Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c.4 Fact. State law to take effect January 1, 1984 <br />and the City's proposed Hazardous Materials <br />Ordinance will strictly regulate the handling of <br />hazardous materials. <br /> <br />IX. BioloqV. <br /> <br />A. Significant Effect. Loss of riparian habitat along <br />Tassajara Creek and half of Arroyo de la Laguna. <br /> <br />a.l Finding. The mitigation measure incorporated <br />into the Project will substantially lessen the <br />effect. <br /> <br />a.2 Fact. Condition No. 68 requires Developer to <br />meet all requirements of the California Depart- <br />ment of Fish and Game. <br /> <br />a.3 Fact. Developer has permit from California <br />Department of Fish and Game that requires a <br />shaded, low-flow channel and revegetation. <br /> <br />B. Significant Effect. Alteration of the Project area's <br />wildlife and vegetation habitat would occur. <br /> <br />b.l Finding. The effect is unavoidable. The only <br />possible mitigation measure is adoption of the <br />"No Project Alternative" which is infeasible. <br /> <br />b.2 Fact. See Section XII (for infeasibility of <br />Alternatives). <br /> <br />C. Siqnificant Effect. Loss of prime and near prime <br />agriculture soils to urbanization. <br /> <br />c.l Finding. The mitigation measure of Project <br />phasing is infeasible. However, short-term <br />effects are lessened to the extent feasible. <br /> <br />c.2 Fact. All infrastructure for the entire site <br />has been completed making phasing for farming <br />impossible. The Developer is engaging in dry <br />farming of lots not subject to immediate <br />construction. <br /> <br />c.3 Finding. Although the No Project Alternative <br />could partially mitigate the effect, the No <br />Project Alternative is infeasible. <br /> <br />17. <br />