My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
8F Consent 2007 0618
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2007
>
Packet 2007 0618
>
8F Consent 2007 0618
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2007 10:11:37 AM
Creation date
6/15/2007 10:11:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
6/18/2007
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2007 0618
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2007\Packet 2007 0618
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Comment 2-16: Mitigation Measure VII-2 is inadequate. The measure should define what <br />measures will be taken by whom, when, how, and where, and the performance standard shall be <br />discussed. <br /> <br />Response 2-16: The pipeline operators would be notified prior to construction activities. <br />They would dictate the measures to be employed to protect the integrity of their pipelines. <br />The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program identifies responsibilities for implementation <br />of this mitigation measure. <br /> <br />Comment 2-17: Page 35 and 36 have redundant paragraphs. <br /> <br />Response 2-17: This comment is noted for the record and the Draft IS/MND has been <br />revised. <br /> <br />Comment 2-18: There is no discussion of checklist item VIII (b). <br /> <br />Response 2-18: Item VIII (b) concerns potential impacts to groundwater resources through <br />depletion from project implementation. This issue was checked in the checklist as "no <br />impact." The proposed project would not involve any groundwater withdrawal, hence the <br />checking of "no impact." A discussion has been added in the Final ISIMND. <br /> <br />Comment 2-19: Alternative 1 is located on lands owned by the Port and subject to permitting by <br />the Port and restrictions by the Federal Aviation Administration. Since the Port has not granted <br />any use of lands under their jurisdiction, Alternative 1 would result in an unavoidable adverse <br />impact on land uses. Alternative 2 would not be located on Port lands and therefore not result in <br />adverse land use impacts. <br /> <br />Response 2-19: Please refer to Response 2-2 concerning a draft right-of-way agreement <br />between the City of San Leandro and the Port of Oakland. <br /> <br />Letter 3: BCDC. dated 14 November 2005 <br /> <br />Comment 3-1: The proposed project is located within BCDC jurisdiction and is therefore subject <br />to permit requirements from BCDC. <br /> <br />Response 3-1: Comment noted for the record. The Draft IS/MND also describes that a <br />permit is required from BCDC. <br /> <br />Comment 3-2: The permit application would require specific information on the amount of fill <br />proposed by the project. <br /> <br />Response 3-2: The permit application to BCDC would provide the requisite information. <br /> <br />Comment 3-3: The Draft IS/MND does not include information on potential impacts associated <br />with users of the trail possibly entering adjacent sensitive habitats, or whether the trail would be <br />subject to occasional flooding. Information should be included that the adjacent wetland is a <br />diked wetland. <br /> <br />Y 4204.00693.rtc.doc-4/5/07 <br /> <br />A-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.