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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho PUBLIC HEARING – 31 PUBLIC HEARING – 32 PUBLIC HEARING – 33 PUBLIC HEARING – 34 PUBLIC HEARING – 35 PUBLIC HEARING – 36 PUBLIC HEARING – 37 building to the property line. The report fails to show in a realistic way how 2,107 trees can be planted in a narrow 3 foot or less strip of land and possibly provide an aesthetic partition to shield the neighborhood from view of building that are nearly 50 feet in height. The report as presented is inadequate as to Impact 3.9 land use planning in that it ignores the cumulative effect of having a disproportionate number of assisted living facilities concentrated into a single area. There currently exists the major facility of Varenna as well as Brighton Gardens and Vineyard Commons. The proposed Aegis Lodge to be followed by Lodge II across the way would install 5 facilities within 1 mile of each other. Neighborhoods which could use a facility to balance their land use should be identified. Kyra Janssen I live at 4406 Bally Bunion Lane. My comments on the Draft EIR pertain again to aesthetics and visual resources. Some of things I was going to say have been said. Regarding the mitigation to revise the landscape plan to provide a natural appearing landscape along the periphery, would that be satisfied when the site has been radically regraded, removing the natural contours of the site and most of the trees, and imposing a structural footprint referred to by Mr. Margason and Mr. Farkas, leaving little space along the periphery to achieve any natural appearing landscapes. So much for the sites. Concerning the surroundings, there is no sensitivity to the fact my home and 4 others along Gullane Drive would be directly facing the 36 bed 2 story care center facility. In my case, it would be from my bedroom window and from my driveway, hardly the typical view across the street in a residential neighborhood. The picture that Mr. Farkas showed was one of three in Volume 1 that are very misleading about the actual impact on the swimming pool on the houses on Gullane and from Thomas Lake Harris. In addition, this proposed enterprise fails to take into consideration that the community pool and spa for the Oaks homeowners would be hemmed in on the east property line by the care center building and on the south by the main entry driveway, to the entire project from Thomas Lake Harris with all sorts of different kinds of traffic coming and going. Again note those photographs and what they do and do not show. A third identified impact in this section not previously discussed concerns lighting. It rates as significant that the project would result in new sources of light and glare but less then significant if the developers “conform to City of Santa Rosa lighting design guidelines and the principles of low impact lightning designed.” That's the mitigation. This is a perfect example of a pattern throughout the Draft EIR in which formulated boiler-plate (call them what you will) mitigation measures are offered but don’t respond to the specific situation and what actually needs to be done. The reality of a 24/7 care center operation, as well as extensive outdoor parking areas walkways and driveways that must remained lit all night, are simply not addressed. Consider the parking lot at the dental building on the corner. Much smaller but the same problem. In conclusion, I would point out that of the 49 identified impacts, 22 of them are initially rated as significant yet all 22 effortlessly become less then significant, most of them on the basis of generic cut and past mitigations. None of these mitigations offer any guarantee that the prescribed functions would actually be meaningfully implemented, monitored or enforced with restitution if indicated. Unfortunately this gives little assurance that we as
ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho PUBLIC HEARING – 37 PUBLIC HEARING – 38 PUBLIC HEARING – 39 PUBLIC HEARING – 40 PUBLIC HEARING – 41 PUBLIC HEARING – 42 PUBLIC HEARING – 43 PUBLIC HEARING – 44 citizens can trust that the findings of the EIR will be respected and adhered to. Unfortunately recent past history, including the Varenna project, gives the public meager cause for optimism in this regard. Thomas Glenn I live at 3159 Blackhawk Circle. Four small short points: - No report from CA Dept of Fish and Game in the EIR report; - The removal of over 100 irreplaceable native heritage oak trees; - No alternative plan offered for a less significant development is considered in the EIR and; - Lastly, traffic flow problems have existed for the past 4 years along side Varenna with one lane constantly closed before this project was considered. Patricia Eastes I live at 4550 Kilarney Circle. I want to address Impact 3.13-4, inadequate emergency access and Impact 3.7-3, hazard, the project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death including wildland fires. According to the EIR, they would be less then significant with mitigation. I disagree. An article in the SF Chronicle July 9th 2008 with the caption “Wildfire don't let this happen to you” talks about the 1991 firestorm in an Oakland area one mile wide which killed 25 people and destroyed over 3,000 homes. I am a survivor of that fire. Our neighborhood of 100 homes was the first to go. All 100 homes burned to the ground in 16 minutes. Our homes were 10 to 15 yrs old, completely up to code, all had smoke detectors and we had been very meticulous about following the city’s mandates for clearing brush, cutting tree ladders, etc. We had good, wide roads and easy access to them, unlike most of the narrow winding roads so common in the Oakland- Berkeley hill area. In the 3,000 degree heat it does not matter much what kind of building material has been used; even steel will melt at 2500 degrees. Getting out of the area was sheer pandemonium. People panicked; they were going through red lights, making illegal turns. It was every man for himself. We were literally running for our lives. I’m talking about this because of our situation at Fountaingrove, we do interface with wildland. We are in a high fire area. We have a two-way street for evacuation and the fire equipment to get in and with another 422 plus cars on the road (that’s the number of parking spaces for Fountaingrove) our chances of getting out in time are severely impacted. This is California. We have dry seasons. We have droughts. We have wildfires and according to the Chronicle article, between June 20th and July 9th of this year there have been 1781 wildfires. Is it fair to either the people who move in here or to us who already live here to risk our lives with the high density development? My hope is you will consider this matter very carefully. Frank Miles I live at 3640 Kelsey Knolls Drive. I guess I’m the first one to have a positive spin on things. I recently moved here a couple of months ago in anticipation of the Lodge being built. Unfortunately, I see it will be delayed for a while. Looking at the EIR report I was very
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:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 135 and 136: 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 171: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
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 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:
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?