SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESnightmare if you proceed with this horrendous proposal.” (Pleasanton Public Meeting, PatriciaStillman – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Comment E-9: “My wife and I are 14-year residents of Sunol. We attended along with ahealthy contingent the first meeting that were held here at this school, but the minutes of thosemeetings should reflect there was almost universal opposition beginning plan to move [quarrying]north of highway 680.It was in fact a group of folks from Sunol voted in, if be, [who proposed that quarrying be]expanded [south of I-680] to whatever degree San Francisco felt they needed to expand it in orderto take care of your future water storage need.We felt as citizens of the area that possibly the nursery operations or the grape or fruit operationswould be more appropriate on that agricultural land that now is covered under the SMP-32 planfrom Alameda County.I read through quite carefully your proposal, the proposed plan, and it appeared that at almostevery turn the city and county of San Francisco was hiding behind what I consider to be areprehensible piece of politicking that took place during the approval process 32. The EIR thatwas part of that process is completely fraud.” (At the Pleasanton Public Meeting, Bob Frillman)Comment E-10: “… I’d like to thank you in preparing the EIR. There is a statement in there.It’s page roman numeral 222 that the EIR looks at the whole project of the watershed and I thinkthis is a wonderful thing because many EIR’S will attack the projects piecemeal and kind of getaway of seeing the whole picture, but this one is looking at the whole picture and that’s good,although I will agree that it is flawed in accepting the Alameda County EIR on the SMP-32expansion project. ” (Joanne Freemire – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Comment E-11: “The residents of Sunol Valley have grave and warranted concerns about theoptions presented by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the future of theircommunity.I strongly urge you to consider carefully concerns of the residents of Sunol as you draft theproject reports, as well as the merits of Alternative S, prepared and presented by a number ofcommunity members as a possible option for moving forward.” (California State Senator LizFigueroa)Response: Under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for aproject, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless there are substantial changes in the project orsubstantial new information or circumstances that would lead to new or substantially more severesignificant environmental impacts than disclosed in the previous EIR. Changes to SMP-32,consisting of changes in mining sequence and backfill of areas to be mined to provide a largerbuffer area for the Sunol Water Temple, as well as changed conditions (primarily, recent specialstatus species listings) were examined in the Management Plan EIR. The changes were found tocause potentially significant impacts on natural resources (see DEIR pages III.E-35 throughNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.22 ESA / 930385