <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Draft EIR<br />
Criteria Pollutant<br />
Carbon Monoxide<br />
Nitrogen Dioxide<br />
Federal Standard (Averaging<br />
Period) a<br />
Federal<br />
Attainment<br />
Status<br />
State Standard (Averaging<br />
Period) b<br />
State<br />
Attainment<br />
Status<br />
35 ppm (1 hour) Attainment 20 ppm (1 hour) Attainment<br />
9 ppm (8 hour) Attainment 9 ppm (8 hour) Attainment<br />
0.053 ppm<br />
(annual arithmetic mean)<br />
Attainment<br />
Ozone 0.0758 ppm (8 hour) Nonattainment<br />
Fine Particulate Matter<br />
(PM2.5)<br />
0.030 ppm (annual arithmetic<br />
mean) c<br />
-- -- 0.18 ppm (1 hour) c Attainment<br />
15 μg/m 3<br />
(annual arithmetic mean)<br />
Attainment<br />
3-30 BAO\082970001<br />
N/A<br />
0.07 ppm (8 hour) Nonattainment<br />
0.09 ppm (1 hour) Nonattainment<br />
12 μg/m 3<br />
(annual arithmetic mean)<br />
35 μg/m 3 (24 hour) d Unclassified No separate Standard (24 hour)<br />
Nonattainment
TABLE 3.3-1<br />
Ambient Air Quality Standards<br />
Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care Retirement Community – <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project Draft EIR<br />
Criteria Pollutant<br />
Particulate Matter<br />
(PM10)<br />
Sulfur Dioxide<br />
Lead<br />
Federal Standard (Averaging<br />
Period) a<br />
--Revoked d<br />
Federal<br />
Attainment<br />
Status<br />
State Standard (Averaging<br />
Period) b<br />
20 μg/m 3<br />
(annual arithmetic mean)<br />
3.3 AIR QUALIT<br />
State<br />
Attainment<br />
Status<br />
Nonattainment<br />
150 μg/m 3 (24 hour) Unclassified 50 μg/m 3 (24 hour) Nonattainment<br />
0.030 ppm<br />
(annual arithmetic mean)<br />
Attainment -- --<br />
0.14 ppm (24 hour) Attainment 0.04 ppm (24 hour) Attainment<br />
-- -- 0.25 ppm (1 hour) Attainment<br />
1.5 μg/m 3<br />
(calendar quarter)<br />
Attainment<br />
1.5 μg/m 3<br />
(30 day average)<br />
Attainment<br />
Sulfates No Federal Standards 25 μg/m 3 (24 hour) Attainment<br />
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standards 0.03 ppm (1 hour) Unclassified<br />
Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standards 0.01 ppm (24 hour)<br />
Visibility Reducing<br />
Particles<br />
Notes:<br />
ppm: parts per million, by volume.<br />
μg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter.<br />
No Federal Standards<br />
Extinction coefficient <strong>of</strong> 0.23 per<br />
kilometer — visibility <strong>of</strong> 10 miles<br />
or more (0.07 TO 30 miles or<br />
more for Lake Tahoe) due to<br />
particles when relative humidity<br />
is less than 70 percent<br />
Information not<br />
available<br />
Unclassified<br />
a National standards, other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means,<br />
are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth-highest 8-hour concentration<br />
in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the<br />
expected number <strong>of</strong> days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m 3 is equal to or less than 1.<br />
For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent <strong>of</strong> the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to<br />
or less than the standard.<br />
b California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and suspended<br />
particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles) are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to<br />
be equaled or exceeded.<br />
c The nitrogen dioxide ambient air quality standard was amended on February 22, 2007 to lower the 1-hour standard to<br />
0.18 ppm and to establish a new annual standard <strong>of</strong> 0.03 ppm. These changes become effective after regulatory changes are<br />
submitted and approved by the Office <strong>of</strong> Administrative Law, expected later this year.<br />
d On September 21, 2006, the USEPA promulgated a new 24-hour PM2.5 standard and revoked the annual PM10 standard. To<br />
attain the PM2.5 standard, the 3-year average <strong>of</strong> the 98 th percentile 24-hour concentration at each population-oriented monitor<br />
within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m 3 . These changes became effective December 17, 2006 (USEPA, 2007).<br />
Source: 2006 State Area Designations effective July 2007, National Area Designations current as <strong>of</strong> September 2006 (ARB,<br />
2007).<br />
The following provides a brief summary <strong>of</strong> the pollutants for which the Bay Area has been<br />
designated to be in nonattainment (ozone and particulate matter).<br />
• Ozone. Ozone is a gas created when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic<br />
compounds (VOCs) chemically react in the presence <strong>of</strong> ultraviolet sunlight. NOX and<br />
VOCs are referred to as ozone precursors. Major sources <strong>of</strong> ozone precursors are<br />
combustion processes; incomplete combustion <strong>of</strong> fuel; and the evaporation <strong>of</strong> solvents,<br />
fuels, and paints. Ozone is a<br />
BAO\082970001 3-31
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES<br />
• Be present during open trench work construction activities that require special attention<br />
in sensitive areas<br />
• Prepare construction monitoring and compliance reports that analyze the effectiveness <strong>of</strong><br />
the mitigation measures.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-6: Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Project could result in impacts to special-status plant<br />
species.<br />
Analysis: Less than significant<br />
A focused rare plant survey was conducted on October 5 and 14, 2005, June 16, 2006 and<br />
February 16 and April 9, 2007. The rare plant survey corresponded to the general blooming<br />
periods for observing and identifying all but seventwo <strong>of</strong> the special-status plant species with<br />
potential to occur at the Project site. These are the streamside daisy, which has a low potential<br />
<strong>of</strong> occurrence and blooms between July and September, and wooly-headed lessengia, which<br />
has a very low potential <strong>of</strong> occurrence and blooms in mid- to late August. Clara Hunt’s milk<br />
vetch, Jepson’s leptosiphon, fragrant fritillary, Colusa layia, Mount Diablo cottonweed,<br />
serpentinestreamside daisy, and wooly-headed lessengia. The focused rare plant surveys did<br />
not reveal the presence <strong>of</strong> any special-status plant species. For this reason, the potential<br />
impacts to special-status plant species is considered to be less than significant.<br />
Mitigation: No mitigation required<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-7: Project implementation could result in disturbance to existing wildlife<br />
corridors.<br />
Analysis: Less than significant<br />
The most important existing wildlife corridor on the Project site is Piner Creek and its<br />
associated riparian habitat. Piner Creek flows in an east-west direction across the southern<br />
end <strong>of</strong> the Project site. In addition to wildlife associated with aquatic and riparian habitat,<br />
other wildlife species are expected to use this corridor to access the undeveloped areas to the<br />
east and west <strong>of</strong> the Project site, particularly <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lake to the east. However, the<br />
Project would not affect Piner Creek or its migration corridor. The buffer to be set up under<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b for protection <strong>of</strong> western pond turtle will also help to protect any<br />
other migrating wildlife.<br />
No defined wildlife corridor exists within the Project site in a north-south direction, primarily<br />
because areas to the north and south <strong>of</strong> the project site are developed residences. Any<br />
north-south movement <strong>of</strong> wildlife is not expected to be negatively affected by the Project<br />
because the Project site has no significant wildlife corridor in this direction and because <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site’s juxtaposition with the golf course, which provides an alternate corridor in the<br />
north-south direction.<br />
Additional traffic related to residential use after construction would have minimal effect and<br />
would not significantly impact wildlife movement corridors.<br />
Mitigation: No mitigation required<br />
BAO\082970001 3-61
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
• Preliminary geologic hazard evaluation for the Aegis Senior Retirement Community (Cotton,<br />
Shires and Associates, 2005). This study included review <strong>of</strong> existing data and examination/<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> historical aerial photos.<br />
• Assessment <strong>of</strong> Geologic Hazards for The Oaks, Phases 4 and 5 (Giblin, 2006a). This study<br />
included review <strong>of</strong> existing data, aerial photo interpretation, and geologic mapping.<br />
• Geotechnical Investigation for The Oaks, Phases 4 and 5 (Giblin, 2006b). This study included<br />
review <strong>of</strong> existing data, aerial photo interpretation, geologic mapping, and subsurface<br />
investigation (shallow test pits).<br />
• Review <strong>of</strong> Engineering Geologic Concerns for the Oaks Senior Living Project (Joyce Associates,<br />
2006). This study included review <strong>of</strong> existing data and aerial photos and reconnaissance <strong>of</strong><br />
the site and surrounding areas.<br />
• Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, California<br />
(Giblin, 2007). This study included additional trenching excavation and logging to resolve<br />
discrepancy regarding a possible faulting through the northeast portion <strong>of</strong> the Project site.<br />
• Peer Review – Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard – <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
(Kleinfelder, 2008a). This letter provided third-party peer review <strong>of</strong> the Giblin 2007<br />
investigation and additional trenching.<br />
• Response to January 7, 2008 Peer Review Letter Regarding Slope Instability and Landslide<br />
Comments, Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge (Giblin, 2008a).<br />
This letter responded to and provided more information regarding comments on slope<br />
instability.<br />
• Preliminary Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Slope Stability, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, California (Giblin,<br />
2008b). This letter provided additional information on the slope stability analysis<br />
performed.<br />
• Geotechnical Peer Review, Preliminary Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Slope Stability, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge<br />
(Kleinfelder, 2008b). This letter provided third-party peer review <strong>of</strong> the additional<br />
information on slope instability provided by Giblin.<br />
Data and information included in reports <strong>of</strong> these studies were used to evaluate geologic and<br />
geotechnical conditions and to identify the potential hazards described in this section.<br />
3.6.1 Setting<br />
Topography and Drainage<br />
The Project site is located within the north-central portion <strong>of</strong> the California Coast Range<br />
physiographic province, which extends approximately 600 miles from the Oregon border to<br />
the <strong>Santa</strong> Ynez River, near <strong>Santa</strong> Barbara. The physiographic province is characterized by<br />
elongated ranges and narrow valleys that trend in a north to northwest direction,<br />
approximately parallel to the coast. Structural features, including faults and synclinal folds,<br />
largely control topography within the province and reflect both previous and existing tectonic<br />
regimes (Norris and Webb, 1990).<br />
3-68 BAO\082970001
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
The Project site is situated east <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Plain, in the lower foothills <strong>of</strong> the Sonoma<br />
Mountains. The site lies within an area <strong>of</strong> gently to moderately rolling terrain on a narrow<br />
strip <strong>of</strong> undeveloped land located between Thomas Lake Harris Road on the west and a golf<br />
course fairway on the east. Maximum site relief is on the order <strong>of</strong> 100 feet, with ground<br />
surface elevations ranging from about 400 to 500 feet above mean sea level. The site<br />
generally slopes downward in a west-southwest direction. East <strong>of</strong> the site, the ground<br />
surface rises to higher elevations <strong>of</strong> the Sonoma Mountains. West <strong>of</strong> the site, a series <strong>of</strong><br />
relatively steep, southwest-facing slopes descends to the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Plain.<br />
Local drainage features within the Project vicinity site include subdued drainage swales,<br />
closed or nearly closed drainage depressions, and abrupt changes in stream direction and<br />
gradients (Giblin, 2006a). A seasonal, west-flowing creek is located a few hundred feet north<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project site. A second creek, Piner Creek, flows across the south end <strong>of</strong> the site. Flows<br />
in Piner Creek are controlled by the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lake dams, located approximately 800<br />
feet east <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Geology<br />
Geologic Setting. The California Coast Range physiographic province is located along the<br />
complex boundary margin between two tectonic plates: the North American Plate and the<br />
Pacific Plate. Geologic conditions in the Project area have been and continue to be primarily<br />
controlled by the interaction <strong>of</strong> these two massive blocks <strong>of</strong> the earth’s crust. Under the<br />
current tectonic regime, the Pacific Plate moves northwestward relative to the North<br />
American Plate at a rate <strong>of</strong> about 4 centimeters per year (WGCEP, 2003). Although relative<br />
motion between the two plates is predominantly lateral (strike-slip), an increase in<br />
convergent motion along the plate boundary within the past few million years has resulted<br />
in the formation <strong>of</strong> mountain ranges and structural valleys <strong>of</strong> the Coast Ranges province.<br />
See Figure 3.6-1 for a regional geology map.<br />
At the latitude <strong>of</strong> the Project site, the San Andreas fault system comprises several major<br />
faults, including the San Andreas, Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg, Maacama, and<br />
Concord-Green Valley Faults. In addition to these, many other named and unnamed faults<br />
within the region accommodate relative motion between major faults and relieve<br />
compressional stresses that also act along the plate boundary. See Figure 3.6-2 for the<br />
regional fault map.<br />
The nearest fault to the Project is the Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg fault, the main trace <strong>of</strong><br />
which has been identified within several hundred feet <strong>of</strong> the site. The slip rate on the<br />
Rodgers Creek fault is estimated to be approximately 9 mm/year with a recurrence interval<br />
for large earthquakes estimated at approximately 222 years (Giblin, 2006a; Appendix K).<br />
Faults can be described by one <strong>of</strong> two activity classes: active and potentially active, as<br />
defined by the CDMG (CDMG, 1992). Active describes Historic and Holocene faults that<br />
have had surface displacement within about the last 11,000 years. Potentially active<br />
describes faults showing evidence <strong>of</strong> surface displacement during Quaternary time (the past<br />
1.6 million years). A third class <strong>of</strong> faults, pre-Quaternary age faults, are classified as inactive.<br />
This classification is not meant to imply that inactive fault traces will not rupture, only that<br />
they have not been shown to have ruptured within the past 1.6 million years and that the<br />
probability <strong>of</strong> fault rupture is low.<br />
BAO\082970001 3-69
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
Active and potentially active faults within the Project site limits and immediate vicinity<br />
have been mapped and documented by a number <strong>of</strong> government agencies. The United<br />
States Geological Survey and CDMG have published numerous maps and reports on faults<br />
<strong>of</strong> various types, ages, and levels <strong>of</strong> activity. The faults nearest to the Project site are shown<br />
on Figure 3.6-3.<br />
Surficial Deposits. Soil deposits found onsite typically comprise a thin layer <strong>of</strong> brown,<br />
porous silt, surficial deposit overlying gravel, cobble, and occasional boulders. Over much<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project site, a clayey soil was encountered beneath this gravelly deposit (Giblin, 2007).<br />
Slope-wash and ravine fill are classified as colluvial-type deposits, which consist <strong>of</strong> loose<br />
sediments at the foot <strong>of</strong> a slope brought there principally by gravity and slope wash.<br />
Substantial accumulations <strong>of</strong> fill were found in the drainage swales in the northern and<br />
south-central portions <strong>of</strong> the Project site (Giblin, 2006b). The existing fill appears to be<br />
related to past grading, filling, and stockpiling <strong>of</strong> materials in the drainage swales. The fill<br />
appears to be about 4 to 5 feet thick and consists <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t to medium-stiff sandy clay with<br />
cobbles and occasional boulders. Laboratory tests indicated that the soils exhibit a moderate<br />
expansion potential (Giblin, 2006b).<br />
Below the existing fill deposits, natural sandy clays and sandy silts were found. These soils<br />
were observed to be porous, highly organic, and compressible. They generally exhibited a<br />
low to moderate expansion potential. In the swale areas onsite, sandy clays <strong>of</strong> high<br />
expansion potential were observed below the weak porous upper soils (Giblin, 2006b).<br />
Bedrock. Published maps indicated that rock in the Project vicinity comprises primarily two<br />
geologic units: the Miocene-Pliocene age sedimentary rocks <strong>of</strong> the Petaluma Formation and<br />
the Pliocene age Sonoma Volcanics (Giblin, 2006a). The Petaluma Formation includes poorly<br />
indurated to lightly cemented sandstone, siltstone conglomerate, mudstone, and claystone<br />
and is reported to include some tuffaceous and diatomaceous beds locally. The Petaluma<br />
Formation is considered highly susceptible to landslides and slope instability. Although<br />
published maps indicate that the Petaluma Formation is located west and beyond the<br />
Project site, volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks encountered in the 2006 geologic hazards field<br />
investigation by Giblin Associates could be interpreted to be part <strong>of</strong> the uppermost portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Petaluma Formation, as shown in Figure 3.6-4.<br />
Published maps and previous geologic work performed indicate that the bedrock comprises<br />
various rock types predominantly within the Sonoma Volcanics unit. This unit is composed<br />
primarily <strong>of</strong> andesitic to basaltic lava flows and, as a result ranges, from relatively weak<br />
sediments to hard and strong lava flows. Scattered test pits dug by Giblin Associates<br />
showed lava flow rocks, agglomerate, tuffaceous, and sedimentary rocks. Bedding observed<br />
indicated that the rocks in the central portion <strong>of</strong> the property are folded in an anticline<br />
(concave downward). Beds are gently folded with dips varying from gently eastward at the<br />
higher elevation in the eastern property area to moderately down to the west in proximity to<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive. A northwest strike interrupts these rocks to form a crude<br />
layering or bedding with a moderate westerly dip <strong>of</strong> about 25 to 30 degrees. The test pits<br />
also indicated that rock in the swale areas are generally cemented sands and gravels and<br />
tuffaceous siltstone. Surficial geologic units observed in test pits and scattered outcrops in<br />
the Project vicinity are described below; see Figure 3.6-4 for the Giblin Associates mapping<br />
<strong>of</strong> geologic units.<br />
3-70 BAO\082970001
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
Special Publication 42, which states that no structure for human occupancy should be located<br />
within 50 feet <strong>of</strong> an active fault.<br />
To meet requirements <strong>of</strong> the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, earthquake fault zone<br />
boundaries have generally been established approximately 500 feet on either side <strong>of</strong> major, active<br />
fault traces and approximately 200 to 300 feet on either side <strong>of</strong> well-defined, minor fault traces.<br />
Exceptions to this general pattern <strong>of</strong> earthquake fault zone delineation periodically occur where<br />
faults are obscured, poorly located, locally complex, and/or not vertical. Because <strong>of</strong> these criteria<br />
for determining zone boundaries, an earthquake fault zone designated by CDMG for a particular<br />
fault may be wider than the actual fault zone occupied by traces <strong>of</strong> the fault. Conversely, due to<br />
specific zoning criteria, mapped fault traces not shown to be sufficiently active or well-defined<br />
may not be included within the designated Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. Therefore, in<br />
some cases the actual zone <strong>of</strong> potential surface rupture may not be entirely included within the<br />
CDMG-designated earthquake fault zone.<br />
All but the extreme northeast corner <strong>of</strong> the Project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo<br />
earthquake fault zone designated for the Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg fault. California Geological<br />
Survey Special Publication 42 requires a site-specific fault study if a site is within an Alquist-Priolo<br />
zone. Due to its location within the earthquake fault zone, a number <strong>of</strong> site-specific fault studies<br />
have been performed within and adjacent to the site. Results <strong>of</strong> these studies are summarized<br />
below, without any new interpretations.<br />
• Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Map (CDMG, 1976). The 1976 Alquist-Priolo map prepared by<br />
CDMG depicted three northwest-trending fault traces located southwest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Lake north dam. The locations <strong>of</strong> these faults were largely drawn by compiling previously<br />
published maps with little, if any, field verification. Two fault traces are shown projecting<br />
through the Project site, one through the central portion and another through the southern<br />
portion.<br />
• TMI Property, Fountain Grove Ranch (Harding-Lawson Associates, 1980). Two fault traces were<br />
identified during the Fountain Grove Ranch <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (EIR) studies that<br />
project through or immediately adjacent to the Project site. One northwest-trending fault trace<br />
passes through the northern portion <strong>of</strong> the site, and a 50-foot building setback was<br />
recommended surrounding this fault trace. The second fault trace, considered to be the main<br />
active trace <strong>of</strong> the Healdsburgh-Rodgers Creek, was estimated to exist in the southernmost end<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project site with a northwest orientation. A building setback zone was provided in the<br />
EIR that encroaches into the Project site. The locations <strong>of</strong> these traces were estimates at the time<br />
and, appropriately, the EIR stated that additional investigation by trenching may modify the<br />
setback zones.<br />
• Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Map (July 1, 1983). The CGS updated the earthquake fault<br />
maps, and the modified data show that an active fault does not pass through either the<br />
northern nor southern portions <strong>of</strong> the Project site. The main fault trace was relocated in the<br />
1983 updated maps about 150 feet further southwest and outside the Project site.<br />
Stonefield Development (Moore & Taber, 1983). A geotechnical investigation was performed for a<br />
residential development south <strong>of</strong> the Project site. The investigation<br />
3-84 BAO\082970001
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
addition <strong>of</strong> material (surcharge) to the slope, application <strong>of</strong> foundation loads, or seismic<br />
loading. Slope shear strength can be reduced through erosion or removal <strong>of</strong> supporting<br />
material at the slope toe, increased pore water pressure within the slope, and weathering/<br />
decomposition <strong>of</strong> supporting soils. Zones <strong>of</strong> low shear strength within slopes are generally<br />
associated with the presence <strong>of</strong> certain clays, bedding, or fracture surfaces.<br />
Strong earthquakes <strong>of</strong>ten cause landslides, particularly in areas already susceptible to<br />
landslides due to other factors, including the presence <strong>of</strong> existing landslide deposits.<br />
Landslides are typically a major effect <strong>of</strong> ground shaking during earthquakes with<br />
magnitudes <strong>of</strong> 5 and greater, especially where earth materials are water-saturated. Failure <strong>of</strong><br />
steep slopes, collapse <strong>of</strong> natural-stream banks, and reactivation <strong>of</strong> existing landslides may<br />
occur widely during a major earthquake.<br />
There are numerous landslides depicted on published geologic and slope stability maps in<br />
the Project vicinity. The recent trenches excavated by Giblin (2007) encountered evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
landslides and slope instability <strong>of</strong> varying sizes and ages within the Project site. These<br />
landslides and soil instability were grouped into three categories, based mainly on the<br />
landslide age (Giblin, 2007):<br />
• An older bedrock displacement affecting much <strong>of</strong> the Project site. This displacement is<br />
likely to have occurred between 40,000 to 80,000 years before present, during seismic<br />
events. Because the displacement occurred tens <strong>of</strong> thousand <strong>of</strong> years ago and is relatively<br />
small, the potential for renewed movements is judged to be very low.<br />
• A 20- to 25-foot-thick landslide colluvial soil deposit in the swale near the north end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project site. This deposit, consisted <strong>of</strong> debris flow and pond sediment, and the underlying<br />
bedrock appear to be part <strong>of</strong> an ancient landslide movement. The potential for renewed<br />
movements is judged to be moderate.<br />
• Landslide deposits on the west-facing slopes adjacent to and east <strong>of</strong> Thomas Lake Harris<br />
Drive. These landslides are old, but they show evidence <strong>of</strong> recent movements (small open<br />
tension cracks). The potential for movements is judged to be high. Areas where heavy soil<br />
creep was suspected to be occurring were also observed during previous subsurface<br />
explorations, including the two drainage swales on the property. Maps and cross sectional<br />
drawings that show the landslide and soil instability areas are presented in Appendix L<br />
(Giblin, 2007).<br />
Dam Failure and Inundation<br />
The California Division <strong>of</strong> Safety <strong>of</strong> Dams has stated that it has no concerns regarding the<br />
seismic safety <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> dams using current seismic criteria (Giblin, 2006a).<br />
Earthquake-induced waves in lakes and bays are known as seiches. The size and behavior <strong>of</strong><br />
a seiche would depend on a number <strong>of</strong> factors, including the magnitude <strong>of</strong> the earthquake,<br />
the water depth, and the configuration <strong>of</strong> the water body and shoreline.<br />
Strong seismic shaking from an earthquake on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault may<br />
produce a seiche in <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lake. If a seiche were to occur, a number <strong>of</strong> factors suggest<br />
that the amount <strong>of</strong> water overtopping the dams would be limited:<br />
3-86 BAO\082970001
Reference: Giblin Associates, Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard <strong>Report</strong>, Plate 3, November 2007.<br />
ES032007014BAO_<strong>Fountaingrove</strong>_GeologyMap_082708_lho<br />
FIGURE 3.6-4<br />
LOCAL GEOLOGY MAP<br />
FOUNTAINGROVE LODGE PROJECT<br />
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-2: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> people or structures to loss, injury, or<br />
death due to strong ground shaking from local and regional seismic sources.<br />
Analysis: Significant<br />
Based on the activities <strong>of</strong> major regional seismic sources (Table 3.6-2), it is likely that the<br />
Project will be exposed to at least one moderate or greater earthquake located close enough<br />
to produce strong ground shaking at the Project site. The greatest potential for strong<br />
seismic ground shaking within the Project site comes from the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek<br />
Fault due to its close distance to the site.<br />
In the event <strong>of</strong> a maximum credible event on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault, the<br />
average estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration on a rock or shallow soil site within<br />
the Project vicinity range from approximately 0.4 to 0.9g, estimated using the Abrahamson<br />
and Silva (1997) and Idriss (1994) attenuation relationships. Because seismic waves attenuate<br />
with distance from their source, estimated bedrock accelerations are highest for portions <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project vicinity nearest to the fault zone and decrease with distance from the fault. Local<br />
soil conditions may amplify or dampen seismic waves as they travel from underlying<br />
bedrock to the ground surface.<br />
In addition to the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault, the Maacama, Hayward, and San<br />
Andreas Faults also present significant potential for strong ground shaking within the<br />
region. Fault data for potential seismic sources significant to the Project site are presented in<br />
Table 3.6-2.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Incorporate site-specific seismic analysis into Project design.<br />
The site-specific seismic analyses will be performed to identify the active and potentially<br />
active seismic sources that are capable <strong>of</strong> generating significant ground shaking at the<br />
Project site. Analysis may include response spectra, computer simulations, and finite<br />
element model. These findings will be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong> Project components<br />
prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the Improvement Plan. The project components will be designed in<br />
accordance with the applicable building codes (2007 California Building Code) and will<br />
satisfy the seismic performance criteria <strong>of</strong> their intended uses. Code requirements for<br />
structures located very near faults are more complex than the requirements for structures<br />
located outside this region. For structures located within the Project region, additional<br />
measures such as site-specific geotechnical and geological investigations and additional<br />
structural analysis and detailing are required. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong><br />
the project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-3: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> people or structures to loss, injury, or<br />
death due to slope instability, including landslides and slope creep.<br />
Analysis: Significant<br />
Slope instability, including landslides and slope creep, has the potential to undermine<br />
foundations, cause distortion and distress to overlying structures, and displace or destroy<br />
Project buildings and facilities. Creep is a common phenomenon that occurs to varying<br />
degrees on most hill slopes in Sonoma County. Such soil creep movements can impose<br />
BAO\082970001 3-91
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
lateral loads on foundations and contribute to differential settlement <strong>of</strong> slabs, walkways,<br />
roads, and other structures, and can result in tilting, lateral displacement, and/or more than<br />
normal cracking.<br />
A recent study by Giblin (2007) encountered evidence <strong>of</strong> landslides and slope instability <strong>of</strong><br />
varying sizes and ages within the Project site. Additional technical analysis performed by<br />
Giblin concluded that conventional grading techniques could satisfactorily improve site<br />
stability and that the corrective measures would generally be feasible from a geotechnical<br />
standpoint (Giblin, 2008b). A review <strong>of</strong> the Giblin analysis by Kleinfelder concluded that the<br />
BAO\082970001 3-91
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
analysis was acceptable for a preliminary evaluation and for assessing overall geotechnical<br />
feasibility <strong>of</strong> landslide mitigation and project development (Kleinfelder, 2008b).<br />
Supplemental recommendations for site preparation, grading and foundation design criteria<br />
should be provided based on the results <strong>of</strong> additional site exploration and analysis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
conditions encountered (Giblin, 2008b).<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Incorporate site-specific slope stability analysis into Project<br />
design.<br />
AdditionalThe site-specific investigations and analyses will be performed during final<br />
design by the Applicant. The investigations will include drilling soil borings and recovering<br />
soil samples within and outside the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the proposed development site. The<br />
investigation will also include identification and characterization <strong>of</strong> the horizontal and<br />
vertical (depth) extents <strong>of</strong> slope instability. The findings will be incorporated in the analyses<br />
that will evaluate slope stability, including landslides and soil creep, and various slope<br />
stability measures. Depending on the findings, slope stabilization measures may consist <strong>of</strong><br />
regrading slopes, providing surface and subsurface drainages, and constructing slope<br />
strengthening elements such as toe buttresses and secant walls. analyses will be performed<br />
and the findings <strong>of</strong> the analyses The results <strong>of</strong> these studies may limit the proposed<br />
development design, and they will be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong> Project components<br />
prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the Improvement Plan. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-4: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> people or structures to loss, injury, or<br />
death due to liquefaction and other forms <strong>of</strong> seismic-induced ground failure, including<br />
seismic slope instability and ground cracking.<br />
Analysis: Significant<br />
Seismic-induced ground failure has the potential to distress, displace, and/or destroy<br />
Project buildings and facilities. Portions <strong>of</strong> the Project site that are susceptible to slope<br />
instability hazards may also be susceptible to slope failure as a result <strong>of</strong> strong seismic<br />
ground shaking.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Incorporate the results <strong>of</strong> geologic and geotechnical<br />
investigations and site-specific seismic analysis into Project design.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> a design-level geologic and geotechnical investigations, site-specific seismic and<br />
geologic hazard analyses will be performed to collect data and to assess the potential for<br />
seismic-induced ground failure in soil and rock materials adjacent to and underlying Project<br />
components. The study will include assessments <strong>of</strong> seismic-induced geologic hazard<br />
potential at the Project site, such as liquefaction, slope failure during earthquakes, and loss<br />
<strong>of</strong> bearing capacity <strong>of</strong> foundation soils. If such potentially problematic soils and/or slopes<br />
are found, the effects <strong>of</strong> these seismic-induced geologic hazards to the performance <strong>of</strong><br />
Project components will be evaluated and incorporated into the design.<br />
Mitigation measures may include excavation <strong>of</strong> potentially liquefiable soils during<br />
construction and replacement with engineered backfill, in-situ ground-treatment (such as<br />
compaction grouting, deep soil mixing, and jet grouting) to prevent occurrence <strong>of</strong><br />
3-92 BAO\082970001
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
liquefaction and loss <strong>of</strong> soil bearing, construction <strong>of</strong> perimeter system to contain the<br />
problematic soils, and strengthening slopes using toe buttresses and secant walls. Potential<br />
slope failure within and outside the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the proposed development site that may<br />
impact Project components will be assessed. Portions <strong>of</strong> the Project site that are susceptible<br />
to slope instability hazards are likely to be susceptible to slope failure as a result <strong>of</strong> strong<br />
seismic ground shaking.<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> these studies may limit the proposed development design, and they will be<br />
incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong> Project components prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the Improvement<br />
Plan. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR<br />
may be required.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-5: The Project may include development on s<strong>of</strong>t, loose, expansive, and/or<br />
compressible soils that creates substantial risks to life or property.<br />
Analysis: Significant<br />
S<strong>of</strong>t or loose soils may affect support <strong>of</strong> structures and excavations. Shrink/swell, or<br />
expansive-soil, behavior is a condition in which soil reacts to changes in moisture content by<br />
expanding or contracting. Much <strong>of</strong> the existing fill identified within the Project site has high<br />
clay contents with moderate expansion potential. Expansive soils may cause differential and<br />
cyclical foundation movements that can cause damage and/or distress to overlying structures<br />
and equipment. Potential impacts from loose sands, s<strong>of</strong>t clays, and other potentially<br />
compressible soils include excessive settlement and low foundation-bearing capacity for<br />
Project buildings and facilities.<br />
3-92 BAO\082970001
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: Develop appropriate design features for locations where potential<br />
problems have been identified through design-level geotechnical investigations.<br />
Design-level geotechnical studies will be conducted to develop appropriate design features for<br />
locations where potential problems are known to exist. If potentially problematic soils are found,<br />
appropriate design measures may include excavation <strong>of</strong> potentially problematic such soils during<br />
construction and replacement with engineered backfill, ground-treatment processes, redirection <strong>of</strong><br />
surface water and drainage away from foundation soils, and the use <strong>of</strong> deeper foundations.<br />
Covering If expansive soils are found, covering them with a moisture-conforming and protecting<br />
blanket <strong>of</strong> approved onsite or imported materials <strong>of</strong> low expansion potential can also reduce<br />
shrink/swell behavior. Implementation <strong>of</strong> these standard engineering methods would reduce<br />
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-6: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> construction workers or equipment to loss,<br />
injury, or death due to excavation instability.<br />
Analysis: Significant<br />
Destabilization <strong>of</strong> natural or constructed slopes could occur as a result <strong>of</strong> construction activities.<br />
Excavation, grading, and fill operations could alter existing slope pr<strong>of</strong>iles and could result in the<br />
excavation <strong>of</strong> slope-supporting material, steepening <strong>of</strong> the slope, or increased loading. Excavation<br />
operations during construction <strong>of</strong> the Project could result in unstable excavation slopes, caving,<br />
and displacement <strong>of</strong> the adjacent ground surface. However, as discussed below, appropriate<br />
design features and construction procedures would be implemented to maintain stable slopes and<br />
excavations during construction.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-6: Evaluate subsurface conditions and analyze excavation and grading<br />
slopes for stability and incorporate recommendations into grading plans and construction<br />
operation activities.<br />
Temporary construction slopes and existing natural or constructed slopes impacted by<br />
construction operations will be evaluated for stability. In developing grading plans and<br />
construction procedures, the stability <strong>of</strong> both temporary and permanent cut, fill, and otherwise<br />
impacted slopes will be analyzed. Construction slopes and grading plans will be designed to limit<br />
the potential for slope instability, maintain adequate drainage <strong>of</strong> improved areas, and minimize<br />
the potential for erosion and flooding during construction. During construction, slopes affected by<br />
construction operations will be monitored and maintained in a stable condition. Construction<br />
activities likely to result in slope or excavation instability will be suspended during and<br />
immediately following periods <strong>of</strong> heavy precipitation when slopes are more susceptible to failure.<br />
Appropriate construction methods and procedures, in accordance with State and Federal health<br />
and safety codes, will be followed to protect the safety <strong>of</strong> workers and the public during trenching<br />
and excavation operations. A design-level geotechnical investigation will be performed to evaluate<br />
subsurface conditions, identify potential hazards, and provide information for development <strong>of</strong><br />
excavation plans and procedures. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then<br />
recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
BAO\082970001 3-93
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY<br />
3.6.4 References<br />
Abrahamson N., and Siva, W. 1997. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal<br />
earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, January.<br />
Blake, T.F Computer Services & S<strong>of</strong>tware. 2000. EQSEARCH.<br />
California Divisions <strong>of</strong> Mines & Geology (CDMG). 1976. Alquist-Priolo (AP) Special Studies Map.<br />
__________. 1992. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act <strong>of</strong><br />
1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps. California Division <strong>of</strong> Mines and Geology Special<br />
Publication 42, Revised 19921997. State <strong>of</strong> California, Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation.<br />
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard<br />
Maps. Prepared by T. Cao, W.A. Bryant, B. Rowshandel, D. Branum, and C.J. Willis.<br />
California Geological Survey. June.<br />
Cotton, Shires and Associates. 2005. Preliminary Geologic Hazard Evaluation for the Aegis Senior<br />
Retirement Community.<br />
Giblin Associates. 2006a. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Geologic Hazards: The Oaks, Phases 4 and 5. March 28, revised<br />
October 4.<br />
__________. 2006b Geotechnical Investigation: The Oaks, Phases 4 and 5. March 31, revised October 4.<br />
__________. 2007. Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>,<br />
California, volumes 1 and 2. December 7.<br />
__________. 2008a. Response to January 7, 2008 Peer Review Letter Regarding Slope Instability and<br />
Landslide Comments, Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge. Letter<br />
to <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. January 29.<br />
__________. 2008b. Preliminary Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Slope Stability, <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>,<br />
California. Letter report to Aegis Senior Living. March 26.<br />
Harding Lawson Associates. 1980. Geologic Evaluation in Support <strong>of</strong> an <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
for Development <strong>of</strong> the TMI Property at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch. Prepared for Teachers<br />
Management Investment Corporation, May 12.<br />
Idriss, I.M. 1994. Procedures for selecting earthquake ground motions at rock sites. <strong>Report</strong> prepared for<br />
the National Institute <strong>of</strong> Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.<br />
Joyce Associates. 2006. Review <strong>of</strong> Engineering Geologic Concerns for the Oaks Senior Living Project.<br />
Letter to Aegis Senior Living. September 12.<br />
Kleinfelder. 2008a. Peer Review – Investigation <strong>of</strong> Fault Surface Rupture Hazard – <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge.<br />
Letter <strong>Report</strong> to <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. January 7.<br />
3-94 BAO\082970001
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY<br />
Because the Project would increase impervious surfaces by more than 1 acre and result in<br />
development adjacent to a natural waterway, it would be required to follow the requirements<br />
outlined in the SUSMP. As required by the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Area SUSMP, the Project would include<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> a Storm Water Mitigation Plan to mitigate post-construction water quality impacts.<br />
The new storm drain system would incorporate a hydrodynamic stormwater separator as an<br />
end-<strong>of</strong>-line BMP. Run<strong>of</strong>f would flow through the separator before being discharged to the <strong>City</strong><br />
storm drain system. The separator would be capable <strong>of</strong> removing floatables, oils, and sediments<br />
from stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f. With incorporation <strong>of</strong> this and other post-construction BMPs, the Project<br />
would not result in a significant long-term water quality impact.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Comply with all applicable State and local regulations for stormwater<br />
management.<br />
As described above, compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s<br />
municipal stormwater NPDES permit, the grading ordinance, the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Area SUSMP, and the<br />
Storm Water Mitigation Plan will minimize any water quality impacts. Informational signage will<br />
be added along Project pathways located near the creek that describe the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the buffer<br />
area and establish appropriate restrictions.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-3: Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Project could affect groundwater recharge.<br />
Analysis: Less than significant<br />
As noted above, Project implementation will result in approximately 45.8 percent (4.51 acres) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
currently undeveloped site being converted to impervious surfaces. This could reduce the amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> water infiltrating into the ground and recharging groundwater. However, groundwater in the<br />
Project area is generally only within underlying fractured rock, and infiltration from the site does<br />
not contribute significantly to recharge <strong>of</strong> groundwater in this location. Effects on groundwater<br />
recharge from the Project would be minimal.<br />
Mitigation: No mitigation required<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-4: Seiche or dam failure at <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lake could result in inundation at the<br />
Project site.<br />
Analysis: Less than significant<br />
A seiche is an earthquake-induced wave that can form within an enclosed body <strong>of</strong> water. In the<br />
unlikely event <strong>of</strong> dam failure or a seiche during a major earthquake, water from <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Lake would flow into Piner Creek where it crosses the southern portion <strong>of</strong> the Project site and<br />
could potentially inundate this portion <strong>of</strong> the site. However, no buildings or facilities are proposed<br />
for the southern end <strong>of</strong> the site, which will be preserved as open space. For this reason, the impact<br />
<strong>of</strong> dam failure would not be significant. The Project will not modify or otherwise affect the<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lake dams.<br />
Mitigation: No mitigation required<br />
3-110 BAO\082970001
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING<br />
Pursuant to the FRPCD Policy Statement, development <strong>of</strong> up to 15 units per acre <strong>of</strong> single- and<br />
multi-family residential development is permissible on the Project parcels. The <strong>City</strong>’s General Plan<br />
designates the Project site as Low Density Residential, allowing for both single- and multi-family<br />
residential uses, up to 8 units per acre. General Plan Policy H-D-14 also allows for increased<br />
density regardless <strong>of</strong> land use designation as an incentive for senior and community care facility<br />
development. Although the calculated “density” <strong>of</strong> the Project is 15 units per acre and the Project<br />
would be consistent with the FRPCD Policy Statement, the Project is not subject to the land use<br />
density requirement. Community care facilities are not considered a residential land use and the<br />
land use density for the Project is not considered residential density. In addition, community care<br />
facilities are allowed in any land use designation and in any zoning district in the <strong>City</strong> through a<br />
Conditional Use Permit; therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning<br />
code (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 2002 and 2007). The Conditional Use Permit is required for community<br />
care facilities and for all development within the FRPCD to establish allowed uses, dimensional<br />
standards, landscape requirements, parking requirements, and other development standards.<br />
To prevent placing too many community care facilities in a given area, General Plan Policy<br />
LUL-E-3 requires the <strong>City</strong> to avoid the concentration <strong>of</strong> large community care facilities in any<br />
single residential neighborhood. In northeast <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, existing continuing care facilities include<br />
Brighton Gardens, Varenna, and Vineyard Commons. The Project is interspersed with these<br />
facilities by other land uses and is consistent with the guidance provided in Policy LUL-E-3.<br />
Project consistency with other specific General Plan policies is reviewed in Appendix C. To further<br />
support Project compatibility with the General Plan, FRPCD policies, and with surrounding land<br />
uses, the Project would be subject to consideration by the Design Review Board. Design Review is<br />
intended to ensure that the Project incorporates superior site and architectural design.<br />
Additionally, because the Project site includes land with slopes <strong>of</strong> 10 percent or more, the Project is<br />
subject to the <strong>City</strong>’s Hillside Development Standards, and would require a Hillside Development<br />
Permit. The issuance <strong>of</strong> a Hillside Development Permit requires that the <strong>City</strong>’s Planning<br />
Commission make a finding that the Project will minimize the impacts <strong>of</strong> hillside development<br />
and will meet <strong>City</strong> Design Guidelines. The Project’s satisfaction <strong>of</strong> Permit conditions and<br />
adherence to the applicable Design Guidelines would further support the Project’s compatibility<br />
with surrounding residential and recreational uses. No hilltop or ridgeline development is<br />
proposed as part <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />
Potential visual, noise, and traffic impacts from the Project are evaluated in Sections 3.1, 3.10, and<br />
3.13, respectively, <strong>of</strong> this Draft EIR, and would not interfere with adjacent land uses.<br />
In general, the Project is not expected to conflict with surrounding land uses, or to negatively affect<br />
the character <strong>of</strong> adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Project proposes a self-contained<br />
community care facility for seniors with varying medical needs and onsite employee housing to<br />
complement the facility. Progressive care needs <strong>of</strong> residents would be addressed by the proposed<br />
36-unit Care Facility by providing high- acuitysecurity assisted living and memory<br />
support/Alzheimer’s care. Other services, such as formal dining facilities, banking, and a fitness<br />
center, also would be available onsite to provide for residents’ recreational, social, and<br />
housekeeping needs. Additionally, transportation services would be<br />
3-120 BAO\082970001
3.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION<br />
Springs Road leads to Old Redwood Highway and to an interchange with U.S. 101. Only 15<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> Project traffic is projected to travel to or from north <strong>of</strong> the Project site on U.S. 101 and<br />
Old Redwood Highway combined (see Table 3.13-3). In addition, the routing using <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway to U.S. 101 and Old Redwood Highway is more direct than a Thomas Lake Harris<br />
Drive-Cross Creek Road-Mark West Springs Road routing (Crane Transportation Group, 2006).<br />
Therefore, only negligible levels <strong>of</strong> Project traffic would use Mark West Springs Road, and no<br />
measurable impact to operating conditions on Mark West Springs Road would occur.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Add a traffic signal on Thomas Lake Harris Drive.<br />
A three-legged signal shallwill be installed at Thomas Lake Harris (West) and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway. This traffic signal would alleviate the need for a westbound right-turn deceleration lane<br />
and an eastbound left-turn acceleration lane on Thomas Lake Harris Drive. In addition to the<br />
traffic signal, there will be a need to increase the radius <strong>of</strong> the curb return on the northeast<br />
quadrant <strong>of</strong> the intersection to improve the flow <strong>of</strong> the westbound to northbound right turn. The<br />
traffic signal would be interconnected (timed) with the existing traffic signals at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Round Barn Boulevard, as well as the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
Parkway and Altruria Drive. This would result in an improvement over the existing LOS.<br />
It is important to note that drivers using Thomas Lake Harris Drive also have the option <strong>of</strong> using<br />
the nearby Fir Ridge Drive intersection for signalized access to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway.<br />
After Mitigation: Less than significant<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-2: The Project would add traffic trips to U.S. 101, potentially resulting in a<br />
degradation <strong>of</strong> peak hour LOS below Sonoma County Congestion Management Authority LOS<br />
E.<br />
Analysis: Less than significant<br />
Based on the distribution patterns shown in Table 3.13-3, the Project would be expected to add<br />
traffic to U.S. 101 and its ramps, as shown in Table 3.13-6. The additional traffic is less than 0.2<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the capacity <strong>of</strong> the six-lane segment <strong>of</strong> freeway in central <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> now under<br />
construction. This is a negligible impact and would not affect the LOS on U.S. 101.<br />
Mitigation: No mitigation required<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-3: The Project could result in an increase in hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,<br />
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses.<br />
Analysis: Less than significant<br />
The posted speed limit on Thomas Lake Harris Drive near the Project site is 25 miles per hour.<br />
Based on criteria from the American Association <strong>of</strong> State Highways and Transportation Officials<br />
(Crane Transportation Group, 2006), the minimum required sight distance is 155 feet, which is<br />
lower than <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge’s driveway design (which ranges from 285 feet to 480 feet) on<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive.<br />
3-164 BAO\082970001
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing<br />
Program<br />
This Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program (MMRP) has been prepared as part <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (EIR). All EIR sections and impacts that have mitigation<br />
measures are listed in Table 4-1, along with specific implementation procedures to effect<br />
compliance. The MMRP describes monitoring actions, monitoring responsibilities, and<br />
monitoring schedules for each <strong>of</strong> the implementation procedures.<br />
BAO\082970001 4-1
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources<br />
N/A Project Development Plan and<br />
Landscape Plan.<br />
Prior to Final<br />
Design Review<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Revise and implement<br />
landscape plan to provide a natural-appearing<br />
landscape composition along the periphery <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.1-2: Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care Retirement<br />
Community - <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project (<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Project, or the Project)<br />
would degrade the existing visual character or quality <strong>of</strong> the Project site and its surroundings.<br />
To prevent the creation <strong>of</strong> the significant impacts related<br />
to the change in visual character <strong>of</strong> the views seen from<br />
KOP-1 and KOP-4, the Project landscape plan should be<br />
revised to change the plantings specified around the<br />
perimeter <strong>of</strong> the site. In all areas along the perimeter <strong>of</strong><br />
the site the landscape plan should be revised to first<br />
retain as many <strong>of</strong> the existing trees as feasible. In<br />
addition, the plan should be revised to eliminate exotic<br />
tree and shrub species and areas <strong>of</strong> irrigated nonnative<br />
ground covers. Instead, the planting plan should specify<br />
plantings <strong>of</strong> valley oaks and other native trees planted in<br />
a naturalistic composition that will appear to be a<br />
continuation <strong>of</strong> nearby native tree groupings and that will<br />
grow tall to provide maximum screening <strong>of</strong> the Project<br />
facilities from the adjacent streets and nearby residential<br />
and recreational areas. Elimination <strong>of</strong> irrigated nonnative<br />
ground covers and use <strong>of</strong> suitable native plants where<br />
ground cover is required will help to maintain the natural<br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> the site’s perimeter. This mitigation<br />
measure should be developed in conjunction with<br />
Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a (Replace trees in accordance<br />
with <strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 17-24-Trees and 17-24.050(c)(1)<br />
and (3)) and 3.4-1b (Use tree preservation notes on all<br />
improvement, grading and building plans).<br />
Determination <strong>of</strong> the Project’s impacts and potential significance was determined through a<br />
systematic evaluation <strong>of</strong> the changes that the Project would bring about in the visual<br />
character and quality <strong>of</strong> the views toward the Project site from each <strong>of</strong> the Key Observation<br />
Points (KOP). Only evaluations from KOPs with potentially significant impacts are described<br />
below.<br />
KOP-1, View from Thomas Lake Harris Drive Looking Northeastward Toward the<br />
Project Site. Comparison <strong>of</strong> the existing view from KOP-1 with the simulation <strong>of</strong> this view as<br />
it would appear after completion <strong>of</strong> the Project indicates that, with Project development, much<br />
<strong>of</strong> the natural vegetation on this portion <strong>of</strong> the Project site would be removed and the focus <strong>of</strong><br />
the view would be the three-story Flats Building. The sidewalk along the east side <strong>of</strong> Thomas<br />
Lake Harris Drive; the southern entrance onto the property; low stone retaining walls; and<br />
landscape grasses, shrubs, and trees would be visible in the foreground. A parking lot in front<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Flats Building would be screened by landscaping. The tree-covered ridgeline beyond<br />
the property would still be visible in the background.<br />
The character <strong>of</strong> this view would be substantially changed in that what is now an open view <strong>of</strong><br />
the undeveloped Project site and the golf course beyond will be transformed into a view in<br />
which the buildings, retaining walls, and landscaping dominate the foreground zone <strong>of</strong> the<br />
view and block the view to the golf course. The transformation <strong>of</strong> this view from open space<br />
to development would be a substantial degradation <strong>of</strong> the character <strong>of</strong> this view.<br />
With development <strong>of</strong> the Project, the visual quality <strong>of</strong> this view will change from moderately<br />
high to moderate. The blockage <strong>of</strong> the view toward the open areas, tree groupings, and rock<br />
outcrops in the golf course will lower the vividness <strong>of</strong> the view to moderate. The presence <strong>of</strong><br />
the visually dominant Project structures will intrude somewhat on the view, thereby lowering<br />
the view’s level <strong>of</strong> intactness to moderate. The view’s level <strong>of</strong> visual unity will remain the<br />
same. Although the composition <strong>of</strong> spaces now visible in the view would no longer be<br />
present, the complex that will dominate the view will have a consistent architectural design<br />
theme. Although there would be some change in the overall level <strong>of</strong> the visual quality <strong>of</strong> this<br />
view, this change would not be so great as to cause a substantial degradation <strong>of</strong> its visual<br />
quality.<br />
KOP-4, View from Lahinch Lane Looking South into the Project Site. Comparison <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing view from KOP-1 with the simulation <strong>of</strong> this view as it would appear after completion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project (Figure 3.1-7) indicates that, with Project development, the Care Center and<br />
Main Building will be visible on the northern end <strong>of</strong> the Project site. The trees that are now<br />
visible in this area will be removed and will be replaced with buildings. However, because the<br />
ro<strong>of</strong>line <strong>of</strong> the Main Building is lower than the tops <strong>of</strong> the trees in the background, a tree line<br />
will still be visible behind the building. In addition, trees planted along the northern edge <strong>of</strong><br />
the site will partially screen the structures and integrate them into the view. The low Care<br />
Center building will create a scalar transition between the residential neighborhood and the<br />
Main Building, The visual character <strong>of</strong> this view will be substantially changed in that what is<br />
now a partially developed suburban view will become more substantially developed and the<br />
tree grove, an important visual element, will be removed. This transformation <strong>of</strong> this view<br />
would constitute a substantial adverse degradation <strong>of</strong> the character <strong>of</strong> this view.<br />
With development <strong>of</strong> the Project, the visual quality <strong>of</strong> this view will change from moderately<br />
high to moderate. The removal <strong>of</strong> the tree grove that is now a striking element <strong>of</strong> this view will<br />
lower the vividness <strong>of</strong> the view to moderate. Although the Project structures will be partially<br />
screened, they will intrude on the view to some degree, reducing its level <strong>of</strong> intactness. Given<br />
the massing <strong>of</strong> the buildings that creates a good scalar transition, the preservation <strong>of</strong> the view<br />
<strong>of</strong> the tree line in the background, and the partial screening, the view’s level <strong>of</strong> visual unity will<br />
not change substantially. Although there would be some change in the overall level <strong>of</strong> the<br />
visual quality <strong>of</strong> this view, this change would not be so great as to cause a substantial<br />
degradation <strong>of</strong> this view’s visual quality.<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-3
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
N/A Outdoor Lighting Plan.<br />
Prior to Final<br />
Design Review<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Conform to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the<br />
Principles <strong>of</strong> Low-impact Lighting Design.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.1-3: Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Project would result in new sources <strong>of</strong> light or glare.<br />
To minimize the potential impacts <strong>of</strong> the lighting<br />
associated with the Project, the Project’s outdoor lighting<br />
plan should be reviewed for strict conformance with the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s (<strong>City</strong>) lighting design guidelines and<br />
the principles <strong>of</strong> low-impact lighting design. Outdoor<br />
lighting should be restricted to areas where it is essential<br />
for safety and security. The light levels specified should<br />
be no more than what is needed to meet safety and<br />
security requirements. Light fixtures that eliminate<br />
uplighting and that are shielded to prevent light spill<br />
should be used to direct lighting to only those areas<br />
where it is required. Automatic and/or manual switches<br />
should be installed to assure that lights are kept on only<br />
when required.<br />
The Project would add new sources <strong>of</strong> nighttime security lighting along driveways, in outdoor<br />
parking lots, and near building entrances. The presence <strong>of</strong> this lighting on a site that now<br />
does not contain any substantial sources <strong>of</strong> nighttime illumination has the potential to<br />
substantially affect nighttime views in the area. To some degree, the building massing and<br />
the trees retained and planted on the site will attenuate these effects, but if unshielded and<br />
poorly directed, the light fixtures could cause <strong>of</strong>fsite light impacts.<br />
During the daytime, sunlight reflecting <strong>of</strong>f windows and cars could produce glare, but these<br />
effects would be attenuated by the landscaping proposed for the site and would not<br />
substantially affect daytime views.<br />
3.3 Air Quality<br />
N/A Specifications.<br />
During<br />
construction<br />
Project Applicant<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Implement Construction<br />
Control Measures for PM10.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.3-2: The Project could contribute to violation <strong>of</strong> an air quality standard.<br />
Construction Contract.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
These control measures are based on the BAAQMD<br />
CEQA Guidelines for reducing PM10 emissions during<br />
construction.<br />
The following discussion provides further explanation <strong>of</strong> the construction and operation<br />
emissions for the Project.<br />
Basic Control Measures. The following control<br />
measures shall be implemented at all construction sites:<br />
Short-term Construction Emissions (PM10). Construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the Project<br />
would result in emissions <strong>of</strong> PM10. During construction, PM10 emissions from construction<br />
activities would be mitigated using the control measures set forth in the Bay Area Air Quality<br />
Management District’s (BAAQMD) California <strong>Environmental</strong> Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines<br />
as described in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2.<br />
• Water active construction areas at least twice daily.<br />
• Cover trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose<br />
materials or require trucks to maintain at least 2 feet<br />
<strong>of</strong> free board.<br />
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply<br />
(nontoxic) soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads,<br />
parking areas, and staging areas at construction<br />
sites.<br />
• Sweep (with water sweepers) paved access roads,<br />
parking areas, and staging areas at construction<br />
sites daily.<br />
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible<br />
soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.<br />
• Hydroseed or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers to<br />
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas<br />
inactive for 10 days or more).<br />
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (nontoxic)<br />
soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand).<br />
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles<br />
per hour (mph).<br />
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures<br />
to prevent silt run<strong>of</strong>f to public roadways.<br />
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as<br />
possible.<br />
• Install wheel washers for existing trucks, or wash <strong>of</strong>f<br />
the tires or tracks <strong>of</strong> trucks and equipment leaving<br />
the site.<br />
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when<br />
winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.<br />
Short-term Construction Emissions. The BAAQMD emphasizes implementation <strong>of</strong><br />
effective control measures rather than detailed quantification <strong>of</strong> construction emissions<br />
(BAAQMD, 1999). Particulate matter (PM10) emissions during construction would result from<br />
activities such as soil disturbance, travel on unpaved roads, and mobile source exhaust<br />
emissions. During construction, PM10 emissions from construction activities would be<br />
mitigated using the control measures set forth in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as<br />
described in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and<br />
heavy-duty diesel trucks used to construct the Project would result in short-term emissions <strong>of</strong><br />
ozone precursors (nitrogen oxide [NOx] and reactive organic gas [ROG]).Construction<br />
equipment emissions (NOX and ROG) are included in the emissions inventory that is the<br />
basis for the regional air quality plans and are not expected to impede attainment or<br />
maintenance <strong>of</strong> the ozone standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 1999). Therefore, with<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 to address PM10, short-term air quality impacts from construction <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project would be less than significant.<br />
4-4 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
3.4 Biological Resources<br />
N/A Tree Replacement Plan.<br />
Before issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> a grading<br />
permit or<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement<br />
Plan.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Replace trees in<br />
accordance with <strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 17-24-Trees and<br />
17-24.050(c)(1) and (3).<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-1: Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Project would result in the loss <strong>of</strong> protected and heritage<br />
valley oaks and other native trees.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Recreation and<br />
Parks<br />
Trees impacted by the Project would be replaced in<br />
accordance with <strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 17-24 – Trees (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, 2007b), which requires replacement <strong>of</strong> two<br />
15-gallon trees for each 6 inches, or fraction there<strong>of</strong>, <strong>of</strong><br />
trunk diameter <strong>of</strong> a tree to be removed. This replacement<br />
ratio is subject to approval by the <strong>City</strong>, where the ratio<br />
may be modified to require a greater number <strong>of</strong> smaller<br />
trees or, conversely, fewer numbers <strong>of</strong> a larger size (<strong>City</strong><br />
Code Chapter 17-24.050(c)(1)). Based on this<br />
replacement ratio, 2,107 mitigation replacement trees<br />
would be anticipated for replacement onsite. For existing<br />
trees over 4 inches in girth to be removed, two 15-gallon<br />
minimum-size trees shall be planted for 6 inches, or<br />
fraction there<strong>of</strong>, <strong>of</strong> existing tree girth. Fruit trees to be<br />
removed do not require mitigation. Native trees shall be<br />
replaced with native tree species. Nonnative trees may be<br />
replaced by either native or nonnative tree species. Trees<br />
shall be replaced onsite where feasible, <strong>of</strong>fsite when<br />
approved by the Department <strong>of</strong> Recreation and Parks, or<br />
by payment <strong>of</strong> cash in-lieu <strong>of</strong> tree replacement, as<br />
allowed by <strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 17-24.<br />
Of the 513 trees located in the Study Area, approximately 338 trees (66 percent) are<br />
proposed to be removed during construction <strong>of</strong> the Project, and approximately 175<br />
(34 percent) would be preserved. The trees to be removed include 78 valley oaks, 138 coast<br />
live oaks, 24 blue oaks, 75 black oaks, 11 California bays, and one madrone under protection<br />
by the <strong>City</strong>, including approximately 120 native heritage trees (Landesign Group, 2006), as<br />
defined by the <strong>City</strong>’s Municipal Code Title 17. In addition, 11 nonnative trees will be removed.<br />
Loss <strong>of</strong> valley oaks and other native trees is a potentially significant impact, although the<br />
project will be designed to minimize tree loss. However, with implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation<br />
described below, potential impacts to oak trees and other native trees would be less than<br />
significant.<br />
Before the issuance <strong>of</strong> a grading permit, a tree<br />
replacement plan shall be submitted to and approved by<br />
the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Community Development.<br />
The plan shall indicate the number <strong>of</strong> trees to be<br />
removed, the number <strong>of</strong> required replacement trees by<br />
native or nonnative species, and the onsite location <strong>of</strong> the<br />
replacement trees or payment <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> tree<br />
replacement as allowed by <strong>City</strong> Code Chapter 17-24. It<br />
will also include success criteria for replacement tree<br />
survival and the triggers for replanting.<br />
N/A Improvement Plans.<br />
Grading Plans.<br />
Prior to issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> a grading<br />
permit, approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement<br />
Plan, and<br />
issuance <strong>of</strong><br />
Building Permits.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Use tree preservation<br />
notes on all improvement, grading and building<br />
plans.<br />
Building Plans.<br />
To protect trees that will not be removed as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project, the following tree preservation notes shall be on<br />
all improvement plans, grading plans, and building plans:<br />
“Obtain a copy <strong>of</strong> and follow the guidelines contained in<br />
the General Tree Preservation Guidelines by Horticultural<br />
Associates. Contact Horticultural Associates at (707)<br />
935-3911 or Department <strong>of</strong> Community Development at<br />
(707) 543-3258 for a copy <strong>of</strong> the Guidelines.” All Trees to<br />
be preserved and trees to be removed shall be shown on<br />
improvement plans, grading plans, and building plans.<br />
N/A Project plans and specifications.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c: Require application <strong>of</strong><br />
Best Management Practices during construction.<br />
Construction drawings, which will<br />
accurately locate areas to be avoided<br />
such as tree trunks and root protection<br />
zones.<br />
Prior to issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> a grading<br />
permit, approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement<br />
Plan, and<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development.<br />
issuance <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
The <strong>City</strong> will require the application <strong>of</strong> Best Management<br />
Practices (BMPs) during construction to reduce impacts<br />
to valley oaks. The trees that shall be avoided and<br />
protected during construction include any isolated oak<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-5
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
Building Permits.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
MMRP sign<strong>of</strong>f on the fencing <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong><br />
sensitive trees’ root-protection zone.<br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> Public<br />
Works<br />
Department<br />
tree that has a diameter <strong>of</strong> 6 inches or greater, as<br />
measured 4.5 feet above the ground.<br />
Project plans designating construction<br />
staging areas and prohibition <strong>of</strong><br />
parking, loading, and grading during<br />
construction activities within root zones<br />
<strong>of</strong> trees.<br />
Prior to<br />
commencement<br />
<strong>of</strong> any onsite or<br />
<strong>of</strong>fsite<br />
construction<br />
activities.<br />
BMPs shall be included in the plans and specifications for<br />
the Project. These shall be reviewed in pre-construction<br />
meetings with <strong>City</strong> staff, the <strong>City</strong>’s contractor, and<br />
qualified biologists and shall, at a minimum, include the<br />
following provisions:<br />
Meeting Minutes from<br />
<strong>City</strong>/biologist/contractor meeting to<br />
review BMPs.<br />
MMRP sign-<strong>of</strong>f on routing drainage<br />
swales and underground work outside<br />
the dripline where possible.<br />
MMRP sign-<strong>of</strong>f on the placement <strong>of</strong> a<br />
4-inch layer <strong>of</strong> chipped bark mulch over<br />
the soil surface within the fenced<br />
dripline.<br />
MMRP sign-<strong>of</strong>f on pruning to clean and<br />
raise canopy per International Society<br />
<strong>of</strong> Arboriculture pruning standards, if<br />
necessary.<br />
Root protection zone maps,<br />
accompanied by documentation <strong>of</strong><br />
other specific measures.<br />
• Construction drawings shall accurately locate areas<br />
to be avoided such as tree trunks and root<br />
protection zones.<br />
• Before construction, the root-protection zone<br />
(1.5 times the canopy area) <strong>of</strong> sensitive trees shall<br />
be fenced using wire mesh fencing.<br />
• Construction staging areas shall be designated on<br />
plans and prohibit parking, loading, and grading<br />
during construction activities within root zones <strong>of</strong><br />
trees.<br />
• A pre-construction meeting conference shall be held<br />
with contractors to review BMPs and require<br />
bonding and fines to secure the replacement <strong>of</strong><br />
inadvertently damaged trees.<br />
• Existing grade shall be maintained within the fenced<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the dripline. Drainage swales and<br />
underground work shall be routed outside the<br />
dripline where possible.<br />
• A 4-inch layer <strong>of</strong> chipped bark mulch shall be placed<br />
over the soil surface within the fenced dripline prior<br />
to installing temporary fencing. Suitable mulch must<br />
contain bark “fines.” This layer <strong>of</strong> mulch shall be<br />
maintained throughout construction.<br />
• If pruning is necessary, pruning shall be done to<br />
clean and raise canopy per International Society <strong>of</strong><br />
Arboriculture pruning standards.<br />
• A tree specialist shall be consulted during design to<br />
accurately locate root protection zones and identify<br />
other specific measures that would limit potential<br />
indirect impacts on trees that may be encroached<br />
upon.<br />
• A drainage plan shall be designed that will avoid oak<br />
trees to be preserved.<br />
Project drainage plan.<br />
Construction schedule.<br />
California Fish and Game<br />
Code.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Provide protection <strong>of</strong><br />
nesting raptors, migratory birds, and nesting<br />
non-special-status birds.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-3: The Project would result in the loss <strong>of</strong> raptor and migratory bird nesting habitat<br />
and could result in impacts to nesting non-special-status birds.<br />
Avian Species Survey <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
Prior to<br />
commencement<br />
<strong>of</strong> any onsite<br />
construction<br />
activities.<br />
Several measures would be implemented to minimize<br />
impacts to nesting raptors, migratory birds, and nesting<br />
non-special-status birds:<br />
Qualified<br />
Biologist<br />
• To avoid impacts to nesting avian species, Project<br />
activity shall be avoided to the degree feasible<br />
during the breeding season (generally, March 1<br />
through September 15).<br />
• If avoidance <strong>of</strong> Project activity during the nesting<br />
season is not feasible, pre-construction surveys for<br />
avian species shall be conducted by a qualified<br />
biologist to identify active nests within or adjacent to<br />
the project site. To the extent feasible, avoidance or<br />
mitigation guidelines from U. S. Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service (USFWS), California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish<br />
4-6 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001<br />
The Project would result in the loss <strong>of</strong> individual trees potentially used for nesting by raptors<br />
and migratory birds. In addition, suitable nesting habitat for many other non-special-status<br />
bird species is present, and construction activities in the Project site may affect these<br />
species. Disturbance <strong>of</strong> nest sites could result in abandonment <strong>of</strong> eggs or young or actual<br />
destruction <strong>of</strong> nests. These impacts are potentially significant. However, most birds such as<br />
observed on the Project site have large home ranges, and existing adjacent habitat could<br />
provide alternative habitat during Project construction.
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
and Game (CDFG), and the qualified biologist will<br />
provide timing, methodology, and species-specific<br />
protocols to be followed.<br />
• If no nesting raptors or migratory birds are found in<br />
the survey area, no further mitigation is necessary.<br />
• If active nests are found, impacts shall be avoided<br />
by establishment <strong>of</strong> appropriate buffers, determined<br />
through coordination with CDFG or USFWS, as<br />
appropriate. No Project activity shall commence<br />
within the buffer area until a qualified biologist<br />
confirms that there is no longer active nesting<br />
activity or other mitigation and avoidance measures<br />
are authorized by USFWS or CDFG. Buffers may be<br />
adjusted if it is determined by a qualified biologist (in<br />
coordination with USFWS and/or CDFG) that it<br />
would not be likely to adversely affect the nest.<br />
Monitoring <strong>of</strong> the nest by a qualified biologist may be<br />
required if the activity could adversely affect the site.<br />
• To minimize the potential for birds to nest in the<br />
construction area, nest searches may be conducted,<br />
and tree removal and other vegetation removal may<br />
be performed without special regulatory approval<br />
between September 1 and February 1. This shall be<br />
noted on improvement plans, grading plans, and<br />
building plans.<br />
N/A Construction schedule.<br />
Mitigation 3.4-4: Provide protection for roosting and<br />
maternity colonies for special-status bat species.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-4: Project construction activities could result in impacts to roosting and maternity<br />
colonies <strong>of</strong> special-status bat species.<br />
Pre-construction survey report,<br />
including habitat assessment.<br />
Prior to<br />
commencement<br />
<strong>of</strong> any on-site<br />
construction<br />
activities.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development.<br />
Revised construction specifications.<br />
Qualified<br />
Biologist<br />
To avoid impacts to bat species, tree removal should be<br />
performed at appropriate times <strong>of</strong> the year. If trees must<br />
be removed outside <strong>of</strong> this time, a pre-construction survey<br />
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify all<br />
roosts. A 50-foot buffer zone shall be established around<br />
each snag or tree until the roosting period is over.<br />
Resident and migratory bat species may be located near the Project site during construction.<br />
These species are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbance <strong>of</strong> roost<br />
trees could result in significant disturbance or destruction <strong>of</strong> roosts or maternity colonies. This<br />
would be a potentially significant impact. However, existing adjacent habitat could provide<br />
alternate habitat during Project construction. Implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures<br />
described below would further reduce this impact.<br />
A habitat assessment <strong>of</strong> each tree slated for removal shall<br />
be conducted to determine its potential for use by bats. If<br />
potential habitat exists in a tree, specific<br />
recommendations shall be made for that tree (such as<br />
selective removal <strong>of</strong> limbs or seasonal timing).<br />
Recommendations shall be incorporated into construction<br />
specifications.<br />
N/A Western pond turtle pre-construction<br />
survey report.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: Provide protection for<br />
western and northwestern pond turtle during<br />
construction.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.4-5: Project construction activities could result in impacts to western or<br />
northwestern pond turtle.<br />
MMRP sign<strong>of</strong>f that construction zone<br />
limits, have been visibly established<br />
along the Project boundary near Piner<br />
Creek.<br />
Prior to<br />
commencement<br />
<strong>of</strong> any onsite<br />
construction<br />
activities.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Qualified<br />
Biologist<br />
Design plans and specifications revised<br />
to establish protocol if turtles are found<br />
in construction zone.<br />
During all onand<br />
<strong>of</strong>fsite<br />
construction<br />
activities.<br />
Pre-construction surveys for the western pond turtle<br />
(including northwestern pond turtle) shall be implemented.<br />
Individual western pond turtles found within the Project<br />
site during pre-construction surveys shall be relocated by<br />
a qualified biologist. Construction zone limits along the<br />
Project boundary near Piner Creek channel banks shall<br />
be set up using silt fencing that is keyed into the ground<br />
by burying the bottom <strong>of</strong> the fence. The fencing will<br />
restrict access by turtles, keeping them out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
construction area and indicating the construction area<br />
boundaries to construction workers. Signage shall also be<br />
placed indicating that the Piner Creek channel area is<br />
protected and not accessible for construction equipment<br />
and materials. Any turtle found in the construction area<br />
Although habitat for western pond turtle (including northwestern pond turtle) is limited to the<br />
southern portion <strong>of</strong> the Study Area along Piner Creek and no direct impacts to the creek<br />
would occur as a result <strong>of</strong> Project construction, impacts to western pond turtle during<br />
construction could occur from sediments and construction debris indirectly entering Piner<br />
Creek should the western pond turtle be present. In addition, the western pond turtle could<br />
potentially migrate to the Project site during construction and be inadvertently affected. These<br />
impacts could be potentially significant. However, with implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation described<br />
below, potential impacts would be less than significant.<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-7
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
during construction shall be relocated by a qualified<br />
biologist outside the construction zone limits. This<br />
mitigation requirement shall be noted on improvement<br />
plans, grading plans, and building plans.<br />
N/A Project plans to include biological<br />
monitor provision.<br />
During<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
design plans.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b: Perform onsite monitoring<br />
during construction.<br />
Daily logs and monthly compliance<br />
reports.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
During<br />
construction to<br />
the satisfaction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development.<br />
Qualified<br />
Biologist<br />
Biological monitors shall be employed to monitor and/or<br />
implement construction mitigation measures and to report<br />
on compliance with mitigation measures by contractors.<br />
Biological monitors shall be qualified to conduct the<br />
mitigation activities described herein as well as additional<br />
mitigation that may be required in project permits. <strong>Report</strong>s<br />
on noncompliance with environmental requirements may<br />
result in temporary halting <strong>of</strong> construction activity to<br />
examine the noncompliance and prevent further resource<br />
damage. Biological monitors shall:<br />
• Provide worker environmental awareness training<br />
for all construction personnel that identifies sensitive<br />
biological resources that may occur in or adjacent to<br />
construction areas and that addresses measures<br />
required to minimize Project impacts during<br />
construction and operation.<br />
• Designate a setback from the creek in the Project<br />
plans. This setback will be identified by orange<br />
construction fencing installed before construction<br />
activities onsite. A biological monitor will monitor the<br />
installation <strong>of</strong> the construction fencing.<br />
• Be present onsite during initial construction activities<br />
to identify sensitive resources.<br />
• Monitor mitigation construction near sensitive<br />
habitats and resources.<br />
• Prohibit ground disturbance until sensitive areas are<br />
cleared.<br />
• Be present during open trench work construction<br />
activities that require special attention in sensitive<br />
areas.<br />
Prepare construction monitoring and compliance reports<br />
that analyze the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures.<br />
3.5 Cultural Resources<br />
Project plans and specifications revised<br />
to include provisions for archaeological<br />
remains discovery.<br />
California Public<br />
Resources Code<br />
Sections 5024.1, 7050.5,<br />
and 5097.94.<br />
During<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
plans and<br />
specification.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a: Protect historic or<br />
archaeological resources discovered during<br />
construction.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.5-1: Construction <strong>of</strong> the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the<br />
significance <strong>of</strong> an unknown historic or archaeological resource or disturb human remains.<br />
Daily logs and monthly compliance<br />
reports.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
During<br />
construction.<br />
Archaeological<br />
Monitor<br />
If archaeological remains are uncovered during<br />
construction activities, work onsite shall be halted<br />
immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate<br />
the finds. Project personnel shall not alter any <strong>of</strong> the<br />
uncovered materials or their context. If resources are<br />
encountered, the Project applicant, in consultation with a<br />
qualified archaeologist, shall prepare a resource<br />
inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan and shall<br />
submit it to the <strong>City</strong> for review and approval prior to the<br />
continuation <strong>of</strong> construction activities. Prehistoric<br />
archaeological site indicators include obsidian and chert<br />
flakes and chipped stone tools, grinding and mashing<br />
Because a high potential exists for cultural resources to occur given the site conditions,<br />
potential impacts could occur to unknown subsurface cultural resources during construction.<br />
With implementation <strong>of</strong> Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b, potential impacts to cultural<br />
resources would be less than significant.<br />
implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, mortars and<br />
4-8 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
pestles), and locally darkened midden soil. Midden soil<br />
may contain a combination <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the previously listed<br />
items, with the possible addition <strong>of</strong> bone and shell<br />
remains and fire-affected stones. Historic period site<br />
indicators generally include fragments <strong>of</strong> glass, ceramic<br />
and metal objects, milled and split lumber, and structure<br />
and feature remains such as building foundations and<br />
discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).<br />
N/A Finding Notification.<br />
During<br />
construction.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b: Protect human remains<br />
discovered during construction.<br />
Construction<br />
Contractor<br />
If human remains are encountered during Project<br />
construction, excavation or disturbance <strong>of</strong> the location<br />
shall be halted immediately, and the county coroner will<br />
be contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are<br />
Native American, the coroner will contact the Native<br />
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will<br />
identify the person or persons believed to be most likely<br />
descended from the deceased Native American, and the<br />
most likely descendent shall make recommendations<br />
regarding the treatment <strong>of</strong> the remains.<br />
3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity<br />
N/A Seismic Analysis <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
During the<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Incorporate site-specific<br />
seismic analysis into Project design.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-2: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> people or structures to loss, injury, or<br />
death due to strong ground shaking from local and regional seismic sources.<br />
Revised plans and specifications.<br />
Prior tothe<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement<br />
Plan.<br />
Project Applicant<br />
The site-specific seismic analyses shall be performed to<br />
evaluate seismic ground motions, including peak ground<br />
acceleration, that can be expected to occur at the Project<br />
site. These findings will be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong><br />
Project components prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the Improvement<br />
Plan. The project components will be designed in<br />
accordance with the applicable building codes (2007<br />
California Building Code) and will satisfy the seismic<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> their intended uses. Code<br />
requirements for structures located very near faults are<br />
more complex than the requirements for structures<br />
located outside this region. For structures located within<br />
the Project region, additional measures such as sitespecific<br />
geotechnical and geological investigations and<br />
additional structural analysis and detailing are required. If<br />
the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the project,<br />
then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
Based on the activities <strong>of</strong> major regional seismic sources, it is likely that the Project will be<br />
exposed to at least one moderate or greater earthquake located close enough to produce<br />
strong ground shaking at the Project site. The greatest potential for strong seismic ground<br />
shaking within the Project site comes from the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault due to its<br />
close distance to the site.<br />
Prior to issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> building<br />
permits.<br />
In the event <strong>of</strong> a maximum credible event on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault, the<br />
average estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration on a rock or shallow soil site within<br />
the Project vicinity range from approximately 0.4 to 0.9 g-force (g), estimated using the<br />
Abrahamson and Silva (1997) and Idriss (1994) attenuation relationships. Because seismic<br />
waves attenuate with distance from their source, estimated bedrock accelerations are highest<br />
for portions <strong>of</strong> the Project vicinity nearest to the fault zone and decrease with distance from<br />
the fault. Local soil conditions may amplify or dampen seismic waves as they travel from<br />
underlying bedrock to the ground surface.<br />
In addition to the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault, the Maacama, Hayward, and San<br />
Andreas Faults also present significant potential for strong ground shaking within the region.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-3: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> people or structures to loss, injury, or Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Incorporate site-specific <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> During<br />
N/A Slope Stability Analysis <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
death due to slope instability, including landslides and slope creep.<br />
slope stability analysis into Project design.<br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> plans and<br />
Revised plans and specifications.<br />
Slope instability, including landslides and slope creep, has the potential to undermine<br />
Additional site-specific investigations and analyses will be Community specifications.<br />
foundations, cause distortion and distress to overlying structures, and displace or destroy performed during final design by the Applicant. The Development<br />
Project buildings and facilities. Creep is a common phenomenon that occurs to varying investigations will include drilling soil borings and<br />
Prior to the<br />
degrees on most hill slopes in Sonoma County. Such soil creep movements can impose recovering soil samples within and outside the boundaries Project Applicant approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />
lateral loads on foundations and contribute to differential settlement <strong>of</strong> slabs, walkways, <strong>of</strong> the proposed development site. The investigation will<br />
Improvement<br />
roads, and other structures, and can result in tilting, lateral displacement, and/or more than also include identification and characterization <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Plan.<br />
normal cracking.<br />
horizontal and vertical (depth) extents <strong>of</strong> slope instability.<br />
The findings will be incorporated in the analyses that will<br />
Prior to issuance<br />
A recent study by Giblin encountered evidence <strong>of</strong> landslides and slope instability <strong>of</strong> varying evaluate slope stability, including landslides and soil<br />
<strong>of</strong> building<br />
sizes and ages within the Project site. Additional technical analysis performed by Giblin creep, and various slope stability measures. Depending<br />
permits.<br />
concluded that conventional grading techniques could satisfactorily improve site stability and on the findings, slope stabilization measures may consist<br />
that the corrective measures would generally be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. A<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-9
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
<strong>of</strong> regrading slopes, providing surface and subsurface<br />
drainages, and constructing slope strengthening elements<br />
such as toe buttresses and secant walls. The results <strong>of</strong><br />
these studies may limit the proposed development<br />
design, and they will be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong><br />
Project components prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the Improvement<br />
Plan. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
review <strong>of</strong> the Giblin analysis by Kleinfelder concluded that the analysis was acceptable for a<br />
preliminary evaluation and for assessing overall geotechnical feasibility <strong>of</strong> landslide mitigation<br />
and project development. Supplemental recommendations for site preparation, grading and<br />
foundation design criteria should be provided based on the results <strong>of</strong> additional site<br />
exploration and analysis <strong>of</strong> the conditions encountered.<br />
N/A Design-level Geologic and Geotechnical<br />
Investigation <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
During<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Incorporate the results <strong>of</strong><br />
geologic and geotechnical investigations and<br />
site-specific seismic analysis into Project design.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-4: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> people or structures to loss, injury, or<br />
death due to liquefaction and other forms <strong>of</strong> seismic-induced ground failure, including seismic<br />
slope instability and ground cracking.<br />
Revised plans and specifications.<br />
Prior to approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement<br />
Plan.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> a design-level geologic and geotechnical<br />
investigations, site-specific seismic and geologic hazard<br />
analyses will be performed to collect data and to assess<br />
the potential for seismic-induced ground failure in soil and<br />
rock materials adjacent to and underlying Project<br />
components. The study will include assessments <strong>of</strong><br />
seismic-induced geologic hazard potential at the project<br />
site, such as liquefaction, slope failure during<br />
earthquakes, and loss <strong>of</strong> bearing capacity <strong>of</strong> foundation<br />
soils. If such potentially problematic soils and/or slopes<br />
are found, the effects <strong>of</strong> these seismic-induced geologic<br />
hazards to the performance <strong>of</strong> Project components will be<br />
evaluated and incorporated into the design.<br />
Seismic-induced ground failure has the potential to distress, displace, and/or destroy Project<br />
buildings and facilities. Portions <strong>of</strong> the Project site that are susceptible to slope instability<br />
hazards may also be susceptible to slope failure as a result <strong>of</strong> strong seismic ground shaking.<br />
Prior to issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> building<br />
permits.<br />
Mitigation measures may include excavation <strong>of</strong> potentially<br />
liquefiable soils during construction and replacement with<br />
engineered backfill, in situ ground treatment (such as<br />
compaction grouting, deep soil mixing, and jet grouting) to<br />
prevent occurrence <strong>of</strong> liquefaction and loss <strong>of</strong> soil<br />
bearing, construction <strong>of</strong> perimeter system to contain the<br />
problematic soils, and strengthening slopes using toe<br />
buttresses and secant walls. Potential slope failure within<br />
and outside the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the proposed development<br />
site that may impact Project components will be<br />
assessed. Portions <strong>of</strong> the Project site that are susceptible<br />
to slope instability hazards are likely to be susceptible to<br />
slope failure as a result <strong>of</strong> strong seismic ground shaking.<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> these studies may limit the proposed<br />
development design, and they will be incorporated into<br />
the design <strong>of</strong> Project components prior to approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement Plan. If the studies result in a significant<br />
redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may<br />
be required.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-5: The Project may include development on s<strong>of</strong>t, loose, expansive, and/or Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: Develop appropriate design <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> During<br />
N/A Design-level Geologic and Geotechnical<br />
compressible soils that creates substantial risks to life or property.<br />
features for locations where potential problems have <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
Investigation <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
been identified through design-level geotechnical Department <strong>of</strong> plans and<br />
S<strong>of</strong>t or loose soils may affect support <strong>of</strong> structures and excavations. Shrink/swell, or<br />
investigations.<br />
Community specifications<br />
Revised plans and specifications.<br />
expansive-soil, behavior is a condition in which soil reacts to changes in moisture content by<br />
Development<br />
expanding or contracting. Much <strong>of</strong> the existing fill identified within the Project site has high Design-level geotechnical studies will be conducted to<br />
Before thePrior<br />
clay contents with moderate expansion potential. Expansive soils may cause differential and develop appropriate design features for locations where Project Applicant to approval <strong>of</strong><br />
cyclical foundation movements that can cause damage and/or distress to overlying structures potential problems are known to exist. If potentially<br />
the Improvement<br />
and equipment. Potential impacts from loose sands, s<strong>of</strong>t clays, and other potentially<br />
problematic soils are found, appropriate design measures<br />
Plan.<br />
compressible soils include excessive settlement and low foundation-bearing capacity for may include excavation <strong>of</strong> such soils during construction<br />
Project buildings and facilities.<br />
and replacement with engineered backfill, ground<br />
Prior to issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> building<br />
4-10 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
permits.<br />
treatment processes, redirection <strong>of</strong> surface water and<br />
drainage away from foundation soils, and the use <strong>of</strong><br />
deeper foundations. If expansive soils are found, covering<br />
them with a moisture-conforming and protecting blanket<br />
<strong>of</strong> approved onsite or imported materials <strong>of</strong> low expansion<br />
potential can reduce shrink/swell behavior.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> these standard engineering methods<br />
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant<br />
level. If the studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project, then recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
N/A Slope Stability Analysis <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.6-6: The Project could result in exposure <strong>of</strong> construction workers or equipment to<br />
loss, injury, or death due to excavation instability.<br />
Design-level Geologic and Geotechnical<br />
Investigation <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
During<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.6-6: Evaluate subsurface<br />
conditions and analyze excavation and grading<br />
slopes for stability and incorporate recommendations<br />
into grading plans and construction operation<br />
activities.<br />
Revised grading plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
Project Applicant<br />
Regular construction monitoring logs,<br />
monthly summary report.<br />
Prior to the<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement<br />
Plan.<br />
Construction Site<br />
Monitor<br />
Temporary construction slopes and existing natural or<br />
constructed slopes impacted by construction operations<br />
will be evaluated for stability. In developing grading plans<br />
and construction procedures, the stability <strong>of</strong> both<br />
temporary and permanent cut, fill, and otherwise<br />
impacted slopes will be analyzed. Construction slopes<br />
and grading plans will be designed to limit the potential for<br />
slope instability, maintain adequate drainage <strong>of</strong> improved<br />
areas, and minimize the potential for erosion and flooding<br />
during construction. During construction, slopes affected<br />
by construction operations will be monitored and<br />
maintained in a stable condition. Construction activities<br />
likely to result in slope or excavation instability will be<br />
suspended during and immediately following periods <strong>of</strong><br />
heavy precipitation when slopes are more susceptible to<br />
failure.<br />
Destabilization <strong>of</strong> natural or constructed slopes could occur as a result <strong>of</strong> construction<br />
activities. Excavation, grading, and fill operations could alter existing slope pr<strong>of</strong>iles and could<br />
result in the excavation <strong>of</strong> slope-supporting material, steepening <strong>of</strong> the slope, or increased<br />
loading. Excavation operations during construction <strong>of</strong> the Project could result in unstable<br />
excavation slopes, caving, and displacement <strong>of</strong> the adjacent ground surface. However, as<br />
discussed below, appropriate design features and construction procedures would be<br />
implemented to maintain stable slopes and excavations during construction.<br />
During<br />
Construction.<br />
Appropriate construction methods and procedures, in<br />
accordance with state and federal health and safety<br />
codes, will be followed to protect the safety <strong>of</strong> workers<br />
and the public during trenching and excavation<br />
operations. A design-level geotechnical investigation will<br />
be performed to evaluate subsurface conditions, identify<br />
potential hazards, and provide information for<br />
development <strong>of</strong> excavation plans and procedures. If the<br />
studies result in a significant redesign <strong>of</strong> the Project, then<br />
recirculation <strong>of</strong> the EIR may be required.<br />
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials<br />
Site Health and Safety Plan.<br />
California Occupational<br />
Safety and Health<br />
Administration, California<br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation, and the<br />
Sonoma County<br />
Hazardous Materials and<br />
Waste Management Plan<br />
requirements.<br />
Before<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Comply with all applicable<br />
State and local regulations for hazardous materials<br />
and waste management.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-1: Construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the Project would require the use and transport<br />
<strong>of</strong> some hazardous materials.<br />
Project<br />
Applicant<br />
Hazardous materials impacts from construction and<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> the site would not be significant with<br />
regulatory compliance.<br />
The construction <strong>of</strong> the facility would require the transport, temporary storage, and use <strong>of</strong><br />
asphalt, fuels, paints, and solvents, which could potentially be released and result in<br />
exposure to these chemicals. Operation <strong>of</strong> the facility could also involve the use <strong>of</strong> household<br />
and janitorial cleaning products, pesticides, herbicides, and solvents.<br />
The use and handling <strong>of</strong> materials associated with the construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge facility would follow all applicable federal, state, and local<br />
regulations, including California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, California<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation, and the Sonoma County Hazardous Materials and Waste<br />
Management Plan requirements. Waste would be disposed through the municipal waste<br />
water or solid waste services.<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-11
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
Site Health and Safety Plan.<br />
Community Care<br />
Licensing Division<br />
requirements and<br />
Sonoma County Waste<br />
Management Agency<br />
policies.<br />
Before<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Comply with all applicable<br />
state and local regulations, including Community<br />
Care state licensing requirements, for handling <strong>of</strong><br />
medical wastes and other hazardous materials.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-2: Operation <strong>of</strong> the Project would require the storage, use, and transport <strong>of</strong><br />
hazardous or biomedical materials.<br />
During<br />
construction.<br />
Project<br />
Applicant.<br />
Compliance with these regulations would reduce impacts<br />
to a less than significant level.<br />
Postconstruction.<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Project’s Care Center is to provide services specifically for patients with<br />
Alzheimer’s disease or other types <strong>of</strong> dementia. The Care Center operates as a residential<br />
care/assisted living facility and is not licensed to provide skilled nursing services, such as<br />
giving injections, maintaining catheters, or doing colostomy care for residents. Residents<br />
needing medical attention would be treated at the nearby hospital or, if they require skilled<br />
nursing care, would be transferred to an appropriate facility.<br />
State <strong>of</strong><br />
California<br />
(Community<br />
Care Licensing).<br />
The operation <strong>of</strong> the care facility would not require the storage, use, and transport <strong>of</strong><br />
biomedical materials. The Proposed Care Center would not be generating medical waste as<br />
defined by the California Medical Waste Act including, for example, used needles or blood or<br />
tissue samples. The facility would meet all licensing and permitting requirements set forth by<br />
the Community Care Licensing Division <strong>of</strong> the California Department <strong>of</strong> Social Services<br />
(State Licensing).<br />
Expired or leftover pharmaceuticals would be disposed <strong>of</strong> in an appropriate fashion according<br />
to Sonoma County Waste Management Agency policies. There would be no liquid oxygen<br />
used onsite; however, nonliquid oxygen may be used if prescribed by a physician for a<br />
respiratory condition. Nonliquid oxygen would be used in such cases under the preapproval<br />
<strong>of</strong> state licensing with notification to the local fire authority. Emergency generators would not<br />
be used onsite. Safety equipment would be on battery backup per Uniform Building Codes,<br />
which is accepted by state licensing. Minimum quantities <strong>of</strong> customary pool, laundry,<br />
housekeeping, and kitchen maintenance cleaning supplies would be stored in locked<br />
cabinets or rooms onsite. Fencing, required signage, and secured storage for cleaning<br />
materials would be provided. Vehicle maintenance would not be performed onsite.<br />
Vegetation Management Plan.<br />
Prior to issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> grading permit.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-3: The Project would expose people or structures to a significant risk <strong>of</strong> loss,<br />
injury, or death involving wildland fires.<br />
Project plans and specifications.<br />
Wildland-Urban Interface<br />
Fire Area in accordance<br />
with Public Resources<br />
Code, Section 4201<br />
through 4204, and<br />
Government Code,<br />
Sections 51175 through<br />
51189<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> Fire<br />
Department<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Comply with all applicable<br />
State and local regulations, including <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Fire<br />
Department requirements, for fire safety.<br />
Prior to approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> the<br />
Improvement<br />
Plan.<br />
The Project applicant will submit a Vegetation<br />
Management Plan to the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Fire Department for<br />
approval before obtaining a grading permit. The plan will<br />
specifically address proposed buffer zones and fire breaks<br />
within the property and shall comply with Uniform Fire<br />
Code and state requirements for vegetation management.<br />
In addition, all units shall have approved fire sprinkler<br />
systems.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> has building code and fire code regulations relating to construction and fire<br />
protective measures in areas identified as Very High Fire Severity Zone, which applies to the<br />
Project site, which is in the Montecity Heights Very High Fire Severity Zone. In addition,<br />
Chapter 7A <strong>of</strong> the California Building Code includes requirements for those areas considered<br />
to be within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area in accordance with Public Resources<br />
Code, Section 4201 through 4204, and Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189.<br />
Much <strong>of</strong> the area is developed with urban uses and adjacent structures are constructed using<br />
fire resistant materials. To further minimize fire risk, proposed structures onsite would be<br />
designed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. For example, site buildings<br />
would be equipped with fire suppression sprinklers in accordance with state licensing<br />
requirements. Building design would be required to include smoke barriers and 2-hour<br />
separation walls and doors. The Project site would include buffers and firebreaks.<br />
N/A Pool plans and specifications.<br />
Before issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> building<br />
permit.<br />
County <strong>of</strong><br />
Sonoma<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Health Division.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.7-5: Submit plans and<br />
specifications to the <strong>Environmental</strong> Health Division<br />
for review and approval.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.7-5: Operation <strong>of</strong> the Project could subject its residents to hazards inherent in<br />
facility design.<br />
Review by the <strong>Environmental</strong> Health Division will promote<br />
incorporation <strong>of</strong> appropriate safety provisions in the<br />
Project.<br />
Before the issuance <strong>of</strong> any building permits and the start <strong>of</strong> any construction, plans and<br />
specifications for any proposed swimming pool or spa would be submitted to the<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Health Division <strong>of</strong> the Health Services Department for approval. Review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
permit application by this agency would include safety provisions—if not already included in<br />
the design—for the pool or spa, restrooms, showers, equipment rooms, cleaning supply<br />
rooms, and fences.<br />
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality<br />
SWPPP.<br />
NPDES General<br />
Construction Permit<br />
(SWRCB Order<br />
Prior to and<br />
during all onand<br />
<strong>of</strong>fsite<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Comply with all applicable<br />
State and local regulations for stormwater<br />
management.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.8-2: Construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the Project could increase pollutants in<br />
stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f, potentially violating water quality standards.<br />
Sampling and Analysis Program Plan.<br />
4-12 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
Storm Water Mitigation Plan.<br />
99-08-DWQ).<br />
construction<br />
activities.<br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Written Certification <strong>of</strong> BMP installation.<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Area Standard Urban<br />
Stormwater Mitigation<br />
Plan (SUSMP).<br />
Construction<br />
Contractor<br />
As described above, compliance with the NPDES General<br />
Construction Permit, <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>’s municipal stormwater<br />
NPDES permit, the grading ordinance, the <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Area SUSMP, and the Storm Water Mitigation Plan will<br />
minimize any water quality impacts. Informational signage<br />
will be added along Project pathways located near the<br />
creek that describe the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the buffer area and<br />
establish appropriate restrictions.<br />
During grading and construction activities, there would be the potential for surface water<br />
run<strong>of</strong>f to carry sediment and other pollutants into the stormwater system and Piner Creek,<br />
thereby potentially degrading water quality. As noted above, Piner Creek is a tributary to<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Creek, which is listed as a 303(d) impaired waterway for sediments. Construction<br />
activities are required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System<br />
(NPDES) General Construction Permit, which requires preparation <strong>of</strong> a Stormwater Pollution<br />
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) outlining BMPs to be used during construction. The SWPPP would<br />
include BMPs for erosion control, sediment control, tracking control, wind erosion, and<br />
nonstormwater discharges.<br />
In addition, the Project would result in disturbance <strong>of</strong> more than 1 acre <strong>of</strong> soil; therefore, the<br />
Project will require coverage under the Statewide General Construction Permit. The General<br />
Construction Permit requires permittees to implement specific sampling and analytical<br />
procedures to determine whether implemented BMPs are preventing sediment-impaired<br />
waters from further impairment by direct discharge <strong>of</strong> sediments in stormwater. As such, the<br />
Project would be required to implement a sampling and analysis program to monitor<br />
stormwater discharges during construction. With incorporation <strong>of</strong> the General Construction<br />
Permit requirements, the Project would not result in a significant short-term water quality<br />
impact.<br />
After construction is complete and the Project is in operation, stormwater could transport<br />
contaminants—such as accumulated particulate matter, residuals from automobile use, and<br />
organic matter from access roadways, landscaped areas, and other exposed surfaces—into<br />
the storm drain system.<br />
Because the Project would increase impervious surfaces by more than 1 acre and result in<br />
development adjacent to a natural waterway, it would be required to follow the requirements<br />
outlined in the SUSMP. As required by the SUSMP, the Project would include preparation <strong>of</strong><br />
a Storm Water Mitigation Plan to mitigate post-construction water quality impacts. The new<br />
storm drain system would incorporate a hydrodynamic stormwater separator as an<br />
end-<strong>of</strong>-line BMP. Run<strong>of</strong>f would flow through the separator before being discharged to the <strong>City</strong><br />
storm drain system. The separator would be capable <strong>of</strong> removing floatables, oils, and<br />
sediments from stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f. With incorporation <strong>of</strong> this and other post-construction<br />
BMPs, the Project would not result in a significant long-term water quality impact.<br />
3.10 Noise<br />
N/A Noise Analysis.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2: Implement noise reducing<br />
measures for mechanical equipment.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-2: Operation <strong>of</strong> building equipment could result in noise impacts on adjacent<br />
properties.<br />
Revised project plans and<br />
specifications, if applicable.<br />
After<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
draft plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development<br />
Prior to<br />
issuance <strong>of</strong><br />
building permits.<br />
Qualified<br />
Acoustical<br />
Consultant<br />
Construction<br />
Contractor<br />
Once specific pieces <strong>of</strong> equipment and their locations are<br />
chosen, a detailed noise analysis shall be conducted by a<br />
qualified acoustical consultant to assess the need for<br />
noise reduction measures. If the study shows that, after<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the Project, noise levels as measured<br />
at the property line would exceed either the ambient noise<br />
levels by 5 decibels A scale (dBA) or applicable noise<br />
criteria, some or all <strong>of</strong> the following noise insulation<br />
features will be incorporated into the Project design, as<br />
necessary and appropriate:<br />
The Project would place the Community Care Center building south <strong>of</strong> Gullane Drive opposite<br />
the existing residences on the north side <strong>of</strong> the roadway; the Main Building would be directly<br />
south <strong>of</strong> the Care Center. These uses are expected to generate noise caused by parking lot<br />
use, maintenance activities, and the operation <strong>of</strong> building mechanical equipment. Based on<br />
the site plan, the service yard will be located opposite the Care Center from the existing<br />
residences. This is likely the location for service-related items such as trash enclosures and<br />
may be where the major mechanical equipment for the building is located. However, no<br />
mechanical equipment plans or equipment specifications have been developed for the<br />
Project, so mechanical equipment may be located on the Care Center ro<strong>of</strong>top. The location <strong>of</strong><br />
equipment on the ro<strong>of</strong>top, while unlikely to increase noise levels above the existing Ldn in the<br />
neighborhood north <strong>of</strong> the Project site, could be noticeable to the adjacent neighborhood,<br />
depending on the placement and type <strong>of</strong> equipment used. Thus, without mitigation, the<br />
operation and use <strong>of</strong> the Project may result in a significant noise impact on the adjacent<br />
neighbors.<br />
• Specify all ro<strong>of</strong>top mechanical equipment with the<br />
manufacturer’s ‘low noise’ option, if available.<br />
• Locate ro<strong>of</strong>top mechanical equipment in the center<br />
or southern portion <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> to maximize the<br />
distance from the equipment to the residences to the<br />
north <strong>of</strong> the Project site.<br />
• Incorporate a parapet wall around the periphery <strong>of</strong><br />
the building ro<strong>of</strong>top, with a height equal to or greater<br />
than the height <strong>of</strong> the piece <strong>of</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>top equipment. To<br />
ensure this parapet wall acts as a noise barrier, it<br />
should be built without cracks or gaps in the face or<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-13
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
larger or continuous gaps at the base and have a<br />
minimum surface weight <strong>of</strong> 3.0 pounds per square<br />
foot (lb/ft 2 ).<br />
• Screw-type compressors should not be specified at<br />
the Project, due to the tonal nature <strong>of</strong> the noise<br />
emitted. However, if screw-type compressors cannot<br />
be avoided, the following measures may be<br />
necessary to attenuate tonal noise emissions:<br />
− Wrap all compressors with 1–inch-thick fiberglass<br />
or closed cell foam insulation. The wrap needs to<br />
completely enclose the compressors and all<br />
refrigerant piping.<br />
− Wrap this insulation with a noise barrier jacket,<br />
preferably metal (mass-loaded vinyl is also<br />
acoustically acceptable but may not weather well).<br />
This barrier jacket material should be selected for<br />
a nominal face weight <strong>of</strong> 0.5-1 lb/ft 2 . The noise<br />
barrier jacket should have a minimal size and<br />
number <strong>of</strong> openings.<br />
− Make the noise barrier jacket serviceable with<br />
provisions in the jacket fabrication for access to<br />
the service valves (suction and discharge) and<br />
other normal access ports. The jacket should also<br />
be made so that it may be removed and replaced<br />
without destruction <strong>of</strong> the insulation.<br />
− Insert silencers (pulse diffusers) in the compressor<br />
discharges to attenuate compressor discharge<br />
noise.<br />
Install a bank <strong>of</strong> acoustical louvers at the air intakes with<br />
an insertion loss <strong>of</strong> greater than or equal to 12 decibels at<br />
500 hertz to control intake noise.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.10-3: The Project could result in an increase in noise from construction activities. Mitigation Measure 3.10-3: Implement BMPs during <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> During<br />
N/A Written Certification <strong>of</strong> BMP installation.<br />
construction.<br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
Construction <strong>of</strong> the Project would increase noise levels in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Project site and<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> plans and<br />
Project Plans and specification to adopt<br />
along transportation corridors used by construction equipment and workers during the<br />
• Construction Scheduling. The following measures<br />
Community specifications.<br />
noise-reducing BMPs.<br />
construction period. Equipment generating noise during construction includes jackhammers, will be implemented to limit construction related<br />
Development<br />
backhoes, trucks, and grading and paving equipment. The Noise Study in Appendix O <strong>of</strong> this activities to the portion <strong>of</strong> the day when the number<br />
Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (EIR) provides information on typical noise levels at<br />
<strong>of</strong> persons in the adjacent residential uses is lowest: Construction<br />
construction sites. Noise produced by construction activities would be audible and exceed<br />
− Limit construction hours between 7:00 AM and Contractor<br />
existing noise levels in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Project site during the construction period,<br />
7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday<br />
designated Noise<br />
constituting a significant but temporary noise impact.<br />
− Do not allow machinery to be cleaned past Disturbance<br />
6:00 PM or serviced past 6:45 PM Monday Coordinator<br />
through Friday<br />
− Limit the allowable hours for delivery trucks to<br />
8:30 AM—5:00 PM, Monday through Friday<br />
• Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance.<br />
Properly muffle and maintain equipment powered by<br />
internal combustion engines.<br />
• Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling <strong>of</strong><br />
internal combustion engines. Equipment should be<br />
turned <strong>of</strong>f when not in use.<br />
• Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate stationary<br />
noise-generating construction equipment such as air<br />
compressors as far as practical from nearby<br />
residences and other noise-sensitive land areas. If<br />
equipment cannot be located away from residences,<br />
temporary noise barriers, such as mass-loaded<br />
construction blankets, should be installed around the<br />
equipment during its use.<br />
4-14 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
• Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction<br />
equipment, particularly air compressors, when<br />
possible.<br />
• Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a ‘noise<br />
disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible<br />
for responding to local complaints about construction<br />
noise. This person would most likely be the<br />
contractor or contractor’s representative. He or she<br />
would determine the cause <strong>of</strong> the noise complaint<br />
and would require that reasonable measures<br />
warranted to correct the problem be implemented.<br />
3.11 Public Services<br />
N/A Community Facilities District record <strong>of</strong><br />
establishment.<br />
During<br />
development <strong>of</strong><br />
plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Community<br />
Development.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.11-2a: Participate in a<br />
Community Facilities District and comply with all <strong>City</strong><br />
Fire Department Regulations and Policies.<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.11-2: The Project would increase demand for fire and emergency services.<br />
Written approval <strong>of</strong> project plans and<br />
specifications.<br />
Prior to<br />
issuance <strong>of</strong><br />
building permits<br />
and/or issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> certificate <strong>of</strong><br />
occupancy to<br />
the satisfaction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Fire<br />
Chief.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> Fire<br />
Department<br />
The Project shall participate in a Community Facilities<br />
District to provide the ongoing resources needed to serve<br />
the development and address cumulative development<br />
impacts to response times. To reduce the potential for fire<br />
service response to an emergency at the Project, all units<br />
shall have approved fire sprinkler systems. The<br />
installation <strong>of</strong> fire sprinkler protection throughout the<br />
Project would provide for immediate fire and life safety<br />
protection and assist in mitigating for the lengthening<br />
response times for fire and emergency apparatus and<br />
personnel.<br />
The Project would place further demands on fire and emergency services, particularly for<br />
medical emergencies. The Fire Department and Sonoma Life Support provide first responder<br />
and first responder paramedic services. Sonoma Life Support would transfer injured persons<br />
to the nearest hospital, either <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Memorial Hospital or Kaiser Permanente Medical<br />
Center. Many elderly people have limited mobility, making it necessary to have additional fire<br />
resources on scene more quickly for rescue and rapid fire suppression. In addition, there is<br />
an increased need for emergency response to medical emergencies. Paramedic staffed<br />
engine companies provide a higher level <strong>of</strong> care for people with cardiac problems, trauma,<br />
and strokes.<br />
N/A Project plans and specifications.<br />
Written pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> onsite EMT<br />
employment.<br />
Prior to<br />
issuance <strong>of</strong><br />
certificate <strong>of</strong><br />
occupancy to<br />
the satisfaction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Fire<br />
Chief.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> Fire<br />
Department.<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.11-2b: Provide onsite<br />
Emergency Medical Technician qualified or equivalent<br />
personnel 24 hours per day, to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Fire Chief.<br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge will provide Emergency Medical<br />
Technician qualified or equivalent personnel 24 hours per<br />
day in the main “assisted living” building and Care Center.<br />
This would reduce the Fire Department’s need to respond<br />
to non-medical emergency calls in community care<br />
facilities, thereby allowing them to respond more quickly<br />
to other emergencies in the area. Care Center staff would<br />
have the ability to call 9-1-1 and medically assess<br />
residents to determine if the request is a medical<br />
emergency or a routine care assistance issue.<br />
3.13 Transportation and Traffic<br />
<strong>Impact</strong> 3.13-1: Project traffic would increase delays at the <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway<br />
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Add a traffic signal on <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> Installation prior N/A Plans for three-legged signal at Thomas<br />
intersections with Thomas Lake Harris Drive East and West.<br />
Thomas Lake Harris Drive.<br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> Public to certificate <strong>of</strong><br />
Lake Harris and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong><br />
At the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Thomas Lake Harris Drive West, traffic is<br />
A three-legged signal will be installed at Thomas Lake<br />
Works<br />
occupancy.<br />
Parkway (West).<br />
projected to increase by 1.2 percent during the AM peak hour and by 1.7 percent during the<br />
Harris and <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway (West). This traffic<br />
Department.<br />
Installation <strong>of</strong> signal..<br />
PM peak hour, adding further congestion to already existing LOS F conditions. Vehicle<br />
signal would alleviate the need for a westbound right-turn<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong><br />
queues within the left turn lanes on all approaches to the Thomas Lake Harris Drive east and<br />
deceleration lane and an eastbound left-turn acceleration<br />
<strong>Rosa</strong> Community Provide<br />
west intersections with <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway are all less than available storage distances<br />
lane on Thomas Lake Harris Drive. In addition to the<br />
Development acceptable<br />
(i.e., turning traffic queue backs up onto the road and precludes through traffic from passing,<br />
traffic signal, there will be a need to increase the radius <strong>of</strong><br />
Department. design prior to<br />
contributing to additional intersection congestion). The Project would add an additional<br />
the curb return on the northeast quadrant <strong>of</strong> the<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the<br />
average delay for left turns to <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway by 20 seconds during the AM peak<br />
intersection to improve the flow <strong>of</strong> the westbound to<br />
Improvement<br />
hour and 29 seconds during the PM peak hour. These additions in traffic are substantial in<br />
northbound right turn. The traffic signal would be<br />
Plan.<br />
relation to the existing traffic load. Since there is a substantial increase in traffic volumes,<br />
interconnected (timed) with the existing traffic signals at<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-15
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM<br />
TABLE 4-1<br />
Mitigation Monitoring and <strong>Report</strong>ing Program<br />
Documentation<br />
Additional Permit<br />
Enforcement<br />
Implementation<br />
Schedule<br />
<strong>Impact</strong>s Mitigation Measures Responsible<br />
Party<br />
the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Round<br />
Barn Boulevard, as well as the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Altruria Drive.<br />
significant delay impacts to traffic on <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Thomas Lake Harris Drive<br />
would occur with the construction <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />
At the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway and Thomas Lake Harris Drive East, delays are<br />
increased by approximately one second per vehicle (40 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 30<br />
vehicles in the PM peak hour) where no additional traffic will be added. The current (base<br />
case, No Project Alternative) stop sign-controlled left turn from Thomas Lake Harris Drive<br />
(east) onto <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway operates at LOS F conditions during both peak hours.<br />
The Project would not be expected to add any traffic to the Thomas Lake Harris Drive<br />
intersection approach, and the added Project traffic on <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Parkway would<br />
increase delay for stop sign-controlled left turns from Thomas Lake Harris Drive by less than<br />
five seconds. Although these left turns would have a base case LOS F operation, Project<br />
impact is considered less than significant.<br />
4-16 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001
5.0 References<br />
California Board <strong>of</strong> Equalization (BOE). 2007. Annual California Transportation Fuel Use<br />
Consumption 2007-2008.<br />
California Energy Commission. 2007. California’s Residential Electricity Consumption, Prices,<br />
and Bills, 1908-2005. September 2007. Web site accessed October 20, 2008,<br />
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-018/CEC-200-2007-018.PDF<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. 1992. Policy Statement—<strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Ranch Planned Community District,<br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>, California. Amended per Ordinance No. 2955, May 26, 1992. Originally adopted per<br />
Ordinance No. 2196, September 1981.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. 2002a. <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 2020: General Plan. Department <strong>of</strong> Community<br />
Development. Prepared by EIP Associates. June 18.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong>. 2002b. <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> 2020: General Plan Final <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Report</strong>. <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Rosa</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Community Development. Prepared by EIP Associates. June.<br />
Landesign, 2008. Landesign Group. <strong>Fountaingrove</strong> Lodge Tree Replacement Mitigation<br />
Summary, Revised July 15.<br />
ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 5-1