SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A26: A discussion of Government Code Section 66478.5 has been added to the EIR, Chapter 4.1. A27: It is not the responsibility of the DEIR to specify methodology for instream flow requirements, since this falls under the regulatory control of the Division of Water Rights. As a matter of information, the Division of Water Rights can be expected to rely upon input from various agencies in determining the impact of water diversions on the downstream water consumers, as well as the biotic environment. Biotic impacts would be assessed by qualified aquatic, fisheries, and wildlife biologists with the California Department of Fish and Game, and possibly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The effects of water diversion on the public trust resources is also considered at that time. Necessary water diversion studies would be required before permit issuance by the Division of Water Rights. The water rights permit process also includes its own provisions for public review and hearing regarding proposed diversion. A28: Groundwater pumping limitations could be implemented by requiring metering of pumping wells and/or submission of PG&E metering reports of electrical use (correlated to water productions). It would be the responsibility of the County to stipulate, monitor and enforce compliance with the mitigation. A29: As explained on page 6-1 of the DEIR, an alternative site analysis was not conducted because the proposed development plan was specific to the project site. The applicant's management plan was specific to the conditions of the project site. A30: There is no information at this time regarding the management of the conservation easement. The County can require that the Deed of Conservation Easement be in effect prior to approving the Final Map. The commenter is correct that monitoring of the conservation easement will be required to insure the easement is maintained. A monitoring program can be established as a part of the Deed of Conservation Easement and approved by the County. A31: A new mitigation measure has been added to Impact 4.1-5 reflecting the concerns of the Commission. A32: Comments acknowledged. Cancellation of the Williamson Act is discussed in Section 4.1, Volume II. The applicant has since revised plans to seek cancellation only for the portion of the site accommodating the development and golf course. A33: A mitigation has been added to Section 4.7, Volume II. A34: Comments noted. A35: The peak-hour signal warrants used for this report are intended as an initial screening of an intersection's volumes to identify if it may be appropriate for signalization . Primarily, the warrants provide an estimate of the degree to which the volume of side street traffic is prevented from crossing/entering the flow of through traffic. If, based upon the U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines, the combination of volumes may qualify it for signalization, then it may be relevant to analyze other factors such as accident history or proximity of other intersections, etc., as well as identifying the traffic volumes over a longer period of time as Caltrans does. We concur that the factors affecting the Davis Road/Route 12 intersection preclude signalization based solely upon the peak-hour criteria. III-161