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

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
the Project design as needed. Where equipment is mounted on a sloped roof, it is installed
within a well so that it does not protrude from the roof and sound insulation is provided by
the walls of the well. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(B) states that “[mitigation] measures
may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the
project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” Mitigation
Measures 3.10-is based on a performance standard that will be implemented during final
design.
Construction noise impacts are detailed in the noise study (Appendix O to the Draft EIR)
and are described in Impact 3.10-3 in the Draft EIR. Noise produced by construction
activities would be audible and exceed existing noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site
during the construction period, constituting a significant but temporary noise impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 outlines BMPs for the contractor to minimize construction noise
impacts to the degree feasible. Because residents are assumed to be at home during the
night, the mitigation measure correctly identifies daytime hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,
Monday through Saturday) as the time when the number of people in the neighborhood is
at its lowest. Construction duration is expected to be 19 months; the greater noise-producing
construction activities would last only a portion of this time during earthwork and
foundation construction activities. Because impacts are short-term, and noise levels would
be reduced through the BMPs in Mitigation Measure 3.10-3, noise impacts from construction
will be less than significant.
2.2.5 Local Traffic
Several comments were made regarding adequacy of the analysis of traffic impacts along
Thomas Lake Harris Drive and its intersections and requested clarifications about the
location and timing of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, Add a traffic signal on Thomas Lake
Harris Drive.
Data from the traffic analysis performed by The Crane Transportation Group (see Draft EIR
Appendix P) was used to evaluate potential traffic impacts from the Project, as described in
Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR. An exact prediction of the amount of traffic on the possible
routes used by the visitors and residents cannot be accurately made and such exhaustive
impact analysis is not required by CEQA. To comply with CEQA, the analysis focused on
the main routes that would carry the majority of traffic. By concentrating analysis on
the intersections with greatest potential for impact, the need for mitigation is
similarly focused where appropriate. Minor traffic routes and intersections, including
Stonefield Lane, were not considered by the City as major locations with
potential Project impacts and therefore were not included as part of the focuses traffic study
(2006 Crane Report, p. 6). See also Response to Comment Epperly-14. The number of trips
generated by the Project were estimated using a standard estimation measure (based on
facility type) generated by ITE Trip Generation Handbook, a commonly used source. Based
on the Handbook, a project of this size and type would generate approximately 422 daily
round trips (dispersed over 24 hours). To further focus the impact analysis, trips occurring
during the AM and PM peak hours were considered as they would yield the greatest
potential for congestion. One-way trips generated by the Project were estimated to be
29 (AM peak hour) and 44 (PM peak hour). As shown on Figure 9 in the traffic study in
Draft EIR Appendix P, the Project would generate an additional two cars per hour
2-10 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001