SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESComment N-6: “I’ve been a Pleasanton resident for 30 years. In those thirty years I can see noway we can mitigate gravel pits. A gravel pit is ugly. Please don’t let Sunol become a standinggravel pit.” (Emily Carson – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Comment N-7: “The aesthetic impacts to a community of not addressing the true impacts of thisquarry are mind boggling. If you’ve ridden past 680 and seen quarry to the south of our small,beautiful community, you can see the wreckage that it creates.” (Bree James – Pleasanton PublicMeeting)Comment N-8: “We are here to speak to the draft of the EIR as it specifically applies to MissionValley Rock to expand its quarry operation to the area up to the Willis Polk Water Temple at theentrance to our community 300 yards from our school. It will greatly impact Sunol in severalnegative ways.This quarry operation will disrupt our visual landscape, increase the traffic with gravel trucks andheavy industrial machinery including a conveyor belt under the Sunol grade that is considered theworse, traffic mess in the whole Bay Area.” (Patricia Stillman – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Comment N-9: “This quarry operation will contradict a scenic highway designation for NilesCanyon and I-680. It does not have the support of Sunol citizens who believe that that willdrastically impact our quality of life.” (Patricia Stillman – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Comment N-10: “I don’t have technical knowledge. I can’t respond to what you would refer alot of technical aspects of EIR, but I think the message that a number of people have alreadystated is the question of what is it going to do to the environment and especially aestheticallywhat is it going to do to the environment. And it seems like the EIR totally ignores that issue.And it’s somewhat ironic that the city of San Francisco prides itself on its environment, itsBART, its parks and has done a lot and is currently doing a lot to make maximum use of the land,and they’re being very careful in terms of how they develop that.Would San Francisco put this kind of development in part of Golden Gate Park the way theywould treat the parts of Sunol? I don’t think so.And so that’s sort of alarming in terms of why is this decision or this recommendation beingmade. Why are we even talking about this kind of decision.I would think that the visual impact and the esthetic environment and the impact on theenvironment is a very critical omission that is not addressed. In fact, I think it really raisesquestions in terms of negativity in terms of the report itself.” (Jim O’Laughlin – PleasantonPublic Meeting)NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.106 ESA / 930385