Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The mitigation measures proposed by the project sponsor are inadequate to avoid or <br />lessen the potentially significant impact that would result from Alternative #1. A <br />particularly glaring inadequacy is the absence of any proposed maintenance of the <br />proposed trail and retaining wall. Alternative #1 consists of filling in a sloping area to <br />create a walled foundation for the new trail supported by a wooden retaining wall, <br />immediately adjacent to a high-quality wetland,salt marsh habitat. Such structure is <br />subject to deterioration of the retaining wall, erosion and eventual spillage of fill <br />materials and runoff from the trail onto the wetland area. The lack of buffer zone <br />between the trail and the wetlands makes such erosive effects more likely. Yet, the <br />ISIMND does not propose any continuing maintenance by a responsible agency of the <br />retaining wall or of the trail. The cumulative impact of expected erosion, deterioration of <br />the retaining wall, the use of the trail by increasing number of visitors and the sanitary <br />distric! maintenance vehicles will likely degrade the surrounding environment. <br /> <br />#2-2 <br /> <br />Currently, Alternative #1 is not feasible since the project sponsor does not have control <br />over property on which the alternative is proposed. Until such time the project sponsor <br />has negotiated an agreement and obtained a building pennit from the land owner (the <br />"Port of Oakland"), Alternative #1 is not a feasible alternative from a land use/planning <br />perspective. <br /> <br />The Port has the following comments on the particular sections of the IS/MND: <br /> <br />#2-3 <br /> <br />Page 9: Bav Trail Connection Alternatives: <br /> <br />Alternative #1 is infeasible since the project sponsor does not control or have an <br />agreement with land owner (the Port of Oakland) related to use ofthe land on which this <br />alternative is proposed. The alternative is also too costly. Moreover, Alternative #1 does <br />not meet project goal of "minimize environmental impact." Alternative #2 has the least <br />environmental impacts. <br /> <br />Alternative #1 should be withdrawn unless project sponsor can demonstrate feasibility in I <br />that (1) it has control over land needed, (2) it is cost-effect,ive compared to ~lternative <br />#2, and (3) it would minimize environmental impacts compared to AlternatIve #2. . <br /> <br />#2-5 <br /> <br />#2-6 <br /> <br />#2-6 <br /> <br />86893.vl <br />