13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

PUD-65 Environmental Checklist Discussion a-d) There are no rare, endangered, or threatened species of flora or fauna known to inhabit the subject properties. The 5998 Sunol Boulevard property had been previously developed with an office building and parking lot and the 5980 Sunol Boulevard property contains a dilapidated single-family home and an accessory building. The existing creek on the site would be retained in its natural state and its riparian habitat enhanced by the planting of riparian landscaping along its southern bank. No outfalls would be added to the creek. Erosion control measures will be required to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the creek during construction. The applicable federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction over rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands have reviewed the proposed plans. Below is a synopsis of their responses (copies of the agencies' response letters have been attached at the end of this document): • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that there are no waters of the U.S. as defined by Section 404 on the property and no permits are required for the proposed development on the site. • The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) stated that the proposed project would not result in a "take" of a listed species and no further action pursuant to the Endangered Species Act is required. • The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) indicated that the possibility of substantial impacts from this project is unlikely or the activity is outside the jurisdiction of the Department under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Therefore, no Streambed Alteration Agreement is required for the project. • The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) indicated that the proposed plans are acceptable. • The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) indicated that they had no issues with the proposed project as they don't own or maintain the creek. Therefore, this would be ales-than-signifzcant-impact. e) Pursuant to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, a tree survey and analysis for this project site has been prepared by John Traverso, Consulting Arborist with Traverso Tree Service. The report concluded 13 of the 48 existing trees near the proposed development warranted saving. The applicant is proposing to save an additional two trees on the site, resulting in a total of 15 trees to be saved. Forty-seven new trees would be planted. Therefore, this would be ales-than-significant-impact. 13