SUMMARY TABLE

3.1	Geology and Soils
3.1-A	Increased population and employment activity under the Draft UVAP would increase the number of persons exposed to risk of injury and death and the amount of property damage resulting from seismic events in the plan area.	PS	Policy SF-1: Regulate new development in Earthquake Fault Zones.	PS
			EIR-Recommended Mitigation Measures: Delete policy and measures under Goal SF-1 and replace with the following: Policy SF-1.1: Protect people and property from seismic and other geologic hazards. Implementation Measure SF-1.1.1: All residential subdivisions and non-residential project applications requesting a discretionary permit that include construction of over 5,000 square feet of new building must include a geotechnical study acceptable to the County which identifies what measures are needed to protect the project from seismic hazard, landsliding, and/or soil limitations, unless the County determines that such studies are not needed for a particular site because of the availability of existing geotechnical data or the clear lack of geotechnical constraints on the site. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services]	LS
3.1-B	Development has the potential of exposing additional people and structures to slope failure hazard.	PS	Policy SF-1.2: Protect people and property from landslide danger.	PS
			EIR-Recommended Mitigation Measures: The new policy and measure recommended for Impact 3.1-A would apply to this impact.	LS
3.1-C	Future development could be damaged by improper construction or siting due to soil constraints.	PS	No UVAP policies address this impact.	PS
			EIR-Recommended Mitigation Measures: The new policy and measure recommended for Impact 3.1-A would apply to this impact.	LS
3.1-D	Construction of new development will increase erosion from soils. This erosion can cause sedimentation of and reduced water quality in plan area streams.	PS	Policy OC-4.2: Roads and structures should be sited and designed to minimize or avoid damage to the natural hillside resources. Policy OC-8.4: Conserve and enhance the natural riparian corridor of the Russian River and its tributaries to protect habitat and fisheries values and lessen the effects of erosion and sedimentation. Policy OC-12.2: Protect surface and groundwater from adverse impacts of development caused by chemicals and soil sediments found in runoff.	PS
			EIR-Recommended Mitigation Measures: Implementation Measure OC-4.2.1: The land development code shall establish hillside road and structure siting standards which minimize or avoid damage to the natural hillside resources and minimize erosion and sedimentation of streams. Implementation Measure OC-12.2.5: Until a grading ordinance is adopted by the County, require preparation of an erosion control plan for all discretionary projects exceeding 5 acres in size in classifications RC, NSC, SR, and RR, C, and I. [Timeframe: Ongoing. Responsibility: Planning and Building Services]	LS

3.1-E	Future development would not result in the loss of known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites.	LS	No mitigation is required.	LS
3.2	Hydrology and Water Quality
3.2-A	Development within flood zones would expose more people and property to flood hazards.	PS	Policy SF-2.1: Enforce standards to protect development within the one hundred year floodplain. Policy SF-2.2: Avoid development in the Russian River floodway.	LS
3.2-B	Development would be allowed in areas subject to seiche, mudflow, or dam inundation.	LS	No mitigation is required.	LS
3.2-C	Future development would increase the area covered with impermeable surfaces which would increase the amount of runoff. Future development could be located within the floodplain, displacing floodplain storage and expanding floodplain elevations. This increased runoff and floodplain displacement can result in increased flooding.	PS	Policy SF-2.3: Take actions to reduce the hazard of flooding caused by development.	LS
3.2-D	Future development could result in changes to streamcourses.	PS	Policy OC-8.1: Maintain the Russian River channel for flood control, water delivery, and fishery habitat. Policy OC-8.2: Take measures to prevent further deepening of the Russian River channel. Policy OC-8.3: Limit gravel harvesting to levels that do not exceed resupply of Russian River gravel.	LS
3.2-E	New development could result in the need for new or enlarged storm drain facilities whose construction could result in adverse environmental effects.	LS	No mitigation is required.	LS
3.2-F	Future development would increase the transport of oils, greases, and other non-natural residues and chemicals to receiving waterways.	PS	Policy OC-12.2: Protect surface and ground water from adverse impacts of development caused by chemicals and soil sediments found in runoff. Policy CF-4.1: Protect water quality by providing adequate sewage disposal throughout the Valley.	LS
3.2-G	New development could reduce the area available to recharge the aquifer in the plan area and/or increase withdrawals of groundwater. thereby adversely affecting groundwater supplies.	PS	Policy OC-11.1: Maintaining the long-term sustained yield of the Valley's groundwater system shall be the standard for groundwater protection programs. Policy OC-11.2: Maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater in the Valley's recharge areas.	PS
			EIR-Recommended Mitigation Measures: Implementation Measure OC-11.2.2: If, based on the standardized groundwater protection program, a development proposal is determined to have a significant impact, the developer may would be required to perform additional analyses to more precisely determine impacts and mitigations. The development could be approved if the recommended mitigations reduced the impact to a level consistent with the standards of OC-11.1	LS
3.2-H	New development could increase the runoff of chemicals and other pollutants thereby adversely affecting groundwater supplies.	PS	The policies and measures listed above for Impact 3-2-C and 3.2-G also apply to this impact.	LS

3.3