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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 34) Comment noted. See Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual Resources. 35) See Response to Comment FRMA-19. 36) As described in Impact 3.1-3 in the Draft EIR, the Project would add new sources of nighttime security lighting along driveways, in outdoor parking lots, and near building entrances. Conformance to the City’s Lighting Design Guidelines and the Principles of Low-impact Lighting Design (see Mitigation Measure 3.1-3), which minimize the amount of light that leaves the site, would reduce impacts to less than significant. See also Response to Community Comment-13. 37) See Response to Community Comment-14. 38) 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 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. 39) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and Response to Comment Glenn-2. 40) See Responses to Comments Epperly–23. 41) Comment noted. See Response to Comment Barr-4. 42) Comment noted. See Response to Community Comment-27. 43) The Draft EIR notes the location of the Project as being in a Very High Fire Severity Zone (see p. 3-98) and evaluates the evacuation needs of Lodge residents (see p. 3-100) as well as evacuation of neighboring homes (see p. 3-165). With mitigation incorporated, these impacts were determined less than significant. See also Response to Comment FRMA-26. 44) Comment noted. 45) Comment noted. 46) Comment noted. 47) Comment noted. 48) Comment noted. 49) Comment noted. 50) Comment noted. 51) Comment noted. 52) Comment noted. 53) Comment noted. Potential impacts of the Project on views are described in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR and in Master Response Visual Resources of this Final 2-172 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS EIR document. As noted in Master Response Visual Resources, the visual simulations were done correctly and present an accurate depiction of the Project. 54) See Response to Comment Aegis–1. 55) See Master Response Land Use Compatibility. As described in Appendix C, the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy UD-H-3. The City has considered the Applicant’s site plans as drawn since only 5 percent of the site area contains slopes over 25 percent, and of those only about one-third would be altered. In addition, none of the areas with slopes over 25 percent would be visually prominent or significant. Other design measures to reduce the impact include placement of buildings and parking facilities to maximize retention of existing tree clusters that best blend with the natural setting; prioritized grading; stepped building design; and architectural features. Final design will be subject to approval by the Design Review Board. 56) See Response to Comment Aegis–19. 57) Comment noted. 58) The potential impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the Project are described in Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIR. The City has not yet established significant thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions, which should be done after formal consideration and adoption of possible significant thresholds and not on a project EIR. The City has been developing programs and policies, alone and in conjunction with Sonoma County, to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 59) On December 18, 2007, the City adopted a Green Building Ordinance that requires nonresidential buildings such as the proposed community care facility to achieve a minimum of 20 credits in accordance with the LEED® Commercial Green Building Rating System. Green building is a method that reduces carbon emissions by using materials and construction techniques that promote natural resource conservation. The Green Building Ordinance adopted by the City provides a local incentive for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction. See also Response to Comment Public Hearing – 58 above. To support the City’s efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Project includes several measures to reduce operational GHG emissions, including energyefficient lighting and appliances. GHG emissions associated with the Project were estimated for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) were not separately estimated and were assumed to be minimal in comparison to CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions since the Project would not have the types of sources associated with large amounts of HFC, PFC, or SF6 fugitive emissions (e.g. large chillers or electrical transmission). CO2 emissions associated with Project construction were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS) model. At this time, URBEMIS does not include CH4 or N2O emission estimates. Construction emissions were calculated for exhaust emissions from construction equipment and exhaust emissions from haul trucks in the year 2009. Project construction would be expected to result in a ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-173
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:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132: 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 181: 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 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 233 and 234:
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR
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?