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

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment Letter from Skip Epperly (Advocates for Responsible
Development)
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin of the
letter.
1) Comment noted. The City disagrees and believes that the Draft EIR has adequately
analyzed the Project’s impacts to air quality, aesthetics, biology, greenhouse gases,
seismicity, traffic, land use compatibility, and that the mitigation measures provided
mitigate potentially significant levels to less than significant. See specific responses
to these issues as follows: aesthetics (Response to Comment Epperly-2 and
Epperly-3), biology (Response to Comment Epperly-4 through Epperly-11),
greenhouse gases (Response to Comment Epperly-15), seismicity (Response to
Comment Epperly-13), traffic (Response to Comment Epperly-14), and consistency
with area plans (Response to Comment Epperly-16 through Epperly-22). No
comments specific to air quality appear to have been made by the commenter.
2) Aesthetic impacts are evaluated in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR and are further
discussed in Master Response Visual Resources. Site drawings do accurately portray
the Project’s height, mass, and density (see Master Response Visual Resources).
Visual impacts by the Project were appropriately based on these site drawings;
therefore, the conclusions derived from the impact analysis, including the
incorporation of mitigation measures, are accurate. Removal of the oak trees and the
site topography were incorporated into the visual analysis and visual simulations
included in the Draft EIR. As a visible design element, retaining walls were analyzed
in the Draft EIR (p. 3-14, 3-21, 3-22) and incorporated into the simulations (see
Master Response Visual Resources).
3) See Master Responses Visual Resources and Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and
Response to Comment FRMA – 16.
4) As described in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR, the only onsite riparian habitat is within
the 50-foot buffer of Piner Creek. No direct impacts to Piner Creek or its associated
riparian vegetation will occur; no mitigation is required.
5) See Master Response Oak Tree and Oak Woodland.
6) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland with mitigation, impacts to
protected and heritage trees would be less than significant.
7) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland.
8) See Response to Comment Public Hearing – 58.
9) See Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland and Response to Comment
Public Hearing – 58.
10) See Response to Comment Epperly – 4. The Study Area described in the Biological
Resources Assessment Report in Appendix I extended beyond the boundaries of the
Project site, and so estimated areas of habitat are slightly larger than what is present
on the Project site and described in the Draft EIR.
2-52 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001