3B Public Hearing 2009 0720 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Biology Impacts (Continued) c-d)No "wetlands or other waters of the United, States" are present within, or adjacent to the project boundaries, as the POTENTIALLY adverse effect on any wetland protected by state or federal regulations. As the surrounding area is almost entirely developed, it does not serve as a migratory corridor for native species; nor does it provide nesting sites for wildlife species. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary. ISSUES POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO There are no new impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Downtown San Leandro TOD Strategy EIR that was certified in 2007. SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SOURCES X ISSUES MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED Biology Impacts (Continued) c-d)No "wetlands or other waters of the United, States" are present within, or adjacent to the project boundaries, as the surrounding area is almost entirely developed. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any wetland protected by state or federal regulations. As the surrounding area is almost entirely developed, it does not serve as a migratory corridor for native species; nor does it provide nesting sites for wildlife species. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary. e-f)lmplementation of the project will not result in conflicts with any local tree protection ordinances and will likely result in a net increase in tree cover, as the properties are developed and landscaped. The project sites and surrounding areas are completely developed, and do not lie within or adjacent to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Accordingly, there would be no impact to these resource areas. There are no new impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Downtown San Leandro TOD Strategy EIR that was certified in 2007. 7. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the, -project: _ a. Result in the loss of availability of a known X 18 mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally, X 18 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land useplan? EXPLANATION: a -b) The State legislation protecting mineral resource zones is the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. Part of the purpose of the act is to classify mineral resources in the State and to transmit the information to local governments which regulate land use in each region of the State. Local governments are responsible for designating lands that contain regionally -significant mineral resources in local general plans to assure resource conservation in areas of intensive competing land uses. The law has resulted in the preparation of Mineral Land Classification Maps delineating Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) 1 through 4 for aggregate resources (sand, gravel and stone). The project area is classified by the California Geological Survey as MR -Z-1, a Mineral Resource Zone for which there is adequate information to indicate there are no aggregate mineral resources present. Consequently, there would be no impact to mineral resources with project implementation, and no mitigation measures are required. There are no new impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Downtown San Leandro TOD Strategy .EIR that was certified in 2007. S. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would theproject: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X 10, 11, environment through the routine transport, use, 12,13 or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X 10, 11, environment through reasonably foreseeable 12,13 upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Cornerstone at San Leandro Crossings Initial Study 14 March 2009