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

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
24) As described in the Master Response Local Traffic and Response to Comment Public
Hearing – 23, the number of trips generated by the project were estimated using a
standard estimation measure (based on facility type) generated by Trip Generation
Handbook, a national publication from the ITE. The Handbook is a collection of
information about vehicular traffic that is generated by different land uses. This
information is based on studies made to determine how many vehicles enter and exit
a site devoted to a particular land use, and is currently in its 7 th updated edition. The
total trips for a specific land use in the ITE would include all associated trips. Based
on their other community care facilities, the Applicant has estimated that, within the
total trips generated, an average of approximately four delivery trucks per day
would occur.
Impact 3.3-2 evaluates long-term emissions from operation of the Project; this impact
will be less than significant.
25) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.
26) Significant impacts to wildlife species are addressed in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
Potential impacts from construction of the Project to nesting birds, roosting bats, and
northwestern pond turtle will be mitigated to a less than significant level through
preconstruction surveys, avoidance, monitoring during construction, and/or other
measures (see Mitigation Measures 3.4-3, 3.4-4, and 3.4-5). As evaluated in
Section 3.4.3, impacts to these species will be less than significant with mitigation.
27) Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 in the Draft EIR includes pre-construction surveys,
avoidance as feasible during breeding season, and buffer zones to minimize impacts
to raptors and nesting birds; impacts to these species will be less than significant
with mitigation.
28) See Response to Comment Epperly-23.
29) See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual Impacts, as well as
Response to Comment FRMA-19.
30) See Master Responses Visual Impacts and Noise.
31) See Master Responses Visual Impacts and Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and
Response to Comment Glenn-2.
32) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility and Response to Comment
Margason-6.
33) Comment noted. The Draft EIR has addressed the Project’s impacts from grading,
buildings, landscaping, and topography modification; the mitigation measures
provided 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), landscaping (Master
Responses Visual Resources and Oak Trees and Oak Woodland), buildings
(Response to Comment Margason-1), and topography modification (Responses to
Comments Public Hearing-7, Glenn-3, and Margason-4).
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-171