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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS measures proposed for the Project are feasible and will reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level. How each mitigation measure will be implemented and success determined, who is responsible for its implementation, where it will occur, and when it will occur are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section 4.0 of this Final EIR. 15) See Response to Comment Community Comments – 13. The City of Santa Rosa’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the Principles of Low-impact Lighting Design apply to all land uses. 16) The Project is subject to all Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) prohibitory rules and regulations, even though permits may not be required (see Draft EIR p. 3-33). During construction, PM10 emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using the control measures set forth in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as described in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2. BAAQMD established the guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation of its control measures would reduce fugitive PM10 emissions during construction to a less than significant level; see p. 3-38 for a list of control measures that would be used at the Project site. As described in Impact 3.3-2, exhaust emissions from construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks used to construct the Project would result in short-term emissions of ozone precursors (NOX and ROG). Construction equipment emissions (NOX and ROG) are included in the emissions inventory that is the basis for the regional air quality plans and are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of the ozone standards in the Bay Area. No mitigation is necessary for this less than significant impact. 17) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland. See Final EIR Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is a CEQA-required document, for a list of all mitigation requirements and identified responsibilities for implementation and enforcement mechanisms. 18) See Response to Comment NCRWQCB – 4. 19) As stated in the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 provides protection of nesting raptors and migratory birds and nesting non-special-status birds by implementing measures to minimize and avoid impacts to avian species during their nesting season. Similarly, Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 protects roosting bats. Tree removal will be done during the non-nesting season. As described in Impact 3.4-3, most birds such as observed on the Project site have large home ranges, and existing adjacent habitat could provide alternative habitat during Project construction. For information on implementation responsibilities for mitigation measures for avian species, see Final EIR Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 20) Deer are protected and managed by CDFG as a game species under their Deer Management Program. Deer have no special-status conservation designation, such as endangered or threatened in California. 2-152 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wildlife movement corridors used by deer and other wildlife are evaluated under Impact 3.4-7 (Draft EIR p. 3-61). The most important existing wildlife corridor is Piner Creek and its associated wildlife habitat. The City’s zoning regulations do not allow construction within 50 feet of the creek, so the Piner Creek buffer zone will be preserved. Impacts to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. As stated in the Draft EIR, no defined wildlife corridor exists within the Project site in a north-south direction, primarily because areas to the north and south of the project site are developed residences. 21) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. 22) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. Implementation responsibility, timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in this Final EIR. 23) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. Implementation responsibility, timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in this Final EIR. 24) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. 25) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. Implementation responsibility, timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in this Final EIR. 26) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B) states that “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” Mitigation Measures 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3 require conformance with such performance standards, and reduce impacts to less than significant. Implementation responsibility, timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation are described in Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in this Final EIR. 27) Potential impacts associated with wildland fires are evaluated in Impact 3.7-3. Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 will minimize fire risk. As described in Impact 3.7-4, no significant impacts limiting emergency evacuation would occur from Project implementation. As noted in Impact 3.13-4 of the Draft EIR, the installation of a signal at the intersection of Thomas Lake Harris and Fountaingrove Parkway will improve emergency access to and from the site. 28) As described in Impact 3.8-1, less than half (45.8 percent) of the site will consist of hardscapes. The resulting increased runoff would flow to a new system of storm drains and vegetated swales on the site. These new stormwater drainage facilities will be designed and sized appropriately to handle this increase in runoff. In addition, the drainage facilities will not change the overall drainage patterns on the site. Implementation responsibility, timing, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure 3.8-2, are described in Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in this Final EIR. Also see Response to Comment NCRWQCB – 1. ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-153
Page 1:
Aegis Senior Living Continuing Care
Page 4 and 5:
CONTENTS Response to Comment Letter
Page 6 and 7:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS HFC hydr
Page 8 and 9:
1.0 INTRODUCTION were accepted. A p
Page 11 and 12:
2.0 List of Commenters and Response
Page 13 and 14:
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23:
Page 27 and 28:
ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Response to Comment Letter from Ed
Page 47 and 48:
Response to Comment Letter from Ann
Page 49 and 50:
Response to Comment Letter from All
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
28) Comment noted. 2.0 LIST OF COMM
Page 73 and 74:
Response to Comment Letter from Tho
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Response to Comment Letter from Jim
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Response to Comment Letter from Jos
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Response to Comment Letter from Edw
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Response to Comment Letter from Car
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 119 and 120: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 143 and 144: Response to Comment Letter from Lar
Page 145 and 146: Response to Comment Letter from Lyn
Page 147 and 148: Response to Comment Letter from Ala
Page 161: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 185: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 189: Executive Summary Project The Aegis
Page 193: Mendocino £¤ 101 0 ± 5 10 Miles
Page 197: 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Swimmin
Page 200 and 201: TABLE 3.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Sta
Page 202 and 203: 3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Page 213 and 214:
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Page 215 and 216:
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Bec
Page 217:
3.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Spr
Page 221 and 222:
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235:
5.0 References California Board of
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?