San Leandro City Council
May 2, 2022

2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
Environmental Consistency Checklist
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
prepared by
City of San Leandro
Community Development Department
835 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Contact: Anne Wong, AICP, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street
Oakland, California 94612
March 2022
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
Environmental Consistency Checklist
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
prepared by
City of San Leandro
Community Development Department
835 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Contact: Anne Wong, AICP, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street
Oakland, California 94612
March 2022
Table of Contents
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 i Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................................. v Introduction............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title.........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person....................................................................................................................1

4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address.................................................................................1

6. General Plan Designation....................................................................................................1

7. Zoning..................................................................................................................................4

8. Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (including State Clearinghouse Number)............................................................................4

9. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project.................................................................................................................................4

10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ....................................................................................4

11. Project Description..............................................................................................................5

12. Environmental Conditions of Approval (COAs)................................................................ 10

13. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation Agreement)............................................................................ 13

14. Have California Native American Tribes Requested Consultation (PRC Section 21080.3.1)? ...................................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected........................................................................................ 15 Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Environmental Checklist...................................................................................................................... 17 Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR Analysis................................................... 17 CEQA Guidelines Updates............................................................................................................ 18 1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................... 19 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................. 23 3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 25 4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................... 33 5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 39 6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 43 7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 49 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................. 55 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 61 10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 69 City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
ii
11 Land Use and Planning..................................................................................................... 75 12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 79 13 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................................... 81 14 Population and Housing................................................................................................... 89 15 Public Services.................................................................................................................. 91 16 Recreation........................................................................................................................ 97 17 Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................... 99 18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 105 19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 109 20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 117 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................... 119 References......................................................................................................................................... 121 Bibliography............................................................................................................................... 121 List of Preparers......................................................................................................................... 126 Tables
Table 1 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................5 Table 2 Residential Dwelling Summary ...........................................................................................6 Table 3 Construction Phases............................................................................................................9 Table 4 Construction Schedule ........................................................................................................9 Table 5 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 28 Table 6 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ............................................................................. 30 Table 7 Project Operation Average Daily Emissions..................................................................... 30 Table 8 Project Operational Maximum Annual Emissions ........................................................... 31 Table 9 Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan ................................................. 46 Table 10 Project’s Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases........................................................... 58 Table 11 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan and General Plan Goals and Policies ............................................................................................................................. 58 Table 12 Project Consistency with Selected City of San Leandro General Plan Policies................ 77 Table 13 Wastewater Generation ................................................................................................ 113 Table 14 Solid Waste Generation ................................................................................................. 114 Table 15 Landfills Remaining Capacity ......................................................................................... 115 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Site Location ...........................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan ..............................................................................................................7 Table of Contents
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 iii Appendices
Appendix AQ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impacts Constraints Analysis
Appendix BIO Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
Appendix CEQA CEQA Guidelines Excerpt
Appendix CRS Cultural Resource Assessment Report
Appendix EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District Will Serve Letter Appendix GEO Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix HAZ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
Appendix HRA Historical Resources Assessment
Appendix HYDRO Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations Report Appendix NOI Noise Impacts Constraints Analysis and Noise Attenuation Calculations Appendix OLSD Oro Loma Sanitary District Will Serve Letter Appendix PLAN Site, Landscaping, and Lighting Plans
Appendix SLUSD San Leandro Unified School District Will Serve Letter Appendix TRA Transportation Evaluation Memorandum
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank.

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 v Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACFD Alameda County Fire Department
ACI Alameda County Industries
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
bgs below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalGreen California Green Building Standards
CalOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRF Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CPHI California Point of Historical Interest
CRHP California Register of Historic Places
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted sound pressure level
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOF California Department of Finance
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
vi
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBCE East Bay Community Energy
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EBRPD East Bay Regional Parks District
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR Floor-Area Ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HRA Historical Resource Assessment
in/sec inches per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consulting
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh kilowatt-hour
LBP lead-based paint
Leq equivalent noise level
LID Low Impact Development
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMBTu/yr million British thermal units per year
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOx nitric oxides
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwestern Information Center
OHP California State Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 vii PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM2.5 particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size
PM10 particulate matter up to 10 microns in size
ppd pounds per person per day
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
RJA Ruggeri-Jensen- Azar
ROG reactive organic gas
RWCQB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board SLMC San Leandro Municipal Code
SLPD San Leandro Police Department
SLPL San Leandro Public Library
SLUSD San Leandro Unified School District
SLZC San Leandro Zoning Code
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TAZ traffic analysis zone
TCP traffic control plan
TDM travel demand management
TPY tons per year
UBC Uniform Building Code
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VdB vibration decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WATERS Watershed Assessment, Tracing, and Environmental Results System WELO Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
WMAC Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
viii
This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 1 Introduction

1. Project Title
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of San Leandro
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577

3. Contact Person
Anne Wong, AICP, Associate Planner
City of San Leandro
[email protected]

4. Project Location
The approximately 2.41-acre project site comprises one parcel identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 77C-1240-5, located at 2824 Halcyon Drive in the City of San Leandro, California.

The site has frontage on the north side of Halcyon Drive between Muscari Street and Elderberry Way. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Bay Fair Station is approximately 0.74 mile southeast of the project site. The site is also within 500 feet of the Halcyon Drive and Oleander Street bus stop, which is operated by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). This bus stop services Line 28 to the San Leandro BART Station. Local access to the project site is available from Halcyon Drive. Interstate 580 (I-580), Interstate 880 (I-880), and Interstate 238 (I-238) provide regional vehicular access. Figure 1 shows the site’s location in the region and Figure 2 depicts the project area in its neighborhood context.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Chris Zaballos
D.R. Horton
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100
San Ramon, California, 94583

6. General Plan Designation
The project site has a San Leandro 2035 General Plan land use designation of Low-Medium Density Residential. Under the Low-Medium Density Residential land use, attached and detached single family houses are permitted on small lots. Small lots are defined as lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. Gross average densities generally range from 7 to 11 units per acre including streets and easements, with a maximum allowable net density of 12.4 units per net acre.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
2 Figure 1 Regional Location
Introduction
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 3 Figure 2 Project Site Location
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
4 7. Zoning
The project site currently has a split zoning. The western portion of the site is zoned Industrial Park (IP) District and the eastern portion is zoned Residential Single-Family (RS) District.

8. Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the
Effects of the Infill Project (including State
Clearinghouse Number)
San Leandro 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). State Clearinghouse No. 2001092001. Adopted by the San Leandro City Council on September 19, 2016.

9. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project
Community Development Department
City Hall, 1st Floor
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577

10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is within a fully urbanized area in southwestern San Leandro. It is currently developed with two existing buildings and two associated accessory structures, a private road that provides access to the buildings onsite, and six-foot precast walls around portions of the site’s perimeter. The existing structures and private road make up the 16,727 square feet of impervious surfaces on the project site. The site is generally flat, with existing trees and ruderal grassland vegetation throughout the site.

The project site is bounded to the east and west by single family residences. The southern boundary of the project site borders Halcyon Drive, south of which are additional single-family residences. The project site is bounded by an industrial warehouse along the northwest border and by single family residences along the northeast border.

Table 1 summarizes the existing characteristics of the project site and its surroundings.

Introduction
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 5 Table 1 Existing Site Characteristics
Address: 2824 Halcyon Drive
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 77C-1240-5
Site Size: 2.41 acres
General Plan Land Use Designation: Low-Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: Western portion: Industrial Park (IP) Eastern portion: Residential Single-Family (RS)
Current Use and Development: 2 existing residential structures and 2 accessory structures Surrounding General Plan
Land Use Designations:

Low-Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Light Industrial, General Industrial
Surrounding Zoning Designations: Residential Single-Family (RS), Residential Single-Family Planned Development Overlay District (RS(PD)), Industrial General Assembly Use Overlay District (IG(AU))
Regional Access: I-580, I-880, I-238
Local Access: Muscari Street, Elderberry Way
Public Services: Water: East Bay Municipal Utilities District Wastewater: Oro Loma Sanitary District
Solid Waste: Waste Management of Alameda County Inc.

Fire Protection: Alameda County Fire District
Police Protection: City of San Leandro Police Department School District: San Leandro Unified School District

11. Project Description
Project Overview and Design
The project would involve construction of a single-family residential subdivision. The western portion of the site is currently zoned Industrial Park (IP) and the eastern portion of the site is currently zoned Residential Single-Family (RS). The entire project site would be rezoned to Residential Single-Family Planned Development Overlay District (RS(PD)). Rezoning would bring the project site into conformance with land use designations in the General Plan. The project would involve demolition of four existing residential and accessory structures and construction of 18 single-family residences. The residential structures would follow three main design plans (Plans 1, 2, and 3) and two main architectural styles (Farmhouse and Craftsman) as shown in the project plans (Appendix PLAN). Each of the plans includes a different variation of floor plan with Plan 1 consisting of 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, a 2-car garage; Plan 2 consisting of 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, a 2- car garage, and a loft; and Plan 3 consisting of 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, a 2-car garage, and a den.

The two main architectural styles would only affect the exterior aesthetic of Plans 1, 2, and 3. For example, a structure built following Plan 1 in the Farmhouse style offers the same floor plan as a structure built following Plan 1 in the Craftsman style, with the only difference between the two being the exterior façade of the house. Likewise, a residence built in Plan 1 in the Farmhouse style and a residence built in Plan 2 in the Farmhouse style would be visually similar but would follow different floor plans.

Each of the residential structures would have its own driveway connected directly to a new public street that connects Elderberry Way to Muscari Street or to the new southwestern court or new City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
6 northeastern court that both connect to the public street connecting Elderberry Way to Muscari Street.

The project would result in a density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre on the project site. On the southeast corner of the project site would be a 4,877 square foot privately-owned open space area for residents’ passive use, identified in the site plans as Parcel A. On the northern end of Parcel A would be a communal mailbox station for the project’s occupants. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 3.

Table 2 shows a summary of Plans 1, 2, and 3 and the Farmhouse and Craftsman design variations.

Table 2 Residential Dwelling Summary
Plan Proposed Number to be Built Height Lot Coverage
Plan 1
1A Farmhouse 2 27’-0” 36%
1B Craftsman 2 24’-6” 35-39%
Plan 2
2A Farmhouse 4 28’-8” 29-33%
2B Craftsman 3 25’-10” 31-35%
Plan 3
3A Farmhouse 3 28’-4” 36-38%
3B Craftsman 4 25’-5” 32-39%
Total 18
Site Access, Parking, and Circulation
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via one new public street through the project site.

The new public street would run through the project site and connect two existing streets, Muscari Street to the northwest and Elderberry Way to the southeast of the site. Two courts, one located at the southwestern corner and the other located at the northeastern corner of the project site, would feed into the new public street connecting it to Muscari Street and Elderberry Way as shown in Figure 3.

The project would include a total of 82 parking spaces on site. Of the 82 spaces on site, there would be 36 garage spaces, 36 driveway spaces, and 10 on-site street parking spaces.

Pedestrian access would be available via sidewalks that would be constructed along both sides of the one new public street connecting Muscari Street and Elderberry Way.

Drainage
The project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site with pavement and roof area for a total of 75,760 square feet. Impervious surfaces would cover approximately 72 percent of the project site. There would be approximately 353 percent more impervious surface on the site than currently exists. The project drainage system and site grading would largely direct stormwater runoff through bioretention areas towards Parcel A at the southeastern edge of the proposed project site as shown in Figure 3.

Introduction
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 7 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
8 Parcel A would be situated on top of an underground storage box for hydromodification.1The project’s drainage systems would be designed to comply with the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance and Alameda County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit.

Fencing
New 6-foot precast concrete walls2, painted to match the existing precast wall, would be constructed along the southern perimeter of the site to fill in gaps in the existing precast wall.

Within the project site, 6-foot-high wood fences would be built around each of the residences to separate each lot.

Landscaping
The project would include a total landscaped area of 19,600 square feet, or approximately 19 percent of the site. Landscaping would include front yards, planter strips, and the shared passive use open space area located at the southeastern corner of the project site. This shared open space area would also act as a drainage management area and contain underground storage boxes which would be part of the larger drainage management and bioretention system occurring on the project site. The landscaped and bioretention areas located throughout the project site are indicated as the shaded and dotted portions of Figure 3. Approximately 0.78 acre of the site is comprised of mixed ornamental woodland trees that would be removed as part of the project (ficus, redwood, Mexican fam palm, Himalayan cedar, acacia, lemon, southern magnolia, pine, tree of heaven, loquat, and willow) (Appendix BIO). There are 18 new street trees (London plane trees) proposed along the new public street as well as a variety of accent trees along the perimeters of the southwestern and northeastern courts connecting to the new public street that would connect Muscari Street and Elderberry Way, and in the front yards of proposed residences. The proposed plant species list can be found in Appendix PLAN. A fully automatic irrigation system would be installed throughout the bioretention areas to provide supplemental irrigation in the dry months which would utilize water conserving methods (Appendix PLAN).

The project would include 23 individual bioretention areas landscaped with shrubs and grasses.

There would be one bioretention area in front of each residence as well as at the end of the northeastern court and intermittently along the new public street between the pavement and the sidewalk.

Lighting
The project would include new outdoor lighting fixtures including streetlights along the new public road and one coach light on the front of each residence.

Site Preparation and Construction
The existing two residences and two accessory structures would be demolished and hauled away by the contractor to Argent Materials in Oakland, California, approximately 6.3 miles from the project site. Demolition would comply with the City’s Construction & Demolition Debris Waste Reduction 1 Hydromodification refers to “the alteration of the natural flow of water through a landscape” (Law Insider). 2 Precast concrete walls refers to walls created by pouring concrete into a reusable wall mold or form and curing the molded concrete in a controlled environment at an off-site location. The cured, molded concrete is then transported to the construction site and lifted into place (The Constructor 2020).

Introduction
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 9 and Recycling Requirements listed in SLMC Chapter 3-7 as well as the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code.

Project construction, including demolition, would last approximately 12 months and would occur over five construction phases, each approximately two months. Daily construction would be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday. Approximately 2,485 cubic yards of soil would be excavated, 1,356 cubic yards of which would be reused as fill. The remaining 1,129 cubic yards of soil would be exported.

Demolition, site preparation, and grading would occur over the entire project site as one phase. The building construction phase would occur over five 2-month phases with each phase becoming operational upon completion as outlined in Table 3. As the residences in each phase are built, they would receive an occupancy permit and be available for sale. The new public street would be constructed prior to construction of the residential lots so as to provide access for construction crews and residential access to operational lots, as they become available.

Table 3 Construction Phases
Phase Lots
1 8-11
2 4-7
3 1-3
4 15-18
5 12-14
Table 4 Construction Schedule
Phase Construction Duration
Demolition 6 weeks total
Site Preparation 1 day total
Grading 3 weeks total
Building Construction 10 months total
Paving 2 days total
Architectural Coating 6 months total
Utilities and Services
The project would include utility connections for water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, power, and telecommunications services in accordance with requirements of applicable utility providers.

These utilities would connect to existing infrastructure near the site. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) or East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) would provide electrical and natural gas services; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) would provide water service; Ora Loma Sanitary District would provide wastewater service; the City of San Leandro would provide stormwater service; and Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. (WMAC) services contracted by the Oro Loma Sanitary District Recovery would provide solid waste services. The project would rely on existing public services, including but not limited to, City of San Leandro Police Department (SLPD), Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), San Leandro Unified School District (SLUSD), and parks and open spaces provided by the City of San Leandro, East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), Alameda County, and the State of California.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
10 Requested Entitlements
The project would require the following discretionary entitlements from the City of San Leandro:
 Planned Development
 Site Plan Review
 Zoning Amendment
 Tentative Map

12. Environmental Conditions of Approval (COAs)
The project applicant would be required to comply with the following COAs as approved and implemented by City of San Leandro with regards to air quality, biology and hazards and hazardous materials:

Air Quality
AQ-1 Low Emitting Construction Equipment
The project applicant or contractor shall select equipment during construction to minimize emissions. The project applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the City of San Leandro for review and approval, prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. The construction management plan shall demonstrate that all off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet or exceed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier IV Interim standards. The project applicant and contractor may utilize alternatively fueled equipment (e.g., electric, natural gas) or equipment equipped with engines with a Tier rating lower than Tier IV Interim in combination with other emission control technology (e.g., diesel particulate filters) to satisfy this requirement so long as the project applicant or contractor can demonstrate, to the City’s satisfaction, that the alternatively fueled equipment and/or the use of emission control technologies will result in that equipment meeting or exceeding the EPA Tier IV Interim emission standard.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 Pre-Construction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats The project would include pre-construction surveys for nesting birds as recommended in Appendix BIO. Construction activities that occur during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) would disturb nesting sites for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code.
 Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would minimize impacts to raptors and other nesting birds.
 To prevent impacts to the Fish and Game Code and/or MBTA-protected birds, nesting raptors, and their nests, removal of trees shall be limited to only those necessary to construct the proposed project.
 If possible, construction work (including tree and vegetation removal) should occur outside the nesting season (generally between February 1 and August 31). If construction (including tree and vegetation removal) cannot be conducted outside the nesting season, pre-construction Introduction
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 11 surveys shall be conducted not less than 7 days before the start of work to verify the absence of active nests.
 If an active nest of a special-status bird species is located during preconstruction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest.  For nests of all species protected under Fish and Game Code, construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned, or the agencies deem disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet around an active raptor nest and an appropriate radius around an active migratory bird nest depending on the species) or alteration of the construction schedule.
 A qualified Biologist shall delineate the buffer using nest buffer signs, environmentally sensitive area fencing, pin flags, and/or flagging tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.

Furthermore, the project would include pre-construction surveys for roosting bats as recommended in Appendix BIO. While unlikely, the vacant structures on-site could provide roosting habitat for special-status bat species. Potential direct and indirect impacts could occur to roosting bats during project construction due to the removal of potential roosting habitat. These activities could potentially subject bats to risk of death or injury, and they are likely to avoid using the area until such construction activities have dissipated or ceased. Relocation, in turn, could cause hunger or stress among individual bats by displacing them into adjacent territories belonging to other individuals. Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would minimize impacts to roosting bats.

A qualified biologist would conduct a survey for special-status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (e.g., Anabat). Visual surveys would include trees within 100 feet of project construction activities. Not more than 2 weeks prior to building demolition, the project applicant will retain a qualified biologist to survey buildings proposed for demolition for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the structure, demolition may proceed. If the biologist determines or presumes bats are present (if there are site access issues or structural safety concerns), the biologist shall exclude the bats from suitable spaces by installing one-way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the space, the biologist shall close off the space to prevent recolonization. Building demolition shall only commence after the biologist verifies 7 to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. To avoid impacts on nonvolant (i.e., nonflying) bats, the biologist shall only conduct bat exclusion and eviction from May 1 through October 1. Exclusion efforts shall be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils
If impacted soils or other impacted wastes are present at the project site, the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs  Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
 The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

The City will review and approve the SMP for Impacted Soils prior to demolition and grading.

HAZ-2 Remediation
If soil present within the construction envelope at the project site contains chemicals at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.

The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant will provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.

The City will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.

Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls, may require additional delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.

The City will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.

Introduction
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 13

13. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
(e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation
Agreement)
No other public agencies have approval authority over the project.

14. Have California Native American Tribes Requested
Consultation (PRC Section 21080.3.1)?
On April 9, 2021, each of the 11 tribes affiliated with the project area were contacted by mail requesting any information they may have regarding Tribal cultural resources on or near the project area. No tribes have requested consultation to date.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
14 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 15 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This infill project would not result in any impacts deemed “Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan and is EXEMPT from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15182. □ I find that pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Proposed Project is a Project consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, that there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
■ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project that would result in new specific effects. However, these effects would be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. NO FURTHER REVIEW required. □ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. A STREAMLINED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is recommended.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
16 □ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name Title
This report follows a checklist format that outlines performance standards for projects eligible for streamlined review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A consistency checklist may be prepared by a lead agency to streamline the environmental review process for eligible projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of development have been addressed in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, if the project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA. With respect to the effects that are subject to CEQA, the lead agency is to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR if the written checklist shows the effects of the infill project would be potentially significant.

The checklist concludes that the project would not have significant effects on the environment that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21094.5, such effects are exempt from further CEQA review.

California PRC Section 21083.3 also limits the application of CEQA to effects on the environment peculiar to the parcel or to the project and that were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or about which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior EIR, when projects are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[a], also PRC Section 21083.3[b]).

This CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Checklist has been prepared in accordance with PRC Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.

Anne Wong Associate Planner
3/16/2022
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 17 Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified may not require additional review unless there may be project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or site that were not adequately addressed in the EIR for the general plan. In approving a project meeting the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency must limit its examination of environmental effects to those the agency determines in an Initial Study or other analysis:

Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent
Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR
The purpose of this checklist is to assess consistency between the proposed project and the City of San Leandro General Plan, and to compare the proposed project with the effects above to determine if additional environmental review is required under CEQA, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR
Analysis
The City of San Leandro adopted the 2035 General Plan on September 19, 2016, as an update to its 2015 General Plan. At that time, the associated EIR was certified and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was adopted by the San Leandro City Council.

City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The project would be located entirely in the City of San Leandro. The General Plan is the fundamental document governing land use development in the city and includes goals and policies relating to economic vitality, land use, growth management, transportation, parks, open space, conservation, safety, noise, public facilities, and utilities. The project would be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies in the adopted General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low-Medium Density Residential. The Low-Medium Density Residential designation is intended for attached and detached single family residences on small lots. The project would result in a gross density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowed gross density range of 7 dwelling units per acre to 11 dwelling units per acre. Consistent with General Plan Policies LU-1.1, 1.13, and 2.8, the project would support the on-going upgrading of the city’s housing inventory and encourage infill development that creates a more cohesive character that is compatible with the existing surrounding residences by constructing 18 single family residences and City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
18 increasing the housing density on the project site and re-zone the site so it is fully residential and consistent with the surrounding residential land uses to the east and south.

CEQA Guidelines Updates
The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updated the CEQA Guidelines effective December 2018; however, it should be noted that the General Plan EIR was certified prior to these changes to the CEQA Guidelines and used the older checklist questions. The Appendix N checklist questions from the updated CEQA Guidelines are utilized in this analysis. Specifically, impacts related to energy are discussed in Section 6, Energy, impacts related to tribal cultural resources per Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 are discussed in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, and impacts related to wildfire are analyzed in Section 20, Wildfire.

The updated CEQA Guidelines and Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed the criteria for determining what constitutes a significant transportation-related environmental impact based upon quantification of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of level of service. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) states the requirement to use the VMT criteria only applies on and after July 1, 2020.

The following checklist of “environmental factors potentially affected” should be viewed in the context of General Plan EIR, which provided program-level analyses and “[do] not assess sitespecific impacts.” This report presents the written checklist with references to the specific portions of the General Plan EIR that contain the analysis of the project's potential significant effects, including page and section references. For this reason, this analysis begins with reference to the project description in the General Plan EIR to demonstrate that the project is generally included in the overall plan area buildout described in the project description for the General Plan EIR. It should also be noted that all applicable mitigation measures from General Plan EIR have either been incorporated into the project or would be included in its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and, if the project is approved, its Conditions of Approval.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 19 1 Aesthetics
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista? □ □ ■ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway? □ □ ■ ■ □
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing
scenic quality? □ ■ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
Impacts to aesthetics were analyzed on pages 4.1-8 through 4.1-19 of the General Plan EIR. Impacts to aesthetics were determined to be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR (the General Plan EIR) and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
20 Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy CD-5.4: Architectural Consistency
In established neighborhoods, protect architectural integrity by requiring infill housing, replacement housing, and major additions or remodels to be sensitive to and compatible with the prevailing scale and appearance of adjacent development.

Policy CD-7.7: Lighting
Encourage street and parking lot lighting that creates a sense of security, complements building and landscape design, is energy-efficient, considers night sky visibility impacts (e.g., “dark skies”), and avoids conflicts with nearby residential uses.

Policy LU-2.6: Preservation of Low Density Character
Preserve the low-density character of San Leandro’s predominantly single family neighborhoods.

Policy LU-2.8: Alterations, Additions, and Infill
Ensure that alterations, additions and infill development are compatible with existing homes and maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods.

Policy LU-2.11: Privacy and Views
Encourage residential alterations, additions, and new homes to be designed in a manner that respects the privacy of nearby homes and preserves access to sunlight and views. Wherever feasible, new or altered structures should avoid the disruption of panoramic or scenic views.

San Leandro Zoning Code
San Leandro Zoning Code (SLZC) Chapter 5.12 provides a process for Site Plan Review to ensure that new development complies with the applicable site development standards of the SLZC.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The City’s General Plan does not designate official scenic vistas. However, the General Plan designated views looking west to the San Francisco Bay from the shoreline and the San Leandro hills above I-580 and views looking east to the San Leandro foothills from the San Leandro hills near I580 as significant views (City of San Leandro 2016a). The project site has not been identified as a scenic vista or located within a major gateway in the General Plan EIR (City of San Leandro 2016b).

The San Leandro hills are visible in the distance looking east on Halcyon Drive from the site’s frontage, but views of the hills are not visible through the site from Halcyon Drive or other public viewpoints. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. There would be no impact.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The project site is located approximately 0.9 mile southeast of I-580 which is the nearest eligible scenic highway (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2018). The project site is not visible from I-580 due to distance and intervening structures and vegetation; therefore, there would be no impact.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 21 c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project site is in an urbanized area and is designed to comply with massing and height standards listed under the SLZC Chapter 2.04. The project would be required to undergo the site plan review process as detailed in SLZC Chapter 5.12 and comply with General Plan Policies CD-5.4 and LU-2.8 which require infill housing to be architecturally consistent with existing development to ensure aesthetic compatibility with existing surrounding uses. Therefore, as the project would undergo site plan review and would be within the setback and height requirements that govern scale and massing as listed under SLZC Chapter 2.04, it would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project would be required to comply with SLZC Section 4.04.340 which ensures minimal impacts from glare as well as SLZC Section 2.04.324 which provides daylight plane requirements to reduce impacts of light on adjacent properties. In addition, the project would be required to comply with General Plan Policy CD-7.7 which encourages street and parking lot lighting that creates a sense of security, complements building and landscape design, is energy-efficient, considers night sky visibility impacts, and avoids conflicts with nearby residential uses. As the project would be designed consistent with this policy, the project would not create sources of light and glare that would adversely affect views. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project-specific impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant, and therefore would not be more severe than those identified in the General Plan EIR; thus, the project would not result in new specific effects not addressed in the prior analysis. No new mitigation measures are warranted. Accordingly, no additional environmental review is required.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
22 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 23 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use? □ □ ■ ■ □
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract? □ □ ■ ■ □
c. Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526);
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))? □ □ ■ ■ □
d. Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? □ □ ■ ■ □
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use? □ □ ■ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR discusses agricultural impacts in Chapter 7, CEQA Mandated Sections, under Section 7.1, Impacts Not Found to be Significant, on page 7-1. It was determined that there would be no impacts to agricultural resources.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
24 The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site is located in an urbanized area of southeastern San Leandro. The General Plan EIR, the General Plan, General Plan land use map, and zoning plan all do not identify any agriculture or forestry resources within the city (City of San Leandro 2016a, 2016b). Additionally, the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Important Farmland Map does not identify lands within San Leandro as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2021a). There are no areas of forestland or forest and rangeland within the city (CDFW 2021). In addition, the project site is not located within or adjacent to property under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2017).

Therefore, there would be no impact to agricultural or forestry resources.

Conclusion
The project is within the areas defined and assessed by the General Plan as Urban and Built-Up Land and would have no effect on agricultural lands. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to agricultural resources, Williamson Act-enrolled land, timberland, or forest land, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the General Plan EIR.

Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the General Plan EIR, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 25 3 Air Quality
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? □ ■ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard? □ ■ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations? □ ■ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ ■ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR discusses air quality impacts on pages 4.2-22 through 4.2-53. Impacts from conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the Clean Air Plan would be less than significant.

Impacts from cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants via construction and operation for which the project region is in nonattainment would be significant even after the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, AQ-2A, AQ-2B-1, and AQ-2B-2 reproduced below.

Impacts to sensitive receptors from substantial pollutant concentration exposure as well as impacts from odors and other emissions would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District-approved (BAAQMD) mitigation measures if subsequent environmental review determines that applicants for future development in San Leandro could generate operational emissions in excess of the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2A
Prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and exceed the screening sizes in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of San Leandro a technical assessment evaluating potential air quality impacts related to the City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
26 project’s operation phase. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with the BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Leandro Community Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operation activities.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-1
As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-1, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).

Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-2
Prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and exceed the screening sizes in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of San Leandro a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with the BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Leandro shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds (Table 8-2, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD). These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Engineering/Transportation Department, Building and/or Planning Division, and/or Community Development Department.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Air Quality Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. As the local air quality management agency, BAAQMD is responsible for monitoring air pollutant levels to determine whether national or state air quality standards are exceeded, and, if they are, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under federal and state law, air districts are required to prepare air quality improvement plans for pollutants for which the district is in nonattainment. BAAQMD is in nonattainment for the state and federal ozone standards, the state and federal PM2.5 (particulate Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 27 matter 2.5 microns or smaller in size) standards, and the state PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in size) standards and is required to prepare a plan for improvement (BAAQMD 2017a).

Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health as well as the climate. The legal impetus for the Plan is to update the most recent ozone plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, to comply with state air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health & Safety Code. Although steady progress has been made to reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area, the region continues to be designated as nonattainment for both state and federal ozone standards as noted previously. In addition, emissions of ozone precursors in the Bay Area contribute to air quality problems in neighboring air basins (BAAQMD 2017c). Under these circumstances, state law requires the Clean Air Plan to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and reduce transport of ozone precursors to neighboring air basins (BAAQMD 2017c).

Air Emission Thresholds
The BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies determine appropriate air quality emissions thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. As the lead agency for this project, the City of San Leandro has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2017 CEQA Guidelines are the most appropriate thresholds for use in determining air quality impacts of the proposed project. The BAAQMD developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If the project emissions are below all of the screening criteria, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions. These screening emission levels are generally representative of what a new development on a greenfield site would produce without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration. Projects that involve demolition, such as the project, do not meet the BAAQMD construction screening criteria (BAAQMD 2017b). However, the project does meet the BAAQMD operational screening criteria as the project would include the construction of 18 dwelling units which is below the single-family land use criteria screening size of 325 dwelling units. The discussion below analyzing operational impacts is included for informational purposes.

As the project does not meet the screening criteria for construction impacts, Table 5 presents the significance thresholds for construction/demolition and operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions used for the purposes of this analysis. These represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if construction or operational emissions would exceed any of the thresholds shown in Table 5.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
28 Table 5 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant/Precursor
Average Daily Construction
Emissions (lbs/day)
Average Daily Operation
Emissions (lbs/day)
Operation Annual
Emission (tpy)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
Notes: tpy = tons per year; lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases.

Source: Table 2-2, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017 (BAAQMD 2017b).

Project-Specific Impacts
FCS conducted an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impacts Constraints Analysis for the project (included as Appendix AQ). FCS’ analysis involved running the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0 based on applicant-provided information and comparing the CalEEMod outputs to BAAQMD thresholds. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Federal and State air quality laws require air districts to create air quality improvement plans that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. Under State law, these plans must be updated every three years. The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Bay Area is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan). The 2017 Plan is a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the state standard for atmospheric ozone levels over a one-hour period as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 Plan does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes stationary-source control measures to be implemented through the BAAQMD regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2017 Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the state one-hour ozone standard.

Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the most recently adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) should demonstrate that a project protects air quality and health at the regional and local scale and protects the climate. Any project that would not support these goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted to be that it supports for the 2017 Plan goals.

The 2017 Plan is based on anticipated population and growth estimates included in the General Plan; as long as the project is included within the population and growth estimates, it would be consistent with the 2017 Plan. The project would involve construction of 18 residential units on an infill site, consistent with the goals of the General Plan regarding strategic growth; therefore, the project is consistent with population and growth projections (City of San Leandro 2016a). The project would not generate emissions exceeding those anticipated by the General Plan EIR (discussed further in items b and c), and therefore, the project would not conflict with CAP goals.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 29 FCS analyzed the project’s consistency based on three criteria focused on whether the project supports the primary goals of the 2017 Plan, whether the project includes applicable control measures from the 2017 Plan, and whether the project impedes implementation of any 2017 Plan control measures (Appendix AQ). The report concluded that the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation of low-medium density residential and would not increase VMT beyond the assumptions made under the 2017 Plan. The project was also shown to be consistent with applicable 2017 Plan measures related to buildings, energy, natural and working lands, stationary sources, and transportation control measures (Appendix AQ). Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-1 would be required, which would ensure project compliance with BAAQMD construction emission control measures would further ensure the project would align with the 2017 Plan. As such, the project was found to be consistent with the 2017 Plan based on the three criteria identified in FCS’ analysis.

This impact would be less than significant with mitigation identified in the General Plan EIR. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The San Francisco Bay Area is designated as in nonattainment for the federal and state ozone, federal and state PM2.5, and state PM10 standards. The San Francisco Bay Area is also a maintenance area for the federal carbon monoxide standards. The Bay Area is designated as in attainment or unclassified for the other federal ambient air quality standards (BAAQMD 2017b).

A significant air quality impact may occur when a project individually or cumulatively interferes with progress toward the Basin’s attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard and PM2.5 standard or causes an exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard for any criteria pollutant.

Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory) into the atmosphere. Commonly found primary criteria pollutants include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitric oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5.

Construction Emissions
Project construction would result in temporary construction emissions from the operation of construction vehicles and equipment over unpaved areas, grading, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM10) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment would potentially degrade regional air quality. Construction emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 and are shown in Table 6.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
30 Table 6 Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
Pollutant
Average Daily Emissions
(Unmitigated)
Significance
Threshold
Significant
Impact?
ROG 2 54 No
NOx 7 54 No
CO 8 N/A N/A
PM10 (exhaust) <1 82 No
PM2.5 (exhaust) <1 54 No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less. N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX. Average daily emissions were calculated using Table 2.1 “Overall Construction-Unmitigated” annual emissions in tons per year converted to pounds per day using the days of construction (246 days) calculated using the Section 3.0 “Construction Detail” “Construction Phase” table in the CalEEMod worksheet.

Source: Appendix AQ, CalEEMod worksheet Table 2.1 “Overall Construction-Unmitigated” emissions.

As shown in Table 6, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD short-term construction thresholds shown in Table 5. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-1 requiring the project to comply with the BAAQMD-recommended BMPs to reduce fugitive dust-related impacts would further reduce construction emission impacts. Furthermore, as mentioned under Section 12, Best Management Practices, of the Project Description, the project would be required to comply with COA AQ-1 and utilize low emitting construction equipment to minimize emissions.

Impacts from construction emissions would therefore be less than significant with mitigation identified in the General Plan EIR and Uniformly Applicable Development Policies.

Operational Emissions
Long-term emissions associated with operational impacts, as shown in Table 7 and Table 8, would include emissions from vehicle trips (mobile sources), natural gas and electricity use (energy sources), and landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with on-site development (area sources). Current emissions from the site’s existing uses were not subtracted from project emissions to provide a conservative analysis.

Table 7 Project Operation Average Daily Emissions
Sources
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Area 1 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile 0.3 2 4.5 1.5 0.4 <0.1
Total Project Emissions 1.3 2.2 6.2 1.5 0.5 <0.1
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
Source: Appendix AQ, CalEEMod worksheet Table 2.2 “Overall Operational-Unmitigated” annual emissions. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 31 Table 8 Project Operational Maximum Annual Emissions
Sources
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Area 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile <0.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Emissions 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.3 <0.1 0.1
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 N/A 15 10 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
Source: Appendix AQ, CalEEMod worksheet Table 2.2 “Overall Operational-Unmitigated” annual emissions. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX Table 7 and Table 8 show that emissions would not exceed BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds for any criteria pollutant.

With regard to potential localized CO impacts, BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine whether a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot due to CO emissions from traffic (BAAQMD 2017a). The project would result in less than significant impacts to air quality for local CO emissions if all of the following screening criteria are met:

The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; and The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

As discussed further in Section 17, Transportation, and in the Trip Generation and VMT Analysis report for the project, it was determined that the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management plan or cause an increase in traffic that would cause intersections to exceed 44,000 vehicles per hour (Appendix TRA). Adjacent roadways that would receive new vehicle trips generated by the project do not include roadway segments where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited (Appendix AQ). Therefore, the project would not exceed the CO screening criteria.

Consequently, operational impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Diesel particulate matter accounts for 60 percent of the current estimated inhalation cancer risk for background ambient air (CARB 2017). In addition, Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are a defined set of air pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health (CARB 2021). Unlike criteria pollutants, there is no safe level of exposure associated with TAC emissions. Common sources of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, truck distribution centers, freeways, and other major roadways (BAAQMD 2017c). The project does not City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
32 propose construction of gas stations, dry cleaners, highways, roadways, or other sources that could be considered permitted or non-permitted source of TAC or PM2.5 in proximity to receptors.

An assessment was made of the potential health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from TAC emissions during construction, and it was determined that project construction would not result in the exposure of nearby residents to substantial concentrations of diesel particulate matter in exceedance of BAAQMD thresholds (Appendix AQ).

In addition, the project would not introduce a new stationary source of emissions and would not result in particulate matter greater than BAAQMD thresholds (Appendix AQ). Therefore, a Health Risk Assessment was not performed for this project. Moreover, as described above under question b, the proposed project would not exceed emissions thresholds during construction or operation.

Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Diesel exhaust and ROGs would be emitted during the construction of the project; however, these emissions would be temporary and would rapidly disperse from the project site and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (Appendix AQ). The project would not involve land uses considered by the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to have greater potential to generate offensive odors, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants; nor is the project located near any of these uses. This impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project’s impacts related to air quality emissions would be no greater than the less than significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Neither would they result in new specific effects not addressed in the General Plan EIR, nor require new mitigation measures. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 33 4 Biological Resources
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means? □ □ ■ ■ □
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? □ ■ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■ ■
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
34 Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? □ □ ■ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
Impacts to biological resources were analyzed on pages 4.3-16 through 4.3-23 of the General Plan EIR. Impacts on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands, and wildlife corridors, were determined to be less than significant. Conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources were found to be less than significant. Conflicts with provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan were found to have no impact.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy OSC-6.2: Mitigation of Development Impacts
Require measures to mitigate the impacts of development or public improvements on fish and wildlife habitat, plant resources, and other valuable natural resources in the City.

Action OSC-6.4.A: Biological Assessments
Require biological assessments for development in areas where special status species may be present. Require mitigation in accordance with state and federal regulations where potential adverse impacts exist.

San Leandro Municipal Code
San Leandro Municipal Code (SLMC) Chapter 5.2 outlines the City’s Tree Ordinance. It establishes the City’s role in protecting, maintaining, removing, or otherwise altering street trees and also the procedures necessary to make any alterations and to prevent damage to street trees.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 35 San Leandro Zoning Code
SLZC Section 4.16.112 outlines procedures for the treatment of existing trees on development sites.

This includes identifying all existing trees on plans submitted for “Site Plan Approval” and, if necessary, to provide a tree report. SLZC Section 4.16.112 additionally provides guidance regarding the preservation or replacement of trees.

Project-Specific Impacts
FCS prepared a memorandum summarizing the Biological Resources Constraints Analysis conducted for the project in May 2021 (included as Appendix BIO). The analysis involved desktop review of relevant literature and a reconnaissance-level field survey to document existing conditions and identify biological resource constraints. Desktop research involved reviewing the current state of the project site, soils found on-site, and a special-status species search focused on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map for San Leandro, California and the eight surrounding quadrangles. Sources included the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Watershed Assessment, Tracing and Environmental Results System (WATERS).
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is vegetated with multiple clusters of planted mixed ornamental trees and disturbed ruderal habitat. The native soil on the project site has been covered by hardscape and imported fill except for a small strip of soil along the southern boundary of the project site (Appendix BIO). The project site does not contain vegetation suitable to provide habitat for sensitive or special status species, nor does the project site contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. No endangered, rare, threatened, or special status plant species (or associated habitats) or wildlife species designated by the USFWS, CDFW, or CNPS are expected to occur on-site. The project site contains mature trees which could provide suitable nesting habitat for protected resident and migratory bird species and trees and abandoned structures that are large enough to potentially be inhabited by roosting special-status bat species. Compliance with COA-BIO 1 as described in Section 12, Best Management Practices, of the Project Description would reduce impacts on nesting birds and roosting bats. In addition, the developed nature of the site and surrounding areas would limit the likelihood of bat use of the project site (Appendix BIO). Furthermore, the project site does not include a wildlife movement corridor (Appendix BIO). Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is developed and surrounded by urban land uses. It does not contain any potentially jurisdictional wetlands, waters of the United States, waters of California, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities (Appendix BIO; USFWS 2021). The nearest mapped wetland is the Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline approximately 3 miles west of the project site (USFWS 2021). There City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
36 are numerous intervening buildings and developed areas between the Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline and the project site. As analyzed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not affect this wetland. Potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural resources as well as federally protected wetlands previously were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were found to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Action OSC-6.4.A, detailed above. There would be no impact.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
According to the General Plan EIR, wetlands and other waters protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur in the city. Of particular concern is the area of riparian habitat along San Leandro Creek and the coastal salt marsh and freshwater marsh habitats along the city’s shoreline. Potential impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters could result from construction grading and ground disturbances, increases of impervious surfaces, increased levels of non-point pollutants, or inadequate setbacks (City of San Leandro 2016b). However, the project site is not located on or adjacent to a federally protected wetland as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (USFWS 2021) and therefore the project would have no impact on wetlands. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Development and land use activities consistent with the General Plan would result in a reduction in remaining natural habitat. However, most wildlife in these areas is already acclimated to human activity in the urbanized portions of the city (City of San Leandro 2016b). Additionally, the project site itself does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plants or any special-status wildlife species aside from potential nesting birds and roosting bats. Furthermore, the project site does not contain known wildlife corridors (Appendix BIO). The project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife via wildlife corridor. While the project could impact the nesting sites for protected birds or bats, with required implementation of COA BIO-1 described in Section 12, Best Management Practices, of the Project Description and as part of the site plan approval process detailed in SLZC Section 5.12.128, impacts would be less than significant and the project would not have an impact beyond that already analyzed in General Plan EIR. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City’s Tree Ordinance, as detailed in SLMC Chapter 5.2, allows for the removal of street trees only under specific circumstances and assigns responsibility for removal to either the City or property owner. The project does not currently include removal of street trees; however, if removal of street trees would be necessary, their removal would be required to adhere to the City’s Tree Ordinance (City of San Leandro 2021a). In addition, SLZC Section 4.16.112 includes requirements regarding existing trees on development sites and replacement of significant trees based on their size, age, prominence in the neighborhood’s landscape, and/or habitat value. Therefore, while tree removal may occur because of the project, required compliance with the City’s Tree Ordinance regarding street trees and SLZC Section 4.16.112 regarding existing trees on development sites would ensure that impacts are less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 37 f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site does not lie within the boundaries of an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), nor another approved local, regional, or state HCP (Appendix BIO). No such conservation plan has been adopted encompassing all or portions of San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2016b). Therefore, the project would not conflict the provisions of an adopted conservation plan. The project would have no impact in this regard.

Conclusion
The project would have less than significant impacts to biological resources, generally the same as the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, and would not result in new specific effects beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
38 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 39 5 Cultural Resources
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
or Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
§15064.5? □ ■ □ ■ □
b. Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
as defined in §15064.5? □ □ □ ■ ■
c. Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR analyzes cultural resources on pages 4.4-10 through 4.4-19 and finds that impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy CD-1.7: Protecting Resource Integrity
Ensure that new development, alterations, and remodeling projects on or adjacent to historic properties are sensitive to historic resources and are compatible with the surrounding historic context. Ensure that the San Leandro Zoning Ordinance and any future design guidelines include the necessary standards and guidelines to implement this policy.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
40 Action CD-1.12.A: Archaeological Site Inventory
Maintain Standard Conditions of Approval for new development which require consultation with a professional archaeologist in the event that any subsurface paleontological, prehistoric, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource remains are discovered during any construction or preconstruction activities on a development site. This includes consultation with Native American organizations prior to continued site work in the event such remains are discovered.

Policy CD-2.2: Planning and Building Decisions
Ensure that day-today planning and building activities, including the issuance of building permits, demolition permits, zoning approvals, site plan approvals, and use permits, are consistent with and further the achievement of local historic preservation goals. The City's zoning and building codes should support the reuse and restoration of historic buildings.

Project-Specific Impacts
FSC prepared a Cultural Resources Due Diligence Assessment in May 2021 (included as Appendix CRS). The Due Diligence Assessment sources include updated record searches of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File, a review of all previous technical studies and recorded cultural resources, a paleontological records search at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), and a site survey.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. conducted a historical resources assessment (HRA) analyzing the historical significance of the four existing buildings and associated accessory structures on the project site in October 2021. This assessment included an archival search and reconnaissance of the project site and its surroundings (included as Appendix HRA).
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The subject property is not identified as a historic resource by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Places (CRHP) (Appendix HRA). The nearest historic resource identified is the Casa Peralta located 1.9 miles north of the site, which is listed in the NRHP, is a California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI), and is on the City’s local register (National Parks Service 2021; City of San Leandro 2016a). The nearest resource identified and listed in the California Historical Resources database is the San Leandro Ball Park located 1.3 miles northwest (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 2021). The San Leandro Ball Park is listed as a point of interest and has a landmark plaque but is not listed as part of the NRHP, CRHP, or as a State Landmark. The results of the NWIC records search identified four previously recorded historical cultural resources within 0.5-mile of the project site, none of which are located within the project boundary (Appendix CRS).

Two of the structures on the project site, one of the residences and one of the accessory structures were built in 1939. The other residence and accessory structure were built in 1945 (Appendix HRA).

CEQA does not specify an age threshold for historical resources. However, guidance from the OHP recommends that “sufficient time” – typically 50 years – “must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective” necessary to evaluate the significance of the historical events with which a property is associated (OHP 2021). A threshold of 45 years is recommended because there is often “a five-year lag between resource identification and the date that planning decisions are made” (OHP 1995).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, buildings more than 50 years in age may be eligible Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 41 for the CRHR and as such have the potential to be considered significant historic resources under CEQA. The HRA was conducted to determine whether the existing structures on the project site were historically significant. As recorded in the HRA, the existing structures are recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation under any eligibility criteria (Appendix HRA). As such, the structures do not qualify as a historical resource and their demolition would not result in a significant adverse impact. Impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
As described in the General Plan and General Plan EIR, archaeological deposits could be present in San Leandro. At least ten archaeological sites have been identified in the City between San Leandro Creek and San Lorenzo Creek as well as remaining traces of the first 100 years of European settlement in San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2016a; City of San Leandro 2016b). Due to the disturbed nature of the project site from prior development, discovery of archaeological resources is unlikely. In the event that subsurface paleontological, prehistoric, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource remains are discovered during construction or preconstruction activities, in accordance with General Plan Action CD-1.12.A, the City would require consultation with a professional archaeologist and consultation with Native American organizations prior to continued site work in the event such remains are discovered. As archaeological resources would not be expected to be found on the project site and the City would require adherence with the standard COA as stated in General Plan Action CD-1.12.A, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
As described in the General Plan EIR, human remains associated with pre-contact archaeological deposits could exist with San Leandro and could potentially be encountered during grounddisturbing activities associated with development (City of San Leandro 2016b). Human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities are required to be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA), which set forth the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery must cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Alameda County Coroner must be notified immediately. The Coroner then determines whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours, who will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner must, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.

Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Required compliance with these existing laws would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
42 Conclusion
Potential impacts to historical resources have been identified in the General Plan EIR, and the project would have no direct or indirect significant effects on historical resources and would not require new mitigation measures. As the project would have less than significant impacts on unrecorded subsurface archaeological resources and/or human remains with compliance with existing laws and policies, the project’s impact would be generally the same as that identified in the General Plan EIR for the plan as a whole. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Energy
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 43 6 Energy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation? □ ■ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ ■ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR did not address the issue of energy as a separate CEQA section because its publication preceded the December 2018 CEQA Guidelines update, which expanded CEQA by defining this issue area as a stand-alone resource category. The General Plan EIR captured its energy discussion within the Utilities and Service Systems section and CEQA Mandated Sections discussion.

Impacts to energy were discussed under Section 14, Utilities and Service Systems, on pages 4.14-73 through 4.14-81 and under Chapter 7, CEQA Mandated Sections, on pages 7-3 through 7-3.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy EH-3.4: Design, Construction, and Operation
Require new development to be designed and constructed in a way that reduces the potential for future air quality problems, such as odors and the emission of any and all air pollutants. This should be done by:
(a) Requiring construction and grading practices that minimize airborne dust and particulate matter;
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
44 (b) Ensuring that best available control technology is used for operations that could generate air pollutants;
(c) Encouraging energy conservation and low-polluting energy sources; (d) Promoting landscaping and tree planting to absorb carbon monoxide and other pollutants; and
(e) Implementing the complementary strategies to reduce greenhouse gases identified in the Climate Action Plan.

Policy OSC-8.1: Conservation and Energy Efficiency
Strongly advocate for increased energy conservation by San Leandro residents and businesses, and ensure that the City itself is a conservation role model.

Action OSC-8.1.A: Climate Action Plan Implementation
Implement the energy efficiency measures outlined in the San Leandro Climate Action Plan, and periodically update these measures to reflect new Code requirements, emerging technology, completed actions, and new opportunities. Among the measures identified are locally adopted energy efficiency standards, a third party or municipal financing program for energy efficiency, a revolving loan for energy efficiency improvements, and various education and outreach strategies.

Policy OSC-8.2: Planning and Building Practices
Encourage construction, landscaping, and site planning practices that minimize heating and cooling costs and ensure that energy is efficiently used. Local building codes and other City regulations and procedures should meet or exceed state and federal standards for energy conservation and efficiency, and support the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Section 7.5.600 adopts the California Green Building Standards Code Title 24, Part 11 as the City of San Leandro’s Green Building Code.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The project would require energy during construction and operation, as described in detail below.

Construction
Demolition of the two existing residences and two existing accessory structures would result in short-term consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. The California Green Building Standards Code includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to project construction to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

Energy use during project construction would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impacts Constraints Analysis prepared for the project found Environmental Checklist
Energy
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 45 that the construction equipment would consume an estimated 5,677 gallons of diesel fuel and vehicle travel associated with construction activity would consume 2,342 gallons of gasoline and diesel over the entire construction duration (Appendix AQ).

Due to the range of materials and manufacturers involved in the production of construction materials, including manufacturers in other states and countries, upstream energy use cannot be reasonably or accurately estimated. However, it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers of building materials such as concrete, steel, lumber, or other building materials would employ energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Project operation would consume an estimated 143,685 kWh of electricity and an estimated 761,828 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis. The residences would be designed and constructed in accordance with the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards and would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code codified into the City’s Municipal Code in SLMC Section

7.5.600. This code requires the provision of electric vehicle charging stations, water efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling services, and other energy-efficient measures. Compliance with these standards would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary (Appendix AQ). Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 30,004 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually. Because the project would be located on an infill site in an urbanized portion of San Leandro, the project would provide residences close to jobs, amenities, and services. Consequently, operation-related energy impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E or EBCE. PG&E currently provides customers with three power service options, including normal power service 50 percent Solar Choice, and 100 percent Solar Choice (PG&E 2022). EBCE currently provides customers with two power service options: Renewable 100 which provides electricity service generated from 100 percent renewable sources and Bright Choice which provides electricity service generated from 40 percent renewable sources (EBCE 2022b).

As a conservative estimate, it was assumed that the project would be served by PG&E. Due to the automatic enrollment of new accounts into EBCE’s Bright Choice Plan, the number of residents served by PG&E would likely be lower. In 2020, PG&E obtained 30.6 percent of its electricity from eligible renewable energy sources (1.3 percent from biomass and biowaste, 2.6 percent from geothermal, 1.2 percent from eligible hydroelectric, 15.9 percent from solar, and 8.3 percent from wind), while the remaining electricity was sourced from nuclear (42.8 percent), natural gas (16.4 percent), and large hydroelectric (10.1 percent) (California Energy Commission 2021). PG&E would be required to meet future legislative targets codified by SB 100 requiring 60 percent of electricity sold in California be generated from renewable energy sources by 2030 and 100 percent of electricity sales in California to be sourced with renewable and carbon-free energy sources by 2045.

Because PG&E would be required to meet the SB 100 targets, the proposed project would receive City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
46 electricity from a utility company that meets California’s RPS requirements as well as the State requirements through 2045 (Appendix AQ).

The project would be required to comply with the applicable standards outlined in Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings which include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems, and lighting. The project would be designed and constructed to the latest energy efficiency building standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 requiring rooftop solar and installation of dedicated conduits for future EV charging stations at each of the residential buildings (Appendix AQ). Incorporation of Title 24 standards would ensure the project would not result in wasteful energy consumption.

In addition, the project would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. Implementation of CAP strategies and policies would reduce both GHG emissions and energy consumption while promoting energy efficient building materials, vehicles, and alternative transportation methods. As shown in Table 9, the project would be consistent with applicable CAP measures which would reduce operational energy use and avoid wasteful energy consumption.

Table 9 Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan Climate Action Plan Policy Project Consistency
RE-1: East Bay Community Energy Participation.

Encourage San Leandro households and businesses to
switch from PG&E electricity supplies to East Bay
Community Energy, and commit to defaulting to
Renewable 100 tier for 100 percent renewable energy.

Consistent. The residential customers of the project
would be automatically enrolled in EBCE’s Bright Choice Plan which offers 40 percent renewable energy and
would have the opportunity to upgrade to EBCE’s
Renewable 100 Plan which offers 100 percent renewable
energy (EBCE 2022b).

RE-2: Residential Owner-occupied Renewable Energy.

Promote greater adoption of renewable energy generation and energy storage systems on owner occupied new and
existing homes. Leverage existing solar financing, tax, and rebate opportunities, and consider new financial incentives as needed.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with California Building Code Title 24 which requires the installation of rooftop solar panels on each of the 18
proposed residential buildings.

AD-2: Transit-oriented Development. Continue to
concentrate multi-family development and pedestrian
oriented mixed-use development within existing [Transit Oriented Development] TOD areas and along major transit corridors
Consistent. The project site is located approximately 0.7 miles from the BART Bay Fair Station, which would
facilitate use of public transit. The project site is located within 500 feet of a bus stop which would further
encourage the use of public transportation.

AD-3: Infill Development. Focus new housing development on underutilized or vacant infill sites on flatter lands and continue to discourage new development in hillside areas Consistent. The project would increase residential
density on an underutilized, infill development site.

TE-1: Electric Vehicle Adoption. Conduct education and
outreach to inform members of the public about the
availability of EVs, and the economic incentives available to encourage EV adoption.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with Title 24 requiring the installation of dedicated
electrical infrastructure for future EV charging
capabilities at each of the 18 residential buildings.

WR-2: Construction and Demolition Waste. Explore
opportunities to exceed State requirements for
construction and demolition materials by encouraging
deconstruction and material reuse.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with SLMC Section 3.7.100 requiring projects to recycle 100 percent of asphalt and concrete and 50 percent of
the remainder of the construction and demolition debris.

Source: City of San Leandro 2021c; Appendix AQ
The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Energy
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 47 Conclusion
Although the General Plan EIR did not specifically address energy, the project would not result in a new significant impact in this resource area because of the project’s consistency with the City of San Leandro General Plan, CAP, and the State’s Green Building Standards Code. No new mitigation measures would be required, and no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
48 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 49 7 Geology and Soils
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? □ □ □ ■ ■

2. Strong seismic ground
shaking? □ □ □ ■ ■

3. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction? □ □ □ ■ ■

4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil? □ □ □ ■ ■
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is made unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse? □ □ □ ■ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ □ □ ■ ■
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
50 Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
Impacts to geology and soils were analyzed on pages 4.5-8 through 4.5-13 of the General Plan EIR.

Impacts to geology and soils were determined to be less than significant. Impacts to paleontological resources were analyzed on pages 4.4-15 through 4.4-16 and found to be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The following General Plan actions would be applicable to the proposed project:

Policy CD-1.12: Archaeological Resources
Recognize the potential for paleontological, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and ensure that future development takes the measures necessary to identify and preserve such resources.

Action CD-1.12.A: Archaeological Site Inventory
Maintain Standard Conditions of Approval for new development which require consultation with a professional archaeologist in the event that any subsurface paleontological, prehistoric, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource remains are discovered during any construction or preconstruction activities on a development site. This includes consultation with Native American organizations prior to continued site work in the event such remains are discovered.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 51 Action EH-1.1.A: Soils and Geologic Report
Require soils and/or geologic reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks exist. These reports should address the degree of hazard, design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and appropriate mitigation measures.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Section 7.5.175 details soils and foundations requirements including a Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer review of project plans and specifications before issuing a permit for a building where soil and foundation investigation is required; Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer written field report confirming proper building pad and site preparation activities conform with the soil report and approved plans; and Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer final report confirming that site work conforms to the approved plans, specifications, and investigation associated with the project.

SLMC Section 7.12.230 details the measures that erosion control, sedimentation control, and drainage plans must have to ensure that storm water from the project site meets the quality standards dictated by the “Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program Ordinance No. 92-011,” “Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures,” and the “Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control.” Project-Specific Impacts
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation reporting the geotechnical conditions at the project site in July 2020 (included as Appendix GEO). a.1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (City of San Leandro 2016a). The nearest fault to the site is the Hayward Fault located approximately 0.9 mile east of the project site.

The California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the San Leandro 7.5-Minute Quadrangle excludes the site from areas mapped for fault rupture hazards (Appendix GEO).

Therefore, as the site is excluded from fault rupture hazard analysis because of low risk of fault rupture hazard, impacts related to fault hazards would be less than significant. a.2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? As with all of the East Bay, the project site is in an area at relatively high risk from seismic shaking.

However, the current California Building Code (CBC) contains requirements for structural design, including seismic design specifications. Compliance with mandatory building code structural specifications would result in structures that resist adverse effects from seismic ground-shaking. In addition, the project would be required to comply with recommendations listed in the Geotechnical report (Appendix GEO) in accordance with SLMC Section 7.5.175 which would reduce impacts to structural damage or injuries during strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts associated to strong seismic ground-shaking would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
52 a.3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Liquefaction of soil can occur during seismic ground-shaking. Loose, saturated, uniformly graded sand below the groundwater table is the soil type most susceptible to liquefaction. Silt and clay with low plasticity are also potentially liquefiable. As shown in Figure 7-2 of the City General Plan, the project site is within a moderate liquefaction susceptibility zone (City of San Leandro 2016a). The geotechnical investigation concluded that a liquefaction induced settlement of up to approximately

2.5 inches may occur and a differential settlement of 1.25 inches over 50 feet is estimated. Due to the presence of a thick predominantly non-liquefiable cover overlaying potentially liquefiable layers, surface manifestations of liquefaction to differential settlements would be limited (Appendix GEO).

Project design that complies with the CBC as well as recommendations listed in the Geotechnical report (Appendix GEO) would result in a building that resists adverse effects from seismic-related liquefaction. Therefore, hazards associated with seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, would have less than significant impacts.
a.4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Due to the prevailing gentle topography of the city, the probability of earthquake-induced landslides in most parts of San Leandro is low except for the hills in the northeast part of the city (City of San Leandro 2016a). The risk for landslides in the area is so low the California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the San Leandro 7.5-Minute Quadrangle excludes the site from areas mapped for landslide hazards (Appendix GEO). In addition, the project would be required to comply with recommendations listed in the Geotechnical report (Appendix GEO) which would reduce impacts from landslides. Therefore, risks associated with earthquake-induced landslides at the project site would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Site preparation and grading would expose soils, which would result in the potential for erosion; however, the generally level conditions of the project site would limit the potential for substantial soil erosion and adherence with C.3 requirements would minimize erosion of soils and pollutants into stormwater runoff (Refer to Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more detail about stormwater runoff). Ground-disturbing activities would include site-specific grading for foundations, building pads, access driveways and parking, and utility trenches. Although temporary erosion could occur, the project would be required to comply with SLMC Section 7.12.230 as well as recommendations listed in the Geotechnical report (Appendix GEO) which would ensure stormwater, erosion, and sedimentation control measures would be taken to prevent excess stormwater runoff and minimize erosion and sedimentation. Compliance with SLMC Section

7.12.230 and recommendations in the Geotechnical report would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 53 d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The project site is underlain by soil with a low to moderate expansion potential (Appendix GEO).

Compliance with SLMC Section 7.5.175 would reduce impacts associated with the heave and shrink characteristics associated with the low to moderately expansive soil on the project site. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable building codes, and recommendations listed in the Geotechnical report (Appendix GEO) would ensure that project activities would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as a result of construction on expansive soils.

Therefore, impacts related to expansive soil would be less than significant. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
As discussed under Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would be served by a sanitary sewer system maintained by the Oro Loma Sanitary District (included as Appendix OLSD).

The project would have access to these systems, and septic systems would not be constructed on the project site. The project would therefore have no impact in this regard. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The paleontological records search conducted of the UCMP database did not identify any vertebrate fossil localities within the project site. Furthermore, the project site is situated on Holocene and Pleistocene surficial deposits. No significant paleontological resources have been found in the San Leandro Quadrangle (Appendix GEO). In addition, the General Plan EIR stated that a search of the UCMP database concluded that there were no known or recorded fossil localities within San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2016b). The potential for encountering fossil resources during projectrelated ground disturbance would be low and impacts to paleontological resources would not be anticipated. Although unlikely, if paleontological resources are encountered, implementation of General Plan Policy CD-1.12 and Action CD-1.12.A recognizing the potential for paleontological resources and requiring Standard Conditions of Approval for new development to require consultation with a professional archaeologist if subsurface paleontological resource remains are discovered would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would not have an impact beyond those previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

Conclusion
The basic geologic setting of the project site has not changed since adoption of the General Plan EIR.

The project would not have site-specific impacts beyond those anticipated by the General Plan EIR, would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and would not require new mitigation measures. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
54 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 55 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Conflict with any
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purposes of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR discusses greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts on pages 4.6-22 through

4.6-41. Impacts from generating GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment would be less than significant. Impacts due to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR (the General Plan EIR) and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2021 Climate Action Plan
The City of San Leandro 2021 Climate Action Plan (CAP) is an update to the 2009 and was adopted on July 19, 2021. The CAP framework for the City to reduce its community-wide GHG emissions in a manner consistent with State reduction targets for 2020, 2030, and 2050 through an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies and climate adaptation strategies. The CAP contains an inventory of the City’s GHG emissions from the transportation, energy, off-road equipment, waste, and water and wastewater sectors, as well as from Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operations; an assessment of the populations and community assets most vulnerable to climate change; and goals, strategies, and actions to address climate change adaptation and GHG emissions. The 2021 CAP also presents a City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
56 work plan and monitoring program for the City to track progress over time (City of San Leandro 2021c).

City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy OSC-7.2: Water Conservation
Promote the efficient use of existing water supplies through a variety of water conservation measures, including the use of recycled water for landscaping.

Policy OSC-7.3: Drought-Tolerant Landscaping
Encourage the use of native vegetation and Bay-friendly landscaping and enforce the State Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).

Policy OSC-7.4: Development Standards
Maintain local planning and building standards that require the efficient use of water through such measures as low-flow plumbing fixtures and water-saving appliances. Require water conservation measures as a condition of approval for major developments.

Policy OSC-7.9: Reducing Greenhouse Gases Through Land Use and Transportation Choices Locate and design new development in a manner which maximizes the ability to use transit, walk, or bicycle for most trips, reduce dependence on fossil fuel powered vehicles, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Policy OSC-8.1: Conservation and Energy Efficiency
Strongly advocate for increased energy conservation by San Leandro residents and businesses, and ensure that the City itself is a conservation role model.

Policy OSC-8.2: Planning and Building Practices
Encourage construction, landscaping, and site planning practices that minimize heating and cooling costs and ensure that energy is efficiently used. Local building codes and other City regulations and procedures should meet or exceed state and federal standards for energy conservation and efficiency, and support the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Project-Specific Impacts
Thresholds of Significance and Methodology
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, in March 2010, the California Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions. These guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the project. According to the adopted CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to project GHG emissions would be significant if the project would do one or both of the following:
 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs
BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Plan) on April 19, 2017, to provide a regional strategy to improve Bay Area air quality and meet public health goals (BAAQMD 2017c). The control strategy described in the 2017 Plan includes a wide range of control measures designed to reduce emissions and lower ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants, Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 57 safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, and reduce GHG emissions to protect the climate. As described in Section 3, Air Quality, the 2017 Plan is based on anticipated population and growth estimates included in the General Plan. The project would involve construction of 18 residential units on an infill site, consistent with the goals of the General Plan regarding efficient strategic growth; therefore, the project is consistent with the 2017 Plan.

In the context of global GHG emissions, most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence on climate change.

Therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).

BAAQMD has evaluated regional GHG emissions in context of Statewide emissions and developed guidance for local agencies on how to determine the significance of project operational-related GHG emissions relative to the cumulative statewide emissions. According to BAAQMD guidance, the GHG emission threshold should be 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e (MT CO2e/yr), or 4.6 MT CO2e/yr per service population (residents and employees) for land use development projects within the Basin (BAAQMD 2017b).

Additionally, according to BAAQMD, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG reduction strategy that addresses the project’s GHG emissions, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant GHG emission impacts (BAAQMD 2017b). The City of San Leandro’s 2021 CAP was adopted in July 2021. The CAP is consistent with BAAQMD’s requirements for a qualified GHG reduction strategy. Therefore, project consistency with the City’s CAP would be indicative of the project not having significant GHG emission impacts.

FCS conducted an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impacts Constraints Analysis for the project (included as Appendix AQ). FCS’ analysis involved running CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 based on applicant-provided information and comparing the CalEEMod outputs to BAAQMD thresholds.
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Project construction would generate temporary short-term GHG emissions through travel to and from the worksite and from the operation of construction equipment such as graders, backhoes, and generators. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest amount of emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling. Construction activity would generate approximately 175 MT CO2e which, amortized over 30 years, would be approximately 5.8 MT CO2e per year (Appendix AQ). BAAQMD has not identified applicable construction GHG threshold, thus this calculation is included for informational purposes. Nonetheless, the project applicant would be required to comply with applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding emission control measures.

Table 10 shows the project’s estimated operational GHG emissions, which would be approximately 357 MT CO2e per year with the primary source of emissions from mobile sources and energy use (Appendix AQ). This would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
58 Table 10 Project’s Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction 5.7
Operational
Area 1
Energy 54
Mobile 298
Solid Waste 1
Water 2
Total 357
Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Construction annual emissions estimated using CalEEMod construction emission outputs amortized over 30 years. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Appendix AQ
In addition, as detailed in Table 11 below, the project would be consistent with applicable measures in the City’s CAP. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Consistency with the City’s CAP would also ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan goals and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Project consistency with the City’s CAP and General Plan can be found in Table 11.

Table 11 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan and General Plan Goals and Policies
Goals, Policies, and Actions Project Consistency
City of San Leandro Climate Action Plan
RE-1: East Bay Community Energy participation. Encourage San Leandro households and businesses to switch from
PG&E electricity supplies to East Bay Community Energy, and commit to defaulting to Renewable 100 tier for 100
percent renewable energy.

Consistent. The project’s residents would be
automatically enrolled in EBCE’s Bright Choice Plan
which offers 40 percent renewable energy and would
have the opportunity to upgrade to EBCE’s Renewable
100 Plan which offers 100 percent renewable energy
(EBCE 2022b).

RE-2: Residential owner-occupied renewable energy.

Promote greater adoption of renewable energy generation and energy storage systems on owner occupied new and
existing homes. Leverage existing solar financing, tax, and rebate opportunities, and consider new financial incentives as needed.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with California Building Code Title 24 which would
require the installation of rooftop solar panels on the residences.

AD-2: Transit-oriented development. Continue to
concentrate multi-family development and pedestrian
oriented mixed-use development within existing [Transit Oriented Development] TOD areas and along major transit corridors
Consistent. The project site is located approximately 0.7 mile from the BART Bay Fair Station, which would
facilitate use of public transit. The project site is located within 500 feet of a bus stop which would further
encourage the use of public transportation.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 59 Goals, Policies, and Actions Project Consistency
AD-3: Infill development. Focus new housing development on underutilized or vacant infill sites on flatter lands and continue to discourage new development in hillside areas Consistent. The project would increase residential
density on an underutilized, infill development site.

TE-1: Electric vehicle adoption. Conduct education and
outreach to inform members of the public about the
availability of EVs, and the economic incentives available to encourage EV adoption.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with Title 24 requiring the installation of dedicated
electrical infrastructure for future EV charging
capabilities.

WR-2: Construction and Demolition waste. Explore
opportunities to exceed State requirements for
construction and demolition materials by encouraging
deconstruction and material reuse.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with SLMC Section 3.7.100 to recycle 100 percent of
asphalt and concrete and 50 percent of the remainder of the construction and demolition debris.

City of San Leandro General Plan
Policy EH-3.2: Transportation Control Measures. Promote strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing the necessity of driving. These strategies include more reliable public transportation, carpooling and
vanpooling programs, employer Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs, better provisions for
bicyclists and pedestrians, and encouraging mixed use and higher density development around transit stations.

Consistent. The project would result in increased
residential density near a bus stop served by AC Transit Local Line 28 located less than 500 feet from the project site.

Policy EH-3.4: Design, Construction, and Operation.

Require new development to be designed and constructed
in a way that reduces the potential for future air quality problems, such as odors and the emission of any and all air pollutants. This should be done by:
(a) Requiring construction and grading practices that
minimize airborne dust and particulate matter;
(b) Ensuring that best available control technology is used for operations that could generate air pollutants;
(c) Encouraging energy conservation and low-polluting
energy sources;
(d) Promoting landscaping and tree planting to absorb
carbon monoxide and other pollutants; and
(e) Implementing the complementary strategies to reduce greenhouse gases identified in the Climate Action Plan.

Consistent. The project would be encouraged to
implement BAAQMD BMPs during construction to
reduce fugitive dust impacts and reduce the potential for significant construction pollutant emissions.

Goal OSC-7: Promote recycling, water conservation, green building, and other programs which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a more sustainable environment.

Consistent. The project would be required to be built to Title 24 standards which would include landscaping and
energy efficient building materials which would reduce
GHG emissions.

Policy OSC-7.3: Drought-Tolerant Landscaping. Encourage the use of native vegetation and Bay-friendly landscaping and enforce the State Department of Water Resources
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).

Consistent. The project would include drought-tolerant
landscaping to ensure consistency with the City’s WELO.

Policy OSC-7.9: Reducing Greenhouse Gases Through Land
Use and Transportation Choices. Locate and design new
development in a manner which maximizes the ability to
use transit, walk, or bicycle for most trips, reduce
dependence on fossil fuel powered vehicles, and reduce
vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The project would include construction of
sidewalks along both sides of internal roadway Street A which would provide a pedestrian connection from
Muscari Street to Elderberry Way where one currently
does not exist. The project would be located less than
500 feet east of a bus stop providing access to AC Transit Local Line 28 and approximately 0.7 mile from the BART
Bay Fair station.

Source: City of San Leandro 2016a; City of San Leandro 2021c; Appendix AQ City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
60 Plan Bay Area 2050 is the long-range regional plan for the San Francisco Bay area with 35 strategies focused on improving housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment (Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2021). The project would be consistent with the Play Bay Area 2050 because it would provide new infill housing, would add pedestrian connections between Muscari Street and Elderberry way where a pedestrian connection does not currently exist, and would increase residential density near an existing bus stop.

Continued implementation of State policies to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use, including the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Title 24 of the California Building Code would reduce the project’s anticipated emissions by decreasing energy use, or by providing a “cleaner” (less GHG-intensive) mix of electricity to the project from the regional utility. San Leandro is served by EBCE, a community choice aggregation that automatically opts residential customers into an energy plan which would provide between 40 and 100 percent renewable energy to the project (EBCE 2022a; EBCE 2022b). By complying with existing policies and regulations, the project would be generally consistent with these existing requirements.

Based on the discussion and consistency analysis above, the project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation intended to reduce GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be no greater than the less than significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for the plan as a whole. Neither would they result in new specific effects not addressed in the prior EIR, nor require new mitigation measures. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 61 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ □ □ ■ ■
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25
mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ □ ■ ■
d. Be located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? □ □ □ ■ ■
e. For a project located in an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■ ■
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
62 Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■ ■
g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR discusses hazardous materials impacts on pages 4.7-16 through 4.7-31 and finds that impacts related to hazardous materials use in the City would be less than significant, and that there would be no impacts related to airport hazards.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy CSF-1.5: Review of Development Plans
Require Police and Fire Department review of proposed development plans to ensure that sufficient provisions for emergency access and response are made, fire code requirements are satisfied, and adequate levels of service can be provided.

Policy EH-5.1: Regulatory Compliance
Work with the appropriate county, regional, state, and federal agencies to develop and implement programs for hazardous waste reduction, hazardous material facility siting, hazardous waste handling and disposal, public education, and regulatory compliance.

Policy EH-5.2: Clean-Up of Contaminated Sites
Ensure that the necessary steps are taken to clean up residual hazardous wastes on any contaminated sites proposed for redevelopment or reuse. Require soil evaluations as needed to ensure that risks are assessed and appropriate remediation is provided.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 63 Policy EH-5.3: Design of Storage and Handling Areas
Require that all hazardous material storage and handling areas are designed to minimize the possibility of environmental contamination and adverse off-site impacts. Enforce and implement relevant state and federal codes regarding spill containment facilities around storage tanks.

Policy EH-5.6: Household Hazardous Wastes
Promote public education about the safe disposal of household hazardous waste, such as motor oil and batteries, including the locations of designated household hazardous waste disposal sites.

Action EH-5.6.A: Publicity of Household Hazardous Waste Information Work with Alameda County and Alameda County Industries (ACI) to provide each household with information on the location and operating hours of household hazardous waste collection facilities and the protocol for the disposal of such wastes.

Policy EH-5.7: Hazardous Building Materials
Ensure the safe and proper handling of hazardous building materials, such as friable asbestos and lead based paint. If such materials are disturbed during building renovation or demolition, they should be handled and disposed of in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

Policy EH-9.3: Changes to Airport Operations
Ensure that any changes to airport operations that would potentially result in higher noise levels in San Leandro incorporate comprehensive noise mitigation measures, even when the impacts will be of limited duration. To the greatest extent feasible, any changes in airport activity should avoid impacts to noise sensitive uses such as residential areas and schools.

Policy EH-9.8: Monitoring Programs
Promote ongoing monitoring of noise levels associated with airport operations and support expanded monitoring of other off-site impacts, such as air quality. Advocate for additional study of the health effects of airport noise and emissions, and use the findings of such research in defining the City’s position on airport related issues.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Chapter 5.1 specifies the permits and compliance standards that must be adhered to when construction is expected to encroach on public rights-of-way.

Project-Specific Impacts
Tetra Tech, Inc. prepared a Phase I and a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project site. The report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (E1527-13) and the requirements for satisfying “All Appropriate Inquiries” as set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 312 et seq. Phase I ESA analysis involved a review of historic aerial photos, an interview with the current owner of the property, area reconnaissance, and a database search of federal, local, and regulatory agencies conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The Limited Phase II ESA involved soil sampling on-site to evaluate current groundwater and soil vapor conditions. The full Phase I ESA and Limited Phase II ESA executive summary are included as Appendix HAZ.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
64 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Residential land uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. As such, the proposed project would not involve the use, storage, transportation, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. In the event that hazardous materials are used or otherwise handled on the project site, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials are regulated through the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, CCR, Divisions 4 and 4.5). In addition to state regulations, the project site’s use of hazardous materials would be regulated pursuant to federal, state, and local laws as noted in the General Plan EIR. With implementation of General Plan Policies EH-5.1 and EH-5.6 which focus on coordinated hazardous waste programs and regulatory compliance and educating the public about the safe disposal of hazardous waste, impacts related to the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials at residential land uses would not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. Transport and use of such materials would be subject to all applicable state and federal laws, such as Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, RCRA, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As mentioned under criterion a, the project would not use, store, or otherwise deal with substantial quantities of hazardous materials. As the project would not store large quantities of hazardous materials on-site, the project would not create conditions that could lead to the release of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. In addition, implementation of General Plan Policies EH-5.3 and EH-5.6, and Action EH-5.6A which focuses on the safe storage of hazardous materials and educating the public about the safe disposal of household hazardous waste, would reduce impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous wastes on the project site during project operation.

The Limited Phase II ESA revealed that various concentrations of herbicides, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were reported in soil samples at levels below their applicable San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control Board (RWQCB) Residential Environmental Screening Levels and/or EPA Regional Screening Levels. Although organochlorinated pesticides (OCPs) alpha-BHC3 and dieldrin4were
detected in shallow soil samples at concentrations that exceeded the EPA Regional Screening Levels and RWQCB Residential Environmental Screening Levels, respectively, compliance with CO HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2 described in Section 12, Best Management Practices, of the introductory sections to this document, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level by requiring preparation of a Soil Management Plan for impacted soils as well as conducting remediation for soils with concentrations of chemicals exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds. As stated in the Limited Phase II ESA, soils containing OCP alpha-BHC and dieldrin would be removed prior to 3 OCP alpha-BHC is a type of highly toxic, non-specific organochlorine insecticide used for a variety of agricultural applications. 4 Dieldrin was used as an insecticide from the 1950s to 1970 and was used as a pesticide for corn, cotton, and citrus crops. It has since been banned due to its highly toxic nature and its ability to increase in concentration in each step of the food chain (Honeycutt and Shirley 2014).

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 65 construction, and properly disposed of at an off-site disposal facility. In addition, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents during project construction would be conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Therefore, project construction would not expose workers or the environment to contamination or toxic substances.

The project would involve demolition of buildings that, due to their age, may contain asbestoscontaining materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint. The existing buildings were constructed circa 1940. Structures built before the 1970s typically used ACMs in their construction. Demolition of the existing structures could result in health hazard impacts to workers if not remediated prior to construction activities. However, demolition and construction activities would be required to adhere to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which governs the proper handling and disposal of ACM for demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities in the Bay Area, and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) regulations regarding lead-based materials. The California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure levels do not exceed CalOSHA standards. The DTSC has classified PCBs as a hazardous waste when concentrations exceed 50 parts per million in non-liquids, and the DTSC requires that materials containing those concentrations of PCBs be transported and disposed of as hazardous waste. Implementation of General Plan Policy EH-5.7 focused on ensuring the safe and proper handling of hazardous building materials during building renovation or demolition would further reduce impacts. With implementation of appropriate General Plan policies and required compliance with COA HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2, impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials stored on-site into the environment would be less than significant.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest school is the Montessori School at Washington Avenue, located approximately 0.34 mile south of the project site. There are no schools within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site.

During project construction, as described in criterion b above, due to the age and building materials of the structures on the project site, ACM and LBP could be removed from the project site and transported within 0.25 mile of the nearest school. However, as detailed above, applicable General Plan policies and compliance with applicable state and federal laws would reduce the risk of hazardous exposure associated with project construction. In addition, as residences would not involve the use, storage, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous waste as discussed under criterion a, impacts related to project operation resulting in hazardous material exposure to schools would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials or hazardous waste from the project site to nearby school sites would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The Phase I ESA included an area assessment and a review of relevant databases for known hazardous materials contamination, environmental investigations, and remediation projects on and adjacent to the project site. Appendix HAZ identified no evidence of on- or off-site recognized environmental conditions. A search of the GeoTracker database identified two leaking underground City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
66 storage tanks (LUST) cleanup sites within 1,000 feet of the site, one approximately 0.1 mile southwest of the site, and one approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the site. Both sites are closed, meaning cleanup activities have occurred in accordance with regulatory standards and no further cleanup action is required at this time (SWRCB 2022). The search did not reveal active LUST cleanup sites in the project vicinity (SWRCB 2022). A search of the EnviroStor database revealed no cleanup sites or permitted facilities within 0.25 mile of the project site (DTSC 2022). Furthermore, the site has not been listed on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (DTSC 2021; State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2021). In addition, implementation of General Plan Policies EH-5.1 and EH-5.2 would ensure that hazardous waste and materials are handled appropriately and that residual hazardous wastes on the project site would be remediated before project operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is located approximately 2.85 miles north of the Hayward Executive Airport and 4.5 miles east of the Oakland International Airport. The project site is located outside of the Airport Influence Area of both the Hayward Executive Airport and the Oakland International Airport, as shown in Figure 3-1 of the Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC] 2010). As such, the project site is not included in either airport’s Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC 2010; ALUC 2012). In addition, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, development under the General Plan, which would include the project, would not create land use changes or otherwise affect the airport’s continued operations. Furthermore, General Plan Policies EH-9.3 and EH-9.8 would ensure that changes to airport operations which could affect the ambient noise environment of the project site be monitored and mitigated as feasible. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or result in people residing or working on the project site experiencing excessive noise. For further discussion on noise, refer to Section 13, Noise and Vibration. The project would have no impact. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project may result in partial street closures during construction that could temporarily impede emergency access or evacuation. However, sidewalk or lane closures would need prior approval from the City and would require proper signage and other measures pursuant to SLMC Chapter 5.1 which outlines permits and standards regarding right-of-way encroachment. As stated in the General Plan in Policy CSF-1.5 and discussed under Section 15, Public Services, the City’s Fire and Police Departments would review the project to ensure that sufficient provisions for emergency access and response would be made. These departments’ review would ensure that the proposed project would not impede emergency access. Furthermore, compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and existing plans and policies regarding emergency operations as analyzed in the General Plan EIR would ensure that future development would not interfere with adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 67 g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As stated in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not within a high fire hazard severity zone. The project site is in an urbanized area, surrounded primarily by paved surfaces and structures and not intermixed with or adjacent to wildlands. Project implementation would therefore not increase exposure to wildland fire hazards. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and this impact would be less than significant.

For further discussion on wildfire impacts, refer to Section 20, Wildfire.

Conclusion
The project applicant would be required to comply with COA HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2, as well as survey for the presence of ACM and lead-based paint, and to remediate these hazardous materials, if identified. Applicable General Plan policies and actions described above would be followed during construction activities. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be no greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR, would not result in new specific effects not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and would require no new mitigation measures.

Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
68 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 69 10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin? □ □ □ ■ ■
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site; □ □ □ ■ ■
(ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding onor off-site; □ □ □ ■ ■
(iii) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ □ ■ ■
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows? □ □ □ ■ ■
City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
70 Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan? □ □ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR discusses hydrology and water quality impacts on pages 4.8-28 through 4.8-47 and concludes they would be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy EH-4.1: Urban Runoff Control
Continue to implement water pollution control measures aimed at reducing pollution from urban runoff. These measures should emphasize best management practices by residents, businesses, contractors, and public agencies to ensure that surface water quality is maintained at levels that meet state and federal standards.

Action EH-4.1.B: Municipal Regional Permit Implementation As required by Section C3 of the Stormwater Municipal Regional Permit (also known as "C3" requirements), ensure that the City's development review procedures continue to include water quality protection measures. These include measures related to water supply, flood control, habitat protection, groundwater recharge, Bay-friendly landscaping, and sustainable development. In addition, the City will continue to require Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for qualifying projects and will ensure that such projects include appropriate measures to minimize the potential for water pollution.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 71 Policy EH-4.11: Green Infrastructure
Consistent with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit for the San Francisco Bay Area, promote the increased use of green infrastructure as a means of improving stormwater quality.

This shall include the incorporation of low impact development (LID) drainage design in public and private streets, parking lots, roofs, and other facilities. This also includes the use of best management practices to reduce impervious surfaces, including strategies using vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create a healthier urban environment.

Policy OSC-7.2: Water Conservation
Promote the efficient use of existing water supplies through a variety of water conservation measures, including the use of recycled water for landscaping.

Policy OSC-7.3: Drought-Tolerant Landscaping
Encourage the use of native vegetation and Bay-friendly landscaping and enforce the State Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).

Policy OSC-7.4: Development Standards
Maintain local planning and building standards that require the efficient use of water through such measures as low-flow plumbing fixtures and water-saving appliances. Require water conservation measures as a condition of approval for major developments.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Chapter 3.15 outlines the general provisions establishing stormwater management and discharge control and best management practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges via best management practices (BMPs).

SLMC Section 7.12.230 details the measures that erosion control, sedimentation control, and drainage plans must have to ensure that storm water from the project site meets the quality standards dictated by the “Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program Ordinance No. 92-011,” “Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures,” and the “Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control.” Project-Specific Impacts
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar prepared a Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations report for the project site in accordance with current Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District criteria as described in the Alameda County Clean Water Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance in April 2021 (included as Appendix HYDRO).
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction activities would have the potential to cause erosion from exposed soil, an accidental release of hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels and lubricant, or temporary siltation from stormwater runoff. Soil disturbance would occur during site preparation and grading of the site. The General Plan EIR indicates that compliance with the requirements of the State Water Regional Control Board’s Construction General Permit, SLMC Section 7.12.230 and SLMC Chapter 3.15 focused on erosion control and sedimentation control plans and stormwater BMPs, and General Plan Policy EH-4.1 and Action EH-4.1.B focused on continuing to implement water pollution control measures would reduce construction-related water quality impacts to less than significant levels.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
72 Project operation would have the potential to violate water quality standards resulting from pollutants such as oil, sediment, and pesticide residue according to the General Plan EIR. Under Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), post-construction stormwater requirements for the project would be regulated by the Alameda County Clean Water Program as it would add more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area to the project site. Additionally, the project would be required to construct and maintain hydromodification measures to the maximum extent practicable to reduce discharge of pollutants (San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015). Regulated projects within the City, which would include the proposed project, would be required to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan that includes post-construction BMPs that control pollutant levels and an Operations and Maintenance Plan for post-construction water quality and quality control measures pursuant to the Alameda County C.3 provisions (City of San Leandro 2016b). General Plan Policy EH-4.1 and Action EH-4.1.B mentioned above would further reduce impacts. The project would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality through compliance with the Alameda County Clean Water Program and General Plan policies and actions. Impacts from operation-related water quality impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project would increase impermeable surfaces on the project site by 75,760 square feet (Appendix HYDRO). The project includes landscaped and bioretention areas which would enhance groundwater recharge on the project site. These landscaped and bioretention areas would be LID measures as required under C.3 provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program and would increase the potential for groundwater recharge. As described in the General Plan EIR, use of site design features pursuant to C.3 provisions such as the bioretention areas and water use efficiency measures mandated by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 and General Plan Policies OSC-7.2, OSC7.3 and OSC-7.4 focused on encouraging drought-tolerant landscaping and efficient water use in development would further ensure the project would not substantially impact groundwater recharge.

As stated above, the project would be required to implement water use efficiency measures mandated by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 and would implement General Plan Policy OSC-7.4 which would reduce water use on the project site through increased water efficiency. In addition, as stated in the General Plan EIR, the City of San Leandro gets 100 percent of its water supply from surface water. As such, the project would not use groundwater and would not substantially decrease groundwater supply.

Therefore, the project’s impacts on groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant.
c.i. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site by 75,760 square feet (Appendix HYDRO). The proposed project would not alter the drainage pattern on the project site by altering the course of a stream or river as there are no streams or rivers on the project site. The closest body of water is San Lorenzo Creek approximately 1.3 miles south of the project site.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 73 As described under criterion a and in the General Plan EIR, C.3 provisions would require the project to implement construction phase BMPs and post-construction site design measures and stormwater treatment measures such as the bioretention areas on site to minimize erosion and siltation. In addition, the City requires an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan pursuant to SLMC 7.12.230 which would reduce erosion or siltation impacts on and off of the project site. Therefore, impacts related to erosion and siltation from altered drainage patterns on the project site would be less than significant.
c.ii. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.iii. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the site, which would result in a corresponding increase in surface runoff. Adherence to Provision C.3 requirements in the State Water Resources Control Board’s municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) General Permit for redevelopment would ensure the project would not increase runoff relative to existing conditions.

The project would include landscaped and bioretention areas, which would not produce an increase in polluted runoff compared to existing uses. In addition, all detention or stormwater treatment facilities would be designed to the City and ACFD’s standards which would ensure the capacity of stormwater drainage systems would be adequate to serve the project site (City of San Leandro 2016b). As stated in Appendix HYDRO, the storm drain system would be designed to meet the City’s requirements. Implementation of General Plan Policy EH-4.1 focused on reducing pollution from urban runoff and Policy EH-4.11 which promotes green infrastructure to improve stormwater quality would further reduce impacts. Overall, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff that would result in flooding. This impact would be less than significant.
c.iv. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? d. Would the project be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard as shown in Map number 06001C0259G (FEMA 2009). Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows, or otherwise adversely affect floodplain management. The project would not increase flood hazards on neighboring properties or otherwise adversely affect floodplain management because grading for the project would not substantially alter the existing site topography.

The project site is located outside of a Dam Breach Inundation Area, outside of a tsunami hazard area, and approximately 2.6 miles north of the San Lorenzo Community Center which has a body of City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
74 water potentially capable of experiencing a seiche (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2021a; DOC 2021b). Furthermore, it is not in an area subject to mudflows (City of San Leandro 2016b). Risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow at the project site would be remote and would not be increased as a result of project implementation. The project would therefore have no impact related to these hazards.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site is within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin and East Bay Plain Subbasin which is ranked as a medium priority basin (DWR 2021; DWR 2020). This basin does not have an approved groundwater management plan (EBMUD 2021a). The project would not interfere with the implementation of a groundwater management plan, as such a plan has not been formally adopted for groundwater beneath the project site. There would be no impact.

Conclusion
The project site and project type are consistent with those identified for the area in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, with existing regulations and implementation of appropriate General Plan policies and actions, the project’s impacts related to water quality and stormwater, runoff would be no greater than that identified in the General Plan EIR. The project would not result in new specific effects not addressed in the General Plan EIR and would not require new mitigation measures.

Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 75 11 Land Use and Planning
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established community? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR addresses land use and planning on pages 4.9-8 through 4.9-18. Impacts to land use and planning were found to be less than significant or to have no impact.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
San Leandro General Plan
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low-Medium Density Residential. Under the Low-Medium Density Residential land use, attached and detached single family houses are permitted on small lots. Small lots are defined as lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. Gross average densities generally range from 7 to 11 units per acre including streets and easements, with a maximum allowable net density of 12.4 units per net acre. The project would be consistent with the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Section 4.1.1115(b) states that construction work or related activity which is adjacent to or across a street or right-of-way from a residential use, except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, or between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday and Saturday is not allowed.

No such construction is permitted on Federal holidays. Construction activities carried on in violation City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
76 of this section may also be enforced by issuance of a stop work order and/or revocation of any or all permits issued for such construction activity.

San Leandro Zoning Code
The project site currently has split zoning. The western portion of the site is zoned Industrial Park (IP) and the eastern portion is zoned Residential Single-Family (RS). The project would involve rezoning of both IP and RS to RS(PD).

SLZC Chapter 5.12 provides a process for Site Plan Review to assure that new development would comply with the applicable site development standards as part of the permitting process.

SLZC Chapter 5.16 outlines the requirements necessary to amend the zoning map or zoning regulations involving the ZEO, Planning Commission, and City Council. SLZC Section 5.16.108 details all of the required application materials for amendments initiated by property owners to provide to the ZEO. This includes a completed application form, a completed Initial Study Form, and the required fee.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project would be built on a parcel that contains existing residences and two accessory structures surrounded by urban land uses. The project site is surrounded by single-family residences to the east and west, industrial development to the north, and Halcyon Drive and single-family residences to the south. The project would not involve construction of a physical feature (e.g., a highway or rail line) or removal of an existing means of access (e.g., a road or bridge linking different portions of a community) that would cause a physical division of an established community. No impact would occur.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project site has a General Plan designation of low-medium density residential. The western portion of the project site is zoned IP and the eastern portion of the project site is zoned RS. The site is bounded by parcels zoned IG(AU) to the north, RS(PD) to the west, and RS to the south and east.

Consistent with the discussion in the General Plan EIR for the City, the project would not introduce new land uses that do not already exist in the project vicinity. The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, particularly the existing single-family residences to the west, south, and east. The applicant’s request to change the western portion of the project’s zoning from IP to RS(PD) and the eastern portion of the project’s zoning from RS to RS(PD) would ensure that the project’s use would be consistent with the project site’s General Plan designation and the general land use pattern in the vicinity. The process to amend the project site zoning is detailed under SLZC Section 5.16.108 and would be initiated by the project site property owner in correspondence with the ZEO and under SLZC Chapter 5.16, Amendments, broadly as it pertains to the duties of the Planning Commission and City Council to make specific findings to determine if the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the policies of the General Plan.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 77 The General Plan has a number of policies that are applicable to the project. A discussion of project consistency with selected policies is provided in Table 12 5 .

Table 12 Project Consistency with Selected City of San Leandro General Plan Policies General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU-1.14: Construction Impacts. Ensure that construction activities are regulated and monitored in a manner that minimizes the potential for adverse off-site impacts such as noise, dust, erosion, exposure to hazardous materials, and truck traffic.

Consistent. As part of the permit application
process, the project would be required to have an
erosion control and sedimentation control and
drainage plan to reduce risk of erosion and
sedimentation which would also minimize the
potential for dust and erosion to occur as a result
of construction. Construction-related activities
would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, or between 8:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday and Saturday as detailed
in SLMC Section 4.1.1115.

Policy LU-2.8: Alterations, Additions, and Infill. Ensure that alterations, additions, and infill development are compatible with existing homes and maintain aesthetically pleasing
neighborhoods.

Consistent. The project would undergo site plan
approval as detailed in SLZC Chapter 5.12 which
would ensure that the infill development is
compatible with existing residences.

Policy LU-2.17: Constrained Sites. Focus new housing
development on underutilized or infill sites on the city’s flatter lands, rather than on previously undeveloped sites in the hills.

Development on sites with significant geologic, hydrologic, or land stability constraints should be strongly discouraged.

Consistent. The project would be constructed on
an infill site within the city’s flatter land.

Policy LU-3.4: Promotion of Infill. Encourage infill development on vacant or underused sites within residential areas.

Consistent. The project would increase the number
of housing units on the project site from two units,
one of which is currently unoccupied, to a total of
18 units which would increase the number of
residences in the area.

Policy LU-3.111: Conversion of non-residential land to housing and public uses. Encourage the development of new housing on underutilized commercial and industrial sites which meet the following criteria:
 Sites on the edges of commercial or industrial areas, adjacent to established residential areas.
 Sites where continued use with commercial or industrial activities could perpetuate existing land use conflicts.
 Sites with adequate infrastructure, access, and road capacity.  Sites which are not constrained by external environmental factors, including freeway, railroad, and airport noise.  Sites where conflicts with surrounding uses would not be created in the event of re-use.
 Sites which lack “prime” qualities for commercial or industrial development, such as direct freeway or rail access.
 Publicly-owned land which is not being used to its fullest potential.

Sites meeting the above criteria should also be considered for churches, libraries, parks, community facilities, and other uses that provide necessary services and advance the quality of life in the community
Consistent. The project site is located immediately
south of industrial uses and is adjacent to
residential uses to the west, south, and east, and
therefore qualifies as a site on the edges of
commercial or industrial areas and adjacent to
established residential areas. The project would
involve rezoning of the western portion of the site
from IP to RS(PD) and the eastern portion of the
site from RS to RS(PD)in order to encourage the
development of new housing on underutilized
commercial and industrial sites.
5 Project consistency with other General Plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are discussed in their respective sections.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
78 General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy T-3.6: Pedestrian Environment. Improve the walkability of all streets in San Leandro through the planning, implementing, and maintaining of pedestrian supportive infrastructure.

Consistent. The project would include the
construction of sidewalks on both sides of the new
public street which would connect to existing
pedestrian sidewalks along Muscari Street and
Elderberry Way.

As shown above, the project would be consistent with applicable development policies and no impact would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no impact regarding division of an established community, as identified in the General Plan EIR. In addition, the project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies. The project would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 79 12 Mineral Resources
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR analyzes mineral resources on page 7-1 and finds there would be no impact.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Because the project site is located in a highly urbanized area without known mineral resources of value or current extraction activities, impacts would remain as identified in the General Plan EIR.

The project would have no impact on mineral resources.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
80 Conclusion
As the project would have no impact under this area, no new impacts would result beyond those indicated the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Noise and Vibration
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 81 13 Noise and Vibration
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? □ □ □ ■ ■
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR analyzes noise and vibration on pages 4.10-28 through 4.10-57. It finds that impacts related to vibration would be less than significant. It finds impacts related to permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without implementation of the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable because Mitigation Measure NOI-3 in the General Plan EIR was found to be infeasible to reduce noise to less-than-significant levels. The General Plan EIR finds impacts from excessive noise levels during construction would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-4, reproduced below. The General Plan EIR finds impacts related to airplane noise levels would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-4
The City of San Leandro shall adopt the following measures as Standard Conditions of Approval or Construction Development Standards for new construction in the city. The Standard Conditions of Approval/Construction Development Standards shall include an exception that states that the Engineering & Transportation Director or his/her designee may waive individual measures upon individual written request from an Applicant after City review.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
82  Construction activities shall be restricted to the daytime hours of between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, or between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday and Saturday.  Prior to the start of construction activities, the construction contractor shall:

Maintain and tune all proposed equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emission.

Inspect all proposed equipment and fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds that are no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.

Post a sign, clearly visible at the site, with a contact name and telephone number of the City of San Leandro’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint.

Place stationary construction equipment and material delivery in loading and unloading areas as far as practicable from the residences.

Limit unnecessary engine idling to the extent feasible.

Use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters.

Use low-noise emission equipment.

Limit use of public address systems.

Minimize grade surface irregularities on construction sites.

Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The Aweighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (similar to the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to frequencies below 100 Hertz (similar to a transformer hum).

Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dB, and a sound that is 10 dB less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dB greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, 5 dBA change is a readily perceivable change in noise levels, a 3 dBA change noise levels is barely perceivable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceivable outside a laboratory environment. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while those along arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.

Noise levels typically attenuate (drop off) at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from point sources such as industrial machinery. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dB per doubling of distance.

The time period in which noise occurs is important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. The DNL (also referred to as Ldn) is a commonly used noise metric– that recognizes changes in human sensitivity by weighting nighttime hourly average noise. The DNL is a 24-hour equivalent noise level that adds 10 dBA to actual nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). One of the other most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration Environmental Checklist
Noise and Vibration
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 83 and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). Leq is defined as the single steady Aweighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the hourly noise level).

The relationship between peak hourly Leq values and associated DNL values depends on the distribution of traffic over the entire day (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). There is no precise way to convert a peak hourly Leq value to a DNL value. However, in urban areas near heavy traffic, the peak hourly Leq value is typically 2 to 4 dBA lower than the daily DNL value. In less heavily developed areas, such as suburban areas, the peak hourly Leq is often equal to the daily DNL value.

The project site is located within an urban area where peak hourly Leq value would be typically 2 to 4 dBA lower than the daily DNL value.

A 24-hour ambient noise measurement was conducted on the project site from 10:30 a.m. on Monday, May 24, 2021 to 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 25, 2021. The primary source of ambient noise was traffic along Halcyon Drive which lies adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The noise monitoring results show that the daytime ambient noise levels averaged 58.5 dBA Leq, nighttime noise levels averaged 53.4 dBA Leq and the 24-hour weighted average CNEL was 61.5 dBA CNEL (included as Appendix NOI).

Vibration
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Groundborne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to root mean square (RMS) velocity levels expressed in vibration decibels (VdB). However, construction-related groundborne vibration in relation to its potential for building damage can also be measured in inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) (FTA 2018). Based on the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment and the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Guidance Manual, vibration levels decrease by 6 VdB with every doubling of distance.

The background vibration velocity level in residential and educational areas is usually around 50 VdB (FTA 2018). The threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources inside buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Groundborne vibration levels in excess of 95 VdB would damage extremely fragile historic buildings.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
84 Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Action EH-7.1.A: Review of Future Development Proposals On an on-going basis, review future development proposals for compliance with the General Plan Noise and Land Use Compatibility standards in Chart 7-2. Require acoustical studies for projects that are likely to be exposed to noise levels that exceed the “normally acceptable” standard and for projects that are likely to generate noise in excess of these standards. Impose mitigation measures based on the findings. Noise studies should consider the effects of significant short-term noise sources (such as passing trains or planes) as well as the average noise levels that may be experienced over a 24- hour period.

Policy EH-7.2: Residential Interior Noise Standard
As required by the State of California, ensure that interior noise levels in new residential construction do not exceed 45 dB Ldn. For non-residential construction, the acceptable interior noise levels should be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the type of activity proposed.

Policy EH-7.3: Residential Exterior Noise Standard
Strive to maintain an exterior noise level of no more than 60 dB Ldn in residential areas.

Recognizing that some San Leandro neighborhoods already exceed this noise level, encourage a variety of noise abatement measures that benefit these areas.

Policy EH-7.4: Degradation of Ambient Noise Levels
If a neighborhood is well within acceptable noise standards, do not automatically allow noise levels to degrade to the maximum tolerable levels shown in Chart 7-2. A project’s noise impacts should be evaluated based on the potential for adverse community response, as well as its conformance to the adopted standards. For CEQA purposes, an increase of 3 dB Ldn should generally be considered a significant adverse impact.

Policy EH-7.6: Minimizing Noise in New Housing Areas
In the event that new housing is constructed in areas that exceed normally acceptable noise levels, require project design and construction measures that minimize noise intrusion.

Policy EH-7.9: Vibration Impacts
Limit the potential for vibration impacts from construction and ongoing operations to disturb sensitive uses such as housing and schools.

Action EH-7.9.A: Vibration Impacts
Adopt Standard Conditions of Approval or Construction Development Standards to reduce the potential for vibration-related construction impacts for development projects near sensitive uses. Vibration impacts shall be considered as part of the project-level environmental evaluation and approval process for individual development proposals.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Section 4.1.1115(b) prohibits construction-related activity near residential uses except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, or between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday and Saturday.

Environmental Checklist
Noise and Vibration
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 85 Project-Specific Impacts
FCS submitted a Noise Impacts Constraints Analysis for the proposed project. The analysis included a 24-hour noise measurement conducted on site measuring the ambient noise levels associated with the project site as well as a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model modeling noise levels adjacent to the project site (Appendix NOI). a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Consistent with the methodology within the General Plan EIR, significant noise impacts would occur if ambient noise levels exceed the following City thresholds outlined in Chart 7-2 of the General Plan:
 60 dBA for low density single family, duplex, and mobile homes;  65 dBA for multi-family residential, transient lodging, motels, and hotels;  70 dBA for schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, playgrounds, neighborhood parks, office buildings, businesses, commercial and professional land uses;  75 dBA for golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries, industrial, manufacturing, utilities and agriculture (City of San Leandro 2016a).

In addition, consistent with General Plan Policy EH-7.4, for CEQA purposes, a permanent increase of 3 dB Ldn would be a significant adverse impact (City of San Leandro 2016a).

Construction Impacts
Noise impacts from project construction would be generated primarily by transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the project site and by operation of construction equipment.

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE
Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic hourly volumes on a roadway segment would result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels which, consistent with General Plan Policy EH-7.4, would be a significant adverse impact. The maximum number of daily trips associated with construction would be 82 trips which would not double the hourly traffic volumes along roadway segments in the project vicinity (Appendix AQ). Construction impacts related to worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant (Appendix NOI).

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading activities, would generate the highest noise levels due to the use of noise intensive equipment such as bulldozers, front-end loaders, and excavators. At a distance of 50 feet, a concrete mixing truck, front-end loader, and excavator are assumed to generate 85 dBA Lmax. For the purpose of this analysis, FCS assumed that all three equipment would operate simultaneously, resulting in a maximum impact noise model scenario of 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of project construction.

The nearest sensitive receivers are single-family residents located immediately adjacent to the eastern and western boundaries of the project site approximately 55 feet from the acoustic center of project construction. At this distance, reasonable maximum construction noise levels could range City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
86 up to approximately 89 dBA Lmax with an hourly average of up to 85 dBA Leq (Appendix NOI).

However, these noise levels would be temporary during the site preparation phase. Although there could be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential, the effect of construction activities on hourly or daily ambient noise levels would not be significant but could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receivers. Therefore, compliance with SLMC Section 4.1.1115(b) restricting construction activity to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekends would prohibit construction activities at night and would not be associated with any nighttime noise-related impacts. Compliance with SLMC Section 4.1.1115(b) and General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure NOI-4 would reduce noise impacts related to project construction to less than significant levels. This would be consistent with the General Plan EIR’s findings that construction noise would have a less than significant impact as a result of the exposure of nearby receivers to construction noise.

Operational Impacts

SITE OPERATION
Noise levels from typical residential mechanical ventilation equipment have sound levels ranging from 45 dBA to 60 dBA Leq as measured at approximately 3 feet from the operating unit (Appendix NOI). Based on the proposed site plan, mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 15 feet from the nearest off-site residential receptor. Assuming a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, a noise level of 60 dBA Leq at 3 feet would attenuate to 46 dBA Leq at 15 feet at the nearest residential property line (Appendix NOI). This would be below the documented existing ambient noise level recorded at the project site which was 61.5 dBA CNEL (Appendix NOI).

Therefore, the operation of mechanical ventilation equipment would not exceed existing ambient noise levels and the impact would be less than significant.

TRANSPORTATION
The nearest highway is I-880 approximately 0.6 mile to the west of the project site. Traffic along Halcyon Drive is the main source of exterior noise in the project vicinity.

The project would generate vehicle trips that would increase traffic volumes on road segments in the city. As described in Section 17, Transportation/Traffic, the project would generate approximately 13 a.m. peak-hour vehicle trips, 18 p.m. peak-hour vehicle trips, and 170 daily trips (Appendix TRA). The estimated average daily traffic volume on Halcyon Drive is approximately 20,800 trips (City of San Leandro 2016b). The project’s trip generation would increase the existing average daily traffic volumes on Halcyon Drive by approximately 0.8 percent. Modeling of traffic noise indicates that, in general, a 10 percent increase in traffic volume would raise traffic noise by approximately 0.4 dBA. A 0.8 percent increase in traffic would increase ambient noise along Halcyon Drive by less than 0.4 dBA. As discussed in the City’s General Plan, changes in environmental noise levels of 3 dB Ldn would be a significant adverse impact pursuant to General Plan Policy EH-7.4. The estimated increase of less than 0.4 dBA in traffic noise would not exceed this 3-dBA threshold of significance.

The modeled traffic noise levels predicted that noise levels adjacent to the project site could range up to 67.3 dBA CNEL which would be above the 60 dBA threshold for adjacent single-family residences and included as General Plan Policy EH-7.3. In accordance with General Plan Action EH7.1.A and General Plan Policy EH-7.6 focused on minimizing noise in new residential areas, the Environmental Checklist
Noise and Vibration
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 87 General Plan EIR noise analysis mitigation measures would be required based on the findings in Appendix NOI. In addition, the City would require an acoustical analysis to demonstrate how dwelling units have been designed to meet the interior standard of 45 CNEL in habitable spaces on sites where the ambient exterior noise level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL pursuant to General Plan Policy EH-7.2 (City of San Leandro 2016a).

Therefore, with implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure NOI-4 and the applicable General Plan policies and actions outlined above, the project would meet the City’s residential exterior noise level standard and would have a less than significant impact. b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Project construction, which would occur over one year, could intermittently generate vibration on and adjacent to the project site. Vibration associated with excavation and foundation work may affect nearby residences, industrial warehouses, and other structures.

Of the equipment used during construction, the large vibratory rollers that would be used during the site preparation phase would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Large vibratory rollers, as the construction equipment with the largest vibratory impact, were used to determine the vibration impacts on the project site.

The nearest off-site receivers are single-family residences located immediately adjacent to the western and eastern boundaries of the project site. The receivers would be located approximately 30 feet from the nearest construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would operate. At a distance of 30 feet, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.15 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) (Appendix NOI). This would be below the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (FTA 2018). In addition, General Plan Policy EH-7.9 which limits the potential for vibration impacts from construction and ongoing operations to disturb sensitive uses via Action EH7.9.A would further reduce vibration impacts. Therefore, vibration impacts from construction equipment would be less than significant.

As stated under impact criterion a, compliance with SLMC Section 4.1.1115(b), which restricts construction to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays or between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, would ensure that nearby sensitive receivers at residential uses would not experience excessive vibration levels during sleeping hours. With implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval via Mitigation Measure NOI-4 reproduced above, the project’s construction vibration impacts would be less than significant. This would be consistent with the General Plan EIR’s findings that vibration would constitute a less than significant impact as a result of the exposure of nearby receivers to construction vibration. Project operation would not generate groundborne vibration. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is located approximately 2.85 miles north of the Hayward Executive Airport and 4.5 miles east of the Oakland International Airport. The project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise contour of the Hayward Executive Airport and outside of the airport noise level contours of the Oakland City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
88 International Airport. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site, aircraft noise associated with nearby airport activity would not expose people residing or working near the project site to excessive noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The General Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels related to transportation. As the project would not double transportation volumes that currently exist along Halcyon Drive, project-specific noise impacts would not be more severe than identified in the General Plan EIR, and the project would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. Impacts to the project from existing transportation noise sources would be reduced in accordance with General Plan Action EH7.1.A and General Plan Policies EH-7.3 and EH-7.6. The project would not require new mitigation measures in addition to those required to reduce impacts from construction noise established in the General Plan EIR under Mitigation Measure NOI-4. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 89 14 Population and Housing
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)? □ ■ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ ■ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR discusses population and housing on pages 4.11-6 through 4.11-13. The General Plan EIR accounts for a population growth from an existing 2015 population of 86,486 to a projected 101,250 in 2035, for a net increase of 14,790 and household growth from 31,315 in 2015 to 36,685 in 2035 for a net increase of 5,370 households at full buildout (City of San Leandro 2016b).

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR (the General Plan EIR) and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy LU-3.4: Promotion of Infill
Encourage infill development on vacant or underused sites within residential and commercial areas.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
90 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project would involve construction of 18 single-family residences on an infill site, consistent with General Plan Policy LU-3.4 which encourages infill development on vacant or underused sites within residential and commercial areas. The project would represent 0.34 percent of the anticipated population growth and 0.05 percent of the total population expected by 2035. 6 Additionally, the project would represent 0.33 percent of the 5,370 households expected to be built by 2035 and 0.05 percent of the total households expected by 2035. The City’s population growth calculations account for the project, as the project site was identified as an underutilized site in Appendix A of the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element (City of San Leandro 2015). The General Plan EIR’s overall population and household growth projections are derived from ABAG’s 2013 population projections and housing sites identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. As the project’s expected population growth was included in growth projections, it would not induce unplanned population growth in the region. Population growth from the project would not be more than that analyzed in General Plan EIR. This impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site currently contains two single-family residences. One of the residences is occupied and the other is vacant. While the project would displace the existing residents, the project would house approximately 51 new residents. Therefore, additional replacement housing would not be required, as there would be a net gain of 16 residential units on the project site. This impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant impact related to population and housing, would be within the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the prior EIR, and would not require new mitigation measures. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
6 Calculation was derived using the statewide default of 2.83 people per dwelling unit multiplied by the 18 dwelling units that would be included in the project resulting in 51 residents (rounded) and the projected population and household growth under the 2035 General Plan (California Department of Finance (DOF) 2021; City of San Leandro 2016b).

Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 91 15 Public Services
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■ ■
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■ ■
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts to fire protection services on pages 4.12-5 through 4.12-9, impacts to police protection services on pages 4.12-9 through 4.12-13, impacts to schools on pages

4.12-20 through 4.12-25, impacts to parks on pages 4.12-27 through 4.12-38, and impacts to library services on pages 4.12-39 through 4.12-42 and found impacts to be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy CSF-1.1: Levels of Service
Maintain high-quality police and fire protection services through the most efficient and effective possible means. The following minimum level of service standards for police and fire response time (exclusive of dispatch time) shall be maintained: (a) Police Services: 5 minute response time for 90 percent of all Priority One calls; (b) Fire Services: 5 minute response time for first due company for 90 percent of all emergency incidents, excluding freeway responses City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
92 (3 firefighters including at least one paramedic); 10 minute response time for 90 percent for a full first alarm assignment response (17 firefighters).

Policy CSF-1.5: Review of Development Plans
Require Police and Fire Department review of proposed development plans to ensure that sufficient provisions for emergency access and response are made, fire code requirements are satisfied, and adequate levels of service can be provided.

Policy CSF-2.2: Mitigation of Development Impacts
When new residential development is approved, require mitigation of school impacts to the full extent permitted by law. Work collaboratively with the San Leandro and San Lorenzo Unified School Districts to ensure that appropriate fees are collected and other allowable mitigation measures are taken.

Goal LU-3: Provide housing opportunities and improve economic access to housing for all segments of the community.

Goal LU-4: Ensure that new residential development contributes its appropriate share toward the provision of adequate schools, parks, and other public facilities.

Policy LU-4.3: Public Facility Development
Promote collaborative, creative solutions between the public and private sectors to develop additional schools, parks, and other public facilities in the city.

Action LU-4.3.A: School Mitigation Measures
Work with the San Leandro and San Lorenzo Unified School Districts to address the impacts of development on school facility needs, and explore ways to close the gap between the true cost and the amount that may be collected through impact fees.

Policy OSC-2.1: Level of Service
Achieve the following service standard for parks:
(a) At least 5.00 acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents; (b) A park within one-half mile of each San Leandro resident.

As defined in this Policy, this standard shall include community, neighborhood, mini-parks, and linear parks and trails, as well as school athletic fields and play areas for which joint use agreements exist. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the standard also includes the Monarch Bay Golf Course and Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline in the baseline acreage. The standard does not include private property, wetlands and open spaces where the primary purpose is resource conservation rather than recreation. When evaluating the City’s progress toward meeting this standard, it should be recognized that school facilities covered by joint use agreements may be unavailable during school hours, and therefore may not meet recreational needs to the same extent as City parks.

Policy OSC-2.3: Park Dedication
Require new residential development to pay an impact fee and/or to dedicate parkland to offset the increase in park needs resulting from new residents. Where on-site parkland is dedicated, it should be improved, maintained, and accessible to the general public.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 93 San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Section 7.5.800 adopts the California Fire Code as the Fire Code of the City of San Leandro.

SLMC Section 7.13.100 establishes a park facilities development impact fee to pay for public park and recreational facilities. As specified in SLMC Section 7.13.105, the revenues raised by payment of the impact fee shall be accounted for in the City’s capital project fund to be used to pay for public facilities.

Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed 18 residential units would result in the addition of approximately 51 new residents, which is consistent with the projected growth under the General Plan and General Plan Goals LU-3 and LU-4 regarding strategic growth. Potential public services impacts, if any, would result from the increased demand on public services resulting from this population growth. The potential for the project to result in such impacts to public services is analyzed below for the following public services: schools; police services; fire protection and emergency medical services; parks; and library services.

Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services
Because the project would result in 51 new residents, which would be within the projected total population growth anticipated in the General Plan EIR, it would not result in substantial population or housing growth beyond that already anticipated. The project site is surrounded by development City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
94 in an area already served by emergency service providers. The applicant provided a Fire Access Exhibit which shows adequate fire access to the site via a new internal roadway which would provide a connection to Halcyon Drive via Muscari Street and a connection to Oleander Street by way of Elderberry Way (Appendix PLAN).

There are five ACFD fire stations in the City. The ACFD serves the project area from Station 12 located approximately 0.52 mile north of the project site at 1065 143rd Avenue. The project is required to comply with applicable fire code regulations, including the California Fire Code. The ACFD confirmed that growth under the General Plan should not require the expansion of existing facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Additionally, the ACFD would review the project design prior to approval as required by General Plan Policy CSF-1.5, to ensure adequate fire protection measures are incorporated and adequate emergency access to the project site is provided. Development under the General Plan would be required to comply with abatement of fire-related hazards and pre-fire management prescriptions as outlined in the California Health and Safety Code and California Fire Plan (City of San Leandro 2016b). This impact would be less than significant.

Police Services
The SLPD provides police services within the city limits and the city’s sphere of influence. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Department provides mutual aid on an as-needed basis. The SLPD is located at 901 East 14th Street approximately 2.13 miles north of the project site. The anticipated population increase from the proposed project would represent approximately 0.34 percent of the anticipated population growth identified in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR identified that the SLPD does not currently meet its preferred service ratio formula of 10.4 officers per 10,000 residents and that it would need to hire additional officers and staff in order to meet the service ratio to serve new growth associated with General Plan buildout. Future additional construction or expansion of SLPD facilities beyond those mentioned in the General Plan EIR are not anticipated. As the project is included in population growth estimates associated with the General Plan EIR, and the project site is surrounded by development in an area already served by emergency service providers, the project would not create the need for additional construction or expansion of SLPD facilities. In addition, General Plan Policies such as Policies CSF-1.1 and CSF-1.5 focused on maintaining high-quality police protection service and requiring the Police Department to review proposed development to ensure adequate levels of service can be provided, would further reduce impacts associated with the project. This impact would be less than significant.

Schools
The project site is served by the SLUSD. Student enrollment in the SLUSD was 9,067 students for the 2019-2020 school year (California Department of Education 2021). The project would generate a total of 7 new students within the SLUSD.7
Because the increased student population would fall
within the amount envisioned under the General Plan EIR (1,958 new students at buildout), the findings of the General Plan EIR in relation to school services would be applicable to the project. The General Plan EIR found that the 1,958 projected new students would exceed the remaining 1,792 remaining student capacity of SLUSD. Development such as the project would occur gradually over the buildout horizon and would be subject to current development impact fees at the time of development. According to California Government Code Section 65995(h), the payment of statutory mitigation fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legal or 7 Calculation: 18 dwelling units x 0.35 (SLUSD student generation rate) (City of San Leandro 2016b) equals 7 new students (rounded).

Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 95 adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.” As the project would be development allowed by and accounted for by the General Plan, it would be subject to statutory mitigation fees which are deemed to be full and complete mitigation for potential impacts on the adequacy of schools. In addition, implementation of General Plan policies such as Policy CSF-2.2 and Action LU-4.3 are meant to address impacts of development on school facility needs and mitigate school impacts which would further reduce impacts. Moreover, a letter from the Assistant Superintendent of SLUSD, Kevin Collins, confirmed that the SLUSD has the capacity to enroll all students that may move into the residences included in the project (Appendix SLUSD). Therefore, project impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant.

Parks
The City has a total of 382.8 total park acreage eligible for inclusion in the Park Standard and 123.1 acres of the total identified as active park acreage. The Park Standard refers to the Level of Service Standards for the city’s park system where at least 5.0 acres of improved parkland should be provided for every 1,000 residents and a park should be accessible within one-half mile of each San Leandro resident (City of San Leandro 2016a). The City’s General Plan Policy OSC-2.1 formally establishes the Park Standard. As of 2015, the City’s service ratio was 4.33 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents (City of San Leandro 2016a).

The General Plan EIR identified several projects which would increase the City’s park acreage, including the Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, the future East Bay Greenway, and an addition to the San Leandro Shoreline which are all in various stages of planning and development. In total, with this increase in parks, there would be a total of 512 acres available in San Leandro to serve a population of 101,250 for a ratio of 5.1 acres of parks and recreational facilities per 1,000 people (City of San Leandro 2016b). As adequate park and recreational facilities would be in place to serve the projected 2035 population, this would reduce the likelihood that use of any individual existing facility would result in substantial physical deterioration.

In addition to city-owned parks, the project’s population growth would lead to increased use of regional parks in and near San Leandro which are owned and maintained by the EBRPD. The population that the EBRPD serves is expected to increase by 511,000 people from 2.6 million in 2015 to 3.1 million in 2035 (City of San Leandro 2016b). As a result, the EBRPD would need to expand and construct additional parks to meet the increased demand (EBRPD 2013). However, implementation of General Plan Policies OSC-2.3 and LU-4.3, focused on requiring new development to offset the increase in park needs resulting from development and SLMC Section 7.13.100, requiring developers to pay park impact fees would further reduce impacts to parklands. Implementation of these regulations would ensure that parkland service ratios remain adequate despite service population growth associated with new development within the city. As the population growth associated with the project would be 0.01 percent of the population expected to utilize EBRPD’s facilities, project impacts would be less than significant.

Because the project would not lead to population growth beyond that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the project’s impact on parks would also be less than significant. See also the discussion below in Section 16, Recreation.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
96 Library Services
The City of San Leandro Public Library (SLPL) currently operates five facilities in the city. The closest facility is the South Branch located approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site. Project residents may use this and other branches of the SLPL which would result in increased use of these facilities. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that the SLPL would need to increase the hours of operation to accommodate future demand under the General Plan. The wide range of resources the SLPL offers online would reduce the amount of physical materials and thus physical library space that would necessitate the building of a new library facility. Besides the Mulford-Marina Branch location that is planned to undergo redevelopment as part of the San Leandro Shoreline Development project, no other libraries are planned to be built (City of San Leandro 2020).

Furthermore, implementation of General Plan Goal LU-4 and Policy LU-4.3 focused on ensuring new residential development contributes its fair share toward the provision of public facilities would ensure adequate library services are available to City residents. The General Plan EIR does not conclude that new facilities or physical expansion of existing facilities would be required to serve residents at buildout. As the project’s population was accounted for in the General Plan EIR projections, this conclusion would remain valid. As a result, impacts associated with new or physically altered library facilities and services would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant impact on public services, the same as the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and would not require new mitigation measures. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 97 16 Recreation
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
a. Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated? □ ■ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment? □ ■ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR analyzes recreation on pages 4.12-27 through 4.12-38 and finds that impacts would be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy OSC-2.3: Park Dedication
Require new residential development to pay an impact fee and/or to dedicate parkland to offset the increase in park needs resulting from new residents. Where on-site parkland is dedicated, it should be improved, maintained, and accessible to the general public.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
98 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The project would increase the overall population of the City by 51 residents. The additional population would increase the use of existing parks and other recreational facilities. Two parks are within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site including Halcyon Park located 0.31 mile north and Floresta Park located 0.43 mile west of the project site. Project residents would be expected to distribute use among these parks, as well as the other parks and recreational facilities in the area as discussed in Section 15, Public Services. In addition, the project would contain a privately-owned communal open space area on Parcel A at the southeastern corner of the project site which could be used for passive recreation by residents. Implementation of General Plan Policy OSC-2.3 would require the project applicant to pay an impact fee and/or to dedicate parkland to offset the increase in park needs resulting from new residents which would reduce impacts to recreational facilities. As the project would contribute 0.35 percent of the General Plan EIR buildout, would include an open space for passive recreation on-site, and would be required to pay an impact fee and/or dedicate parkland to offset the increase in park needs, the project’s impacts on recreation would be less than significant.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project would include an open space area that would facilitate passive recreation for residents.

Therefore, physical impacts from the project site’s open space would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant impact on recreational resources, the same as the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and would not require new mitigation measures. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 99 17 Transportation/Traffic
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)? □ □ □ ■ ■
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR evaluates transportation impacts on pages 4.13-35 through 4.13-72 using the level of service (LOS) criteria. As discussed below under Regulatory Setting, SB 743 established new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts and replaced LOS with vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Therefore, guidance provided in the OPR Technical Advisory was used as the basis for the analysis. The Alameda CTC’s Travel Demand Model (TDM) was used as the principal tool to determine VMT.

Impacts from conflict with circulation system program plans, ordinances, or policies from General Plan implementation would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1A and TRAF-1B. Impacts from conflict with an applicable congestion management plan would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-2A and TRAF-2B. Impacts to hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses as well as impacts due to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
100
cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
SB 743 and Vehicle Miles Traveled
SB 743 was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013 and tasked the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) with establishing new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. SB 743 requires the new criteria to “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” It also states that alternative measures of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” SB 743 requires the Governor’s OPR to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. In January 2018, OPR transmitted its proposed CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 to the California Natural Resources Agency for adoption, and in January 2019 the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which incorporated SB 743 modifications, and are now in effect. SB 743 changed the way that public agencies evaluate the transportation impacts of projects under CEQA, recognizing that roadway congestion, while an inconvenience to drivers, is not itself an environmental impact (PRC Section 21099 (b)(2)). In addition to new exemptions for projects consistent with specific plans, the CEQA Guidelines replaced congestion-based metrics, such as auto delay and level of service (LOS), with VMT as the basis for determining significant impacts, unless the Guidelines provide specific exceptions.

City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy T-1.4: Transit Oriented Development
Ensure that properties adjacent to the City’s BART stations and along heavily used public transit routes are developed in a way that maximizes the potential for transit use and reduces dependence on single-occupancy vehicles. Such development should be of particularly high quality, include open space and other amenities, and respect the scale and character of nearby neighborhoods.

Action T-6.3.A: Traffic Study Requirements for Road Changes Require a study of traffic impacts and a plan for accommodating displaced traffic before making major changes to street design or circulation patterns.

Policy T-7.6: Safe Visibility
Maintain site design, engineering, and zoning standards which ensure that adequate visibility is maintained along streets and driveways.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Section 6.9.130 specifies the conditions of the Overweight Vehicle Permit, and lists requirements for maximum allowable gross weight, circumstances for issuance, responsibility for damages or injuries from permit issuance, designated routes, and training for operation of an overweight vehicle.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 101 Project-Specific Impacts
On March 15, 2021, TJKM prepared a Trip Generation and VMT Analysis for the project based on average trip generation rates from the Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (10th Edition) and the VMT analysis guidelines developed by the OPR Technical Advisory (included as Appendix TRA).
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The project would result in vehicle trips to and from the project site during both construction and operation.

Construction
Project construction would generate temporary construction-related traffic such as deliveries of equipment and materials to the site and construction worker traffic. Construction traffic would be temporary and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system that serves the project site and immediate area.

During construction, heavy equipment transport to and from the site could cause traffic impacts in the project vicinity. However, each overweight/oversized load would be required to obtain all necessary permits, which would include conditions as outlined in SLMC Section 6.9.130.

Traffic would also be generated by construction workers arriving and leaving the site. Construction worker peak hours would occur slightly before citywide commute peaks. These trips would be temporary and would result in up to 82 construction worker and vendor vehicles trips per day during the construction period (Appendix AQ).

The project would also require truck trips for the importation of construction material, including raw materials for foundations, structures, and landscaping. The project could require temporary closures of sidewalks and/or vehicle lanes adjacent to the site for safety. Because construction could result in operation of equipment in the public right of way, as detailed in the City’s encroachment permit requirements, a Site Specific Traffic Control Plan would be required (City of San Leandro 2020d; City of San Leandro 2007a; City of San Leandro 2007b). With implementation of a Traffic Control Plan as outlined by the City’s Traffic Control Plan Guidelines, encroachment into the public right-of-way (including vehicle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks) would prioritize safety during construction.

Additionally, as sidewalks could be temporarily closed, a Pedestrian Safety Plan would also need to be reviewed and approved by a California licensed civil engineer (City of San Leandro 2020d).

In general, the pedestrian and bicycle operations in the area would not be expected to change significantly during construction beyond the addition of some truck traffic to the area and temporary sidewalk closure.

While there is some increase in traffic associated with all construction projects, the required Site Specific Traffic Control Plan and Pedestrian Safety Plan would ensure the effects of construction are acceptable to the City. Therefore, through adherence with the City’s encroachment permit requirements, project construction impacts would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
102
Operation
Vehicular trips by residents and visitors to and from the project site would add to roadway traffic in the City of San Leandro. Trip generation estimates were estimated to be a total 13 a.m. and 18 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips and 170 daily vehicle trips (Appendix TRA).

The project’s estimated trip generation does not reflect the site’s proximity (within 500 feet) to a bus stop served by AC Transit Local Line 28 with service to the BART Bay Fair Station or the BART Bay Fair Station approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the project site (AC Transit 2020). This provides a conservative analysis, as trips were not reduced to estimate residents using alternative modes of transportation.

The project’s trip generation would incrementally increase existing traffic volumes on Halcyon Drive, Muscari Street, Elderberry Way, and other nearby roadways. The estimated average daily traffic on Halcyon Drive is 20,800 trips (City of San Leandro 2016b), and the project would increase daily trips on it by 170 (0.8 percent). The project would result in an incremental increase in delay but would not substantially increase traffic volumes along Halcyon Drive.

There are sidewalks and crosswalks along the route from the project to the BART Bay Fair station. As part of the project, sidewalks would be built along the new public street connecting to existing sidewalks along Muscari Street and Elderberry Way. This would improve pedestrian access to the project site.

The project’s location approximately 0.7 miles northwest of the BART Bay Fair station and within 500 feet of an AC Transit bus stop which offers service to the BART Bay Fair station would encourage public transit use. The addition of new residents to an area with access to public transit would be consistent with General Plan Policy T-1.4 which focuses on transit-oriented development. Therefore, project operation would comply with applicable plans and General Plan policies. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) describes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts.

Depending on the type of project, different thresholds of significance are applicable. Section 15064.3(b)(1) applies to land use projects, including the proposed project:
“Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.”
For residential projects in areas with a similar mix of existing uses, pursuant to the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory, projects would be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact if the existing residential VMT per capita in its corresponding transportation analysis zone (TAZ) is at least 15 percent below the regional or citywide average (OPR 2018). The project is located within the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) TAZ #1472 (Appendix TRA), which has a VMT per capita of 10.01 to 15.0. The corresponding threshold for Alameda County to consider a location to have low VMT is 16.5. As the TAZ containing the project location generates

12.74 VMT per capita, the proposed project would be within a location with low VMT (Appendix Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 103 TRA). Therefore, the project would generate 15 percent less VMT per capita than the countywide average, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The General Plan EIR determined that the roadway network changes proposed as part of the General Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature via compliance with General Plan Policy T-7.6 which maintains site design, engineering, and zoning standards which ensure that adequate visibility is maintained along streets and driveways. In addition, roadway improvements proposed as part of the General Plan would be designed and reviewed in accordance with the City of San Leandro Standard Plans which are promulgated and administered by the City Engineering and Transportation Department (City of San Leandro 2021b). General Plan Action T6.3.A which requires a study of traffic impacts and a plan for accommodating displaced traffic before making major changes to street design or circulation patterns, would ensure efficient circulation and adequate access are provided in the City which would help facilitate emergency response. In compliance with the State of California Emergency Services Act, Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, the City of San Leandro has an emergency plan based on the State Emergency Management System and addresses all of the requirements of the law to safely respond to emergencies and to protect life, property, and the environment. The proposed project would be required to comply with all building, fire, and safety codes and development plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Community Development Department and the ACFD. Required review by these departments would ensure the circulation system for the project site would provide adequate emergency access. Furthermore, the project would not require temporary or permanent closures to roadways. Implementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s engineering and development standards would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The estimated increased trip generation rates for the project would be below thresholds of significance and project-specific impacts relative to traffic hazards, emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and transit capacity would not exceed or differ from those identified in the General Plan EIR. In addition, the project would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
104
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 105 18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or □ ■ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe. □ ■ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
At the time of the General Plan EIR adoption, Tribal Cultural Resource discussion was captured under the Cultural Resources section. However, this section was subsequently added as a standalone section to the CEQA Guidelines checklist.

The General Plan EIR analyzes Tribal Cultural Resources within discussion about Cultural Resource impacts on pages 4.4-17 through 4.4-18 regarding substantial adverse changes in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074. The General Plan EIR finds that impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
106
Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy CD-1.12: Archaeological Resources
Recognize the potential for paleontological, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and ensure that future development takes the measures necessary to identify and preserve such resources.

Action CD-1.12.A: Archaeological Site Inventory
Maintain Standard Conditions of Approval for new development which require consultation with a professional archaeologist in the event that any subsurface paleontological, prehistoric, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource remains are discovered during any construction or preconstruction activities on a development site. This includes consultation with Native American organizations prior to continued site work in the event such remains are discovered.

Action CD-1.12.B: AB 52 Compliance
Implement the provisions of AB 52 regarding tribal consultation. The City will provide opportunities for meaningful input regarding the protection of tribal resources from Native American representatives in the planning and development review processes.

Project-specific Impacts
On May 24, 2021, FSC prepared a Cultural Resources Due Diligence Assessment which included a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File (included as Appendix CRS). a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? As part of FSC’s Cultural Resources Due Diligence Assessment, FSC requested a search of the NAHC Sacred land files on March 29, 2021 and received a response from NAHC on April 7, 2021. The results of the NAHC Sacred Lands File database were negative. FSC reached out to 11 tribes provided by NAHC on April 9, 2021 to determine whether the tribes knew of any cultural resources on or near the project site. No responses were received.

As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, no cultural resources or human remains are expected to be present on the site. However, there is the possibility of encountering undisturbed subsurface tribal cultural resources. The proposed site preparation and grading of the project site could potentially lead to an encounter of a tribal cultural resource. In the event that a tribal cultural resource is uncovered during project construction, General Plan Policy CD-1.12, Action CD-1.12.A, and Action CD-1.12.B would ensure that impacts related to tribal cultural resources encountered during project implementation would be protected. With the inclusion of relevant General Plan policies and actions, the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 107 Conclusion
Cultural resource assessments of the project site were conducted (Appendix CRS). Relevant General Plan policies and actions mentioned above would be implemented to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the project would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
108
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 109 19 Utilities and Service Systems
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years? □ □ □ ■ ■
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments? □ □ □ ■ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ □ ■ ■
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related
to solid waste? □ □ □ ■ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts on water utilities on pages 4.14-13 through 4.14-21, wastewater utilities on pages 4.14.28 through 4.14.37, solid waste services on pages 4.14.42 through 4.14-47, stormwater services on pages 4.14.60 through 4.14-65, and electrical power and natural gas on pages 4.14-73 through 4.14-81. The General Plan EIR found that impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
110
According to the General Plan EIR, buildout would increase water demand by approximately 2 million gallons per day (mgd), which would be less than 1 percent of the 229 mgd total projected demand in the EBMUD service territory. The water demand associated with General Plan buildout would be served with available and planned water supplies provided by EBMUD. Furthermore, the water supply and infrastructure related goals, policies, and actions contained in the General Plan would ensure that new development would minimize impacts to water supply.

Additional wastewater generated with General Plan buildout can be accommodated without the need for new treatment facilities. The General Plan EIR conservatively assumes that 90 percent of the increased water demand becomes wastewater which would mean General Plan buildout would generate an increase of 1.8 mgd total, of which 0.6 mgd would go to the Oro Loma plant which is within its available capacity. As General Plan development would largely occur on infill or already developed sites and would not require alteration of the course of an existing stream or river, stormwater runoff volumes would not be substantially increased. Furthermore, with the implementation of Alameda County Clean Water Program C.3 provisions for new projects, there would not be a significant increase in stormwater runoff to the City’s storm drains. Accordingly, the General Plan EIR finds potential impacts related to water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage to be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan Policies OSC-7.2, OSC-7.3, OSC-7.4, and CD-7.4 which incorporate water conservation measures into new development to reduce overall water demand and need for water treatment.

According to the General Plan EIR, buildout would generate approximately 179,630 pounds per day or 90 tons per day of solid waste. Currently the City’s solid waste is distributed between four landfills: Altamont Landfill, Forward Sanitary Landfill, Potrero Hills Landfill, and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill which have a combined capacity of 26,748 tons per day (City of San Leandro 2016b). 8 If one
or more of these landfills were unavailable in the future, it is likely the city’s solid waste could be redistributed to another landfill that serves the city. The solid waste generation would be adequately handled by existing landfills. In addition, implementation of General Plan Policy OSC-7.1 and Actions OSC-7.1A, OSC-7.1.B, and OSC-7.1.D focused on waste reduction through recycling, composting, and disincentivizing waste production and improper waste disposal would further reduce the amount of solid waste in landfills.

Electricity use is projected to increase from 487,751,630 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2015 to 607,254,929 kWh in 2035 which would be a 25 percent increase in electricity use over 20 years.

Total natural gas use is projected to increase from 26,451 therms in 2015 to 32,511,466 therms in 2035 under the General Plan; a 23 percent increase in natural gas use over 20 years. Buildout according to the General Plan would not significantly increase energy demands within the service territory and would not require new energy supply facilities or transmission infrastructure. In addition, implementation of General Plan policies such as Policy OSC-8.1 and OSC-8.2 which focus on encouraging energy efficiency and conservation would further reduce demand for utility electrical and gas facilities.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR (the General Plan EIR) and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site 8 According to the 2035 General Plan EIR, the Forward Sanitary Landfill and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill would close prior to the beginning of the project’s operation. However, since the publishing of the EIR, the Forward Sanitary Landfill has had an approved expansion which extends it operation date until approximately 2036 (San Joaquin County 2018). In addition, the revised closure year for Vasco Road is now 2035 (Alameda County Waste Management Authority 2020).

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 111 impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Regulatory Setting
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Policy CD-7.4: Development Standards
Maintain local planning and building standards that require the efficient use of water through such measures as low-flow plumbing fixtures and water-saving appliances. Require water conservation measures as a condition of approval for major developments.

Goal OSC-7: Promote recycling, water conservation, green building, and other programs which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a more sustainable environment.

Policy OSC-7.1: Greening San Leandro
Promote drought-tolerant landscaping, tree planting, and tree preservation along San Leandro streets as a means of improving aesthetics, making neighborhoods more pedestrian-friendly, providing environmental benefits, and creating or maintaining a park-like setting.

Action OSC-7.1.A: Source Reduction and Recycling Programs Continue to implement Source Reduction and Recycling programs, consistent with the Stopwaste.org Strategic Plan.

Action OSC-7.1.B: Waste Reduction Programs
Encourage special bulky waste pick-up events, citywide garage sales, programs offering rebates for inefficient appliances or polluting vehicles, disincentives to excessive packaging, and other waste collection activities that reduce pollution and improper waste disposal.

Action OSC-7.1.D: Food Waste Recycling
Continue to operate green waste and food waste recycling programs.

Policy OSC-7.2: Water Conservation
Promote the efficient use of existing water supplies through a variety of water conservation measures, including the use of recycled water for landscaping.

Policy OSC-7.3: Drought-Tolerant Landscaping
Encourage the use of native vegetation and Bay-friendly landscaping and enforce the State Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).

Policy OSC-7.4: Development Standards
Maintain local planning and building standards that require the efficient use of water through such measures as low-flow plumbing fixtures and water-saving appliances. Require water conservation measures as a condition of approval for major developments.

Policy OSC-8.1: Conservation and Energy Efficiency
Strongly advocate for increased energy conservation by San Leandro residents and businesses, and ensure that the City itself is a conservation role model.

Policy OSC-8.2: Planning and Building Practices
Encourage construction, landscaping, and site planning practices that minimize heating and cooling costs and ensure that energy is efficiently used. Local building codes and other City City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
112
regulations and procedures should meet or exceed state and federal standards for energy conservation and efficiency, and support the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

San Leandro Municipal Code
SLMC Section 3.15.100 establishes SLMC Chapter 3.15 as the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. SLMC Section 3.15.205 establishes the prohibition of discharge in violation of NPDES No. CA0029831 and SLMC 3.15.215 establishes BMPs that new development and redevelopment projects must comply with to reduce stormwater pollution. SLMC Chapter 3.7 Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Reduction and Recycling Requirements. SLMC Section

3.7.100 outlines the construction and demolition debris waste reduction and recycling percentages as follow: projects must recycle 100 percent of asphalt and concrete and recycle 50 percent of the remainder of the construction and demolition debris.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The project would include utility connections in accordance with requirements of the applicable utility providers for water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, power, and telecommunications services. These utilities would connect to existing infrastructure in the site vicinity. PG&E or EBCE would provide electrical and natural gas services, EBMUD would provide water service, Oro Loma Sanitary District would provide wastewater services, and the City of San Leandro would provide stormwater services.

Water Supply
EBMUD would provide water to the project site. EBMUD provided a letter stating that its existing major facilities would have potable water available for both domestic and fire protection use to serve the project (Appendix EBMUD). Additionally, General Plan Policies OSC-7.2, OSC-7.3, and OSC7.4, which focus on water efficiency and water conservation for indoor and outdoor use, would reduce future water demand. The project’s future residents are included in and consistent with the population growth forecasts of the General Plan.

According to the EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the forecasted supply is enough to meet demand out to 2050 under normal years and single dry years. However, during multi-year droughts, even with customer demand reduction measures in place, EBMUD would need to obtain supplemental supplies to meet customer demands (EBMUD 2021c).

Water demand as estimated using CalEEMod assumptions of water use by land use type would be

2.04 million gallons per year or 5,598 gallons per day (Appendix AQ). Actual water demand would be less than expected, as the site is currently developed with water-demanding uses that would be Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 113 removed. The project would increase demand for water in comparison to the existing conditions.

The proposed project would demand water for faucets, toilets, baths, showers, laundry, and irrigation of landscaping. Although water demand would increase, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, population growth from the project would account for approximately 0.34 percent of the anticipated population growth under the General Plan. Since the UWMP accounts for increased demand as growth in the City occurs, including the proposed project, impacts to water supply would be less than significant. Wastewater Generation Wastewater would be collected by the Oro Loma Sanitary District whose wastewater treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 20 mgd. In 2020, the treatment plant collected and treated approximately 12 mgd of wastewater with a remaining capacity of 8 mgd (EBMUD 2021b).9 According to Table 13 below, the project would generate approximately 4,758 gallons of wastewater per day, or less than 0.06 percent of the available unused capacity of wastewater currently treated by the Oro Loma Sanitary District per day. This increase would be within the Oro Loma Sanitary District’s capacity for collection and treatment (EBMUD 2021b). Therefore, wastewater capacity is sufficient to serve the project.

Table 13 Wastewater Generation
Water Use (gal/year) Wastewater Generation Rate
Expected Generation
gal/day gal/year
2, 043,190 0.85 4,758 1,736,712
Source: Appendix AQ; USEPA 1996
In addition, the proposed project would include up to an additional 51 residents which would be consistent with General Plan population growth forecasts. The General Plan concluded that future demands associated with buildout of the general plan would not exceed existing wastewater treatment plant capacity (City of San Leandro 2016b). On-site sewer lines may need to be upsized or extended, but no significant new or upgraded wastewater infrastructure would be necessary in response to increased population density on the project site. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of wastewater infrastructure and would have a less than significant impact.

Stormwater Runoff
As the project would be located in the City of San Leandro whose municipal waste discharges and stormwater runoff is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the project would be subject to the discharge requirements of the MRP. Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, the City of San Leandro uses its authority to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects (City of San Leandro 2016b).

In compliance with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, SLMC Chapter 3.15, the project would comply with implementation of C.3 provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program. As the project would involve more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, it would be considered a C.3 regulated project as defined by Provision C.3.b.ii 9 Wastewater generation was based on population forecasts provided by Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments.

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
114
of the MRP (Alameda County Clean Water Program 2017). Because the project would be considered a C.3 regulated project, it would require source control measures and site design measures to address stormwater runoff. In addition, stormwater treatment measures would be required to contain site runoff designed to the standards of the city and the Alameda County Flood Control District. Refer to Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more detail. In addition, implementation of General Plan Policy CSF-6.7 requiring storm drainage improvements for new development to ensure that stormwater runoff is adequately handled on- and off-site would further reduce stormwater runoff impacts to the stormwater drainage system.

The landscaped and bioretention areas shown in Figure 3 in Section 11 of the Project Description would increase the infiltration of stormwater runoff on-site, preventing additional off-site flows.

Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new or expanded on-site facilities for stormwater drainage. Consistent with prior analysis, the project would have a less than significant impact related to stormwater runoff.

Gas/Electricity/Telecommunications
As the project is within the buildout assumptions used in the General Plan EIR, service by and consumption of these utilities would be within that considered in the General Plan EIR. It should also be noted that the SLMC Section 7.5.700 adopted the California Energy Code which includes policies that reduce energy use from buildings and equipment. The project would be required to comply with these existing requirements. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis, the project’s impacts related to energy use would be less than significant. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The General Plan EIR finds that the total estimated solid waste generation rate would be able to be handled by existing landfills. In addition, implementation of General Plan policies and actions focused on resource conservation and solid waste reduction such as Policy OSC-7.1, Action OSC7.1.A, Action OSC-7.1.B, and Action OSC-7.1.D, would further reduce the project’s impacts on solid waste generation. Compliance with applicable regulations such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act to further reduce the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of.

As shown in Table 14, the project would generate a gross total of approximately 40 tons of solid waste per year, or approximately, 0.11 tons per day. Actual waste generation would be lower than the expected generation shown in the table as the estimates are conservative and depict a maximum solid waste generation rate for each dwelling unit.

Table 14 Solid Waste Generation
Use Proposed Size Solid Waste Generation Factor
Expected Generation
lbs/day lbs/year
Single-family residential 18 du 12.23 lbs/du/day 220 80,351 Notes: du = dwelling units; sf = square feet; lbs = pounds. Figures rounded to nearest whole number.

Source: CalRecycle 2021a
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 115 Table 15 Landfills Remaining Capacity
Landfill
Remaining Capacity
(cubic yards)
Project Contribution to Landfill’s Daily Capacity
(%)
Altamont Landfill 65,400,000 0.000000001
Forward Sanitary Landfill 24,720,669 0.000000005
Potrero Hills Landfill 13,872,000 0.000000009
Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill 7,379,000 0.00000001
Source: CalRecycle 2022a to 2022d
As shown in Table 15, daily project-generated waste would be approximately 0.000000001 percent of the Altamont Landfill’s remaining capacity, 0.000000005 percent of the Forward Sanitary Landfill’s remaining capacity, 0.000000009 percent of the Potrero Hills Landfill’s remaining capacity, and 0.00000001 percent of the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill’s remaining capacity (City of San Leandro 2016b).10 These calculations conservatively assume that the total amount of daily projectgenerated waste would go to only one of the four landfills. The project’s incremental increase in solid waste would not adversely affect the overall capacity of the identified solid waste facilities.

Project construction would generate solid waste due to the demolition of existing on-site structures and construction of the new residences. Construction waste generation would be temporary and would not substantially affect the capacity of area landfills. In addition, SLMC Section 3.7.100 states that projects must reduce construction waste by recycling 100 percent of asphalt and concrete and recycle 50 percent of the remainder of construction and demolition debris which would further reduce the amount of waste produced by the project.

As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the City has complied with State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and reuse of solid waste. In addition, the City’s disposal rate per resident is 8.6 pounds per person per day (ppd) which is below the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) target of 8.7 ppd (CalRecycle 2021b). In addition, with implementation of General Plan Goal OSC-7 focused on promoting recycling, waste reduction, and other programs which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a more sustainable environment, the project would be consistent with statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Consistent with the prior EIR analysis, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems, the same as and within the range of impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, would not result in new specific effects that were not addressed in General Plan EIR, and would not require new mitigation measures. Accordingly, no additional review is required. 10 According to the 2035 General Plan EIR, the Forward Sanitary Landfill and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill would close prior to the beginning of the project’s operation. However, since the publishing of the EIR, the Forward Sanitary Landfill has had an approved expansion which extends it operation date until approximately 2036 (San Joaquin County 2018). In addition, the revised closure year for Vasco Road is now 2035 (Alameda County Waste Management Authority 2020).

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
116
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 117 20 Wildfire
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire? □ □ ■ □ ■
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ ■ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes? □ □ ■ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan EIR did not address the issue of wildfire separately from the discussion in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials (see Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) because its publication preceded the December 2018 CEQA Guidelines update, which expanded CEQA by defining this issue area as a stand-alone resource category. Impacts to wildfire can be found on pages 4.7-29 through 4.7-30 in the context of the General Plan Update’s potential to exacerbate wildland fire hazards.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
118
in the General Plan EIR as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The project area is in an urbanized area of San Leandro, surrounded primarily by paved surfaces and structures. Figures 4.7-2 and 4.7-3 indicate that the project site is not within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone (City of San Leandro 2016b). As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Figure 7-3 of the General Plan indicates that the project area is outside the very fire hazard severity zones (City of San Leandro 2016a) and as such impacts would be less than significant. The site is located over 1 mile from the nearest high or very high fire hazard severity zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2021). Because the project is not within or near a very high fire hazard severity zone, no impacts resulting from wildfires would occur.

Conclusion
Although the General Plan EIR does not specifically address wildfire as an issue area, the project is located in an urbanized area outside a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and would not result in a new significant impact. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be required, and no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 119 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? □ □ □ ■ ■
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)? □ □ □ ■ ■
c. Have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? □ □ □ ■ ■
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, and as discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
120
plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal since it would comply with General Plan policies, the SLMC, and COA BIO-1.

As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources and Section 7, Geology and Soils, the project would not impact or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, including archaeological or paleontological resources. In addition, the project would comply with applicable General Plan policies, the SLMC, and recommendations listed in the Geotechnical report (Appendix GEO). As such, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Conformance with General Plan policies, General Plan EIR mitigation measures, the SLMC, and Best Management Practices specified within this document would ensure that potential impacts are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending and planned development projects. As part of the General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts associated with the project were analyzed. The project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR and subsequent documents, and other existing and allowable land uses in the project vicinity are not significantly different than what was studied in the cumulative analysis of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan is a planning document that establishes a land use scenario and goals, policies, and objectives for development and growth throughout the city through the year 2035. Thus, the impact analyses in the General Plan EIR effectively constitutes cumulative analyses of the approved land uses in the planning boundaries. The project would not result in significant impacts peculiar to the project area, as indicated in sections 1 through 20 above. Nearby development would be required to be consistent with the local planning documents, or mitigation measures would be required to assess the impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, the project’s consistency with the General Plan and subsequent analysis above in Section 1 through 20 indicate that the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, noise, and transportation safety. As detailed in the preceding responses, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse impacts related to these issue areas. The project’s effects on regional air quality, transportation, and geology and soils would be less than significant or analyzed in General Plan EIR. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project construction and operation would not expose residents to known hazardous materials, given compliance with the applicable General Plan policies, the SLMC, and COA HAZ-1 and COA HAZ-2. In addition, the generation of noise and vibration from construction activity, as discussed in Section 13, Noise, would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-4 and other applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the project would not have substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.

References
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 121 References
Bibliography
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). 2020. AC Transit Schedule: Line 28. https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/timetable_files/28-2020_12_20.pdf (accessed January 2022).

Alameda County Clean Water Program. 2017. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Version 6.

Updated April 2018.
https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/images/uploads/C3_Technical_Guidance_v6_Oct_201 7_FINAL_Errata_updated_04.20.18.pdf (accessed January 2022).

Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2010. Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/OAK_ALUCP_122010_FULL. pdf (accessed October 2021).
______. 2012. Hayward Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/HWD_ALUCP_082012_FULL .pdf (accessed October 2021).

Alameda County Waste Management Authority. 2020. Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan (accessed October 2021).

Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC). 2021.

Plan Bay Area 2050.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October _2021.pdf (accessed January 2022).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Updated January 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-anddata/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status (accessed October 2021). ______. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed October 2021). ______. 2017c. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed October 2021).

Beachapedia. 2016. Hydromodification. http://www.beachapedia.org/Hydromodification (accessed September 2021).

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model Appendix D. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide2021/appendix-d2020-4-0-full-merge.pdf?sfvrsn=12 (accessed September 2021).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed September 2021).

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
122
______. 2021. CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants (accessed September 2021).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2017. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land.
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%2 0Study/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation %20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf
______. 2021a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Alameda County Important Farmland 2018. Map published February 2021.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Alameda.aspx (accessed September 2021).
______. 2021b. Alameda County Tsunami Hazard Areas [map]. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/alameda (accessed October 2021).

California Department of Education. 2021. Data Quest: 2019-20 Enrollment by Grade. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrgrdlevels.aspx?agglevel=District&year=2019- 20&cds=0161291 (accessed September 2021).

California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed October 2021).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. BIOS viewer 5.96.99 Vegetation (fveg) – CALFIRE FRAP [map]. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?al=ds1327 (accessed September 2021).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Alameda County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA [map]. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/7271/fhszs_map1.pdf (accessed October 2021).
______. 2008. Alameda County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA [map]. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6638/fhszl_map1.pdf (accessed October 2021). ______. 2021. FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed October 2021).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recover (CalRecycle). 2021a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates (accessed September 2021).
______. 2021b. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail: San Leandro 2019. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/%20DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionDeta il/447/Year/2019 (accessed September 2021).
______. 2022a. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?siteID=7 ______. 2022b. Forward Landfill SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1434?siteID=3106 References
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 123 ______. 2022c. Potrero Hills Landfill SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1194?siteID=3591 ______. 2022d. Vasco Road Landfill SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/9?siteID=8 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2021. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed October 2021).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed September 2021).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf (accessed October 2021).

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2020. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/ (accessed October 2021). ______. 2021a. Dam Inundation Map Viewer.
https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 (accessed October 2021). ______. 2021b. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ (accessed October 2021).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2020 Power Content Label. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/power-sourcedisclosure/power-content-label/annual-power-content-1 (accessed January 2022).

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. https://scic.sdsu.edu/_resources/docs/manual95.pdf (accessed October 2021). ______. 2021a. California Historical Resources.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=name&criteria=san+leandro (accessed September 2021).
______. 2021b. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%20201 1%20update.pdf (accessed October 2021).

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ (accessed February 2022).

East Bay Community Energy. 2022a. Frequently Asked Questions. https://ebce.org/faq/ (accessed January 2022).
______. 2022b. Compare Your Options. https://ebce.org/compare-plans-residential/ (accessed January 2022).

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021a. Sustainable Groundwater Management. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/groundwatersustainability-agencies/ (accessed October 2021). ______. 2021b. Urban Water Management Plan 2020. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-yourwater/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan/ (accessed October 2021).

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
124
______. 2021c. Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020. https://www.ebmud.com/water/aboutyour-water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan/ (accessed October 2021).

East Bay Regional Park Districts (EBRPD). 2013. Master Plan 2013. https://www.ebparks.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23499 (accessed October 2021).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Map Panel 06001C0259G. Effective August 3, 2009. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed October 2021).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed October 2021).

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed September 2021).
______. 2020. Approval of the Forward Inc. Landfill, 2018 Expansion Project No. PA-1800090 and the Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. PA-0800105 of Forward Inc. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2008052024/9 (accessed October 2021).

M. Honeycutt, S. Shirley. 2014. Encyclopedia of Toxicology (Third Edition).

National Parks Service. 2021. National Register of Historic Places. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm (accessed September 2021).

National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). 2021. California. https://www.rivers.gov/california.php (accessed October 2021).

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2022. Community renewable programs. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/options/solar/solarchoice/solar-choice.page (accessed January 2022).

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/R 2-2015-0049.pdf (accessed October 2021).

San Joaquin, County of. 2018. Forward Inc. Landfill, 2018 Expansion Project. https://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgibin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/Environmental%20Impact%20Reports/Forward%20Landfill%202 018%20Draft%20Supplemental%20EIR.pdf (accessed October 2021).

San Leandro, City of. 2007a. Traffic Control Plan Guidelines. DWG. No. 608A. Revised on March 12, 2018. https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=4893 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2007b. Traffic Control Plan Guidelines. DWG. No. 608C. Revised on October 1, 2007. https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=4895 (accessed October 2021).

References
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 125 ______. 2015. San Leandro Housing Element Appendix A: 2015-2023 San Leandro Housing Element Opportunity Site Inventory.
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=25636 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2016a. 2035 General Plan. https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/plan/genplan/default.asp (accessed September 2021).
______. 2016b. 2035 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/plan/genplan/default.asp (accessed September 2021).
______. 2020a. City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan Map [map]. https://civicaadmin.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=32632 (accessed September 2021).
______. 2020b. Zoning for the City of San Leandro [map]. https://sanleandro.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Minimalist/index.html?appid=75f3802073a4434c 97742061ed1836bc (accessed September 2021).
______. 2020c. San Leandro Shoreline Development Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum. https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31024 (accessed September 2021).
______. 2020d. Encroachment Permit Requirements.
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=28896 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021a. City Tree Maintenance. https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/pw/tree/default.asp (accessed September 2021).
______. 2021b. Standard Plans. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/112 (accessed January 2022).
______. 2021c. 2021 Climate Action Plan.
https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/6490/San-Leandro-CAP-ADOPTED2021-08-06 (accessed January 2022).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed February 2022).

The Constructor. 2020. Pre-Cast Concrete Walls – Types, Connections, and Advantages. https://theconstructor.org/concrete/precast-concrete-walls-types-connectionsadvantages/37998/#:~:text=Precast%20concrete%20walls%20are%20constructed,speed%2 0up%20the%20construction%20process. (accessed January 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996. The Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production. Chapter 3: Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Treatment. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/mstr-ch3.pdf (accessed January 2022).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. Last updated:

May 1, 2021. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed September 2021).

City of San Leandro
2824 Halcyon Drive Residential Project
126
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IEC under contract to the City of San Leandro. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include the following:

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darcy Kremin, AICP, Director
Leslie Trejo, Project Manager
Nichole Yee, Environmental Planner
Nicole Shimizu, Environmental Planner
Meghan Hearne, Senior Environmental Scientist
Julie Welch, Director of Due Diligence
Josh Patterson, M.A., GIS Analyst
Isabelle Radis, MESM, GIS Intern