My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
04 ATTACHMENT 10
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
022409
>
04 ATTACHMENT 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/28/2016 2:42:11 PM
Creation date
2/20/2009 11:55:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/24/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
04 ATTACHMENT 10
Document Relationships
10
(Cross Reference)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2009\020309
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
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
;� � Alameda Creek Alliance PO Box 228 !Niles. CA !94538 ! (510) 498 -9183 <br />February 3, 2009 <br />I lonorable Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor and City Council <br />City of Pleasanton <br />P.O. Box 520 <br />Pleasanton, CA 94566 <br />Dear Ms. Hosterman and members of the City Council: <br />The Alameda Creek Alliance (""ACA") is opposed to the certification of the St nerid e Drive <br />Specific Plan ArrnendmentStapls Ranch Final Environnrnental Impact Deport "`EIR" because as <br />currently drafted the analysis and proposed mitigations fail to meet the legal requirements to <br />reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels. <br />Our later of June 4, 2008 detailed ACA's concerns about the adequacy of proposed mitigation <br />n <br />measures contained in the Draft EIR and the City has failed t make the necessary changes to the <br />EIR. <br />Biological Resources <br />The EIR does not assess mitigation requirements based on impacts to habitat. While protecting <br />individuals of a particular species is importwt, ultimately species will not survive without <br />adequate habitat. The proposed mitigation measures do not fully mitigate for the impacts of the <br />project. Since the project site provides potential habitat for a number of special-status wildlife <br />and plant species, we reconut end that as much mitigation as possible be done on site, and if than <br />is not feasible, then sufficient offsite habitat be preserved in perpetuity. <br />San Joaquin Spearscaie tr1 ova 1*niana <br />The EIR asserts that mitigation provided for the adjacent Arroyos Project can count towards the <br />impacts from this proposed project. ?`his is an unacceptable approach — it does not mitigate for <br />the habitat that currently exists on the site. As an annual species, San Joaquin spearscale impacts <br />cannot be measured by the number of plus present, but rather by the amount of occupied <br />habitat present. Yesterday, ACA was finally able to review the "'Wetlands Mitigation and <br />Monitoring Plan Arroyo Las Positas Realignment Arroyo f iocho Widening, Alameda County, <br />California" that contains the requirements of Special Condition 1 of the Corps Permit for the <br />Arroyos Project. We now know that in 1993 the Staples Ranch site had 12 ages of occupied San <br />Joaquin spearscale habitat. It is well documented that the populations of annual plant species can <br />fluctuate widely from year to year due to climatic conditions. In many cases not all potential <br />habitat is occupied every gear. The Ells acknowledges and maps the location of Saxe Jo aquin <br />spearscale populations as they were found in July 2006 on the project site. However, the FIR <br />does not provide information about how many acres of San Joaquin spearscale habitat would be <br />last to the project, nor hoer much occupied habitat exists in the so-called mitigation area. The <br />FIR claims that the plant counts from 2006 show the Maples Ranh Project is mitigated. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.