Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment Letter from Dewey Nelson (letter dated July 17, 2008)
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin of the
letter.
1) See Master Response Local Traffic. The Emissions Calculations incorrectly assumed a
greater number of trips generated by the Project than what was used for the Traffic
Impact Analysis. This over-estimate occurred because of a double-count of offsite
workers commuting to the site, which are included in the 382 Community Care
Center trips in the traffic analysis (Table 3.13-2). Although the emissions analysis
over-estimated the traffic count, it provided a more conservative evaluation of
potential air quality impacts. The Project was determined to have
less-than-significant operational emissions (assuming the greater number of
494 trips), and no measures to reduce vehicle trips and miles are required (see
Draft EIR p. 3-37). The conclusion that there is no significant air quality impact from
trips generated by the project remains unchanged.
2) See Master Response Local Traffic.
3) See Master Response Local Traffic.
4) See Master Response Local Traffic. Although data and analysis from the traffic
report in Appendix P to the Draft EIR were used in preparation of the Draft EIR, the
conclusions presented in the Draft EIR were drawn independently by the City’s EIR
consultant and the City after considering the study data. The significance criteria
used for the EIR analysis are listed in Section 3.13.2 of the Draft EIR.
5) See Master Response Local Traffic.
6) See Response to Comment Epperly–14 and Master Response Local Traffic. The
Project will not result in an increase in hazards due to design features or
incompatible uses; see Impact 3.13-3 in the Draft EIR.
7) See Master Response Local Traffic.
8) See Master Response Local Traffic. A detailed traffic study was conducted for the
Project and is provided as Appendix P of the Draft EIR.
9) As described in Section 3.13.3, the parking proposed for the Project exceeds the
parking required by the City. As described in Impact 3-13.3 in the Draft EIR, the
Project would not result in any significant increases in hazards.
2-100 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001