8F Consent 2007 0618 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Response 2-1: Alternative 2 would result in similar potentially significant impacts as Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative). The potentially significant effects from Alternative 1 have been further reduced by a proposed Right-of-Entry and Indemnification Agreement between the Port of Oakland and the City of San Leandro pertaining to responsibilities for maintenance and repair activities associated with those portions of the Preferred Trail Alternative on Port of Oakland and City of San Leandro properties. Alternative 2 would result in operation conflicts between the trail and City of San Leandro maintenance vehicles accessing the wastewater ponds. This conflict would result in that alternative not fully complying with the objective of designing the trail to allow continued use of the levee by the City of San Leandro maintenance vehicles. Comment 2-2: The Draft IS/MND does not present adequate mitigation measures to minimize or avoid environmental impacts associated with maintenance activities of the proposed trail and the retaining wall. This could result in adverse impacts to surrounding sensitive habitats. Furthermore, Alternative 1 is not feasible because the project sponsor does not have control over the property across which the trail connection is proposed. Response 2-2: The Draft IS/MND provides mitigation measures to control potential erosional impacts in Mitigation Measure VIII-l by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction and operation of the proposed project. Since the publication of the Draft IS/MND, a draft Right-of-Entry and Indemnity Agreement has been negotiated that identifies responsibilities for maintenance activities associated with the proposed trail connection. The proposed Agreement provides that the City of San Leandro will maintain/repair the trail on Port property for a period of 12 months following construction; after this time, the Port will maintain the trail on Port property. The proposed Agreement is subject to approval by the Board of Port Commissioners and the City Council. Comment 2-3: The land use jurisdictional issues are inadequate in the Project. Summary of the Draft IS/MND. Response 2-3: The Summary section is not intended to be exhaustive. On page 8 of the ISIMND, a more detailed project description refers to Port jurisdiction of the Alternative 1 trail alignment. Comment 2-4: The Summary should provide more detail on wetland and habitat along the trail connection. Response 2-4: The Summary section is not intended to be exhaustive. A detailed description of wetlands and habitat is included in Section IV of the Draft IS/MND. Comment 2-5: Alternative 1 is infeasible becaUse it is on partially on Port-owned land. Furthermore Alternative 2 has fewer environmental impacts andis less costly. Y 4204.00693.rtc.doc-4/5/07 A-2