SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESComment N-11: “The report specifically refers to the fact that recreational uses would have anegative impact on the aesthetics and the visual environment.And how someone in good conscience could make that statement to the EIR and then turn aroundand say that a quarry would have no negative impact is ridiculous.I would suggest that if you took any group of rational people across this country or across theworld and you showed them two video clips, if you took a video clip going down 680 looking inone direction, you would see a beautiful pristine valley.If you’re there by going up Mission grade and then you turned around and then you came downand made a video clip of the other side, I would challenge you to show us two video clips to anygroup of people around the country who didn’t know where this was and what the real issueswere and basically said in terms of the impact on this environment which has a positive impact[and] which has a negative impact.There is no one who could look at those two clips and not say that the one side is a beautifulpristine valley that has a lot of potential in terms of human value and esthetic value and look atthe other side and have to say that is a disgrace. It’s a destruction of the environment that isvisually there.I think we should perhaps get some people, who are not involved, to look at that and providesome input. I think that’s factual data that should be addressed, you know, in this report.My grandmother grew up where Mission Valley Rock apparently is and then she moved up thefreeway on Mission Grade. My grandfather, somewhere at the golf course.I wonder what they would think if they could come back now and look down on the valley thatthey looked at for so many years and look at the lands that they lived on and see what happenedto it. I think they would be appalled for good reason. They would see the one side of the freewayin its current condition and they’d see the other side in its destroyed condition and then suggestthat we were going to do the same to the other side that we did on the other side, but it certainly ishard to say that there are any human values reflected in the kind of decision which would say thatwe can do this to the other side and it’s not going to have any negative impact on theenvironment.That is what your report says, and I think a lot of people strongly disagree with it and I think ifyou analyze that from a scientific analysis in terms of human reaction to that destruction, youwould find that there is no question whatsoever, but that this recommendation and that this saysthere’s no negative impact, is extremely flawed and should be corrected.” (Jim O’Laughlin –Pleasanton Public Meeting)NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.107 ESA / 930385