My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
102009
>
12 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2009 11:21:06 AM
Creation date
10/14/2009 3:03:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/20/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
12 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
Hacienda Mixed Use Rezoning Initial Study <br /> Development due to buildout of the proposed zone change would be subject to the Construction <br /> General Permit, the Alameda Countywide Municipal Stormwater National Pollution Discharge <br /> Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Industrial General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for the <br /> Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency, Dublin -San Ramon Services District, City of <br /> Pleasanton, Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Agency Export and Storage Facilities <br /> Intermittent Peak Wet Weather Discharge to the San Lorenzo Creek, Alamo Canal, or Wastewater <br /> Treatment Plant Permit, Order No. R2- 2006 -0026, NPDES Permit No. CA0037813), Master Water <br /> Recycling Permit, and potentially an individual Waste Discharge Requirement for construction <br /> dewatering, if substantial groundwater was encountered during construction, or an individual Waste <br /> Discharge Requirement if there would be discharges of water to the land surface, other than recycled <br /> water covered under the Master Water Recycling Permit. <br /> Consequently, several regulatory mechanisms would ensure that the potential for violation of a Waste <br /> Discharge Requirement would not be substantial within the areas to be rezoned. Furthermore, the <br /> existing regulations are considered protective of water quality standards. The potential for discharges of <br /> polluted stormwater from construction to affect beneficial uses of groundwater recharge, fish migration <br /> and spawning, wildlife habitat, water contact and non contact water recreation, and cold and warm <br /> freshwater habitat for nearby waterways would not be substantial. Implementation of existing <br /> regulatory requirements for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit would ensuxe <br /> that any violation of Waste Discharge Requirements or water quality standards during any construction <br /> in Pleasanton would be less than significant. <br /> Further, residential land uses due to implementation of the proposed zone change would not be <br /> expected to result in any adverse water quality effects that would be significant. <br /> The project sites are located within the 500 -year flood zone and could be impacted by some flooding, <br /> although such flooding would not be considered potentially significant. <br /> The project sites are not at any greater hazard for flood inundation due to a levee or dam failure than <br /> any other site within Pleasanton. The project sites, like most of Pleasanton, are within the Del Valle <br /> Dam Flood inundation area. <br /> No Impact. Development of housing due to implementing the proposed zone change would not <br /> violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. <br /> Furthermore, the proposed project would not involve any groundwater extraction or augmentation. <br /> There is no risk of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow at the project sites because the site is inland. <br /> Less Than <br /> Potentially <br /> Si ficant Significant with Less Than No <br /> Mitigation Significant Impact <br /> Impact Incorporation Impart <br /> 9. Land Use and Planning Would the project: <br /> a) Physically divide an established community? X <br /> b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X <br /> regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the <br /> project (including, but not limited to the general plan, <br /> specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning <br /> ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or <br /> mitigating an env effect? <br /> c) Conflict y a p h ca a habitat conservation X <br /> plan or natural community conservation plan? <br /> Draft, Subject to Revision 18 8/31/2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.