SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

D. Individuals and Organizations DI: Information noted. D2: Comments relate to the project and not to the adequacy of the EIR. D3: Comment noted. D4: It is consulting archaeologists' (Biosystems) opinion that the "areas of remains" which are surficially visible have been adequately identified and mapped. It is possible, as stated in the Supplemental Report (p. 37) that subsurface archaeological deposits may be encountered during ground disturbing development activities. Our original recommendation was, that if such deposits are discovered, work at the location of a find cease until a qualified cultural resources professional be contacted to examine and evaluate the discovery. Refer to response B15 regarding modifications to our recommendations. D5: Dave Fisher of Robertson Homes was questioned regarding removal of trees along Fairway #9 where site 9/24/92-1 was identified. He recalls the mound being thick with trees (approximately 20),which when completely removed left deep holes about 6-9 feet deep. At this time, he recalls no artifacts or bones being exposed. His statements are reported on page 2 of the site record. The EIR consultant can not state with certainty that no artifacts or bones were exposed, as such materials may likely have gone unrecognized. D6: Comments noted. D7: Point well taken. There would have to be a "hawk patrol" monitoring operation enforced each season to ensure that operations ran according to plan. D8: Comment noted. D9: The text has been revised to acknowledge the possible conflict in mitigation measures. The only area of concern is in the northern portion of the site where an area of cultural resources has been designated high sensitivity. This encompass approximately five acres. Refer to Sections 4.7 and 6.5 in Volume II and response D11. The EIR impact analysis and mitigation measures speak for themselves; beyond this, it is not the role of the EIR authors to offer subjective judgment on whether or not the project is "questionable." D 10: Comments noted. D 11: In regards to whether all sites have been located, please refer to response D4. No project can, with certainty, proceed with the knowledge that all resources have been identified. For this reason, nearly all inventory reports provide a qualifier to this effect, in the event of subsurface discovery. Refer to response A2 regarding our recommendations. D 12: The consulting archaeologist believes that the staging and movement of heavy equipment could be conducted without harm to the sites identified as long as these sites are avoided. Of particular concern would be site CA-SJO-43 which bisects the southern access road into the property. Therefore, we recommend a condition to restrict use of the southern access road by heavy VI-155