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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY lateral loads on foundations and contribute to differential settlement of slabs, walkways, roads, and other structures, and can result in tilting, lateral displacement, and/or more than normal cracking. A recent study by Giblin (2007) encountered evidence of landslides and slope instability of varying sizes and ages within the Project site. Additional technical analysis performed by Giblin concluded that conventional grading techniques could satisfactorily improve site stability and that the corrective measures would generally be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint (Giblin, 2008b). A review of the Giblin analysis by Kleinfelder concluded that the BAO\082970001 3-91
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY analysis was acceptable for a preliminary evaluation and for assessing overall geotechnical feasibility of landslide mitigation and project development (Kleinfelder, 2008b). Supplemental recommendations for site preparation, grading and foundation design criteria should be provided based on the results of additional site exploration and analysis of the conditions encountered (Giblin, 2008b). Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Incorporate site-specific slope stability analysis into Project design. AdditionalThe site-specific investigations and analyses will be performed during final design by the Applicant. The investigations will include drilling soil borings and recovering soil samples within and outside the boundaries of the proposed development site. The investigation will also include identification and characterization of the horizontal and vertical (depth) extents of slope instability. The findings will be incorporated in the analyses that will evaluate slope stability, including landslides and soil creep, and various slope stability measures. Depending on the findings, slope stabilization measures may consist of regrading slopes, providing surface and subsurface drainages, and constructing slope strengthening elements such as toe buttresses and secant walls. analyses will be performed and the findings of the analyses The results of these studies may limit the proposed development design, and they will be incorporated into the design of Project components prior to approval of the Improvement Plan. If the studies result in a significant redesign of the Project, then recirculation of the EIR may be required. After Mitigation: Less than significant Impact 3.6-4: The Project could result in exposure of people or structures to loss, injury, or death due to liquefaction and other forms of seismic-induced ground failure, including seismic slope instability and ground cracking. Analysis: Significant Seismic-induced ground failure has the potential to distress, displace, and/or destroy Project buildings and facilities. Portions of the Project site that are susceptible to slope instability hazards may also be susceptible to slope failure as a result of strong seismic ground shaking. Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Incorporate the results of geologic and geotechnical investigations and site-specific seismic analysis into Project design. As part of a design-level geologic and geotechnical investigations, site-specific seismic and geologic hazard analyses will be performed to collect data and to assess the potential for seismic-induced ground failure in soil and rock materials adjacent to and underlying Project components. The study will include assessments of seismic-induced geologic hazard potential at the Project site, such as liquefaction, slope failure during earthquakes, and loss of bearing capacity of foundation soils. If such potentially problematic soils and/or slopes are found, the effects of these seismic-induced geologic hazards to the performance of Project components will be evaluated and incorporated into the design. Mitigation measures may include excavation of potentially liquefiable soils during construction and replacement with engineered backfill, in-situ ground-treatment (such as compaction grouting, deep soil mixing, and jet grouting) to prevent occurrence of 3-92 BAO\082970001
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:
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:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
28) Comment noted. 2.0 LIST OF COMM
Page 73 and 74:
Response to Comment Letter from Tho
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Response to Comment Letter from Jim
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Response to Comment Letter from Jos
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Response to Comment Letter from Edw
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Response to Comment Letter from Car
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
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: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 161 and 162: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
Page 185: 2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS AND RESPONSE
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 209: 3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
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 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?