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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Pursuant to the FRPCD Policy Statement, development of up to 15 units per acre of single- and multi-family residential development is permissible on the Project parcels. The City’s General Plan designates the Project site as Low Density Residential, allowing for both single- and multi-family residential uses, up to 8 units per acre. General Plan Policy H-D-14 also allows for increased density regardless of land use designation as an incentive for senior and community care facility development. Although the calculated “density” of the Project is 15 units per acre and the Project would be consistent with the FRPCD Policy Statement, the Project is not subject to the land use density requirement. Community care facilities are not considered a residential land use and the land use density for the Project is not considered residential density. In addition, community care facilities are allowed in any land use designation and in any zoning district in the City through a Conditional Use Permit; therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning code (City of Santa Rosa, 2002 and 2007). The Conditional Use Permit is required for community care facilities and for all development within the FRPCD to establish allowed uses, dimensional standards, landscape requirements, parking requirements, and other development standards. To prevent placing too many community care facilities in a given area, General Plan Policy LUL-E-3 requires the City to avoid the concentration of large community care facilities in any single residential neighborhood. In northeast Santa Rosa, existing continuing care facilities include Brighton Gardens, Varenna, and Vineyard Commons. The Project is interspersed with these facilities by other land uses and is consistent with the guidance provided in Policy LUL-E-3. Project consistency with other specific General Plan policies is reviewed in Appendix C. To further support Project compatibility with the General Plan, FRPCD policies, and with surrounding land uses, the Project would be subject to consideration by the Design Review Board. Design Review is intended to ensure that the Project incorporates superior site and architectural design. Additionally, because the Project site includes land with slopes of 10 percent or more, the Project is subject to the City’s Hillside Development Standards, and would require a Hillside Development Permit. The issuance of a Hillside Development Permit requires that the City’s Planning Commission make a finding that the Project will minimize the impacts of hillside development and will meet City Design Guidelines. The Project’s satisfaction of Permit conditions and adherence to the applicable Design Guidelines would further support the Project’s compatibility with surrounding residential and recreational uses. No hilltop or ridgeline development is proposed as part of the Project. Potential visual, noise, and traffic impacts from the Project are evaluated in Sections 3.1, 3.10, and 3.13, respectively, of this Draft EIR, and would not interfere with adjacent land uses. In general, the Project is not expected to conflict with surrounding land uses, or to negatively affect the character of adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Project proposes a self-contained community care facility for seniors with varying medical needs and onsite employee housing to complement the facility. Progressive care needs of residents would be addressed by the proposed 36-unit Care Facility by providing high- acuitysecurity assisted living and memory support/Alzheimer’s care. Other services, such as formal dining facilities, banking, and a fitness center, also would be available onsite to provide for residents’ recreational, social, and housekeeping needs. Additionally, transportation services would be 3-120 BAO\082970001
3.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Springs Road leads to Old Redwood Highway and to an interchange with U.S. 101. Only 15 percent of Project traffic is projected to travel to or from north of the Project site on U.S. 101 and Old Redwood Highway combined (see Table 3.13-3). In addition, the routing using Fountaingrove Parkway to U.S. 101 and Old Redwood Highway is more direct than a Thomas Lake Harris Drive-Cross Creek Road-Mark West Springs Road routing (Crane Transportation Group, 2006). Therefore, only negligible levels of Project traffic would use Mark West Springs Road, and no measurable impact to operating conditions on Mark West Springs Road would occur. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Add a traffic signal on Thomas Lake Harris Drive. A three-legged signal shallwill be installed at Thomas Lake Harris (West) and Fountaingrove Parkway. This traffic signal would alleviate the need for a westbound right-turn deceleration lane and an eastbound left-turn acceleration lane on Thomas Lake Harris Drive. In addition to the traffic signal, there will be a need to increase the radius of the curb return on the northeast quadrant of the intersection to improve the flow of the westbound to northbound right turn. The traffic signal would be interconnected (timed) with the existing traffic signals at the intersection of Fountaingrove Parkway and Round Barn Boulevard, as well as the intersection of Fountaingrove Parkway and Altruria Drive. This would result in an improvement over the existing LOS. It is important to note that drivers using Thomas Lake Harris Drive also have the option of using the nearby Fir Ridge Drive intersection for signalized access to Fountaingrove Parkway. After Mitigation: Less than significant Impact 3.13-2: The Project would add traffic trips to U.S. 101, potentially resulting in a degradation of peak hour LOS below Sonoma County Congestion Management Authority LOS E. Analysis: Less than significant Based on the distribution patterns shown in Table 3.13-3, the Project would be expected to add traffic to U.S. 101 and its ramps, as shown in Table 3.13-6. The additional traffic is less than 0.2 percent of the capacity of the six-lane segment of freeway in central Santa Rosa now under construction. This is a negligible impact and would not affect the LOS on U.S. 101. Mitigation: No mitigation required Impact 3.13-3: The Project could result in an increase in hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. Analysis: Less than significant The posted speed limit on Thomas Lake Harris Drive near the Project site is 25 miles per hour. Based on criteria from the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (Crane Transportation Group, 2006), the minimum required sight distance is 155 feet, which is lower than Fountaingrove Lodge’s driveway design (which ranges from 285 feet to 480 feet) on Thomas Lake Harris Drive. 3-164 BAO\082970001
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:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
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 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 167 and 168: 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: 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Bec
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?