06 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Concern that some of the mitigation options in the Draft IS/MND would not adequately reduce the significance of impacts to Kottinger Creek. The final mitigation for impacts to the drainage swale would be determined in conjunction with the relevant natural resources agencies. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 allows for the implementation of a habitat creation project of any type (creek channel or wetland) within the City, at any replacement ratio beyond 1:1 the agencies deem appropriate. • Desire for clarification of some of the policies, regulations and laws related to protected plant and animal species that are discussed in the Draft 1S/MND. The City revised the text of page 3-16 of the Draft IS/MND. In addition, requested revisions were incorporated into Table 3.4-1, Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity. • Claim that the project would not be consistent with the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. While the City is committed to implementing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy, it believes that the reach of Kottinger Creek proposed to be undergrounded is not a good candidate for the types of actions envisioned in the strategy because the creek segment does not support special-status plant or animal species; provides only highly-altered hydrologic and geomorphic processes; and does not substantially contribute to local biodiversity. The habitat enhancement and compensation measures described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would more effectively help achieve the objectives of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requires the City Council to consider the Final IS/MND, including comments received during the public review process, before adopting the IS/MND. Adoption of the IS/MND does not require that all responsible agencies or experts agree with the content of the IS/MND, only that the lead agency (in this case, City Council) finds that: 1) there is not substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment; and 2) that the MND represents the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. CONCLUSION Staff continues to believe that procuring the necessary permits from the natural resources agencies to allow for implementation of the drainage swale project will be challenging, and is in the process of scheduling meetings with these agencies to address their concerns. Even though the natural resource agencies disagreed with some of the content of Draft IS/MND, staff believes that all agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final IS/MND and that the document shows that, with mitigation, the project would not have a significant adverse environmental effect. Furthermore, the Final IS/MND represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City and should be adopted. Adoption of the IS/MND will allow the City to continue consulting with the natural resources agencies regarding permitting and mitigation of the drainage swale undergrounding project, potentially allowing the Master Plan to move forward. Page 4 of 5