My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Appendix A - E
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
021522
>
14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Appendix A - E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2022 11:41:35 AM
Creation date
2/10/2022 11:33:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
14
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\021522
14 ATTACHMENT 1-5
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\021522
14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Appendix F - I
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\021522
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
358
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City of Pleasanton–Spotorno Ranch Reduced Development Project <br />Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist <br /> <br /> <br />118 FirstCarbon Solutions <br />https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480021/Consistency Checklist/21480021 Spotorno Ranch Consistency Checklist ScreenCheck.docx <br />control measures during operational activities to prevent pollutants from entering downstream <br />waterways. <br />Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new <br />or more severe impacts related to water quality beyond what was previously analyzed in the 1998 <br />HVSP FEIR. <br />b) Groundwater <br />Would the project: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with <br />groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable <br />groundwater management of the basin? <br />The 1998 HVSP FEIR determined that extension of the City's sewer system to the Happy Valley Area, <br />and connection of existing as well as new homes to that system, would help to improve the quality <br />of groundwater in the area. Additionally, the 1998 HVSP FEIR determined that because the proposed <br />water supply would not rely on groundwater withdrawals but instead on the City’s water supply, the <br />proposed project would not have an adverse impact on groundwater supplies. The 1998 HVSP FEIR <br />concluded that groundwater impacts would be less than significant. <br />The City purchases approximately 80 percent of its water from Zone 7 Water Agency and obtains the <br />remaining approximately 20 percent from groundwater. The City owns and operates three active <br />groundwater wells in the Main Basin, which is a portion of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. <br />Through a mutual agreement with the Zone 7 Water Agency, the City of Pleasanton has a <br />groundwater-pumping quota (GPQ) of 3,500 acre-feet per year (AFY). <br />The Main Basin is the portion of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin that has high yields and <br />good quality groundwater. The Main Basin has an estimated storage capacity of 254,000 acre-feet <br />and receives an annual average natural recharge of approximately 13,400 AFY. This recharge is <br />considered the long-term natural sustainable yield of the Main Basin. Historical groundwater <br />pumpage from 2011 to 2015 has been about 3,500 acre-feet, equal to the City’s GPQ. <br />The proposed project would demand approximately 10.42 AFY; refer to Section 4.19, Utilities and <br />Service Systems for further discussion. Water for the residential development area of the project site <br />would originate primarily from surface water; therefore, the proposed project would not deplete <br />groundwater supplies. No new on-site groundwater wells would be drilled as part of the proposed <br />project. The proposed project would connect to the City’s existing water infrastructure. <br />Furthermore, a majority of the project site would remain undeveloped. There would be two <br />drainage management areas (DMAs) on the project site. Storm drainage from impervious surfaces <br />would be directed to on-site bioretention areas and self-retaining areas where infiltration could <br />occur. As such, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. <br />Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new <br />or more severe impacts related to groundwater beyond what was previously analyzed in the 1998 <br />HVSP FEIR.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.