SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

VII. ALTERNATIVESOperation of the public recreation and educational facilities following completion of mining,proposed under all alternatives, would not be expected to result in a significant increase in trafficon roadways serving the Sunol Valley (see Section III.J). However, lack of sufficient parking atWatershed facilities could result in potential safety hazards. Implementation of the mitigationmeasure presented in Section IV.J would reduce the potential safety hazards associated with alack of parking to a less than significant level.Utilities and Public Services. The SMP-32 EIR addressed the potential utilities and publicservices impacts associated with mining activities north of I-680. However, in approvingSMP-32 and establishing mitigative conditions of approval, Alameda County found no significantutilities and public services impact. Therefore, no significant utilities and public services impactswould be expected from mining north of I-680 in substantial conformance with SMP-32, asAlternatives A, C, D, E and F propose. Mining south of I-680 would be a continuation of anexisting use and would not be expected to result in additional utilities and public services impacts.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.Construction and operation of public facilities proposed under all alternatives would result insome increase in demand for utilities and public services, but the effect of providing these utilitiesand public services would not be expected to result in significant impacts.Noise. The SMP-32 EIR addressed the potential noise impacts associated with mining activitiesnorth of I-680. However, in approving SMP-32 and establishing mitigative conditions ofapproval, Alameda County found no significant noise impacts. Therefore, no significant noiseimpacts would be expected from mining north of I-680 in substantial conformance with SMP-32,as Alternatives A, C, D, E and F propose. Mining south of I-680 would be a continuation of anexisting use and would not be expected to result in additional noise impacts. Alternatives B, C,D, F and S would require modification of existing permits for mining south of I-680. It may bereasonably assumed that Alameda County would apply conditions of approval to the permitmodifications consistent with those applied to SMP-24, SMP-30, and more recent permits such asSMP-32 that mitigate significant effects of mining.Construction of public facilities proposed under all alternatives, as well as recreational use ofthese facilities, could result in significant noise impacts at sensitive receptors. However,implementation of mitigation measures presented in Section IV.L would reduce the potentialnoise impacts to a less than significant level.Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste. The SMP-32 EIR addressed the potentialhazardous materials and hazardous waste impacts associated with mining activities north ofI-680. However, in approving SMP-32 and establishing mitigative conditions of approval, theAlameda County found no significant hazardous materials and hazardous waste impacts.Therefore, no significant hazardous materials and hazardous waste impacts would be expectedfrom mining north of I-680 in substantial conformance with SMP-32, as Alternatives A, C, D, ENOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan VII-28 ESA / 930385January 2001