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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 13) The analysis of the Project’s effects on visual resources was based on the view areas that would be the most sensitive to the visual changes likely to be brought about by the Project (see Draft EIR p. 3-9 and Master Response Visual Resources). 14) See response to Comment FRMA-8. 15) Comment noted. 16) See Response to Comment Epperly-23. 17) Comment noted. 18) The Project is compatible with the FRPCD Policy Statement, as described in Draft EIR Impact 3.9-1 and Master Responses Land Use Compatibility and Visual Resources. 19) Potential impacts to aesthetics, including building massing and plantings, were evaluated in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR and are further discussed in Master Response Visual Resources; with mitigation, no significant aesthetic impacts would occur. Information on the size of individual buildings is provided in the Draft EIR in Section 2.4. The Project would not physically impede use of the Oaks Homeowners’ Association pool facility; “privacy” is not a resource area evaluated under CEQA. 20) See response to Comment FRMA-8. 21) A “will serve” letter from SCWA is not necessary. The City Department of Utilities has determined that there is sufficient water to serve the site. As described in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR, SCWA provides the City with its potable water supply. The City’s entitlement to SCWA water is 29,100 acre-feet per year (afy). Because current water demands are 23,000 afy, and only a portion of the development anticipated in the City’s General Plan has occurred, the City’s current entitlement is sufficient to meet the present and future demand associated with this Project. 22) Project impacts to traffic, including operational traffic generation, were evaluated in Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR; no significant traffic impacts from operation of the Project were identified. Cumulative traffic impacts were evaluated in Section 4.1.13 of the Draft EIR; cumulative traffic impacts to U.S. 101 ramps were identified as significant. See also Master Response Local Traffic. 23) Comment noted. 24) As described in Section 2.4.3 of the Draft EIR, construction staging areas will be located within the Project boundary on the proposed surface parking areas. Following construction, the City will review the streets for any damage and repair accordingly. 25) Comment noted. 26) The Project will not block emergency evacuation routes. As noted in Impact 3.13-4 of the Draft EIR, the installation of a signal at the intersection of Thomas Lake Harris and Fountaingrove Parkway will improve emergency access to and from the site. The Project’s increased demand on emergency services is evaluated in Impact 3.11-2 of the Draft EIR; with mitigation, impacts will be less than significant. 27) See response to FRMA – 26. 2-60 ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001
28) Comment noted. 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 29) See Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 (Add a traffic signal on Thomas Lake Harris Drive) in the Draft EIR, which notes that installation of a new signal alleviates the need for a westbound right-turn deceleration lane from Fountaingrove Parkway onto Thomas Lake Harris Drive. 30) See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation for explanation of how Mitigation Measures 3.6-2 through 3.6-5 in the Draft EIR comply with CEQA requirements. ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-61
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: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 23: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 27 and 28: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
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 69: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 73 and 74: Response to Comment Letter from Tho
Page 79 and 80: Response to Comment Letter from Jim
Page 85 and 86: Response to Comment Letter from Jos
Page 91 and 92: Response to Comment Letter from Edw
Page 103 and 104: Response to Comment Letter from Car
Page 121 and 122:
ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
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:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
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 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
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 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
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?