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
68 <br />3.3.13 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances <br />Potential Impact. The project is within Zone 11 of the study area of the East Alameda County <br />Conservation Strategy for which a Programmatic Biological Opinion has been prepared (USFWS <br />2012) in which the project must follow guidelines for the Congdon’s tarplant, CTS, western <br />burrowing owl, and American badger as these species have the potential to occur onsite and are <br />considered focal species of the EACCS. The project includes the preservation of approximately <br />81 acres of habitat. Although the preservation of approximately 81 acres is short of the EACCS’ <br />general land preservation ratio of 3:1 preservation:loss, it should be noted that the project <br />proposes to preserve the highest quality habitat occurring on the site while proposing to develop <br />areas of the site that have been used for hay production, and which provide lower quality habitat. <br />Additionally, mitigation measures identified in this document will help to achieve goals and <br />objectives defined in section 3.5 of the Conservation Strategy (ICF 2010). Lastly, the project will <br />implement general and specific minimization measures from the EACCS Biological Opinion <br />(USFWS 2012) for focal species potentially occurring on the site. These measures are provided <br />in Appendix B. <br />There are no other local policies or ordinances pertaining to biological resources that would <br />pertain to this project, as, for instance, the project does not propose the removal of any trees or <br />development in the vicinity of any creeks, therefore, local tree ordinances and creek setback <br />policies would not pertain to this project. <br />Mitigation. None required. <br />3.3.14 Degradation of Water Quality in Seasonal Creeks, Reservoirs and Downstream <br />Waters <br />Potential Impact. The development of the site will require grading, excavation, and vegetation <br />removal, thereby resulting in the project site becoming vulnerable to sheet, rill or gully erosion. <br />Eroded soil is generally carried as sediment in surface runoff to be deposited in natural <br />creek/river beds, canals, and adjacent wetlands. <br />To avoid or minimize sedimentation to offsite waters, the will be required to develop an erosion <br />control plan. The applicant must also comply with standard erosion control measures that employ <br />best management practices (BMPs), develop a SWPPP per State Water Quality Control Board
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.