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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to oral comments made during the Public Hearing (July 24, 2008) 1) Comment noted. The Draft EIR analysis regarding the Project’s impacts to air quality, aesthetics, biology, greenhouse gases, seismicity, traffic, and land use compatibility indicates that the mitigation measures provided mitigate potentially significant levels to less than significant. See specific responses to these issues as follows: aesthetics (Response to Comment Epperly-2 and Epperly-3), biology (Response to Comment Epperly-4 through Epperly-11), seismicity (Response to Comment Epperly-13), and consistency with area plans (Response to Comment Epperly-16 through Epperly-22). No oral comments specific to traffic, greenhouse gases, or air quality appear to have been made by the commenter. 2) Aesthetic impacts are evaluated in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR and are further discussed in Master Response Visual Resources; with mitigation, no significant aesthetic impacts would occur. 3) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland. 4) There will be no direct impacts to Piner Creek or its associated 0.5 acre of riparian vegetation (See Impact 3.4-2) and no mitigation is required. As required in Section 15082(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City mailed a copy of the Notice of Preparation that an EIR would be prepared for the Project, as well as a copy of the Draft EIR, to the CDFG. While CEQA requires notification of affected, responsible, and/or interested agencies, there is no legal requirement for such agencies to respond. No comments were received from CDFG. 5) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. 6) See Master Response Visual Resources. 7) The proposed grading for the site was taken into account during the analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. As described in the revised Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 of the Draft EIR, a site-specific slope stability analysis that will evaluate landslide potential will be incorporated into final design. Depending on the findings, slope stability measures may consist of regrading slopes. See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. 8) Comment noted. The City disagrees and believes that the Draft EIR is consistent with CEQA requirements for analysis of the Project’s impacts from grading, retaining walls, buildings, tree removal, and topography modification, and that the mitigation measures provided will mitigate potentially significant levels to less than significant. See specific responses to these issues as follows: grading (Response to Comment Public Hearing-7 and Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation), retaining walls (Response to Comment Margason-4), buildings (Response to Comment Margason-1), tree removal (Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland) and topography modification (Responses to Comments Public Hearing- 7, Glenn-3, and Margason-4). 9) See Response to Comment Epperly–23. ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-169
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:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128: 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 177: 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 229 and 230:
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR
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?