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

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho
MARGASON – 3
MARGASON – 4
MARGASON – 5
MARGASON – 6
MARGASON – 7
Written Comments on Draft Environmental Impact report for the Lodge Project,
demonstrate the harsh visual impact of such structural sitings. This fortress-like appearance has
many City residents angry and they do not want more of such mass and bulk and this was not
addressed in the lodge DEIR.
The DEIR photos in section 3 do not address the views into the site nor do they show any
structures because trees have inserted digitally in front; this is misleading and inaccurate. Photos
should show the actual buildout appearance. The crowding of the walls along TLH does not allow
any room for landscape screening of walls since some are within 3 feet of the street and yet the
DEIR concludes in mitigation measure 3.1-2, page 3-23, that a landscape plan will provide a
natural-appearing landscape composition along the periphery of the site thus mitigating the
“significant” 3.1-2 impact. This is not effective mitigation and will do nothing to reduce this
serious environmental impact on TLH and the existing Oaks and Stonefield neighborhoods. Such
landscape mitigation has not worked at Varenna and it will not be effective at the lodge project.
Page Two
The DEIR does not address the fundamental assumption that project siting will require major
regrading of most of the 10-acre site by cutting at least 15 feet deep along the east golf course
boundary and filling up to 15 feet deep along TLH; this is the only reason why the retaining walls
are needed and yet the DEIR does not analyze this impact. The impact of such grading is not
adequately addressed in the draft nor is the assumption that
the lodge project must have a level cut-and-fill building pad. Such siting is fundamentally flawed
because it’s typical of a 15-acre flat land site elsewhere but does not apply to the sloping and
wooded 10-acre hillside site proposed for the lodge.
In the alternatives discussed on page xi of the executive summary, there is no mention of a
smaller size development having less living units. This is a major flaw in the DEIR and must be
addressed according to CEQA law. An alternative without affordable employee housing must
also be discussed since elimination of these structures would allow the senior living units to be
spread out on the site thereby reducing the impact of concentrated unit construction .
The cumulative impacts on page xii of the executive summary do not discuss the Lodge II project
which will be sited across TLH on the opposite side of the Oaks where the sales office has been
permitted by the City. This is also a serious flaw in the DEIR since this second phase will double
the project size and number of living units when the entire lodge project is built out. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130(b) requires analysis of such cumulative impacts and this cannot be
deferred nor ignored in the final EIR.
Grading for unstable or compressible soil repair is mentioned as a generality in impact 3.6-5 on
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/Margason.htm (2 of 4)8/1/2008 2:10:09 PM