SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C 150- C151: Refer to response D56 to the Robertson letter in Chapter V. Commenter should also refer to CDFG comments in Chapter VI. C 152: Comment noted. C 153: Commenter should refer to documentation in the revised biological study(Volume II,Section 4.7) which refutes the assumption that seasonal wetlands are largely non-existent. C 154: Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.13-1(a) in the revised biological study and the information contained therein which documents the background for requiring the mitigation. C 155: Comment noted. C 156: The applicant should be responsible for disseminating the information since this is a private development. The information can be made available through the deeds of trust, or through the CC&Rs. The management plan did not provide any details for the integrated management program. If the plan is to be revised, mitigation measures recommended in the revised biological study should be incorporated into the plan. C157: Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.13-1(g)in the revised biological study, Volume II, Section 4.7. C 158: This mitigation was recommended by the local fire district. It would behoove the developer to incorporate such a system given the distance from the nearest fire station and the susceptibility to wildland fires. C 159: Impacts on archaeological sites from the proposed development are documented in Figures 4.9-2 and 4.9-3 and in the text of Section 4.9 of the existing report, as well as in the Phase I study. C 160: The EIR authors concur with the recommendation. However, a Phase 11 study is necessary to determine both the exact extent of the sites and the extent of the undisturbed area. C161: Unless the project is redesigned, actual damage to recoded site could result. This would constitute a significant effect under CEQA, Appendix G(J) and K. C 162: The EIR authors concur with these comments. See text changes in Volume 11, Section 4.9. C 163: Capping is recommended here because of previous damage and compaction caused by the road. See CEQA, Appendix K, concerning capping. On Figure 4.9-2,and in the confidential report, it is shown that the access road crosses site CA-SJO-0011. C 164: The EIR archaeologists maintain that the proposed testing is both technically appropriate and necessary at a minimum for all sites. See response C83. All sites should be avoided by the development;however, it is necessary to know what to avoid prior to locating the development. C 165: No off-site survey is recommended. The suggested survey is only for the proposed access road that is a part of the project application. III-177