SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESoperations on watershed lands, irrespective of the county nexus.” (California Department of Fishand Game)Response: There is confusion within this comment regarding the City’s regulatory authority. Inthose cases where the City has its own ordinances governing a certain type of action, such asplanning and building, it has governmental immunity from the regulations of a city or countywhere City of San Francisco lands are located. However, where the City has no laws governingan action, such as a surface mining ordinance, the laws of the city or county where that land islocated become the basis for issuing a permit. In addition, the EIR acknowledges the City’sCEQA responsibility in executing mining leases. The EIR recognizes that, notwithstandingAlameda County’s granting of SMP-32 and other Surface Mining Permits, new mining in theWatershed cannot proceed without lease entitlements from the SFPUC. Therefore, the SFPUC isin a position of being a responsible agency obligated under CEQA (Guidelines Section 15096) toconsider the EIR prepared by the lead agency. The SMP-32 EIR was prepared in 1994 and theSFPUC and the San Francisco Planning Department’s environmental review office participated inits scoping and also commented extensively on the Draft EIR. It was determined that the mininglease for SMP-32 should not be executed while the Management Plan, including the Sunol ValleyElement, was under preparation. It was also determined that, due to changed conditions that werenot present when the SMP-32 EIR was certified in 1994 (primarily the management and planningframework provided by the proposed Management Plan and Sunol Valley Element, and the listingof additional special status species since that time) and proposed minor modifications to themining permit (changes in mining sequence and backfill of areas to be mined to provide a largerbuffer for the Sunol Water Temple area), the Management Plan EIR should include a review andupdate of pertinent SMP-32 EIR information in order to comply with CEQA, prior to SFPUCconsideration of a lease agreement for SMP-32.The Management Plan EIR discloses potential impacts from SMP-32 and potential expansion ofexisting quarries in pertinent environmental topic chapters, usually under the heading of“Changes to Gravel Mining Operations.” Concurring with the County of Alameda, theManagement Plan DEIR found that the SMP-32 conditions of approval, based on mitigationmeasures contained in the SMP-32 EIR, were generally sufficient to avoid significant impacts.However, the Management Plan EIR’s analysis identified additional potential impacts on naturalresources requiring new mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant (seeDEIR Section IV.E.2.0 and the response to Comments I-4 through I-27 in Section II.I of thisdocument). These mitigation measures are suggested for SFPUC consideration for incorporationinto a mining lease, if approved. The Management Plan EIR also reiterates the SMP-32 findingsof an unavoidable significant impact on natural resources (loss of prime agricultural land),acknowledging the SFPUC’s responsibility to recognize this impact in its consideration of themining lease. Thus, the Management Plan EIR does analyze and disclose potential impactsarising from aggregate mining, and identifies new mitigation measures. Please refer also to theresponse provided in the response to Comments E-3 to E-11 (Section II.E of this document).Comment F-23: ‘In the Alternatives section (page VII-19) the DEIR states that the preferredalternative “includes portions of Alternatives E and F, and is subdivided into two options,NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.32 ESA / 930385