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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho Adequacy of Fountaingrove Lodge DEIR 7-7=578=6050 chezmac@earthlink.net file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mgerut/My%20Documents/Fountain%20Grove/Comment_Letters/McGuckin.htm (2 of 2)8/1/2008 2:10:09
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter from Henry McGuckin (letter dated July 18, 2008) Note: Response numbers correspond to comment numbers labeled in the margin of the letter. 1) Project impacts on biological resources are discussed in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR; impacts to oak trees and oak woodland are further detailed in Master Response Oak Trees and Oak Woodland. No significant impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of Project implementation. Impacts to oak and heritage trees would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation, including replanting of native trees onsite. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP), described in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c, would protect trees and habitat to be preserved during construction. As noted in Section 3.4, no direct impacts to Piner Creek would occur as a result of the Project. No wetlands or waters under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be impacted by the Project (USACE, 2008. February 20 letter to Amy Paravano at WRA on USACE jurisdictional determination). Potential impacts from construction of the Project to nesting birds, roosting bats, and northwestern pond turtle will be mitigated to a less than significant level through preconstruction surveys, avoidance, monitoring during construction, and/or other measures. 2) See response to Comment Epperly-23. 3) Comment noted. As described in Section 2 of the Draft EIR, the purpose of the Project is help to meet housing and service needs of the City’s senior community, consistent with the policies and goals in the General Plan that call for projects and services to support the needs of seniors in the City. Specific Project objectives are to create approximately 135 community care facility units; provide progressive care and a range of services to allow seniors to remain within the community; provide quality senior care licensed by the state of California; provide employee housing that is affordable to the full-time employees needed to operate the facility; and provide housing for seniors with convenient access to medical care facilities, highways, transportation, retail, and recreation amenities. As discussed in Section 3.9 Land Use of the Draft EIR and in Master Response Land Use Compatibility, the development of the site is consistent with the land uses designated in the City’s General Plan and the FRPCD Policy Statement, which was originally adopted in 1972 and amended in 1981 and 1992. Development has been planned for the Project site for several decades. ES092008001PHX\BAO\082970001 2-85
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 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44: 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 51 and 52: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 71 and 72: 28) Comment noted. 2.0 LIST OF COMM
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 93: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 103 and 104: Response to Comment Letter from Car
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?