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

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho
PUBLIC
HEARING – 61
PUBLIC
HEARING – 62
PUBLIC
HEARING – 63
PUBLIC
HEARING – 64
PUBLIC
HEARING – 65
And last, this is more of a social demographics issue, but we do live in a county that has per
capita the highest amount of same sex couples living in it. We have a region within our
county that has the highest per capita region same sex couples and on that how does that
factor into our provision of aging facilities for that demographic group and how does that
impact the environment of our county? So I think that is something that is reasonable to
examine with this EIR and was brought up in public testimony.
Commissioner Karsten
First I’m very imprested with everything I’ve heard from all speakers and I found it very
helpful. The a couple of things, in addition to what has already been commented on, I
presume this is the case, but I think it would be helpful to make it very clear that the care
center and this facility and everything is related to this care center is for the residents only. I
presume that’s the intent here but reading it causes me some…”concerns” is not the correct
word…but I question whether or not it really is just for the residents only and is not going
to be turned into a broader based service provider, if you will, which in turn would
obviously impact traffic and those types of things.
The other thing in listening to some of the other comments made here was the issue of the
schematics and the visual components that you have been provided here. It appeared to me
there is a bit of an inconsistency with some of the materials that have been provided in the
packet, especially the elevation of the project Figure 2.4 and 3.14, the scope, the size, the
elements of architecture, all of these things seem to be what I hear a significant concern to
from many of the people here. So if we can see if there’s consistency? If I’m wrong about
that then I’m wrong it appears just looking at them it appears to be inconsistent and maybe
different generations if you will of schematics, in also additional schematics and visuals, so
that the community really does have a really good feel for what this project is going to look
like, not just from 2 or 3 vantage points but I would say half a dozen to 10 or 12 so that
everybody is fully well versed and informed about how this project really will look like
when it is done.
Commissioner Poulsen
For the most part I think this is fine, but my concern is with the surrounding neighborhood
and neighbors and how they will be affected. Especially towards lighting, I would like to see
a better lighting plan provided. Noise, not only after it is built, but during construction, and
then the other thing was looking at the tree report. It does not come out and list which ones
are heritage oak trees. That term has been thrown about quite a bit and I would like to see
what’s happening to "heritage oak trees."
Chairman Bartley
I do have a concern about the visual analysis that I think that echoes what Mr. Karsten was
saying. What jumps at me, and maybe it’s just previous experience has made me wary, but I
did notice some inconsistencies and I know it is provided by the applicant in terms of the
graphics but one of the things I noted on the graphics on the 3D simulation is there are a lot
of rather mature trees have been strategically planted in the simulation and that gives an
accurate view 20 yrs from now, but doesn’t give an accurate view the day its finished, so I
think there would be a benefit to see it without some of that extra embellishment.