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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS temporary increase of 279 metric tons of CO2 per year during the 19-month construction period. For operational emissions, CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from residential electricity use were estimated using the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) average kilowatt hour (kWh) consumption per residential customer in 2005 (CEC, 2007). CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from residential natural gas use were estimated using the URBEMIS model multifamily natural gas consumption value. The same vehicle assumptions used to generate the criteria pollutant operation emissions were used to estimate GHG emissions. The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol emission factors were used to estimate emissions from electricity use, natural gas use, and vehicle use (CCAR 2008). Operation of the Project would be expected to result in 3,140 metric tons of CO2equivalent emissions per year. Project CO2 equivalent emissions would account for less than 0.01 percent of the 2004 GHG emissions for the entire state of California. Therefore, the Project would be expected to be an insignificant source of global GHG emissions. TABLE 2-1. Summary of GHG operational emissions Emission Source CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons per year) Natural Gas Use 387 Electricity Use 387 Transportation Fuel Use 2,366 Note: Both electricity use and transportation fuel use are indirect sources of GHG emissions because these emissions result from sources outside of the control of the Project. The Project would not be expected to result in a substantial incremental contribution to global atmospheric GHG concentrations. The Project would result in minor GHG emissions but these emissions are not necessarily new emission sources. In many cases, these GHG emissions would be “redistributed” from existing developments in other locations, although the extent of this redistribution is uncertain. The Project is located in Sonoma County, which is not a substantial contributor to California transportation fuel consumption, natural gas consumption, and electricity use. Sonoma County accounts for 1.2 percent of gasoline fuel use and 1 percent of diesel fuel use in California (BOE, 2007). Also, Sonoma County accounts for 1.4 percent of the state residential electricity use and 1.6 percent of the residential natural gas use (CEC, 2008). Therefore, redistributing these emission sources from either within the County or from outside of the County, with operation of the Project, would not be expected to result in a significant net increase in global GHG emissions. Draft EIR Table 3.3-1 has been modified with information acquired since the publication of the Draft EIR. See Section 3.0 Errata. 2-174 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 60) Comment noted. CEQA does not require analysis of social demographics as part of an environmental impact assessment. As described in Section 2.1 in the Draft EIR, the Project supports the goals and policies established in the Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan that call for projects and services to support the needs of seniors in Santa Rosa. 61) No medical services will be provided as part of the proposed Project; medical services are therefore unavailable for both residents and nonresidents alike (see Draft EIR p. 2-1). The Project is a private facility with amenities for residents only. 62) See Master Response Visual Resources. 63) See Response to Comment Public Hearing-36 on site lighting. Noise impacts during construction are addressed in Impact 3.10-3. Construction of the Project would temporarily but significantly increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site and along transportation corridors used by construction equipment and workers during the construction period (see Draft EIR p. 3-126). With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-3, construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. As described in Impact 3.10-1, the effects of traffic on noise levels would be less than significant. As described in Impact 3.10-2, noise from operation of building equipment will be less than significant with mitigation. See also Master Response for Noise. Heritage oak trees are defined in the Draft EIR p. 3-47 and 3-48. Impacts to heritage oak trees are address in Impact 3.4-1; approximately 120 native heritage trees would be removed. See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and Response to Comment Glenn-2. 64) See Master Response Visual Impacts. ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-175
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:
Page 133 and 134: 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 183: 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 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?