SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESResponse: In response to these comments, the following impact discussion has been added toDEIR Section III.I, Aesthetics, page III.I-13:Changes to Gravel Mining OperationsAs described earlier in this document, actions proposed in the AlamedaWatershed Management Plan for mining north of I-680 would take placesubstantially in accordance with limits and mitigation measures set forth in theconditions of approval for Alameda County’s SMP-32. The Management Planincorporates SMP-32 conditions of approval and proposes modification in thetiming and sequencing of mining (shortening the completion date for waterstorage pits) and mining reclamation. These modifications may requireamendment of the existing permit but would not bring about any new impactson aesthetics beyond those disclosed in the EIR prepared for SMP-32. Pertinentmeasures adopted by Alameda County as conditions of approval for SMP-32include requirements for landscape plan approval and berming to provide avisual barrier to the Sunol Water Temple. In addition, the Alameda WatershedManagement Plan includes backfilling of an additional quarter-mile buffer aftermining on the east side of Sunol Water Temple, which is closest to proposedmining activity, to provide additional mitigation for aesthetics impacts.Options presented under Actions sun2a and sun2b would require amendmentsto existing permits south of I-680. The increase in mining depths proposed inboth Actions sun2a and sun2b would not be likely to substantially impactaesthetics of these existing quarries because the increased mining depth wouldnot be visible from public view areas. Although mining has influenced the visualcharacter of the areas south of I-680, nursery plants are more dominant in manyof the views, and mitigation measures have been required for areas near thepublic view. Should increasing the mining width under Action sun2a result inincreased public views of the mining areas, it may reasonably be assumed thatAlameda County would apply conditions of approval to the permitmodifications consistent with those applied to SMP-24 and SMP-30, such asrequiring an appropriate landscape plan. Amendment of the existing permitscould be subject to project-level environmental review by Alameda County,which would analyze potential impacts and identify detailed mitigationmeasures, if warranted.The Alameda County SMP-32 conditions of approval require several measures that specificallyrelate to aesthetics protection, as listed in Section II.M of this document for informationalpurposes. Management Plan implementation would further mitigate aesthetic effects beyond theSMP-32 permit conditions by requiring a ¼ mile landscaped buffer to the east of the temple.While Sunol residents’ concerns and disagreement with the conclusion is understandable, theanalysis indicates that the actual aesthetic effects will be less than significant and no newevidence or information has been received that would warrant reanalysis of the aesthetics issues.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.108 ESA / 930385