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

Response to Comment Letter from Edward Margason
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin of the
letter.
1. Several figures and text in the Draft EIR provide information on Project layout and
construction. Figure 2-3 shows the location and footprint of all buildings included in the
Project; a detailed description of each building, including dimensions and design
features, is included in Section 2.4.1. Profiles and elevations of the Project buildings are
shown in Figure 2-4. Visual simulations of the Project are shown in Figures 3.1-4
through 3.1-7. CEQA does not specifically require provision of detailed site plans.
2. See Master Response Visual Resources.
3. See Master Response Visual Resources. The height of the main building closest to
Thomas Lake Harris Drive would be approximately 29 feet above grade as shown in
Figure 2-4 of the Draft EIR. There would not be “50 to 80 foot-high structures within 15
feet” of Thomas Lake Harris Drive.
4. The proposed grading for the site, as well as plans for retaining wall construction, was
taken into account during the analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. See
Sections 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources and 3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismicity in the
Draft EIR, as well as Master Responses Soils and Seismic Mitigation and Visual
Resources. As shown in Figure 2-4 and described in Section 2.4.2 of the Draft EIR, the
design includes limited contour grading of portions of the site so that buildings will
blend in with the overall hillside nature of the area.
5. See Response to Comment Epperly – 23; a Project alternative that would avoid or
substantially lessen most impacts from the Project would not meet most of the Project
objectives. The affordable employee housing only occupies a footprint of 4,500 square
feet, approximately 2 percent of the proposed lot coverage (buildings, parking lots,
circulation ways, paved walkways, and patios). Eliminating the employee housing
would make very little difference in the level of Project impacts, would not leave enough
room to allow the remaining structures to be “spread out,” and would not meet one of
the Project objectives. It would also result in an increase in traffic impacts (with
additional workers driving to the site) and a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas
emissions compared to the Project as described in the Draft EIR.
6. The Project does not include a “Lodge II.” Cumulative effects and the cumulative
scenario analyzed are described in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR; as allowed under CEQA,
the cumulative scenario is the build-out of the General Plan Area within the Urban
Growth Boundary and build-out of the FRPCD Policy Statement’s Land Use and
Circulation Plan, not a list of projects. As described in Section 4.1, only cumulative traffic
impacts to U.S. 101 ramps would be significant; all other cumulative impacts would be
less than significant.
7. See Master Response Soils and Seismic Mitigation.
8. Comment noted. The City agreed with scoping comments and similarly determined that
additional seismic analysis was required to determine the location of potential faults.
ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-81