SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

According to recent regulations,the Regional Water Quality Control Board considers grading of areas in excess of five acres to be potentially significant and requires that such projects apply for and receive a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit before grading begins. C35: Comment noted. C36: Comment noted. However, the authors of the EIR believe that leachfield "easements" as proposed require mitigation measures beyond normal County leachfield requirements for the reasons stated in the text. Accordingly,the EIR authors stand by the recommendation that both the primary leachfield and the future "reserve" system be installed at the time of initial construction. C37: Comment noted. The applicant's proposal to cordon off the proposed leachfield sites to protect against compaction by heavy equipment should be an effective way of complying with the recommended mitigation measure. C38: Comment noted. The County Environmental Health Services is free to review the septic system maintenance issue and assign any necessary permit and development conditions. However, the authors of the EIR also have an obligation to examine potential wastewater system maintenance impacts and to recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate. No change in the EIR is warranted in response to this comment. C39: Comments acknowledged. The DEIR discusses potential land use impacts in Chapter 4.1. As written in Section 5.2 of the DEIR, beneficial impacts of the development proposal include the elimination of trespassing, vandalism and poaching. Also the removal of cattle grazing will provide a far better foraging area for predator birds. C40: Opinion noted. C41- C42: Commenter should refer to revised biological study in Volume 11, Section 4.7. Dr. McGinnis is a biologist with many years experience assessing developmental impacts on wildlife communities. He is well respected with the state and federal wildlife agencies and performs numerous studies under the auspices of these agencies. The commenter should keep in mind that when assessing biological impacts for an EIR study, timing is very important because the application processing schedule is usually mandated by state planning law, or perhaps a local jurisdiction. Many times if the schedule does not coincide with the wildlife season, the consultant must then rely on existing information. Such was the case with the original biological study. In response to the comments received in the EIR and because additional archaeological work would be conducted, the biological studies were extended into the summer months. C43: The EIR authors cannot speculate as to the reasons for the developer selecting this site, other than for the beauty of its natural resources. C44: The EIR authors concur with the commenter that more work is necessary (see Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(d)of the DEIR). III-167