SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

VII. ALTERNATIVESthat Alameda County would apply conditions of approval to the permit modifications consistentwith those applied to SMP-24, SMP-30, and more recent permits such as SMP-32 that mitigatesignificant effects of mining. In addition, Alternative F includes an additional quarter-mile bufferaround the Sunol Water Temple, which would be implemented under all alternatives and wouldprovide further protection for cultural resources.Construction and operation of the public recreation and educational facilities proposed under allalternatives could result in significant cultural resources impacts related to constructiondisturbance of cultural resources and public use impacts such as vandalism. However,implementation of management actions presented in Section III.H would reduce the potentialimpacts on cultural resources under all alternatives to less than significant level.Aesthetics. The SMP-32 EIR addressed the potential aesthetic impacts associated with miningactivities north of I-680. However, in approving SMP-32 and establishing mitigative conditionsof approval, Alameda County found no significant aesthetic quality impacts. Therefore, nosignificant aesthetic quality impacts would be expected from mining north of I-680 in substantialconformance with SMP-32, as Alternatives A, C, D, E and F propose. Mining south of I-680would be a continuation of an existing use and would not be expected to result in additionalaesthetic impacts. Alternatives B, C, D, F and S would require modification of existing permitsfor mining south of I-680. It may be reasonably assumed that Alameda County would applyconditions of approval to the permit modifications consistent with those applied to SMP-24,SMP-30, and more recent permits such as SMP-32 that mitigate significant effects of mining. Inaddition, Alternative F includes an additional quarter-mile buffer around the Sunol WaterTemple, and would further screen mining pits from the temple area. This buffer would beimplemented under the Management Plan.Construction and operation of the public recreation and educational facilities proposed under allalternatives could result in significant aesthetic impacts related to the visual effect of newbuildings and structures in the Sunol Valley, as well as potential degradation of facilities andvegetation through improper use of public access areas. However, implementation of actionsdescribed in Section III.I would reduce the potential aesthetic impacts under all alternatives to aless than significant level.Transportation and Access. The SMP-32 EIR addressed the potential transportation and accessimpacts associated with mining activities north of I-680. However, in approving SMP-32 andestablishing mitigative conditions of approval, Alameda County found no significanttransportation and access impacts. Therefore, no significant transportation and access impactswould be expected from mining north of I-680 in substantial conformance with SMP-32, asMining south of I-680 would be a continuation of an existing use and would not be expected toresult in additional transportation and access impacts. Alternatives A, C, D, E and F propose.Alternatives B, C, D, F and S would require modification of existing permits for mining south ofI-680. It may be reasonably assumed that Alameda County would apply conditions of approval tothe permit modifications consistent with those applied to SMP-24, SMP-30, and more recentpermits such as SMP-32 that mitigate significant effects of mining.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan VII-27 ESA / 930385January 2001