SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTSL. NOISEsensitive receptors. Potential noise impacts from loudspeakers would depend on the design,placement, and proximity to sensitive receptors. Therefore, potentially significant noise impactscould occur, depending on the location and design of the golf course expansion area, but wouldnot be expected due to the distance to sensitive receptors.No significant operational noise impacts would occur due to implementation of the Sunol Valleyrecreational facilities at the limited levels they are programmatically planned. However, the SanFrancisco Planning Department would require examination of many specific management actionsproposed in the Management Plan at the time they are proposed for implementation to determineif further environmental review at a more detailed project-specific and site-specific level werenecessary. Table II-1 identifies the specific management actions that are likely to require suchstudy.Changes to Gravel Mining OperationsExisting and planned mining activities would continue under the Sunol Valley ResourcesManagement Element of the Management Plan (Actions sun1, sun2a, and sun2b). Mining northof I-680 would replace a portion of the current mining area south of I-680. Because mining southof I-680 is ongoing at a rate based on plant capacity and market demand, increasing the area bymining north of I-680 would extend the period of time that noise impacts would occur, but wouldnot increase the magnitude of noise impacts.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. Plannedmining activities north of I-680 would be closer to the community of Sunol than are the existingoperations south of I-680. However, no significant noise impacts from mining operations wouldbe anticipated. Potential noise impacts associated with SMP-32 were found to be at a less thansignificant level with mitigation measures that were adopted as conditions of approval byAlameda County. These measures include limits on operation times, installation of berms, andequipment requirements. Measures established to mitigate impacts from traffic would alsoreduce noise impacts from planned mining activities. These include use of a conveyor belt forstorage, processing, transportation, and disposal of mined materials. In addition, no new accesspoints would be established along new haul roads.• The Management Plan incorporates SMP-32 conditions of approval and proposes modification inthe timing 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 noise impacts beyond those disclosed in the EIR prepared forSMP-32. Amendment of the existing permit, if required, would be subject to project-levelenvironmental review by Alameda County.Options presented under Actions sun2a and sun2b would require amendments to existing permitssouth of I-680. The increase in mining depths proposed in both Actions sun2a and sun2b wouldNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan III.L-9 ESA / 930385January 2001