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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TABLE 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Documentation Additional Permit Enforcement Implementation Schedule Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Party during construction shall be relocated by a qualified biologist outside the construction zone limits. This mitigation requirement shall be noted on improvement plans, grading plans, and building plans. N/A Project plans to include biological monitor provision. During development of design plans. Mitigation Measure 3.4-5b: Perform onsite monitoring during construction. Daily logs and monthly compliance reports. City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development During construction to the satisfaction of the Department of Community Development. Qualified Biologist Biological monitors shall be employed to monitor and/or implement construction mitigation measures and to report on compliance with mitigation measures by contractors. Biological monitors shall be qualified to conduct the mitigation activities described herein as well as additional mitigation that may be required in project permits. Reports on noncompliance with environmental requirements may result in temporary halting of construction activity to examine the noncompliance and prevent further resource damage. Biological monitors shall: • Provide worker environmental awareness training for all construction personnel that identifies sensitive biological resources that may occur in or adjacent to construction areas and that addresses measures required to minimize Project impacts during construction and operation. • Designate a setback from the creek in the Project plans. This setback will be identified by orange construction fencing installed before construction activities onsite. A biological monitor will monitor the installation of the construction fencing. • Be present onsite during initial construction activities to identify sensitive resources. • Monitor mitigation construction near sensitive habitats and resources. • Prohibit ground disturbance until sensitive areas are cleared. • Be present during open trench work construction activities that require special attention in sensitive areas. Prepare construction monitoring and compliance reports that analyze the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. 3.5 Cultural Resources Project plans and specifications revised to include provisions for archaeological remains discovery. California Public Resources Code Sections 5024.1, 7050.5, and 5097.94. During development of plans and specification. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a: Protect historic or archaeological resources discovered during construction. Impact 3.5-1: Construction of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an unknown historic or archaeological resource or disturb human remains. Daily logs and monthly compliance reports. City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development During construction. Archaeological Monitor If archaeological remains are uncovered during construction activities, work onsite shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. If resources are encountered, the Project applicant, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, shall prepare a resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan and shall submit it to the City for review and approval prior to the continuation of construction activities. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools, grinding and mashing Because a high potential exists for cultural resources to occur given the site conditions, potential impacts could occur to unknown subsurface cultural resources during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b, potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, mortars and 4-8 ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TABLE 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Documentation Additional Permit Enforcement Implementation Schedule Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Party pestles), and locally darkened midden soil. Midden soil may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items, with the possible addition of bone and shell remains and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include fragments of glass, ceramic and metal objects, milled and split lumber, and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). N/A Finding Notification. During construction. City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b: Protect human remains discovered during construction. Construction Contractor If human remains are encountered during Project construction, excavation or disturbance of the location shall be halted immediately, and the county coroner will be contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American, and the most likely descendent shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains. 3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity N/A Seismic Analysis Report. During the development of plans and specifications. City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Incorporate site-specific seismic analysis into Project design. Impact 3.6-2: The Project could result in exposure of people or structures to loss, injury, or death due to strong ground shaking from local and regional seismic sources. Revised plans and specifications. Prior tothe approval of the Improvement Plan. Project Applicant The site-specific seismic analyses shall be performed to evaluate seismic ground motions, including peak ground acceleration, that can be expected to occur at the Project site. These findings will be incorporated into the design of Project components prior to approval of the Improvement Plan. The project components will be designed in accordance with the applicable building codes (2007 California Building Code) and will satisfy the seismic performance criteria of their intended uses. Code requirements for structures located very near faults are more complex than the requirements for structures located outside this region. For structures located within the Project region, additional measures such as sitespecific geotechnical and geological investigations and additional structural analysis and detailing are required. If the studies result in a significant redesign of the project, then recirculation of the EIR may be required. Based on the activities of major regional seismic sources, it is likely that the Project will be exposed to at least one moderate or greater earthquake located close enough to produce strong ground shaking at the Project site. The greatest potential for strong seismic ground shaking within the Project site comes from the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault due to its close distance to the site. Prior to issuance of building permits. In the event of a maximum credible event on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault, the average estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration on a rock or shallow soil site within the Project vicinity range from approximately 0.4 to 0.9 g-force (g), estimated using the Abrahamson and Silva (1997) and Idriss (1994) attenuation relationships. Because seismic waves attenuate with distance from their source, estimated bedrock accelerations are highest for portions of the Project vicinity nearest to the fault zone and decrease with distance from the fault. Local soil conditions may amplify or dampen seismic waves as they travel from underlying bedrock to the ground surface. In addition to the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault, the Maacama, Hayward, and San Andreas Faults also present significant potential for strong ground shaking within the region. Impact 3.6-3: The Project could result in exposure of people or structures to loss, injury, or Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Incorporate site-specific City of Santa During N/A Slope Stability Analysis Report. death due to slope instability, including landslides and slope creep. slope stability analysis into Project design. Rosa development of Department of plans and Revised plans and specifications. Slope instability, including landslides and slope creep, has the potential to undermine Additional site-specific investigations and analyses will be Community specifications. foundations, cause distortion and distress to overlying structures, and displace or destroy performed during final design by the Applicant. The Development Project buildings and facilities. Creep is a common phenomenon that occurs to varying investigations will include drilling soil borings and Prior to the degrees on most hill slopes in Sonoma County. Such soil creep movements can impose recovering soil samples within and outside the boundaries Project Applicant approval of the lateral loads on foundations and contribute to differential settlement of slabs, walkways, of the proposed development site. The investigation will Improvement roads, and other structures, and can result in tilting, lateral displacement, and/or more than also include identification and characterization of the Plan. normal cracking. horizontal and vertical (depth) extents of slope instability. The findings will be incorporated in the analyses that will Prior to issuance A recent study by Giblin encountered evidence of landslides and slope instability of varying evaluate slope stability, including landslides and soil of building sizes and ages within the Project site. Additional technical analysis performed by Giblin creep, and various slope stability measures. Depending permits. concluded that conventional grading techniques could satisfactorily improve site stability and on the findings, slope stabilization measures may consist that the corrective measures would generally be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. A ES092008001PHX\ BAO\082970001 4-9
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:
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: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 177 and 178: ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_public
Page 179 and 180: 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 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 225: 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR
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?