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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho JOHNSON – 1 JOHNSON – 2 Santa Rosa, California. All of us are fortunate that this calm landscape—studded with ancient and gnarled heritage oaks—has been preserved. Those so interested that walk this area can find evidence of the settlements of those who lived, died, and were buried here over the years. We can find remnants of stone walls and old fences built a century ago as proof of this area’s precious history. These ten verdant acres are split by active earthquake faults and evidence of ancient landslides. If built, these buildings will block the creeks whose waters are restrained by two 50- year-old earthen dams. These buildings are so massive and tall that they would take this scenery away from sightseers, residents, and tourists. Imagine shoehorning a facility the size of Kaiser on Mendocino Avenue into a quiet wooded street only a few feet away from nearby homes. The Lodge would mean years of pollution from the extensive excavations, grading, and filling; hundreds of additional trucks, vans, and cars to the dangerous, overcrowded traffic hazards along the only non-residential access to the area; restricted emergency evacuation routes in the most dangerous section of Santa Rosa with the greatest danger from wildfires. I cannot possible imagine any residential area in Santa Rosa that would be more unsuitable and inappropriate for this intrusive commercial development. Jim Johnson Jim@JimJohnsonAssociates.com 2107 Stine320 Tenth Street, Suite 303 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 t. 707.571.0226 f. 707-526-7939 file://C:\Documents and Settings\mgerut\My Documents\Fountain Grove\Comment_Letters\Johnso... Page 2 of 2 8/1/2008
Response to Comment Letter from Jim Johnson 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin of the letter. 1) This comment contains references to multiple resources. Impacts of the Project to oak trees were evaluated in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR; see also Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland. Impacts to oak trees will be mitigated to less than significant. Impacts of the Project to visual resources were evaluated in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR; see also Master Response Visual Resources. The evaluation included the size and height of the buildings. For explanation of how Impact 3.13-3 presents an accurate impact evaluation of the Project’s outdoor lighting plans, see Response to Community Comments – 13. Impacts to visual resources will be mitigated to less than significant. Impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic were evaluated in, respectively, Section 3.3, Section 3.10, and Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR; see also Master Responses Noise and Local Traffic. Project impacts to air, noise, and traffic from Project construction and operation will be mitigated to less than significant. As described in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR, a cultural resources survey of the Project site was completed. Despite the potential for historic occupancy of the site, neither archival nor field research found evidence of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources on the Project site. 2) This comment contains references to multiple resources. Potential impacts associated with faulting and landslides are discussed in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR; see also Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation. The nearest active fault is immediately southwest of the Project site, as shown in Figure 3.6-3 of the Draft EIR. As described in Impact 3.6-1 in the Draft EIR, recent fault investigation study found no evidence of recent fault activity; potential impacts from surface rupture of a fault are less than significant. No construction activities or Project facilities will be located within 50 feet of Piner Creek and the creek will not be blocked; see Figure 2-3 in the Draft EIR. Impacts of the Project to visual resources were evaluated in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR; see also Master Response Visual Resources. Impacts to visual resources will be mitigated to less than significant. Construction impacts to air quality, as described in Impact 3.3-2 in the Draft EIR, would be potentially significant; however, with implementation of mitigation to control PM10 emissions, impacts would be less than significant. It should be noted that construction is estimated to last 19 months (see Section 2.4.3 in the Draft EIR). Potential traffic impacts from the Project were evaluated in Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR; see also Master Response Local Traffic. The large majority of Project traffic will be automobile traffic from residents and employees; with addition of the traffic light at Thomas Lake Harris Drive and Fountaingrove Parkway, no significant impacts ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-69
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 33 and 34: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
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 71 and 72: 28) Comment noted. 2.0 LIST OF COMM
Page 73 and 74: Response to Comment Letter from Tho
Page 77: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
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 129 and 130:
ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?