SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

More documents

Recommendations

Info

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTSJ. TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESSthose areas open to the general public. The overall number of equestrians on the Watershedwould be expected to increase in proportion to increases in both local population and demand forrecreational opportunities. The effect of changes associated with implementation of managementactions pertaining to traffic flow on roadways serving the Watershed, and the subsequent effecton parking and safety conditions, would be less than significant.Currently, group access to existing internal roads and fire roads is restricted on the AlamedaWatershed. Under the Management Plan, group access to the internal portions of the Watershedwould be permitted through a reservation program allowing individuals to make reservations andbe part of a group tour of the Watershed. This type of tour could marginally increase the level ofvehicular traffic generated and could result in a marginal increase in SFPUC docents and/or staff.However, these negligible increases would be within the daily fluctuation of traffic on roadwaysserving the Watershed. The overall effect on traffic flow conditions associated with increasedaccess would be less than significant, as would the subsequent effect on parking and safetyconditions.Development of new trails and golf course expansion in zones of lesser vulnerability and riskwould be expected to increase vehicular traffic in proportion to increases in both local populationand demand for recreational opportunities. Development of new recreational opportunities couldresult in a marginal increase in SFPUC staff for patrol and maintenance of new trails andoversight of golf course operations. The effect on traffic flow associated with changes in trafficvolumes on roadways serving the Watershed, and the subsequent effect on parking and safetyconditions, would be less than significant. As described above, operation of the Sunol Valleyrecreation facilities would increase vehicle use (but effects on traffic flow and safety conditionswould be less than significant) and would have potentially significant effects on parkingconditions (but mitigation measures would reduce parking impacts to a less than significantlevel).• As described earlier in this document, actions proposed in the Alameda Watershed ManagementPlan for mining north of I-680 would take place substantially in accordance with limits andmitigations set forth in the conditions of approval for Alameda County’s SMP-32. TheManagement Plan incorporates SMP-32 conditions of approval and proposes modification in thetiming and sequencing of mining (shortening the completion date for water storage pits) andmining reclamation. These modifications may require amendment of the existing permit butwould not bring about any new transportation and access impacts beyond those disclosed in theEIR prepared for SMP-32.Under the Management Plan the duration of mining would be extended with lease entitlement ofSMP-32, but the amount of traffic generated by the mining would not be increased because thecapacity of the processing plant would not change. Mining north of I-680 would replace aportion of the current mining area south of I-680; however, increasing the area by mining north ofI-680 would not increase or relocate truck traffic, because the gravel would be transported to theexisting processing plant south of I-680 by conveyor belt, not haul trucks. The same number oftrucks would continue to use the same access route on Andrade Road to pick up and deliver theNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan III.J-5 ESA / 930385January 2001
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTSJ. TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESSgravel to market. As described in the Mission Valley Rock Company Surface Mining Permit andReclamation Plan SMP-32 EIR, truck trips generated by mining activity currently increasecongestion on roads because of the characteristics of trucks (e.g., slower acceleration and reducedmaneuverability), and this effect on traffic would continue over the life of SMP-32. However, theeffect of SMP-32 operations on local roads would be minimal, because traffic generated bymining activity represents a small percentage of the traffic volume on those roads. Withconditions of approval for SMP-32, Alameda County found no significant impacts associatedwith transportation and access. Amendment of the existing permit, if required, would be subjectto project-level environmental review by Alameda County.Options presented under Actions sun2a and sun2b would require amendments to existing permitssouth of I-680. The increase in mining volume proposed in both Actions sun2a and sun2b wouldnot be likely to impact transportation and access beyond levels previously analyzed and mitigatedin previous environmental documentation and conditions of approval for SMP-24 and SMP-30.Existing haul routes would not change and thus a continuation of existing impacts would beexpected. It may be reasonably assumed that Alameda County would apply conditions ofapproval to the permit modifications consistent with those applied to SMP-24 and SMP-30.These mitigation measures include requirements for establishing and maintaining haul routes andensuring road safety. Amendment of the existing permits would be subject to project-levelenvironmental review by Alameda County._________________________REFERENCES – Transportation and AccessExcept where indicated, references are on file at the San Francisco Planning Department.Alameda County Planning Department, Mission Rock Company SMP-24 Initial Study, 1985.(Available at Alameda County Community Development Agency Planning Department,Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Resolution R-86-62 conditionally approving SMP-24,1986. (Available at Alameda County Community Development Agency PlanningDepartment, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Resolution R-86-62 incorporating, revising, andconditionally approving SMP-24, 1991. (Available at Alameda County CommunityDevelopment Agency Planning Department, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Santa Clara Sand & Gravel SMP-30 Expanded InitialStudy and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, 1992a. (Available at AlamedaCounty Community Development Agency Planning Department, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Resolution 93-32 conditionally approving Santa ClaraSand & Gravel SMP-30, 1992b. (Available at Alameda County Community DevelopmentAgency Planning Department, Hayward, California)NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan III.J-6 ESA / 930385January 2001
Page 1:
San Francisco Planning DepartmentAL
Page 4 and 5:
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageIV.MITIGATION
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageLIST OF TABLES
Page 8 and 9:
I. SUMMARYcomprehensive set of goal
Page 10 and 11:
I. SUMMARYconstruction of facilitie
Page 12 and 13:
I. SUMMARYOperations and maintenanc
Page 14 and 15:
I. SUMMARYmanagement actions. Addit
Page 16 and 17:
I. SUMMARYlimits and mitigations se
Page 18 and 19:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION! to provide
Page 20 and 21:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION• southern
Page 23 and 24:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION4.0 MANAGEME
Page 25 and 26:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPolicies WQ3
Page 27 and 28:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION! walking of
Page 29 and 30:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONdecisions re
Page 31 and 32:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONraw, untreat
Page 33 and 34:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION6.0 PHASING
Page 35 and 36:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONApproximatel
Page 37 and 38:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONC. RELATED P
Page 39 and 40:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONE. ENVIRONME
Page 41 and 42:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAfter the Ma
Page 43 and 44:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTABLE II-1 (
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
CHAPTER IIIENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AN
Page 67 and 68:
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPA
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
WaterStoragePitWaterStoragePitWater
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
AlamedaCreekNiles Sunol WaterReserv
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222: III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPA
Page 223 and 224: 0 6000FeetSOURCE: EDAW, 1998.Alamed
Page 271: III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPA
Page 319 and 320: IV. MITIGATION MEASURESC. GEOLOGY A
Page 321 and 322: IV. MITIGATION MEASURES3. In implem
Page 323 and 324:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURESF. AIR QUALI
Page 325 and 326:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURESI. AESTHETIC
Page 327 and 328:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES2.0 MITIGATI
Page 329 and 330:
V. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONM
Page 331 and 332:
CHAPTER VIIALTERNATIVESA. METHODOLO
Page 333 and 334:
VII. ALTERNATIVESTABLE VII-1COMPARA
Page 335 and 336:
VII. ALTERNATIVESTABLE VII-1 (Conti
Page 337 and 338:
VII. ALTERNATIVESWatershed patrols,
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
VII. ALTERNATIVESemphasizes ecologi
Page 347 and 348:
VII. ALTERNATIVESunder the preferre
Page 349 and 350:
VII. ALTERNATIVESSan Antonio Creek
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
VII. ALTERNATIVESstorage under this
Page 355 and 356:
VII. ALTERNATIVESGeology and Soils.
Page 357 and 358:
VII. ALTERNATIVESthat Alameda Count
Page 359 and 360:
VII. ALTERNATIVESand F propose. Min
Page 361 and 362:
CHAPTER VIIIDRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION
Page 363 and 364:
IX. APPENDICESAPPENDIX IX.ANOTICE O
Page 365 and 366:
IX. APPENDICESB. SPECIAL-STATUS SPE
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
CHAPTER XLIST OF ACRONYMSACWDACWRSA
Page 375 and 376:
X. LIST OF ACRONYMSSRUEBUSFWSUSTsWH
Page 377 and 378:
XI. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS; OR
Page 379 and 380:
CHAPTER XIISUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND
Page 381 and 382:
XII. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPON
Page 383 and 384:
XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPO
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Page 489 and 490:
Page 491 and 492:
Page 493 and 494:
Page 495 and 496:
Page 497 and 498:
show all

SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?