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

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