SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESthe future water storage reservoirs. These impacts cannot be analyzed at this time as future watersources have not yet been determined, nor have future operational options or timing and phasingof implementation for the system been identified (see Section II.Q of this document). Asdescribed in DEIR Table II-1 (page II-46), future reservoir construction and operation will requirefurther environmental review.Comment F-16: “…I would be very interested in seeing the Final EIR include an evaluation ofpotential health risks to students and staff at the Sunol Glen School, which is located immediatelyadjacent to the proposed quarry site.” (California State Senator Liz Figueroa)Response: As described in EIR Sections III.F and III.L, the potential air quality and noiseimpacts associated with mining under SMP-32 were evaluated in the EIR prepared for that projectand are summarized in the Management Plan EIR. Please see the response to Comments J-3, J-4,and J-5 (Section II.J of this document), and the response to Comments O-2 and O-3 (Section II.Oof this document). These responses summarize the SMP-32 EIR discussions of air quality andnoise impacts, and Alameda County conditions of approval. Based on the SMP-32 EIR andCEQA Findings, the data and analysis indicate that air quality and noise impacts from SMP-32,as mitigated through conditions of approval, would be less than significant. No new evidence orinformation has been received that would warrant reanalysis of the SMP-32 air quality and noiseissues.Comment F-17: “The loss of public use. The restored Temple will not reach its goals ofproviding wedding sites, family gatherings, a destination for many Temple visitors, etc. becauseof this proposed adjacent quarry operation.” (Maryanne Canaparo)Response: This comment implies that noise, dust, and visual impacts from quarry operationswould render the restored temple area undesirable for public use. It should be noted that there isno public use of the temple at this time. The conditions of approval for SMP-32 includemitigation for noise (berms and mining quickly to get to where excavation activities would be15 feet or more below grade), visual quality (berms, setbacks, and screening landscaping), anddust (dust control measures). Implementation of these conditions would avoid significant impactson planned future public use of the temple area. Please see Section II.M (CulturalResources/Sunol Water Temple) of this document.Comment F-18: “Additionally, I hope that the Planning Department will also considerpreserving the area surrounding the Sunol Water Temple. This is another Bay Area gem that weneed to keep. (The land is being threatened by a large gravel quarry.)” (Greg Ellis)Comment F-19: “I support sun2a or sun2b in exchange for removal of sun1 for considerationsince the land has already been destroyed on the south/east side of I-680.” (Maryanne Canaparo)Comment F-20: “And I notice in the maps and in the EIR, that quarry [proposed north of I-680]and the quarry that Mission Rock already has, would have the same completion date and it wouldseem to me it would make better sense to make them complete what they’re working on and thenNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.30 ESA / 930385