Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Response 2-5: Please refer to Responses 2-1 and 2-2. Regarding costs, CEQA does not <br />require a cost analysis of alternatives and does not require that the most cost-effective <br />alternative be implemented. <br /> <br />Comment 2-6: Alternative 1 should be withdrawn unless it can be demonstrated that the project <br />sponsor has control over the lands, it is cost-effective, and would minimize environmental <br />impacts when compared to Alternative 2. <br /> <br />Response 2-6: Please refer to Response 2-2 regarding control over the land proposed for the <br />trail connection and Response 2-5 regarding economic feasibility, and Response 2-1 <br />regarding environmental impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2. <br /> <br />Comment 2-7: Alternative 3 should not be withdrawn since it is feasible because project sponsor <br />has control over the land, it would require less fill, and it would meet all project goals. <br /> <br />Response 2-7: Alternative 3 was rejected because it did not meet the project objective of <br />trail standards (ten feet wide with two foot shoulders) since it would be ten feet wide with <br />one-foot shoulders. In addition, the vehicle maintenance road would only be ten feet wide. <br />In addition, this alternative would result in operational conflicts for City maintenance <br />activities. See also Response 2-2 regarding project sponsor control over lands for <br />Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative). <br /> <br />Comment 2-8: Implementation of Alternative 1 would be subject to Port permitting. <br /> <br />Response 2-8: Comment noted. Also refer to Response 2-2. <br /> <br />Comment 2-9: Provide information on the costs for the different alternatives and explain why <br />the most cost-effective alternative was not selected. <br /> <br />Response 2-9: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. developed preliminary cost estimates for the <br />City of San Leandro. The costs for the four alternatives ranged from about $210,000 to <br />$420,000. The lowest cost alternative was Alternative 2 and the highest cost alternative was <br />Alternative 4. Alternative 1 was estimated to be $350,000. As indicated in Responses 2-1 <br />and 2-5 regarding potential impacts of Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1, the <br />environmental impacts of the two alternatives are similar and costs are not considered in an <br />environmental evaluation of project alternatives. <br /> <br />Comment 2-10: Without maintenance controls, Alternative 1 could result in significant adverse <br />impacts to special status species. Alternative 2 would not result in such impacts. <br /> <br />Response 2-10: Mitigation measures have been provided in the Initial Study to reduce <br />potential impacts from Alternative 1 to special status species and habitat to a less-than- <br />significant level. In addition, a draft Right-of-Entry and Indemnification Agreement has <br />been developed between the Port of Oakland and the City of San Leandro to mitigate <br />potential impacts associated with trail repairs and/or maintenance. Erosion and sediment <br />control measures would be required for any such activities by both the City of San Leandro. <br /> <br />Y 4204.00693.rtc.doc-4/5/07 <br /> <br />A-3 <br />