Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 9: Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn <br /> <br />Alternative #3 should not be Wl,'thdrawn because it is a feasible alternative in that (IS] <br />project sponsor has control over land needed, (2) it requires a minimum of fill and (3) it <br />meets all project goals. <br /> <br />Page 13: Anticipated Permits and Funding <br /> <br />If the project sponsor pursues Alternative #1, the Project Sponsor would also need a <br />building pennit from the Port of Oakland, which is a discretionary permit subject to <br />Federal Ayiation Administration restrictions and CEQA. Filling, retaining wall <br />construction, pile driving and trails surfacing would be considered activities subject to <br />Port permit requirements. <br /> <br />Page 15: Anticipated Permits and Funding <br /> <br />Please discuss the respective estimated costs of Bay Trail Connection alternatives, <br />including a cost comparison between Alternative #1 and Alternative #2. Please provide a <br />justification for choosing Alternative #1 as the preferred alternative given that the costs <br />of the other alternatives which are all much cheaper to design, construct and maintain. <br /> <br />Page 20-28: Biological Resources <br /> <br />Under Items N (a) and (c), Alternative #1 would cause potentially Significant Impact". <br />Alternative #lcauses significant impacts because pile driving, filling of wetlands and <br />installation of retaining wall would (1) have substantial adverse effect through habitat <br />modification on species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species and <br />(2) have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section <br />404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal and filling. Without maintenance <br />controls this alternative could negatively impact the adjacent salt marsh wetland habitat. <br />Alternative #1 should not be the preferred alternative since there is an Alternative <br />(Alternative #2 using the existing maintenance road) that has less over all impacts to <br />resources and reduces/avoids all potential disturbance to the adjacent salt marsh habitat <br />by constructing the trail on existing maintenance road. With Alternative #2, the well <br />developed vegetation on the existing levee slope would provide an additional buffer of ' <br />protection for the adjacent alt marsh. <br /> <br />Page 26: Burrowing Owl <br />The issue of whether the bike path is constructed on top of the levee or on pile supported <br />fill is irrelevant to the impact analysis for burrowing owls. In either case, the existing <br />levee will part ofthe active construction area, and therefore, a preconstruction survey for <br />burrowing owls should be performed. Additional mitigation measures should also be <br />included to avoid impacts to these owls and their nests. <br /> <br />86893.vl <br /> <br />#2-7 <br /> <br />#2-8 <br /> <br />#2-9 <br /> <br />#2-10 <br /> <br />#2-11 <br />