SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESconformance review, we believe Alameda County may require use permits, building permits,encroachment permits, and other approvals for commercial, recreation, and similar developmentin the watershed, whether or not the land is owned by SFWD, if those actions are beyond thescope of the purposes of the SFPUC and SFWD.The Draft EIR provides a thorough listing of policies from Alameda County’s East County AreaPlan, which would be used during the General Plan conformance review and other permits forland uses in the watershed. Alameda County staff believes that the Watershed Management Planis consistent with the East County Area Plan, and the implementation actions will not be inconflict with our plans, policies or regulations. Detailed review would be required for some ofthe commercial-type uses, as well as the proposed modifications to Surface Mining Permits. Wewould be glad to address these specifics with you as the Plan moves towards implementation.”(Alameda County Community Development Agency)Comment A-12: “As noted in the Draft EIR, Alameda County has granted several SurfaceMining Permits in the Sunol Valley in conformance with Title 6 of the Alameda County GeneralOrdinance Code, pursuant to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA).Because we have not yet received any applications for permit modifications and have only ageneral sense of what the Management Plan anticipates, it is not yet clear to us what level ofpermit review and revision will be required and/or what level of environmental review will berequired for making the changes to existing mining permits that are suggested in the WatershedManagement Plan.The Draft EIR assumes that new permit applications or major amendments will be required tomine the existing pits south of I-680 deeper, or deeper and wider. The same is assumed formaking major changes in mining and reclamation plans for the area north of I-680. It is notedthat minor amendments may be acted upon administratively by the Planning Director.” (AlamedaCounty Community Development Agency)Comment A-13: “The report does not contain sufficient information on geology and soils in thearea of the quarry pits or management and use of the water to be stored there. These factors andothers could result in degradation of the water stored there. A mitigation measure for the quarrydevelopment action calls for water quality monitoring after they have been constructed and filledwith water. If the SFPUC chose to use the water stored in these facilities, the water would berequired to be treated at the Sunol Valley treatment plant and the plant would need to beadequately prepared and preliminary treatment studies conducted.” (Department of HealthServices, Water Field Operations Branch)Response: Some questions of impact and regulatory requirements cannot be answered at thistime due to projects whose timing and/or design details are as yet unclear. For example,questions concerning management of quarry water storage and treatment are deferred to futureenvironmental review, as these projects are still undefined at this time (see for example, DEIRpage III.D-37).NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.10 ESA / 930385