San Leandro City Council
December 5, 2022

State and federal law requires the RTP to be updated at least every four years to respond to emerging regional growth issues and reflect new funding forecasts.

San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The Transportation Element of the City’s 2035 General Plan addresses the movement of people and goods in and around San Leandro. The updated Element is more balanced in its treatment of each mode of travel (automobile, bicycling, walking, public transit, etc.) and addresses environmental health, equity, greenhouse gas reduction, and the quality of public space around transportation routes. Applicable policies are stated below:

Policy T-1.1: Decision Making. Ensure that future land use and development decisions are in balance with the capacity of the City’s transportation system and consistent with the City's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy T-1.2: Keeping Pace With Growth. Improve transportation infrastructure at a rate that keeps pace with growth.

Policy T-1.3: Mitigation of Development Impacts. Require developers to address the impacts that their projects will have on the City’s transportation system. A variety of mitigation measures, including impact fees, street improvements, traffic signal and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements, transportation demand management (TDM) measures, and improvement of non-automobile transportation modes, should be considered 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.

Policy T-1.5: Land Use Strategies. Promote land use concepts that reduce the necessity of driving, encourage public transit use, and reduce trip lengths. These concepts include live-work development, mixed use development, higher densities along public transit corridors, and the provision of commercial service.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-10
Policy T-1.6: Siting of Housing and Public Facilities. Consider access to public transportation to be a major factor in the location and siting of future housing and public facilities. Conversely, ensure that community facilities such as libraries, parks, schools, and community, civic, and recreation centers, are served by public transit.

Policy T-2.6: Building Design and Site Planning. Ensure that the site planning and design of new development promotes the use of non-auto modes of transportation by including amenities such as sidewalks, bike lockers, and bus shelters.

Policy T-3.5: Accommodation of Bicycles and Pedestrians. Require new development to incorporate design features that make walking, bicycling, and other forms of nonmotorized transportation more convenient and attractive. Facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, including secured bicycle parking, clearly marked crosswalks, well-lit streets and sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture should be provided within new employment areas, shopping destinations, multi-modal transportation facilities, and community facilities.

Policy T-5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts. Use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for evaluating the transportation impacts of new development proposals. Traffic impact studies may also consider the total number of trips generated and the resulting impact on traffic volumes and congestion (e.g., "Level of Service"), but VMT shall provide the primary basis for determining appropriate mitigation measures.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted in March 2018. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan guides the development of facilities to enhance bicycling and walking as a safe enjoyable, efficient, and practical transportation choice for San Leandro residents.

Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan The Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan is a vision, policies, standards, and implementation strategies for the future of the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area. The Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan vision is a sustainable, vibrant, walkable, and safe transit-oriented village with a diversity of land uses serving residents, workers, and visitors. It contains the following goals, accompanied by specific policies:
 Multiple Transportation Options. Reduce reliance on the automobile for trips to and from the Bay Fair area through a mix of land uses and safe, convenient connections for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
 Active Transportation. Strongly encourage and require facilities in the Bay Fair area that will promote active transportation options such as walking, cycling, and use of transit.  Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity. Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between and around the Bay Fair BART station, adjacent transit waiting areas, Bayfair Center, and nearby neighborhoods and shopping districts (see San Leandro General Plan 2035 Transportation Chapter Policy t-2.4).
 New Streets. As parcels redevelop within the plan area, establish new local street connections to provide alternate routes for shorter trips and improve the efficiency of automobile operations.
 Shared Parking. Required automobile parking ratios for development projects should reflect opportunities for shared parking between land uses or between development sites.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-11
 Continuous, Accessible Walking Routes. New streets and connections shall have continuous ADA-compliant sidewalks or equivalent provisions, providing access through the area and to building entries, public open spaces, and other key destinations such as ac transit bus stops and the Bay Fair BART station.
 Pedestrian Connections During Development Phasing. As new development is phased in, continuous publicly accessible routes shall be constructed in the initial phases from existing streets to destinations internal to the plan area. In some cases, these accessible routes may extend beyond the immediate development to connect to BART, retail, or open space destinations.
 Pedestrian Access to Transit. The pedestrian network should be designed to ensure safe, convenient, and direct access to the Bay Fair BART station and to AC transit bus stops.  Bicycle Network. Any new development and new streets in the plan area shall provide bicycle facilities and connections consistent with Figure 3.2, though the exact location and facility design may be adjusted in coordination with the City.

4.8.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact is considered significant if the project would:

1. Conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of addressing the circulation system including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). For the purposes of this evaluation, this impact would be significant if implementation of the project would not generate home-based VMT per resident or employee at least 15 percent below the baseline planning area average VMT.

3. Result in designs for on-site circulation, access, and parking areas that fail to meet City or industry standard design guidelines.

4. Result in inadequate emergency access to development sites.

Methodology
VMT is a measure used in transportation planning, which measures the amount of travel for all vehicles in a geographic region over a given period of time. It is calculated as the sum of the number of miles traveled by each vehicle. For residential and employment land uses, VMT is measured for each person who will occupy or use a project site. VMT per capita is the total annual miles of vehicle travel divided by the total population of the city. VMT per employee is the average amount of personal, non-commercial, vehicle travel made on an average weekday by each resident employee whose employment/work location is within the city.

The VMT analysis methodology utilizes the procedures described in Appendix TRA. The procedures are summarized below:

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-12
The VMT analysis is based on residential and office space assumptions associated with amendments to land use designations and zoning districts, including allowable densities, FAR, and building heights as described in Chapter 2, Project Description. Travel demand modeling was conducted using the Alameda CTC Countywide Model and SB 743 requirements.

The citywide VMT analysis examines VMT impacts in segments of the city called traffic analysis zones or TAZs, which is typically how traffic analysis is performed. The project includes a total of 4,960 new residential units within 27 selected TAZs in the city that would be impacted by the project and 75,000 square feet of office space within two selected TAZs that are in the BTOD area.

Travel forecasts were prepared for both existing 2020 model year and future 2040 cumulative model year conditions. VMT results were extracted at the citywide level based on the efficiency metric, VMT per capita and VMT per employee.

The results were compared to the Alameda CTC Central Planning Area VMT per capita average and VMT per employee average to determine if the additional residential units and office space contribute to a VMT impact under SB 743.

According to the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in December 2018, a 15 percent reduction in VMT per capita from existing development is “generally achievable” and supportive of State goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (OPR 2018). However, State guidance allows localities to set their own VMT standards based on substantial supporting evidence. VMT thresholds are defined using recommendations from the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) based on their final report, dated December 2018. Cities and counties could opt to develop their own methods, but CEQA impact criteria are generally consistent with OPR recommendations. This CEQA analysis is based on OPR recommendations as the City of San Leandro has not developed its own guidelines.

The project’s VMT was assessed against the established threshold of 15 percent below the Alameda CTC Central Planning Area average VMT.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Methodology
On March 4, 2020 the Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). On March 17, 2020 the Alameda County Health Officer issued a Shelter at Home Order for the entire county, including the City of San Leandro. The threat of COVID-19, as well as the subsequent State and County proclamations and orders, have resulted in temporary changes to the existing economic and physical conditions in California and Alameda County regionally. Temporary changes to existing environmental conditions may have reduced vehicle traffic and associated noise and pollutant emissions, and reduced electricity consumption. In addition, the timing and likelihood of cumulative development and regional buildout assumptions may be affected during or after the threat of COVID-19. The magnitude and duration of the State of Emergency and associated State and County orders, or future orders related to the threat of COVID19 cannot be ascertained. Accordingly, the effect of COVID-19 on baseline and future environmental conditions effects of COVID-19 is currently speculative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3) states that:

An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-13
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15154 states that:

If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.

It would be speculative for the environmental analysis to assume what changes to baseline or cumulative baseline conditions might occur as a result of COVID-19 or the subsequent State and County proclamations and orders.

The travel forecasting that supports the analysis in this SEIR is derived from the ACTC Countywide model, which has established 2020 and 2040 as the planning horizon years based on ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040. The modeling horizon years are unaffected by the Covid pandemic since no traffic counts were collected during the Covid-19 Pandemic. The VMT analysis utilizes 2020 as the base year and 2040 as the cumulative year, so it unaffected by any pandemic slowdown.

Therefore, this topic is not discussed further in this analysis. b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.13 (Transportation and Traffic) of the 2035 General Plan EIR analyzes the 2035 General Plan’s consistency with applicable plans that establish measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system; consistency with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards; changes in air traffic patterns; increased hazards due to design features of the project; inadequate emergency access; and consistency with plans regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The EIR determined that buildout under the 2035 General Plan would not be consistent with applicable plans, including a congestion management program, due to unacceptable level of service standards. Impacts related to air traffic patterns; hazards due to a design feature; inadequate emergency access; and plans regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. VMT impacts were discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR; however, guidelines were not yet adopted by the State at the time of the preparation of the EIR. All CEQA Checklist items listed above under the Methodology and Significance Thresholds section are addressed in this analysis. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact TRA-1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM.

IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The transportation analysis provided in the 2035 General Plan EIR (pages 4.13-35 through 4.13-64) is based on the version of the Alameda Countywide Model with Plan Bay Area Projections dated May 28, 2015. The zonal detail (traffic analysis zones, or TAZs), street network, and land uses in that analysis were based on the Countywide Model, which had a 2010 base year and 2040 horizon year, with some modifications made to better represent actual 2010 conditions and the General Plan Buildout. The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.13-44) concluded that implementation of the 2035 General Plan, in combination with regional growth outside of San Leandro, would result in increased vehicle traffic, which would significantly affect the operations of 12 intersections and seven freeway segments freeway segments during peak hours based on an analysis of LOS impacts from increased City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-14
traffic volumes and roadway density. All impacted freeway sections would require additional capacity or widening to mitigate the impacts to less than significant. If the widenings are feasible, then future development implementing the 2035 General Plan would contribute its fair share through development fees for street improvements. The 2035 General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures TRAF-1A and Mitigation Measure TRAF-1B to reduce impacts to specific intersections and freeway segments; however, findings were determined to be significant and unavoidable since the mitigations were not certain to occur.

The 2035 General Plan EIR also evaluated impacts on Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways and followed the methodology established by the Alameda CTC, which relied upon impacts to the LOS on the freeway segments (page 4.13-60). The CMP is a plan mandated by California law to describe the strategies to address congestion problems on the CMP network, which includes State highways and principal arterials. The addition of traffic associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan was determined to not cause any freeway segments to be impacted; therefore, impacts to freeway segments would be considered less than significant.

However, the arterial segment analysis determined that there would be a significant volume-tocapacity ratio increase on the northbound segment of Doolittle Drive. The 2035 General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measure TRAF-2A to widen Doolittle Drive to provide an additional travel lane in the northbound direction or provide transit or shuttle service that operates between the city and key locations such as San Leandro and Coliseum BART stations and Oakland International Airport.

Since the effectiveness of the shuttle service in reducing the number of trips on Doolittle Drive could not be adequately quantified, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, the 2035 General Plan EIR determined that vehicle trips generated by the 2035 General Plan would cause congestion that reduces transit vehicle operations and impacts would be significant (page 4.13-61). Due to the potential increases in delays associated with impacted intersections, and uncertainty concerning the effectiveness and timing of mitigation measures, the impact of vehicle traffic on mixed flow transit operations remains significant and unavoidable.

Impacts to transit capacity, transit access and egress, consistency with transit operators’ adopted plans, and future transit service (BART extension to San Jose and ACTC BRT from Oakland to San Leandro BART) was determined to be less than significant.

The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.13-70) also determined that implementation of the 2035 General Plan would support and would not conflict with plans, programs and policies regarding bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or decrease the performance and safety of such facilities. Therefore, related impacts from implementation of the 2035 General Plan were determined to be less than significant.

Project Construction Impacts
Construction activities related to development facilitated by the project could create potential conflicts with other roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian users, such as construction related activities resulting in lane, bicycle path, or sidewalk closures along the frontages of individual development projects facilitated by the project, construction vehicles queuing within the public right-of-way waiting entry to the site, construction worker parking in non-designated parking areas, or construction debris on public streets. Construction impacts would be temporary in nature and encroachment permits from Caltrans would be required for facilities under its administration.

Construction that would occur within the Caltrans public right-of-way would be subject to Caltrans encroachment permits. Construction could occur along local streets, transit routes, bicycle paths, and sidewalks; however, project applicants for future development would be required to coordinate with the City’s Department of Public Works for temporary lane closures to identify appropriate Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-15
detours and timing, and to minimize impacts to the overall circulation network (including bicycle and pedestrian facilities). Therefore, with respect to conflicts with circulation system policies related to roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, construction impacts of the project would be less than significant.

Project Operation Impacts
As described previously, the City of San Leandro used intersection LOS, or vehicle delay or congestion, as the primary measure of traffic impacts from development prior to the passing of SB 743. SB 743 required all local agencies to begin using VMT by July 1, 2020. San Leandro General Plan Policy T-5.2 directed the City to implement new methodologies for evaluating and mitigating transportation impacts based on VMT rather than LOS.

The project would result in an increased number of residents and therefore increased use of the transportation system. The residential units facilitated by the project would be in proximity to commercial services and high-quality transit; therefore, the project would support land development that would generate relatively shorter trips and non-vehicle modes of transportation, including trips by walking, bicycling, and transit. The project would be consistent with efforts by the City and region to promote transit-oriented development and transit use. As discussed below in Impact TRA-2, buildout of the project would reduce VMT per capita by more than 15 percent below the existing central planning area average, which is consistent with City Policy T-1.1 to ensure that future land use and development decisions are in balance with the capacity of the City’s transportation system and consistent with the City's goal of reducing GHG emissions, and Policy T5.2 to use VMT as the primary metric for evaluating the transportation impacts of new development proposals.

As this is a programmatic-level SEIR, specific development projects have not been proposed.

Therefore, while the magnitude of the potential development is known, information is not available regarding the location, the design of project access points, and the adequacy of on-site pedestrian circulation; therefore, the site-specific impacts of proposed development projects at each of the opportunity sites on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities cannot be evaluated at this time. To ensure that future developments would not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting those travel modes, the adequacy of existing facilities would be assessed as part of the development review process. Future development would be evaluated during the development review process to ensure that it would not include design features that would interfere with or obstruct existing plans to improve the circulation network, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Policy T-1.3 of the Transportation Element would require developers to address potential impacts on the City’s transportation system through mitigation including impact fees, street improvements, traffic signals, and TDM measures.

Operation of development facilitated by the project would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation of plans related to the circulation network, such as the ABAG 2050 RTP/SCS, Alameda County CMP, the Alameda Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan, the 2035 General Plan, the BTOD Specific Plan, and the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The project would be consistent with the intent and directive of these plans and their individual policies. The project, which would increase allowable development intensity near transit, is intended to work in conjunction with mobility-related plans for a complete streets network, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity (especially connectivity to transit stations), active transportation, and the provision of transportation options for residents and employees.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-16
To achieve the ABAG and MTC sustainable vision for the San Francisco Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area 2050 land use concept plan concentrates most new population and employment growth in and around PDAs. The project would concentrate new housing and office space in the city’s three PDAs to increase transit opportunities and reduce dependence on vehicle travel. Table 4.2-2 in Section

4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, details the project’s consistency with the measures included in Plan Bay Area, including a measure for building a complete streets network.

Policy T-1.4 of the City’s 2035 General Plan directs the City to maintain intensity of development near the city’s two BART stations and along the East 14th Street corridor to maximize the potential for transit use, and Policy T-1.5 to promote land use concepts that reduce the necessity of driving, encourage public transit use, and reduce trip lengths. The project would also align with Policy T-1.6 directs the City to consider access to public transportation to be a major factor in the location and siting of future housing and public facilities.

Ridership may increase on BART with implementation of the project, particularly at San Leandro’s two BART stations, but incremental increases in ridership would be considered for regional planning efforts by the appropriate agencies. The project would promote land use development that aligns with BART’s adopted 2005 Transit-Oriented Development Policy, which includes goals to increase transit ridership and enhance quality of life at and around BART stations by encouraging and supporting high quality transit-oriented development within walking distance of BART stations and increase transit-oriented development projects on and off BART property through creative planning and development partnerships with local communities.

Similarly, ridership may increase on AC Transit facilities with implementation of the project, and incremental increases in ridership would be considered during updates to short- and long-range planning efforts by AC Transit.

Therefore, with respect to conflicts with circulation system, transit system, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities programs, ordinances, and policies, the impact of the project would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
There would be no impact. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 THE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN CITY VMT PER CAPITA THAT WOULD BE A GREATER REDUCTION THAN 15 PERCENT THAN THE PLANNING AREA AVERAGE PER CAPITA VMT. EMPLOYEE VMT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT WOULD BE SCREENED OUT DUE TO PROXIMITY TO THE BART STATION. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR analyzed the daily (24-hour) VMT for existing (2015) conditions using the Alameda Countywide Model but did not conclude significance for project impacts, as guidelines were not yet adopted by the State at the time of the preparation of the 2035 General Plan EIR. The VMT analysis conducted for the 2035 General Plan EIR found that VMT per population (residential) and VMT per service population (employment) would decrease under the 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.13-72).

As explained in the VMT Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix TRA, VMT statistics were calculated for the project and were compared to the Alameda CTC Central Planning Area averages.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-17
The VMT analysis examined the citywide VMT per capita with the project under 2020 and 2040 conditions. The citywide VMT analysis examines VMT impacts at the level of TAZs.

Under SB 743, it is assumed that some types of development can be exempt from a transportation impact analysis due their inherent less than significant impact on VMT. A less than significant impact on VMT may result from a project’s location, size, or the land use of the development. A project only needs to meet one of four screening criteria to “screen out” of the requirement to complete a transportation impact analysis. One of these screening criteria is development near transit stations.

A major transit stop is defined as a rail station or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with service every 15 minutes or less during morning and evening commute periods. CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within 0.5-mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less than significant impact on VMT (OPR 2018).

The two selected TAZs which include the 75,000 square feet of office space facilitated by the project are both within 0.5-mile of Bay Fair BART station, which is a major transit stop with a 15-minute headway during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods and considered a high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, individual projects with this office space would screen out from further VMT analysis and evaluation under CEQA. Therefore, the proposed office space would have a less than significant VMT impact.

The project’s residential VMT was assessed against the established threshold of 15 percent below the Alameda CTC Central Planning Area average VMT. The project would produce VMT per capita in the city that is lower than 15 percent below the Alameda CTC Central Planning Area average, as shown in Table 4.8-1. In both 2020 and 2040 scenarios, the VMT per capita threshold was 17.51. The VMT per capita for the city under the 2020 with project scenario would be 17.27, and the VMT per capita for the city under the 2040 with project scenario was 16.85. Both outcomes were less than the threshold of 17.51.

Table 4.8-1 Project VMT Per Capita Compared to Thresholds Scenario VMT Threshold VMT
Lower than 15 percent below the
Alameda CTC Central Planning Area
average VMT per capita?
2020 VMT per capita 17.27 17.51 Yes
2040 VMT per capita 16.85 17.51 Yes
Source: Kittelson and Associates 2022. Appendix TRA
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT.

Mitigation Measures
There would be no impact. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-18
Threshold 3: 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)?
Impact TRA-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE REVIEWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF SAN LEANDRO STANDARD PLANS.

THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A DESIGN FEATURE (E.G.

SHARP CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G. FARM EQUIPMENT). IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that development facilitated by the 2035 General Plan would result in construction and modifications of new and existing roadways. The improvements would be designed and reviewed in accordance with the City of San Leandro Standard Plans, which outline the City’s standards for design and improvements and are pre-defined standards or specifications for minor land disturbing activities that may preclude the need for the preparation of a detailed plan under specific conditions. For example, the City’s Standard Plans dictate the design standards for driveways, curb transitions, wheelchair curb cuts, and grade-crossing construction to minimize hazards between vehicles, pedestrians, and transit or rail. Additionally, the 2035 General Plan contains policies to improve roadway safety for all users and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle traffic. Impacts of the 2035 General Plan were determined to be less than significant.

The project would facilitate higher allowable densities and FAR in specific land use designations and zoning districts, which may require modifications of roadways beyond the potential needs related to development allowable under existing regulations. Development facilitated by the project would adhere to federal, State, and local requirements to ensure that safety standards are met, and improvements to roadways would be reviewed in accordance with the City of San Leandro Standard Plans. The project would facilitate residential uses and office space and would not introduce incompatible uses that would substantially increase hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
There would be no impact. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that development allowed under the 2035 General Plan would not have any separate or additional impacts that would affect emergency access. Ongoing implementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s engineering standards would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in San Leandro and all roadway improvements necessary to serve development facilitated by the 2035 General Plan would be required to be reviewed by appropriate City staff (such as Fire, Police and/or Building) prior to approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Similarly, development facilitated by the project would adhere to the City’s engineering standards, and all roadway improvements would be required to be reviewed by appropriate City staff prior to approval to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. Additionally, development Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-19
facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code, such as providing two separated and approved fire apparatus access roads that have a minimum width of 20-feet with turning radii of 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. As discussed in Section 4.7, Public Services and Recreation, development facilitated by the project would be adequately served by the Alameda County Fire Department. Further, as discussed in Section 4.10, Effects Found Not to be Significant, development facilitated by the project would not result in significant impacts to evacuation routes or plans. Proposed policies in the Environmental Hazards Element would also increase coordination between safety and law enforcement agencies in the event of an emergency.

Development facilitated by the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
There would be no impact. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative setting for transportation impacts is the City of San Leandro.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
Given that the total VMT per service population is forecasted to decrease with the project, the additional housing units and changes in land uses being proposed will help the city to decrease VMT generated on a per capita basis over time. According to OPR guidance, a project that is below the VMT impact thresholds and does not therefore have a VMT impact under baseline conditions also would not result in a cumulative impact as long as the project is aligned with long-term State environmental goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and relevant plans, such as the ABAG RTP/SCS. Therefore, since the project would generate home-based VMT per capita that is more than 15 percent below the Central Planning Area baseline and reduce total VMT per capita in the city under future (2040) conditions the project would not result in a cumulative VMT impact.

Compatibility with Programs, Plans, Ordinances, and Policies Related to Circulation
Cumulative plans and projects, including the project, would be required to comply with local regulations and policies. The plans’ incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Roadway Safety and Emergency Access
Roadways constructed as part of the project would be required to comply with City of San Leandro design standards. Modifications to public rights-of-way would be consistent with appropriate regulations and design standards set forth by the respective city’s applicable plans, programs, and policies. Similarly, cumulative development would also be required to comply with the respective city’s regulations and policies. Trucks necessary to construct cumulative development would utilize truck routes designated by the respective cities and would not conflict with the automobile traffic and bicycle and pedestrian activity along city streets. If cumulative development would redesign city streets in such a way that would significantly impact roadway safety, they would be required by the city to mitigate such impacts. In addition, driveways associated with cumulative development would be constructed in compliance with the California Fire Code and other applicable regulations related City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-20
to roadway safety and emergency access. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to roadway safety and emergency vehicle access would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1

4.9 Utilities and Service Systems
This section evaluates potential significant impacts to utilities and service systems that could result from implementation of the project. The analysis in this section considers the utilities and service systems analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis of potential changes as proposed by the project. Impacts related to energy and natural gas demand are provided in Section 4.3, Energy.

4.9.1 Setting
a. Water Supply
Water service to the City of San Leandro is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), a public utility. EBMUD is responsible for service connections and water delivery to most of Alameda County and much of Contra Costa County. San Leandro comprises about 6 percent of the EMBUD’s customer base and uses about 5 percent of its water.

Approximately 90 percent of the EBMUD water supply originates from the melting snowpack of the Sierra Nevada. The principal water source is the Mokelumne River watershed, a 575-square mile area located in Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties. Water is stored in reservoirs in the Sierra foothills and is transported by aqueduct to filter plants and reservoirs in the East Bay Hills. The other 10 percent of the EBMUD’s water comes from runoff on protected East Bay Area watershed lands.

EBMUD also has a contract for water supply intake from the Central Valley Project (CVP) on the Sacramento River. EBMUD relies on CVP deliveries during dry and critically dry periods (EBMUD 2020a).

Requirements to maintain minimum flows to sustain fish and wildlife populations on rivers in the Mokelumne watershed may curtail entitlements in the future. The water is treated at one of six water treatment plants (WTP) before delivery to customers. Water delivered to San Leandro customers is treated at the Orinda or Upper San Leandro filter plants (City of San Leandro 2016b).

Each water district adopts an urban water management plan (UWMP), which is a long-range planning document used to assess current and projected water usage, water supply planning and conservation and recycling efforts. The EBMUD adopted a 2020 UWMP and a 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan which determined that under base condition assumptions, EBMUD can meet customer demand out to 2050 during normal years and single dry years; however, during multi-year droughts, even with customer demand reduction measures in place, EBMUD will need to obtain supplemental supplies to meet customer demands (EBMUD 2020b).

EBMUD uses a three year “drought planning sequence” (DPS) to assess the adequacy of its water supply for long-term water resources planning. EBMUD uses a DPS to simulate the effects of a severe, multi-year drought as the basis of EBMUD’s long-term water supply planning. New legislation (Senate Bill 606) also now requires the UWMP to include a drought risk assessment that examines water shortage risks for a drought lasting at least five consecutive years (EBMUD 2020b).

Table 4.9-1 shows the forecasted normal year and dry year water supplies and demand.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-2
Table 4.9-1 EBMUD Normal and Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020-2050 EBMUD Planning Level of Demand 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Normal Year
Mokelumne Supply (mgd) >181 >186 >190 >194 >201 >209 >218 Demand (taf) 181 186 190 194 201 209 218
Need for Water (taf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year
Mokelumne Supply (mgd) 121 126 129 132 138 144 151
CVP Supplies (mgd) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Total Supplies (mgd) 181 186 189 192 198 204 211
Voluntary Rationing (%) 0 0 1 1 2 2 3
Need for Water (taf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Second Dry Year
Mokelumne Supply (mgd) 82 86 89 92 98 104 111
CVP Supplies (mgd) 74 74 74 74 74 74 74
Total Supplies (mgd) 156 161 164 167 172 178 185
Mandatory Rationing (%) 13 13 13 14 14 14 15
Need for Water (taf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Third Dry Year
Mokelumne Supply (mgd) 141 145 146 145 132 118 105
CVP Supplies (mgd) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Supplies (mgd) 153 157 158 157 144 130 117
Mandatory Rationing (%) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Need for Water – Base Condition (taf) 0 0 0 0 28 52 75
Need for Water – High Demand Scenario (taf) 0 0 21 35 60 97 125 Need for Water – Extreme Drought Scenario (taf) 0 0 0 13 32 55 84 mgd = million gallons per day
taf = thousand acre-feet
CVP = Central Valley Project
Source: EBMUD 2020b
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3
For the extreme drought scenario, EBMUD bases its CVP allocation on what can and did occur during the most recent drought. In 2015, EMBUD received 25 percent allocation of CVP water supplies. Therefore, for this scenario, EBMUD takes CVP water when Stage 2 of the DMP is triggered and assumes only 25 percent of CVP allocation is received (EBMUD 2020b). Based on the reduced CVP allocation assumption, EBMUD’s total available water supply storage is nearly empty at the end of the second year of a drought period and the entire third year of a drought period. Despite the reduced CVP allocation assumption, the extreme drought scenario did not change significantly from the base condition because, although CVP diversions were reduced in years 2 and 3, they were still available throughout the drought period analyzed (EBMUD 2020b).

Average daily water use is lower in coastal areas such as San Leandro compared to inland portions of the EBMUD service area. To meet demand during dry years, EBMUD participates in the Bay Area Regional Reliability Project, manages several major projects involving reliability and process upgrades for water treatment plants and construction of new transmission facilities, and developed a water transfer program to secure dry-year water supplies to meet customer demands. EBMUD is also considering actions to increase available surface water storage, such as exploring several conjunctive use and groundwater banking/exchange programs, considering participation in a planned expansion of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir and/or a regional desalination project. EBMUD has developed a process and policies for monitoring, assessing, and responding to annual water supply availability. EBMUD’s Water Supply Availability and Deficiency Policy 9.03 describes its process for evaluating the adequacy of its water supplies every year. Since the early 1980s, EBMUD has completed annual water shortage assessments to help make informed decisions on water supply management (EBMUD 2020b).

In addition to the EBMUD water supply, there are also approximately 800 private wells in San Leandro. Most of these wells are dormant or are used for water quality monitoring, landscape irrigation, and local industry. Domestic consumption is prohibited because of water quality concerns (City of San Leandro 2016b).

Water Distribution
EBMUD distributes its water through a system of pipelines, storage reservoirs, water treatment plants, and pumping plants Within the EBMUD service area, the water distribution network includes 4,200 miles of pipe, 167 water distribution reservoirs, and 131 water pumping plants. EBMUD’s water supply system delivers 325 mgd to its 1.4 million customers and has a capacity of 830 million gallons (EBMUD 2020a, City of San Leandro 2016b).

There are currently no major water storage facilities in San Leandro. Rather, the city is served by nearby facilities in Castro Valley and Oakland, including the Dunsmuir Reservoir just outside the northeastern city limits. Pipelines in San Leandro range from 4 to 36 inches in diameter. EBMUD operates and maintains all water distribution lines within the city and is responsible for all facilities up to the location of the water meter (City of San Leandro 2016b).

Water Conservation
The City of San Leandro and EBMUD have undertaken programs to conserve water and reduce the need for developing new supplies. These programs include public education and information, economic and financial incentives (rate structures), and a variety of “best management practices” such as water-saving plumbing fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping. The City complies with the City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-4
California Building Standards Code and the California Public Code, which identifies water consumption reduction measures in new development (City of San Leandro 2016a).

Additionally, the San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) and the Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD) provide treated and reclaimed water for irrigation and landscaping purposes within the city. The WPCP provides approximately 100 million gallons of recycled water per year to the Monarch Bay Golf Course, and in 2019 the WPCP opened the Recycled Water Station to provide free reclaimed water to San Leandro residents (City of San Leandro 2021a). b. Wastewater Collection and Treatment
The city’s sewer system consists of approximately 130 miles of pipe, ranging from 6 inches to 42 inches in diameter, and 13 remote lift stations. The sewers in the city system range in age from new to over 70 years old. The oldest sewers are located in the northeastern portion of the city from the Oakland city limits to Castro Street roughly between the Southern Pacific Railroad and MacArthur Boulevard. This portion includes the downtown area and the oldest residential areas of the city. The City maintains roughly two thirds of the sewers within the city limits, primarily serving the northern portion of the city. The remainder of the city is served by the OLSD. The sewage from the Citymanaged sewer system is conveyed to and treated at the City-managed WPCP. The treatment plants directs treated wastewater to an outfall controlled by East Bay Dischargers Authority, a joint powers authority, which discharges treated effluent to the San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco RWQCB established wastewater treatment requirements for the OLSD wastewater treatment plant and the EBDA outfall in an NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2012-0004), adopted in 2012. The NPDES Order sets a framework for operation of the plant and effluent from the plant (City of San Leandro 2016b).

San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant
The WPCP serves approximately 50,000 residents, as well as businesses, and treats approximately 5 mgd of wastewater with spikes up to 14 mgd (City of San Leandro 2021a). The WPCP has a maximum capacity of 9.7 mgd (EBMUD 2020a).

Wastewater at the plant receives advanced secondary treatment through an advanced activated sludge process. This is a biological treatment process that results in two byproducts -- treated effluent and biosolids (sludge). Sludge from the plant is rated Class A and is suitable for application as a soil conditioner for non-food agricultural use. The sludge is disposed through land spreading by a private contractor (City of San Leandro 2021a).

Oro Loma Sanitary District
The OLSD and Castro Valley Sanitary District (CVSD) jointly own the OLSD’s treatment plant, which has a permitted capacity of 20 mgd and treats an average dry weather flow of 12.4 mgd. OLSD treats wastewater using primary and secondary treatment, where trash and settleable solids are first removed through bar screens, grit chambers and settling tanks, then bacteria convers dissolved organic matter into suspended matter that can be settled out as sludge. The remaining wastewater is disinfected, discharged, then dewatered and hauled away (OLSD 2021a). OLSD owns, operates, and maintains a collection system with 273 miles of sewer pipes and 13 sewage lift stations. The OLSD has had an active sewer system management program since 1988 and has experienced very few overflows and line stoppages. Since the CVSD owns 25 percent of OLSD’s treatment plant, it independently transports its sewage to a joint interceptor system located 1.5 miles east of the treatment plant (OLSD 2021b).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5
c. Stormwater
The City of San Leandro Department of Public Works owns and maintains 175 miles of storm drain conduits throughout the city. The city’s storm drain system feeds into a larger system owned and operated by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCD). This system includes the lower reaches of San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks, as well as a number of channels extending into San Leandro neighborhoods west of I-880. The ACFCD’s drainage facilities include levees, pump stations, erosion control devices, and culverts. The ACFCD maintains these facilities, including fence repair, vegetation removal, preventive maintenance of pump stations, spill prevention and cleanup, and investigation of inquiries and clean water concerns (City of San Leandro 2016b).

Alameda County is divided into nine flood control zones by the ACFCD. San Leandro is located within Zones 2, 9, and 13. Zone 2 is the largest of the zones with 49 miles of underground pipes and serves the southern portion of San Leandro as well as part of the City of Hayward and unincorporated communities of Alameda County. Zone 9 serves the central portion of San Leandro and has 14 miles of underground pipes. Zone 13 serves the northern portion of the city and includes 13 miles of underground pipes. Creek restoration projects are currently underway in several ACFCD districts (ACFCD 2022). The construction, monitoring, and maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure are a joint effort between ACFCD and the San Leandro Public Works Department (City of San Leandro 2016b).
d. Solid Waste
The City of San Leandro has two distinct service areas for refuse and recycling services: San Leandro Sanitary District and Oro Loma Sanitary District. The two service providers that serve these areas are Alameda County Industries and Waste Management of Alameda County. As shown in Table 4.9-2, the city’s solid waste was sent to seven landfills (as of 2019, latest available data): Altamont Landfill Resource Recovery Facility, Fink Road Landfill, North County Landfill and Recycling Center, Potrero Hills Landfill, Recology Hay Road Landfill, Redwood Landfill and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. About 81 percent of San Leandro’s solid waste was sent to the Altamont Landfill Resource Recovery Facility and the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle 2022a).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-6
Table 4.9-2 Estimated Landfill Capacities and Closure Date Landfill Facility
Permitted
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Remaining
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Maximum
Permitted
Throughput
(tons per day)
Anticipated
Closure Date
Altamont Landfill Resource Recovery Facility 124,400,000 65,400,000 11,150 2070 Fink Road Landfill 14,640,000 7,184,701 2,400 2023
North County Landfill and Recycling Center 41,200,000 35,400,000 825 2048 Potrero Hills Landfill 83,100,000 13,872,000 4,330 2048 Recology Hay Road Landfill 37,000,000 30,433,000 2,400 2077 Redwood Landfill 26,077,000 26,000,000 2,300 2036
Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill 32,970,000 7,379,000 2,518 2022 Source: CalRecycle 2022a
CalRecycle identifies Maximum Permitted Throughput only in Tons/Day, while Maximum Permitted Capacity and Remaining Capacity are only provided in Cubic Yards; therefore, standard conversion factors provided by the EPA (U.S. EPA 2016) are used to provide all figures in both Tons and Cubic Yards. EPA identifies a standard conversion factor for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) compacted to “Landfill Density” of 1,700 pounds per cubic yard, equating to approximately 0.8 ton per cubic yard of compacted MSW.

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. Standard Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf (accessed July 5, 2022). e. Telecommunications
Telecommunication services including telephone and residential internet services are provided by AT&T and Comcast. Business internet services are provided by Lit San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2021b).

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
The regulatory setting for utilities is provided below, organized by the topics addressed in this section, including water supply, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, and telecommunications. a. Water Supply
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act, enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since, is the primary federal law that regulates water quality in the United States. It forms the basis for several State and local laws throughout the country. The Clean Water Act established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority to implement federal pollution control programs, such as setting water quality standards for contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry categories, and imposing requirements for controlling nonpoint-source pollution. At the federal level, the Clean Water Act is administered by the USEPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). At the state and regional levels in California, the act is administered and enforced by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-7
State
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater and requires groundwater sustainability plans to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins.

The developed area of San Leandro is within the East Bay Plain Subbasin, which is a part of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. EBMUD and the City of Hayward are the two exclusive groundwater sustainability agencies for the East Bay Plain Subbasin, and as such are required to submit a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for management of the subbasin. EBMUD and the City of Hayward released a notice of intent to adopt the East Bay Plain Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan in September 2021 (EBMUD 2021).

Senate Bills 610 and 221, Water Supply Assessment and Verification Senate Bills (SB) 610 and 221 amended State law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between the information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects with greater than 500 dwelling units or 500,000 square feet of commercial space. Both statutes also require this detailed information to be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. Under SB 610 water assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects as defined in Water Code 10912 subject to CEQA. Under SB 221 approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply.

California Department of Water Resources
The California Department of Water Resources is responsible for preparing and updating the California Water Plan, which is a policy document that guides the development and management of State water resources. The plan is updated every five years to reflect changes in resources and urban, agricultural, and environmental water demands. The California Water Plan suggests ways of managing demand and augmenting supply to balance water supply with demand.

Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983 the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Section 10610–10656). The Act states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000 acre-feet annually, should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Act requires that urban water suppliers adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) at least once every five years and submit them to the Department of Water Resources. Noncompliant urban water suppliers are ineligible to receive funding pursuant to Division 24, commencing with Section 78500, or Division 26, commencing with Section 79000, or receive drought assistance from the State until the UWMP is submitted and deemed complete pursuant to the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-8
Senate Bill 7x7 Statewide Water Conservation
In November 2009 the California State Legislature passed and the Governor approved a comprehensive package of water legislation, including SB 7x7 addressing water conservation. In general SB 7x7 requires a 20 percent reduction in per capita urban water use by 2020, with an interim 10 percent target in 2015. The legislation requires urban water users to develop consistent water use targets and to use those targets in their UWMPs.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code) The State of California is authorized to administer Federal or State laws regulating water pollution within the State. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Section 13000, et seq.) includes provisions to address requirements of the Clean Water Act. These provisions include National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, dredge and fill programs, and civil and administrative penalties. The Porter-Cologne Act is broad in scope and addresses issues relating to the conservation, control, and utilization of the water resources of the State.

Additionally, the Porter-Cologne Act states that the quality of all the waters of the State, including groundwater and surface water, must be protected for the use and enjoyment by the people of the State.

In California, the NPDES program is administered by the SWRCB through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and requires municipalities to obtain permits that outline programs and activities to control wastewater and stormwater pollution. The federal Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of stormwater from construction projects unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The SWRCB is the permitting authority in California, and adopted an NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, otherwise known as the Construction General Permit (Order 2009-0009, as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). The Order applies to construction sites that include one or more acre of soil disturbance. Construction activities include clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, stockpiling, and reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal or replacement. The Construction General Permit requires that the landowner and/or contractor file permit registration documents prior to commencing construction and then pay a fee annually through the duration of construction. These documents include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and signed certification statement. The SWPPP must include measures to ensure that: all pollutants and their sources are controlled; non-stormwater discharges are identified and eliminated, controlled, or treated; site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges; and BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed and maintained. The Construction General Permit specifies minimum BMP requirements for stormwater control based on the risk level of the site. The Permit also specifies minimum qualifications for a qualified SWPPP developer and qualified SWPPP practitioner. b. Wastewater
Federal
Clean Water Act Section 401
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States and/or the State of California Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-9
through the issuance of water quality certifications, which are issued in conjunction with any federal permit (e.g., permits issued by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, described above). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides the SWRCB and the RWQCBs with the regulatory authority to waive, certify, or deny any proposed activity that could result in a discharge to surface waters of the State. To waive or certify an activity, these agencies must find that the proposed discharge would comply with State water quality standards, including those protecting beneficial uses and water quality. If these agencies deny the proposed activity, the federal permit cannot be issued. This water quality certification is generally required for projects requiring Section 404 authorization involving the discharge of dredged or fill material to wetlands or other waters of the United States.

Clean Water Act Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act requires that all construction sites on an acre or greater of land, as well as municipal, industrial and commercial facilities discharging wastewater or stormwater directly from a point source, such as a pipe, ditch, or channel, into a surface water of the United States must obtain permission under the NPDES permit. All NPDES permits are written to ensure that the surface water receiving discharges will achieve specified water quality standards.

State and Regional
Title 22 of California Code of Regulations
Title 22 regulates the use of reclaimed wastewater. In most cases only disinfected tertiary water may be used on food crops where the recycled water comes into contact with the edible portion of the crop. Disinfected secondary treatment may be used for food crops where the edible portion is produced below ground and will not come into contact with the secondary effluent. Lesser levels of treatment are required for other types of crops, such as orchards, vineyards, and fiber crops.

The California Department of Public Health sets specific requirements for treated effluent reuse, or recycled water, through Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. These requirements are primarily set to protect public health. The California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Sections 60301 through 60355 are used to regulate recycled wastewater and are administered jointly by the California Department of Public Health and the RWQCBs. Title 22 contains effluent requirements for four levels of wastewater treatment, from un-disinfected secondary recycled water to disinfected tertiary recycled water. Higher levels of treatment have higher effluent standards, allowing for a greater number of uses under Title 22, including irrigation of freeway landscaping, pasture for milk animals, parks and playgrounds, and vineyards and orchards for disinfected tertiary recycled water. Salt concentrations, such as chloride, nitrogen, and sodium, in the effluent are regulated based on the Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (SFBRWQCB 2019), which also considers local groundwater quality.

Local
San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The General Plan’s Community Services and Facilities Element includes goals, policies, and actions applicable to wastewater. Policy CSF-6.2 requires future development to pay its fair share of the cost of improving the water, sewer, storm drainage, and other infrastructure systems needed to serve that development. Development impact fees, development agreements, and other City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-10
appropriate forms of mitigation should be used to cover the costs of upgrading or expanding public infrastructure. Policy CSF-6.4 directs the City to maintain efficient, environmentally sound, and costeffective wastewater collection and treatment services in San Leandro. Policy CSF-6.5 maintain adequate capacity at the San Leandro wastewater treatment plant to accommodate projected levels of growth within the service area and directs the City to encourage the Oro Loma Sanitary District to do the same. Policy CSF-6.5 support efforts to maintain and/or improve the high quality of treated effluent at both plants and increase the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using recycled wastewater for non-potable purposes.
c. Stormwater
Federal
Clean Water Act Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act requires that all construction sites on an acre or greater of land, as well as municipal, industrial and commercial facilities discharging wastewater or stormwater directly from a point source (e.g., pipe, ditch, or channel) into a surface water of the United States must obtain permission under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

All NPDES permits are written to ensure that the surface water receiving discharges will achieve specified water quality standards.

According to federal regulations, NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity can be obtained through individual State permits or general permits. Individual permitting involves the submittal of specific data on a single construction project to the appropriate permitting agency that will issue a site-specific NPDES permit to a project. NPDES coverage under a general permit involves the submittal of a Notice of Intent by the regulated construction project that they intend to comply with a general permit to be developed by USEPA or a state with delegated permitting authority.

In California, the NPDES program is administered by the SWRCB through the RWQCBs and requires municipalities to obtain permits that outline programs and activities to control wastewater and stormwater pollution. The Federal Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of stormwater from construction projects unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The SWRCB is the permitting authority in California, and adopted an NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order 2009-0009, as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). Containment and spill cleanup are also encompassed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This includes inspections for spills, a requirement that chemicals be stored in watertight containers with secondary containment to prevent spillage or leakage, procedures for addressing hazardous and non-hazardous spills, including a spill response and implementation procedure, include on-site equipment for cleanup and spills, and spill training for construction personnel.1

The order applies to construction sites that include one or more acre of soil disturbance. Regulated construction activities include clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, stockpiling, and reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal or replacement. The Construction General Permit requires that the landowner and/or contractor file permit registration documents prior to commencing construction and then pay a fee annually through the duration of construction. These documents include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, stormwater pollution prevention 1 See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-11
plan (SWPPP), and signed certification statement. The SWPPP must include measures to ensure that: all pollutants and their sources are controlled; non-stormwater discharges are identified and eliminated, controlled, or treated; site best management practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges; and BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed and maintained. The Construction General Permit specifies minimum BMP requirements for stormwater control based on the risk level of the site.

State
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11) includes mandatory measures for residential and nonresidential development. For example, Section 4.106.2 requires residential projects that disturb less than one acre and are not part of a larger common plan of development to manage stormwater drainage during construction through on-site retention basins, filtration systems, and/or compliance with a stormwater management ordinance. Section 5.106.1 requires newly constructed nonresidential projects and additions of less than one acre to prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff from construction through compliance with a local ordinance or implementing BMPs that address soil loss and good housekeeping to manage equipment, materials, and wastes. Section 5.303 sets measures for indoor water use for non-residential development requiring metering devices to conserve water.

Local
Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program
The San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015- 0049 (MRP) issues the Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES Permit for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) of over 70 municipalities, including San Leandro, and local agencies in five Bay Area counties. Under the MRP, permittees are prohibited from non-stormwater discharges into storm drain systems and watercourses. Permitted discharges must not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving waters. Upon a determination by either the MRP permittee(s) or the RWQCB that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standards, the permittee(s) must notify, within no more than 30 days, and thereafter submit a report to the RWQCB. The report must describe controls or best management practices (BMPs) that are currently being implemented, and the current level of implementation, and additional controls or BMPs that will be implemented, and/or an increased level of implementation, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards. The MRP also sets forth requirements for monitoring water quality.

The Clean Water Program Provision C.3 provides requirements for all new private or public development and redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious services, and special land use projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces (i.e., uncovered parking areas, restaurants, auto service facilities, retail gas outlets).

Provision C.3 requires the implementation of stormwater controls such as site design measures, source control measures, and in certain instances low impact development (LID) treatment measures that are hydraulically sized in order to prevent runoff rates from development to increase (Alameda County Clean Water Program 2021). As part of the Clean Water Program, projects that City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-12
disturb more than one acre of land must prepare stormwater pollution prevention plans and include monitoring programs to show how the project will comply with post-construction runoff requirements.

City of San Leandro Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance The City of San Leandro manages stormwater and regulates discharge into storm drains through a Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The City adheres to the SWRCB requirements for permitting for specific types of industrial and construction activities, such as obtaining a NPDES permit prior to construction.
d. Solid Waste
Federal
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 258 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA, Subtitle D) contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design, groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.

State
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees, manages, and monitors waste generated in California. CalRecycle provides limited grants and loans to help California cities, counties, businesses, and organizations meet the State waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. It also provides funds to clean up solid waste disposal sites and co-disposal sites, including facilities that accept hazardous waste substances and non-hazardous waste. CalRecycle develops, manages, and enforces waste disposal and recycling regulations, including AB 939 and SB 1016, both of which are described below.

Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (Public Resources Code 41780) requires cities and counties to prepare integrated waste management plans and to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare Source Reduction and Recycling Elements as part of the integrated waste management plans. These elements are designed to develop recycling services to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing and stimulate the purchase of recycled products.

Assembly Bill 341 – Mandatory Commercial Recycling
The purpose of AB 341 is to reduce GHG emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California. AB 341 required all businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi-family dwellings with five or more units to recycle by July 1, 2012.

AB341 also sets a statewide goal of 75 percent waste diversion.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-13
Senate Bill 1016
SB 1016 requires that the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement established by AB 939 be expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 changed the CalRecycle review process for each municipality’s integrated waste management plan. CalRecycle reviews a jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element and hazardous waste element once every two years.

Local
Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan: Countywide Element The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan is a State-mandated plan prepared by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. The Plan identifies solid waste facilities and wastesheds within Alameda County. It describes the countywide plan for reaching the Statemandated 50 percent recycling goal and the county-mandated 75 percent recycling goal. Waste reduction and disposal facilities in the county that require Solid Waste Facility Permits must conform to policies and siting criteria contained in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.

Alameda County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance
The Alameda County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance prohibits the disposal of certain readily recyclable materials. It requires multifamily residential properties with five or more units and businesses with four cubic yards or more of weekly garbage service to provide on-site recycling to handle the amount of recyclable materials generated at the location. Phase 1 of the Ordinance became effective July 1, 2012. Phase II of the Ordinance expands the recycling requirement to all businesses and adds discarded food and compostable paper products to list of covered materials.

The City plans to participate in Phase II in near future.

Alameda County Reusable Bag Ordinance
The objective of this countywide ordinance is to reduce the use of single-use carryout bags and to promote the use of reusable bags. As of January 1, 2013, grocery stores and other stores in Alameda County that sell packaged food no longer provide single-use plastic carryout bags, nor do they distribute paper bags or reusable bags for free at checkout, pursuant to the Ordinance.

San Leandro Green Building Ordinance
The City's Green Building Ordinance requires a minimum Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) rating of "Silver" for construction projects valued at over $3 million on City-owned facilities. LEED designation is given to buildings that use recycled-content materials, among other qualifications.

San Leandro 2035 General Plan
General Plan Policy OSC-7.1 directs the City to actively promote recycling, composting, and other programs that reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal in landfills. Actions under this program direct the City to expand recycling programs for multi-family dwellings and commercialindustrial customers, and to implement construction and demolition debris recycling, e-waste recycling, and green waste and food waste recycling programs. Policy CSF-6.2 requires future development to pay its fair share of the cost of improving the water, sewer, storm drainage, and other infrastructure systems needed to serve that development. Development impact fees, City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-14
development agreements, and other appropriate forms of mitigation should be used to cover the costs of upgrading or expanding public infrastructure. Policy CSF-6.3 directs the City to coordinate local infrastructure planning with EBMUD, the Oro Loma Sanitary District, Alameda County, and other service providers to ensure that infrastructure remains adequate to serve existing and planned development.
e. Telecommunications
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) develops and implements policies for the telecommunication industry. The Communications Division is responsible for licensing, registration and the processing tariffs of local exchange carriers, competitive local carriers, and non-dominant interexchange carriers. It is also responsible for registration of wireless service providers and franchising of video service providers. The Division tracks compliance with commission decisions and monitors consumer protection and service issues and Commission reliability standards for safe and adequate service. The Communications Division is responsible for oversight and implementation of the six public purpose Universal Service Programs (CPUC 2021b).

4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this SEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact if it would do any of the following:

1. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects

2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years

3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments

4. 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

5. Would not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the 2035 General Plan EIR analyzes the 2035 General Plan’s impacts related to water supply, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater infrastructure. The 2035 General Plan EIR addresses CEQA Guidelines thresholds and found no significant impacts. The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan:
 Would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project from existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-15
 Would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.  Would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
 Would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
 Would not result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.  Would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs.
 Would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.  Would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.

The project would accommodate increased residential units and office space, as outlined in Section 2, Project Description, which may lead to impacts related to utilities and service systems which were not analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR. Therefore, all the CEQA checklist items listed above under the Methodology and Significance Thresholds section are addressed in this analysis. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: 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?
Impact UTIL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT MAY REQUIRE THE RELOCATION OR

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED WATER, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, ELECTRIC POWER, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY. WHILE NEW CONNECTIONS

TO EXISTING UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS COULD BE REQUIRED, SUCH CONNECTIONS WOULD NOT RESULT IN

DISTURBANCE BEYOND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT SITES AND ADJACENT INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain Facilities
The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that anticipated growth from the 2035 General Plan would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The 2035 General Plan EIR noted existing water conservation programs, state and local regulations, and General Plan policies would result in a less than significant impact.

Development facilitated by the project would create additional demand for water in San Leandro. As described in the Project Description, the project would facilitate increased densities over what is currently allowed. The project could result in an additional 12,400 residents above the General Plan EIR assumption, as detailed in Section 4.6, Population and Housing. As described in Impact UTIL-2 below, project demand would be served by existing and planned EBMUD water supplies, which are City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-16
not anticipated to require the relocation or construction of new or expanded treatment or distribution facility improvements.

As noted in Impact UTIL-3 below, existing wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to treat project generation and would not need to be expanded. Minor infrastructure upgrades to conveyance systems could be needed due to increased demand to meet the demand generated by the additional residents that could be accommodated as a result of the project, particularly in areas with aging water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure. As noted in the 2035 General Plan EIR and the 2018 BTOD Specific Plan EIR, the precise sizing of the wastewater conveyance pipes would be determined at the project level and would be subject to the approval of the City to ensure that the system would be adequate. Due to the small scope of these minor infrastructure upgrades and limited ground disturbance, the environmental impacts of these upgrades would not result in significant environmental impacts.

Construction of conveyance pipes would occur within developed areas, such as existing paved rights-of-way, that already contain underground infrastructure for utilities. Installation of upgraded infrastructure would result in ground disturbance. Compliance with existing policies would minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources including protected biological resources and water bodies in the City’s watershed, such as the San Leandro Creek. Projects that involve the disturbance of one acre or more of land would be subject to NPDES construction permit requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP, which includes BMPs to limit the discharge of sediment and nonstormwater discharges from the site. Projects that involve the creation and/or replacement of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would trigger the implementation of source control measures and site design measures to address stormwater runoff, as per the C.3 provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program. In addition, stormwater treatment measures are required to contain site runoff, using specific numeric sizing criteria based on volume and flow rate, to reduce potential contamination. Therefore, the project would not result in significant environmental effects from construction or relocation of water facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded allowable development with buildout of the General Plan would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands and would not require new energy supply facilities and transmission.

The project would require connections to existing electrical transmission and distribution systems on site to serve development facilitated by the project. This service would be provided in accordance with the rules and regulations of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on file with and approved by CPUC. Based on the availability of existing electrical infrastructure, it is not anticipated that the construction of new electrical transmission and distribution lines or other facilities would be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate electrical facilities to serve development as a result of the project and impacts related to electricity would be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the project would connect to existing natural gas infrastructure to meet the needs of housing units and office space. As directed by the City’s adopted CAP, the City is committing to developing a reach code limiting natural gas use in new construction, or as directed by the State or regional agencies. The reach codes are scheduled for adoption in late 2022, concurrently with the 2022 Building Standards Code that will go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Therefore, no new natural gas lines are anticipated for most future construction. Based on the availability of existing natural gas infrastructure, construction of new natural gas pipelines would Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-17
not be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate natural gas facilities to serve the development as a result of the project and impacts related to natural gas would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
The project would require connections to existing utility infrastructure to meet the needs of housing units and office space. Based on the availability of existing telecommunications infrastructure, construction of new telephone and cable lines would not be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to applicable laws and regulations related to the connection to existing telecommunication infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate telecommunications facilities to serve the development as a result of the project and impacts related to telecommunications would not be significant.

The proposed policies in the updated Environmental Hazards Element and the proposed Environmental Justice Element would not significantly impact water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 2: Would the General Plan Update have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A NET INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND. HOWEVER, THIS INCREASE IN DEMAND CAN BE SERVED BY PROJECTED AND REASONABLY AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that water supplies would be sufficient to serve anticipated growth, based on the 2010 EBMUD UWMP forecast for 2020. The EBMUD identifies a total 2035 water demand forecast of 264 mgd that can be reduced to 194 mgd with the successful implementation of water recycling and conservation programs. Multifamily uses are projected to comprise 52 mgd in 2035 (EBMUD 2020b).

EBMUD’s actual consumption in 2020 was 121 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (EBMUD 2020a).

Using this rate, the project’s projected 12,400 residents would require 1.5 mgd, or 0.8 percent of the 194 mgd projected water demand for the EBMUD service area. It is likely that the residential population attributed to the project would have a gpcd rate that is less than the average residential rate because the project would only add multifamily housing units, which tend to use substantially less per capita water than single-family housing units (EBMUD 2020b). Therefore, the population increase associated with the project would comprise less than 0.8 percent of the total projected water demand for the EBMUD service area and therefore sufficient water supply would be available under normal year conditions, single-dry year, and second-dry year conditions with implementation of water conservation measures and additional water supplies from the Central Valley Project (CVP), as discussed in the 2020 UWMP. Supplemental water supplies would be needed in the third year of a drought in addition to rationing and obtaining water deliveries from CVP. The 2020 UWMP outlines water supply projects to help supplement a water supply shortage, including pursuing additional water supplies. Therefore, with implementation of existing water conservation programs City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-18
and EBMUD’s supplemental supply plans, impacts on water supplies would be less than significant (EBMUD 2020b).

As noted in Section 4.6, Population and Housing, employment for the additional 75,000 square feet of office in the BTOD Specific Plan area would likely be filled by residents of San Leandro or surrounding cities, who would already be accounted for in the EBMUD forecast projections. In the unlikely scenario that all employees for this office space would be new employees within the EMBUS service district, this analysis estimates the water demand from the development of the proposed office space. EBMUD prepared a water supply assessment for the BTOD Specific Plan, dated July 11, 2017. The water supply assessment calculated a flowrate factor of 0.093 gpd per square foot of new office space (City of San Leandro 2018). The 75,000 square feet of proposed office space would generate approximately 6,975 gpd, or 0.007 mgd of water demand, equal to less than 0.003 percent of the projected water demand of 194 mgd for the EBMUD service area.

Development facilitated by the project would adhere to State and local policies to conserve water during construction and operation in normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Construction water demand would be temporary and therefore would not result in a long-term demand on water supplies. Construction activities that may temporarily increase water demand include concrete batching, dust suppression, and drilling and piling. If water supplies are severely depleted, EBMUD’s Board of Directors may declare a water shortage emergency and implement the Drought Management Program (DMP), which is designed to provide guidance to minimize drought impacts on its customers while continuing to meet stream flow release requirements and obligations to water users, putting into effect certain regulations, ordinances, and surcharges to reduce water consumption. Implementation of the DMP would allow EBMUD to meet the needs of future development during a water shortage emergency. With implementation of the DMP and due to the temporary nature of construction water demand, buildout of the project would not result in a significant impact on water supply from EBMUD. In addition, EBMUD will incorporate the increased population and housing forecasts from the project into its future water supply planning efforts, such as future updates to the UWMP, to account for any increased water demand.

The proposed Environmental Hazards Element includes Action EH-2.4.A: Fire Flow Adequacy, which directs the City to require all public water providers to maintain adequate water supply systems and flows to meet fire suppression needs throughout the city including new and existing development.

This proposed action may require additional water supply than current conditions. The City would manage water supply needs for fire suppression through cooperation with EBMUD. The EBMUD considers fire flows in projected future water demands within the 2020 UWMP and in planning new and replacement pipelines. In addition, the EBMUD works with new development to identify necessary pipeline improvements to meet fire flow requirements which are paid in full cost by the developer.

Policies in the 2035 General Plan, such as Policy CSF-6.6, Reclaimed Water System, would continue to reduce the need for fresh water demand. Policy CSF-6.6 directs the City to continue the expansion of the reclaimed water system, and the delivery of high quality reclaimed water for landscaping, industrial use, and other non-potable applications as they become financially feasible.

The policy also directs the City to employ advanced technology so that reclaimed water can eventually be made available to all households. The BTOD Specific Plan also employs policies for water reduction, such as requiring irrigation of landscaping from reclaimed water, and the use of drought-tolerant plant materials in landscaping.

The policies in the proposed Environmental Justice Element would not significantly impact water supplies. As a result, impacts from the project to water supply would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-19
Under normal year conditions, buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies. In single-dry year and multiple-dry years.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 3: 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? Impact UTIL-3 THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A NET INCREASE IN WASTEWATER. HOWEVER, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded San Leandro sewer collection and wastewater treatment has sufficient excess capacity at the San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant and the Oro Loma plant to treat additional wastewater as a result of buildout of the General Plan. The 2035 General Plan EIR noted adherence to local municipal code, sewer system management plans, and regional and state wastewater treatment requirements would result in a less than significant impact. The 2035 General Plan EIR conservatively assumed that 90 percent of increased water demand becomes wastewater.

Using this same assumption, the project would generate 90 percent of the estimated 1.5 mgd of water calculated in UTIL-2, or 1.35 mgd of wastewater.

Oro Loma Sanitation District
The project would facilitate the development of an estimated 2,815 residential units in the OLSD service area, based on the service area description in Figure 4.14-1 of the 2035 General Plan EIR.

These 2,815 residential units represent approximately 57 percent of the project’s total residential units. Therefore, it can be assumed that these residential units would generate approximately 57 percent of the project’s wastewater impact, equal to 0.77 mgd of wastewater. The project would also facilitate the development of 75,000 square feet of office space in the OLSD service area, which would generate 0.007 mgd of water demand. Using the assumption that 90 percent of increased water demand becomes wastewater, the proposed office space would generate 0.006 mgd of wastewater (the 2018 BTOD Specific Plan EIR assumed wastewater to be 80 percent of water use; 90 percent is the more conservative estimate used by the 2035 General Plan EIR). Together, the residential units and office space would conservatively generate approximately 0.78 mgd of wastewater in the OLSD service area.

The OLSD treatment plant has a permitted capacity of 20 mgd. EBMUD’s UWMP estimates that the OLSD treatment plant will treat 13.9 mgd of wastewater by 2035 based on current population and employment forecasts (EBMUD 2020a). The project’s contribution of 0.78 mgd would increase the projected 2035 flow to 14.7 mgd. The OLSD treatment plant would have a remaining permitted capacity of 5.3 mgd. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to the treatment capacity of the OLSD.

San Leandro Water Pollution Control District
The project would facilitate the development of an estimated 2,145 residential units in the WPCP service area. These 2,145 residential units represent approximately 43 percent of the project’s total City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-20
residential units. Therefore, it can be assumed that these residential units would generate 43 percent of the project’s wastewater impact for residential units, equal to 0.58 mgd of wastewater.

The WPCP has a maximum capacity of 9.7 mgd. EBMUD’s UWMP estimates that the WPCP will treat

5.7 mgd of wastewater by 2035 based on current population and employment forecasts (EBMUD 2020). The project’s contribution of 0.58 mgd would increase the projected 2035 flow to 6.3 mgd.

The WPCP would have a remaining capacity of 3.4 mgd. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to the treatment capacity of the WPCP.

Additionally, future development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to 2035 General Plan Policies. Policy CSF-6.1 requires the City to permit new development only when infrastructure and utilities can be provided to that development without diminishing the quality of service provided to the rest of the city. Policy CSF-6.2 requires future development to pay its fair share of the costs to improve water, sewer, storm drainage, and other infrastructure systems needed to serve a particular development. These policies ensure that development is not approved until it can be demonstrated that adequate wastewater collection capacity exists, or until a financial commitment to create such capacity has been secured.

The policies in the proposed Environmental Hazards Element and proposed Environmental Justice Element would not significantly impact the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. As a result, impacts from the project to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 4: 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?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTIL-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL STANDARDS, OR IN EXCESS OF THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE. THE

PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOALS AND WOULD COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded the City has sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the additional solid waste generated by an increased residential and employee population. The 2035 General Plan EIR noted policies and actions promoting conservation, recycling, and proper waste disposal would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that development facilitated by the 2035 General Plan would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulated related to solid waste. The EIR notes the City has complied with State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through reuse and recycling and the city’s per capita disposal rate is below the target rate established by CalRecycle.

CalRecycle estimates that multi-family residential uses generate an average of four pounds of solid waste per unit per day and that office uses generate 0.006 pounds per square feet per day (CalRecycle 2022b).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-21
As shown in Table 4.9-3, prior to implementation of recycling programs or State mandated diversion requirements, project development would generate an estimated 450 pounds, or 0.23 tons, of solid waste per day from office uses and 19,840 pounds of solid waste, or 9.92 tons, of solid waste per day from residential uses. In accordance with California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, cities and counties are required to divert 50 percent of all solid wastes from landfills.

Therefore, assuming 50 percent of generated waste is diverted, development associated with the project would send an estimated 5.08 tons of solid waste per day to area landfills, equating to approximately 10,145 pounds of solid waste per day.

Table 4.9-3 Project Solid Waste Generation
Use Quantity Generation Rate
Solid Waste
(Pounds/Day)
Solid Waste
(Tons/Day)
Solid Waste
(Cubic
Yards/Day)1
Solid Waste
(Cubic
Yards/Year)
Office 75,000
square feet
6 pounds/
1,000 square
feet/day
450 0.23 0.45 164.25
Multifamily
Residence
4,960 units 4.0 pounds/
unit/day
19,840 9.92 19.84 7,241.60
Total 20,290 10.15 20.29 7,405.85
Total With 50%
Diversion Rate
10,145 5.08 10.15 3,702.93
1 Based on the conversion factor described under Table 4.9-1, County-Service Landfill Capacity for “landfill density” Municipal Solid Waste, of approximately 750 to 1,250 pounds per cubic yard, or an average of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard.

Source: CalRecycle 2022b
Most of San Leandro’s solid waste goes to the Altamont Landfill Resource Recovery Facility and the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, which have a combined 72,779,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity.

Buildout of the project would yield an estimated 3,702.93 cubic yards per year of solid waste that would be disposed of at a landfill. The project would need to operate for approximately 19,654 years before reaching the remaining capacity of the two landfills. However, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, which handles approximately 24 percent of the city’s solid waste disposal, is scheduled to cease operations in at the end of 2022. When this landfill is unavailable in the future, it is likely the city’s solid waste volume could be increased at one or more of the other landfills that already serve the city. All other landfills have sufficient capacity to handle the projected solid waste disposal from the project. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local solid waste infrastructure.

The proposed policies in the Environmental Hazards Element and proposed Environmental Justice Element would not result in new residents or result in new sources of solid waste. These proposed policies would not significantly impact the capacity of solid waste infrastructure nor impede local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Continued compliance with applicable regulations and the 2035 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, including the City’s General Plan policies OSC-7.1, OSC-7.5, OSC-7.6, OSC-7.8, the City’s Green Building Checklist, and the City’s Green Building Ordinance, San Leandro Municipal Code Chapter 3-19, would ensure the project complies with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would lead to increased recycling and waste diversion.

As a result, impacts from the project to solid waste infrastructure and compliance would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-22
Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3].).

Extensions of Utility Facilities – Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Impacts related to the extension of water supply, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to reasonably foreseeable development are typically generated in the immediate vicinity of a project. Therefore, cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable development in the city related to extensions of water supply, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to individual projects sites are already addressed under UTIL-1. As discussed under UTIL-1, impacts to the utility facilities were found to be less than significant. Cumulative impacts of extensions of utility facilities to individual project sites would be less than significant.

Water
The analysis provided under Impact UTL-2 is cumulative in nature and considers water demand associated with the development included under the project, as well as water demands associated with other developments (existing and projected) within EBMUD’s service area. Development considered part of the cumulative analysis includes buildout of the City of San Leandro’s General Plan and other local General Plans. Under base condition assumptions, EBMUD can meet customer demand out to 2050 during normal years and single dry years; however, during multi-year droughts, even with customer demand reduction measures in place, EBMUD will need to obtain supplemental supplies to meet customer demands. The UMWP includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan which contains DMP Guidelines that establish the level of water use restrictions EBMUD may implement under varying conditions to meet water demand. In the event of a single dry year or multiple dry year, the DMP would be activated and depending on the water supply status, voluntary or mandatory rationing policies would be implemented. If warranted, the EBMUD would obtain additional water supply via water transfers or request Central Valley Project supplies from the United States Bureau of Reclamation.

Buildout of the project would not result in a significant impact on water supply from EBMUD.

EBMUD will incorporate the increased population and housing forecast from the project and General Plan updated from other jurisdictions in its service area into its future water supply planning efforts, such as future updates to the UWMP, to account for the increased water demand.

Therefore, although there would be a significant cumulative impact on water supply based on the need for supplemental water supplies to meet demand in the occurrence of multi-year droughts, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding water supply services.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-23
Wastewater
The geographic scope for cumulative wastewater impacts includes WPCP and OLSD service territory.

Cumulative buildout associated with the 2035 General Plan will continue to increase demands on the existing wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities. According to the 2035 General Plan EIR, buildout associated with the General Plan and future cumulative development within OLSD’s service area would not result in significant cumulative impacts such that a new or expanded wastewater treatment plant would be required. The wastewater treatment plants would continue to provide service to the city, including the project, with cumulative growth. Although the project would increase development in the city compared to what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, as described, current capacities of the wastewater treatment plants are sufficient to serve growth-related flow anticipated from the project.

WPCP, OLSD, and the City of San Leandro conduct repairs and upgrades to the existing wastewater conveyance system throughout the city on an as-needed basis. Continued implementation of system improvements would ensure sufficient conveyance and treatment capacity to meet cumulative needs. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with water conveyance and treatment would be less than significant. The project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact regarding water conveyance and treatment.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The geographic scope for cumulative electricity and natural gas impacts is the PG&E service area.

This geographic scope is appropriate because the local provider, PG&E, is responsible for transmitting electricity and natural gas to all land uses within its service area, including the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites. Development considered part of the cumulative analysis includes buildout of local General Plans.

PG&E is subject to the requirements set forth and/or enforced by the CPUC (CPUC 2021a). The need for electric and natural gas infrastructure would be addressed on a case-by-case basis for each cumulative project, and would be subject to CPUC requirements, similar to those applicable to the project. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to electric power and natural gas transmission facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact regarding electricity and natural gas.

Telecommunication
The geographic scope for cumulative telecommunications impacts is the telecommunication provider service area. This geographic scope is appropriate because local providers are responsible to provide adequate telecommunication infrastructure to all land uses within its service area, including the project location. Development considered part of the cumulative analysis includes buildout of the City of San Leandro General Plan.

As discussed above under Impact UTIL-1, project implementation requires connections to existing utility infrastructure to meet the needs of site residents and tenants. Cumulative development would increase demand for telecommunications infrastructure in the city. However, cumulative projects would each be required to provide adequate telecommunications infrastructure on a project-by-project basis and would be subject to the same requirements as the project. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant. The project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact regarding telecommunication services.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-24
Solid Waste
The geographic scope for cumulative solid waste impacts encompasses all areas in the city and Alameda County that contribute solid waste to the landfills listed in Table 4.9-2. The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that with continued compliance with applicable regulations, cumulative impacts related to solid waste would not be significant.

Although the project would increase development in the city compared to what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, as discussed under Impact UTL-4, area landfills have capacity to accommodate additional solid waste and potential impacts of buildout of the project would be less than significant. Cumulatively, other areas which utilize the same landfills as the City of San Leandro would likely also continue to experience growth and associated increases in solid waste generation.

State-mandated solid waste diversion rates (for recycling) would continue to minimize the quantity of waste directed to area landfills, and compliance with applicable regulations would maintain or improve upon existing solid waste diversion rates.

Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding solid waste services.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1

4.10 Effects Found Not to be Significant
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires an EIR to briefly describe any possible effects that were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. The sections below include the checklist questions listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and a brief discussion of environmental impacts that were determined to be less than significant. The analysis takes into account analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis applicable to the proposed project. The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that projects facilitated by the 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mineral Resources. This SEIR determined that the project would not result in significant impacts beyond those subject areas. Additionally, this SEIR determined that the project would not result in significant impacts to Aesthetics, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire. Any items not addressed in this section are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.9 of the SEIR.

4.10.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?  Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Based on the Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects CEQA Statute Section 21099(d), the aesthetic impacts of residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a transit priority area is not considered a significant impact on the environment. The project proposes an increase in the allowable densities, FAR, and building heights land use designations and zoning districts only within San Leandro’s three Transit Priority Areas. All parcels located within these three Transit Priority Areas are infill sites, and thus meet the criteria in CEQA Section 21099. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not impact aesthetics. Per CEQA Statute Section 21099(d), impacts to aesthetics by the project would not be significant.

4.10.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?  Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.10-2
 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))?  Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?  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 nonforest use? The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. The City of San Leandro is a highly urbanized city, and the 2035 General Plan, the 2035 General Plan land use map, and the City’s zoning ordinance do not identify any agricultural or forestry resources within the city (City of San Leandro 2016c). In addition, farmland maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation (CDOC) show that San Leandro does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDOC 2016).

Because the project would intensify development within San Leandro on parcels already zoned for residential or mixed use development, the project would not impact agricultural or forestry resources. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not impact agricultural or forestry resources. The project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would not conflict with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. Further, the project would not conflict with zoning for or result in the conversion of forestland, timberland, or timberland production areas. There would be no impact.

4.10.3 Biological Resources
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
 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?
 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?
 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, as projects developed under the 2035 General Plan would adhere to existing federal, State, and regional regulations and policies, as well as compliance with goals and standards in the 2035 General Plan and San Leandro Municipal Code. The 2035 General Plan would not result in substantial adverse effects to special-status species, riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, protected wetlands, or wildlife corridors and nursery sites. The 2035 General Plan would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and as no conservation plans have been approved in the city, development would not conflict with habitat conservation plans (page 4.3-22).

The project would accommodate increased density, FAR, and building heights in existing developed areas of the city, on sites already zoned for residential or mixed use development. Potential impacts to biological resources from development on these sites was already analyzed in the 2035 General Plan. If greater ground disturbance and construction would be required for utility upgrades to serve additional residences accommodated under the project, all work would be required to comply with federal, State, and local policies and regulations and could require site-specific biological resources studies or tree surveys prior to project approval. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not impact biological resources.

Policy OSC-6.4 and Action OSC-6.4.A of the 2035 General Plan serve to protect the habitat of specialstatus species and to avoid and mitigate development impacts to areas where special-status species could inhabit, reproduce, and migrate. Goal OSC-5 and Policies OSC-5.1 and 5.2 serve to protect, maintain, and restore San Leandro Creek as a natural resource and require development to mitigate potential impacts to the creek. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects to special-status species, riparian habitats, wetlands, wildlife corridors, or nursery sites (City of San Leandro 2016b).

Development in the city would be required to comply with San Leandro Municipal Code sections regarding natural resources. Specifically, Section 4-1-1000 serves to protect monarch butterfly overwintering colonies in the city, and Section 5-1-520 regulates the removal of trees in the city.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. Further, as San Leandro does not contain lands included in an adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan, development would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan and there would be no impact. Project impacts to biological resources would not be substantially greater than impacts concluded in the 2035 General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.

4.10.4 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Adherence to existing federal and State regulations and policies City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.10-4
pertaining to cultural resources, as well as compliance with policies and standards in the 2035 General Plan and San Leandro Municipal Code, would ensure that the 2035 General Plan would have less than significant impacts. The 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to the significance of a historical or archaeological resource.

The project would accommodate increased density, FAR, and building heights in existing developed areas of the city, on sites already zoned for residential or mixed use development. Potential impacts to cultural resources from development on these sites was already analyzed in the 2035 General Plan. If greater ground disturbance and construction would be required for utility upgrades to serve additional residences accommodated under the project, all work would be required to comply with federal, State, and local policies and regulations and could require additional site-specific studies prior to project approval. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not impact cultural resources.

As described in the 2035 General Plan EIR, development would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations that protect historic resources. These regulations include but are not limited to the National Historic Preservation Act, guidelines established by the California Register of Historic Resources, and Assembly Bill 52 which intends to protect tribal cultural resources. Development would be required to comply with the California Historical Building Code, which provides standards for preserving and restoring historic resources, and Chapter 4-26 of San Leandro Municipal Code, which regulates the recording, designation, and alteration of historic resources in the city. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that development would not adversely affect historic resources. Impacts from development facilitated under the project would not be substantially greater than impacts concluded in the 2035 General Plan EIR. In the event that archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during development facilitated by the project, existing State and local regulations and procedures would guide the protection of discovered resources. State regulations include Public Resources Code 5097, which details required mitigation if unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place, and Assembly Bill 52, which establishes procedures for notifying and consulting with California Native American tribes who are affiliated with the area of a proposed project. Further, Chapter 4-26 of San Leandro Municipal Code establishes procedures for identifying, designating, and protecting potential archaeological resources. The 2035 General Plan Historic Preservation and Community Design Element contains policies regarding the discovery of archaeological deposits, including Policy CD-1.12 to identify and preserve prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources.

Development would be required to comply with existing State and local laws, the above applicable 2035 General Plan policies, and San Leandro Municipal Code. Compliance with these laws and regulations would protect and mitigate disturbance to unrecorded archaeological deposits in San Leandro. Therefore, project impacts to cultural resources would not be substantially greater than impacts concluded by the 2035 General Plan EIR and impacts on cultural resources would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5

4.10.5 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
 Directly or indirectly cause 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
 Strong seismic ground shaking?
 Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?  Landslides?
 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?  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?  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils (pages 4.5-8 – 4.5-13). The Bay Mud, a fine-grained sedimentary unit that flanks much of South San Francisco Bay, is locally present in the westernmost part of San Leandro according to mapping by the USGS found in the 2035 General Plan EIR (page

4.5-7). These deposits often consist of highly compressible, plastic clay that is moderately to highly compressible, often posing a geological hazard due to consolidated settlement or subsidence.

Occurrences of Bay Mud are very limited in extent and most of San Leandro. Most of San Leandro is not located atop unstable geologic materials that are prone to subsidence, lateral spreading, or collapse. The prevailing topography in the City is gentle westward slopes, resulting in low probability of landslides. Expansive soils are located throughout the city; however, the City’s municipal code requires the preparation of a geotechnical investigation for development in San Leandro, which would identify soil plasticity and appropriate mitigation measures on a site-by-site basis. Further, because the city is served by existing water and wastewater systems, the 2035 General Plan EIR does not anticipate the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. In addition, with adherence to General Plan and municipal code policies, as well as applicable federal and State building standards, the 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that there would be no significant impacts to paleontological resources.

The project would accommodate increased density, FAR, and building heights in existing developed areas of the city, on sites already zoned for residential or mixed use development. Potential impacts related to geology and soils from development on these sites were already analyzed in the 2035 General Plan. If greater ground disturbance and construction would be required for utility upgrades to serve additional residences accommodated under the project, all work would be required to City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.10-6
comply with federal, State, and local policies and regulations and could require site-specific studies prior to project approval. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not impact geology, soils, or paleontological resources.

As discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, development is subject to regulations included in the California Building Code and San Leandro Municipal Code. These codes generally require any proposed development to prepare a project-specific geotechnical study, which would include recommendations for foundation design and soil improvement and which would mitigate seismic hazards. Development facilitated by the project would also be subject to 2035 General Plan Action EH-1.1A, which requires the preparation and submittal of soil and/or geologic reports for development in areas where geologic risks are known to be present. Compliance with the California Building Code, San Leandro Municipal Code, and the policies of the 2035 General Plan would ensure that the project does not result in substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Further, compliance with these regulations, preparation of site-specific geotechnical reports, and conformance with recommendations provided therein would ensure that development facilitated by the project would not result in significant impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse, topsoil, or expansive soil. Impacts would not be greater than impacts concluded by the 2035 General Plan EIR. All development would be required to comply with the 2035 General Plan Historic Preservation and Community Design Element policies and actions that would provide for the identification of paleontological deposits prior to actions that may disturb such deposits; the preservation and protection of such deposits; and the evaluation of unanticipated finds made during construction. Therefore, project impacts to geology and soils would not be substantially greater than impacts concluded by the 2035 General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.

4.10.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
 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?
 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?  Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials 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?
 For a project located within 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?  Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes would be subject to extensive federal, State, and local regulations. These regulations include but are not limited to laws and standards established by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Transportation, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at the federal level; the California Health and Safety Code, the California Code of Regulations, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the State Water Resources Control Board at the State level; and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the 2035 General Plan, and SLMC at the local level. The City of San Leandro Environmental Services Section serves as the Certified Unified Program Agency for the City, which regulates the storage, use, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials in San Leandro in accordance with Senate Bill 1082. Adherence to applicable regulations and standards would ensure that the use, release, or emission of hazardous materials throughout the city does not result in substantial adverse impacts. Adherence with these regulations and standards would also ensure that development located on a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would not create a significant hazard to the public.

The 2035 General Plan also concluded that because there are no airports or private airstrips within the City, the General Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the City. Further, the General Plan would not include any changes that would affect the ability of the San Leandro Emergency Operations Center or the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services to implement emergency response plans. The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that there would be less than significant impacts to wildfire hazards.

The 2035 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element includes policies related to the transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials. Policy EH-5.1 directs the City 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-5.4 directs adequate and safe separation between areas where hazardous materials are present and sensitive uses such as schools, residences, and public facilities. Policy EH-5.7 ensures the safe and proper handling of hazardous building materials, such as friable asbestos and lead based paint (City of San Leandro 2016c).

The project would accommodate increased density, FAR, and building heights in existing developed areas of the city, on sites already zoned for residential or mixed use development. Potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials from development on these sites was already analyzed in the 2035 General Plan. If greater ground disturbance and construction would be required for utility upgrades to serve additional residences accommodated under the project, all work would be required to comply with federal, State, and local policies and regulations and could require sitespecific studies prior to project approval. Increased use of typical household and office materials associated with construction, cleaning, and maintenance may occur under the project, and compliance with the existing federal, State, and local regulations would reduce the risk of potential release of hazardous materials due to the use, storage, transportation, or disposal of materials.

Impacts would not be substantially greater than impacts concluded in the 2035 General Plan EIR.

While there are no airports within the City of San Leandro, there are two airports in the vicinity. The Oakland International Airport is directly northwest of the city’s northern border, and Hayward Executive Airport is approximately 1.5 miles south of the city’s southern border. The western side of City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.10-8
the Downtown San Leandro Priority Development Area, where the project would accommodate increased density, FAR, and building heights, is in the airport influence area for the Oakland International Airport. The amendments proposed by the project would not include any changes to underlying land uses. Additionally, Policy EH-9.6 of the 2035 General Plan directs the City to regulate land uses within designated airport safety zones, height referral areas, and noise compatibility zones to minimize the possibility of future noise conflicts and accident hazards. Impacts would not be substantially greater related to airport hazards than impacts concluded in the 2035 General Plan EIR.

Further, as discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, the San Leandro Emergency Operations Center is responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or large-scale emergencies in the city.

During such an event, the Emergency Operations Center would be assisted by the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services and the Alameda County Fire Department (City of San Leandro 2016c).

The addition of residential units and office space accommodated under the project would not result in substantially greater impacts related to emission of hazardous materials near or within one quarter mile of schools, the development of sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites, safety hazards for residents or workers within an airport land use plan, or greater impacts to adopted emergency response or evacuation plans than those impacts concluded by the 2035 General Plan EIR.

As discussed under 4.10.10, Wildfire, increased development facilitated by the project would not expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not result in impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials. Overall, impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would not be greater than impacts concluded in the 2035 General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.

4.10.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?  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;  substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
 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
 impede or redirect flood flows?
 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-9
The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Construction and operation of development associated with the General Plan would be required to comply with federal, State, and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion, stormwater, and groundwater. As most development is anticipated to be infill development, the 2035 General Plan EIR determined that there would be no significant impacts to existing drainage patterns or the course of a stream or river. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that impacts to water quality would be less than significant and that development would not conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Further, development planned to occur in a flood hazard zone would be required to obtain a permit from the City’s Floodplain Administrator and would be subject to various construction standards depending on the flood hazard zone in which the development is located. Compliance with these standards would ensure that development in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone would not result in a substantial risk of the release of pollutants due to inundation.

The project would accommodate increased density, FAR, and building heights in existing developed areas of the city, on sites already zoned for residential or mixed use development. Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality from development on these sites were already analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR. If greater ground disturbance and construction would be required for utility upgrades to serve additional residences accommodated under the project, all work would be required to comply with federal, State, and local policies and regulations, as described in the 2035 General Plan EIR, that would ensure that impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

Operational impacts to hydrology and water quality from increased water use and wastewater discharge would not be substantially greater than as analyzed under the 2035 General Plan EIR with compliance with federal, State, and local policies and regulations. Development accommodated by the project would be served by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and would not require the use of groundwater (City of San Leandro 2016c).

As shown in Figure 4.8-4 of the 2035 General Plan EIR, areas of the city along the San Francisco Bay and along San Leandro Creek experience risk of a 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event.

Development in these areas would be required to obtain a development permit from the City Floodplain Administrator and construct development in accordance with Chapter 7-9 of San Leandro Municipal Code. Further, residential development that would be facilitated by the project would not typically store large quantities of hazardous materials or pollutants. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to the risk of pollutants due to project inundation. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not impact hydrology or water quality. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would not be greater than those concluded in the 2035 General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.

4.10.8 Mineral Resources
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?
 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? City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.10-10
The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2035 General Plan would not impact mineral resources, as there are no actively used mineral resources within San Leandro. There are no mining operations within the City of San Leandro, and the city is not known to contain mineral resources.

Historically, an aggregate quarry operated east of the city boundary on Lake Chabot Road and closed in the 1980s. While mineral resources are still present, the quarry is unlikely to resume operation due to environmental impacts and permitting requirements (City of San Leandro 2016c).

This quarry is outside the City of San Leandro and the Urban Growth Boundary of Alameda County.

The project would not interfere with mining operations or the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Consistent with the impacts concluded by the 2035 General Plan EIR, there would be no impact to mineral resources.

4.10.9 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, 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:
 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  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.

While the 2035 General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources specifically, it determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources.

Adherence to existing federal and State regulations and policies pertaining to archaeological resources, as well as compliance with policies and standards in the 2035 General Plan and San Leandro Municipal Code, would ensure that the 2035 General Plan would have less than significant impacts. The 2035 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, and General Plan policies and San Leandro Municipal Code standards would protect tribal cultural resources from adverse effects.

As described in the 2035 General Plan EIR, development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations that protect tribal cultural resources.

Development facilitated by the project would also be required to comply with Chapter 4-26 of San Leandro Municipal Code, which regulates the recording, designation, and alteration of archaeological resources in the city.

The project consists of a policy document update, and adoption of project alone would not produce environmental impacts. The project consists of updating the General Plan Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element and General Plan amendments, and no actual development is proposed as part of the update. Further, development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 if additional project-specific CEQA compliance is required. AB 52 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further provides the lead agency with certain mitigation measures that may be considered, if feasible, to avoid or Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-11
minimize significant adverse impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21084.3). AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American Tribes regarding those resources. The formal consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be released if a California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project requests consultation from the lead agency (PRC Section 21080.3.1). California Native American Tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of any proposed projects within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Because the project includes General Plan amendments, SB 18 is required. SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of general plans (CA Government Code Section 65300).

On November 4, 2021 the city sent 16 letters notifying California Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission regarding the proposed General Plan amendments pursuant to SB 18. One tribe contacted the City but did not initiate formal consultation. Therefore, the City concluded its tribal consultation on February 3, 2022.

Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that development facilitated by the project would not adversely affect tribal cultural resources in San Leandro. Proposed policies included in the updates to the Housing Element and Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element, would not impact tribal cultural resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.10.10 Wildfire
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?  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?
 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?  Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2035 General Plan would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and impacts would be less than significant. Wildfire as an impact area was not analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR. However, an analysis of wildland fires was included. There are areas along San Leandro’s eastern boundary which have moderate to high risk of wildland fire (CALFIRE 2022).

Development within this area of moderate to high fire risk would be required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the San Leandro Fire Code, and abatement of fire-related hazards as outlined by the California Health and Safety Code and the California Fire Plan.

Development under the 2035 General Plan would not interfere with evacuation routes or plans.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.10-12
The project would accommodate increased density, FAR, and building heights in existing developed areas of the city, on sites already zoned for residential or mixed use development that are not located in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Development in the city would be required to conform with the latest fire code, including provisions for emergency access. The increase in population associated with the project would not result in significant impacts to evacuation routes or plans in the event of a wildfire, and proposed policies in the Environmental Hazards Element would increase coordination between safety and law enforcement agencies in the event of an emergency. Policies associated with the Housing Element update and the Environmental Justice Element would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildfire.

The project would not impair emergency response or evacuation plans and would not involve the installation of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildfire hazards. Consistent with the impacts concluded by the 2035 General Plan EIR, there would be a less than significant impact to risks associated with wildfire.

Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses the potential growth-inducing impacts and irreversible environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project.

5.1 Growth Inducement
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires consideration of growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. Growth inducing impacts are characteristics of a project that could “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” According to the CEQA Guidelines, such projects include those that would remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant). In addition, as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Generally, a project may result in growth inducing effects if it involves one of the following:
 The removal of a regulatory obstacle to growth (e.g., an annexation or up-zoning), thus indirectly inducing population and/or employment growth  Extension of infrastructure (sewer, water, etc.) to an area currently undeveloped and/or lacking adequate infrastructure, thus removing an obstacle to growth The CEQA Guidelines state that it must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

Therefore, the General Plan Update’s growth inducing effect is considered a significant environmental impact only if one of the above listed effects results in a significant physical effect in one or more of the issue areas analyzed in Section 4 of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).

5.1.1 Population Growth
As discussed in Section 4.6, Population and Housing, while development facilitated by the project would directly generate population growth, this SEIR assumes an additional 2,500 residential units in the Downtown and East 14th Street Corridor Priority Development Areas compared to what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, and an increase of 2,460 housing units and 75,000 square feet of office space in the Bayfair Transit Oriented Development (BTOD) area over what was assumed in the 2018 BTOD Specific Plan EIR due to the identification of new housing and mixed use opportunity sites in the BTOD area. The purpose of the project is to address the City's fair share of the regional housing need and specific State statutory requirements. As of December 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined a final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 3,855 units for the City of San Leandro, of which 1,357 must be affordable to lower-income households. To meet the RHNA objectives and provide sufficient capacity for housing development, the project amends land use designations and zoning districts to increase permitted residential densities, floor area ratio (FAR), and building heights in portions of the City’s Priority Development Areas near transit.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
5-2
Therefore, the project would align with ABAG’s RHNA determination and the State statutory requirements, which are established based on anticipated growth within the city.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Population and Housing, the population growth under the project would not exceed the population estimate for San Leandro under the assumptions of the Plan Bay Area 2050 but would exceed the City’s 2035 General Plan Update buildout projection by approximately

12.2 percent.

Although the project would facilitate development beyond the buildout assumption for the 2035 General Plan, the additional units facilitated by the project would address the existing regional housing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the city. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update would first be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and approval to ensure that it would adequately address the housing needs and demands of the city. Approval by the HCD would ensure that population and housing growth under the project would not be substantial or unplanned.

The increase in affordable housing units would provide housing opportunities in proximity to jobs for those employed in the city that meet these household income categories. Additional affordable housing units would provide opportunities for a better balance of jobs and housing that reduces regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated impacts related to transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The amendments to land use designations and zoning districts would affect areas with existing services and infrastructure and the project does not propose new roads or infrastructure extensions. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the city because capacity would only be increased as necessary to meet State housing law requirements.

5.1.2 Economic Growth
Implementation of the project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction of individual buildings and projects. Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, construction of development facilitated by the project would not be considered growth-inducing.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Population and Housing, the employment associated with the 75,000 additional square feet of commercial development would likely be filled by existing residents in the city or neighboring jurisdictions and would not result in substantial population growth. Additional housing units, including those near transit and affordable to lower- and moderate-income households, would provide opportunities for a better balance of jobs and housing that would reduce regional VMT, and associated impacts related to transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions.

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
The city is primarily urbanized and contains developed communities with existing serving infrastructure, including roads, water supply, sewers, and storm drains. The city’s existing roadway network would accommodate development facilitated by the project. In the event that roadway upgrades are required to serve specific future development, such upgrades would likely be minor (e.g., lane reconfiguration or restriping) and are not anticipated to include the construction of new roads. Although new residential development facilitated by the project may require minor utility upgrades or expansion (e.g., water line connections, site drainage design) on a project-by-project Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-3
basis, such upgrades would be intended to accommodate the growth within the city and would not induce growth outside of the city. As discussed in Section 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, it would be unlikely that such upgrades would result in new areas of disturbance. Furthermore, existing wastewater treatment plants serving the city have adequate capacity to treat project-generated sewage and the treatment requirements of the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) treatment facility and Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD) treatment plant would not be exceeded; therefore, the project would not necessitate construction of a new wastewater treatment facility. Generally, the project is specifically intended to concentrate new housing development in areas already served by infrastructure to ensure that infrastructure is utilized efficiently and in a manner that reduces the environmental impacts of development.

Concentrating development in the urbanized areas of the city where existing transportation centers occur would generally avoid impacts to sensitive environmental conditions, such as agricultural, biological, and mineral resources, and minimize impacts since new development built to current standards would generally improve some existing conditions, such storm water runoff, surface water quality and reduce the potential for substantial seismic damage. The project would not result in unplanned growth, but rather would ensure that projected growth is accommodated. The project is anticipated to satisfy the anticipated population growth in the region in an efficient manner consistent with State, regional, and City policies. Therefore, the project would aim to efficiently utilize existing infrastructure, reduce regional congestion, and improve air quality.

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
 The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
 The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or  The project involves the wasteful use of resources.

Resources that would be consumed as a result of construction and operation of development under the project include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. However, as discussed in Section 4.9, Utilities and Services Systems, and in 4.3, Energy, of this SEIR, the amount and rate of City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
5-4
consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts related to the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.

Construction activities related to development would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobile and construction equipment. However, as discussed 4.3, Energy, use of such resources by construction activities associated with residential and office space development under the project would not be unusual as compared to other construction projects and would not substantially affect the availability of such resources.

With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable energy and building codes would ensure that natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible.

New development under the project would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations), and the San Leandro Building Code (Title 7, Chapter 7-5 of the San Leandro Municipal Code). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. This Code applies to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances and provides guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation. Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings. The Code emphasizes saving energy at peak periods and seasons and improving the quality of installation of energy efficiency measures.

Additionally, the City contracts with East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) for 100 percent renewable energy.

The California Green Building Standards Code sets targets for energy efficiency; water consumption; dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water; diversion of construction waste from landfills; and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including ecofriendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. New construction facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code. Additionally, it is anticipated that the City will adopt a reach code limiting natural gas use in new construction, or as directed by the State or regional agencies, as directed by the City’s CAP. While consumption of natural resources in the city would increase with implementation of the project due to development and associated population increases, it is also likely that in response to greenhouse gas reduction mandates, new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-effective or user-friendly, that will further reduce the city’s reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources. Therefore, the project would not occur in a wasteful or inefficient manner use of natural resources.

Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this SEIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.

The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(d).).

In defining “feasibility,” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) (1) states, in part:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.

As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project objectives are as follows:
 Bring the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code into conformance with recently enacted State law.
 Identify housing sites with a collective capacity to meet the City’s RHNA for 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period of 2023-2031, with buffer capacity.  Locate most housing sites in existing urban areas, near transit and commercial services.  Update land use designation and zoning district development standards in Priority Development Areas to support the vision of the City’s General Plan and provide sufficient capacity to meet the City’s RHNA.
 Revise Natural Hazards Element to comply with recently enacted State law.  Adopt an Environmental Justice Element to comply with recently enacted State law.

Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the 2035 General Plan EIR analyzed two alternatives to the project including the No Project Alternative and a Reduced Industrial Development Alternative. The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the Reduced Industrial Development Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce impacts to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and utilities and service systems in comparison to the 2035 General Plan, but that it would not meet the project objectives of job generation and industry retention in San Leandro.

This SEIR analyzes two alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, which would involve no changes to the adopted 2035 General Plan:

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
6-2
 Alternative 1: No Project/Adopted 2035 General Plan
 Alternative 2: Downtown Emphasis Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) require that the alternatives discussion include an analysis of a” No Project” Alternative, which is Alternative 1. Alternative 2 was chosen due to its ability to achieve the project objectives and reduce or avoid environmental impacts of the project.

There were no alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible without further analysis.

Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the development characteristics of the project and each of the alternatives considered. Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.

Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives’ Proposed Allowable Density by Zoning District Zoning District
Current
Maximum
Density per
Acre (du/a)
Project
(Change from Current du/a)
Alternative 1:

No Project/Adopted
2035 General Plan
Alternative 2: Downtown
Emphasis Alternative
(Change from
Current du/a))
DA-1 100 125
(increase of 25 du/a)
100 150
(increase of 50 du/a)
DA-2 40 85
(increase of 45 du/a)
40 85
(increase of 45du/a)
within General Plan
Downtown MU: 100
(increase of 85 du/a)
within General Plan
Downtown MU: 150
(increase of 110 du/a)
within General Plan TransitOriented MU: 125 (increase
of 85 du/a)
within General Plan
Transit-Oriented MU: 150
(increase of 110 du/acre)
DA-3 60 100
(increase of 40 du/a)
60 100
(increase of 40 du/a)
within General Plan TransitOriented MU: 125 (increase
of 65 du/a)
within General Plan
Transit-Oriented MU: 150
(increase of 90 du/a)
DA-4 100 125
(increase of 25 du/a)
100 150
(increase of 50 du/a)
DA-6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 35 85
(increase of 50 du/a)
35 35
(no change)
DA = Downtown Area
SA = South Area
MU = Mixed-Use land use category
du/acre = dwelling units per acre
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-3

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Adopted 2035 General
Plan
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) require that the alternatives discussion include an analysis of a” No Project” Alternative. Pursuant to CEQA, the “No Project” Alternative refers to the analysis of existing conditions and what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed plans were not approved. This is based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure information. The “No Project” Alternative typically will proceed along one of two lines: (1) when a plan or project is a revision of an existing regulatory plan or policy, the “No Project” Alternative will be continuation of the existing plan or policy; or (2) if a plan or project is a development project on identifiable property, the “No Project” Alternative is the circumstance under which a project does not proceed. Thus, in the case of this programmatic SEIR, the “No Project” Alternative would be a No Plans Alternative that represents the continuation of existing zoning and General Plan designations throughout San Leandro. Full buildout under those existing designations is assumed to occur under this alternative. Typical development assumptions are included in the analysis of this alternative, including compliance with applicable regulations or typical City-required measures. Additionally, this alternative would not include the proposed policies of the Housing Element update and the Environmental Hazards Element update and would not include the proposed policies of the Environmental Justice Element.

6.1.1 Description
Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative/Adopted 2035 General Plan, assumes that the current policies and land use and zoning designations would not change from the City’s adopted 2035 General Plan. Changes to the Land Use Element, land use designations, and zoning code to allow for an increase in allowable in the Downtown Mixed Use District land use designations, Transit Oriented Mixed Use District land use designations, and increase in allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Corridor Mixed Use District would not occur.

6.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Air Quality
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the 2035 General Plan would result in an increase of construction exhaust emissions that could impact sensitive receptors in an amount that would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, and air quality impacts would be significant (pages 4.2-40 and 42). Although impacts would be reduced by Mitigation Measures AQ-2B-1 and AQ-2B-2, air quality impacts from individual development projects would be significant and unavoidable.

Construction periods for individual development projects under the No Project Alternative would be shorter than with implementation of the Housing Element and General Plan Update project, and operational impacts from vehicle travel would be less due to fewer trips. However, the No Project Alternative would still have an impact level similar to the Housing Element and General Plan Update project, which would be significant and unavoidable.

The No Project Alternative would not meet project objectives, such as the implementation of the Environmental Justice Element, which includes proposed policies to address air quality concerns.

This alternative would not increase allowable development in the city’s transit-oriented areas, which could increase the need to develop housing in areas that are not transit-focused or are City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
6-4
further away from employment, thus potentially increasing impacts to air quality in the region.

Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in a similar impact to air quality as the project, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that 2035 General Plan buildout plans would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions due to CARB not yet drafting a plan to achieve statewide GHG emissions goals established in Executive Order S-03-05 and that impacts would be significant and unavoidable (page 4.6-36).

A lower level of development intensity would occur under the No Project Alternative, consistent with current zoning, compared to the project. Localized GHG emissions from construction of new development, and from long-term operational impacts, such as energy use, maintenance, and vehicle transportation, would be lower than buildout of the project. Similar to the project, this alternative would continue to follow 2035 General Plan GHG-reduction goals, as well as other regional, State, and local regulations.

However, this alternative would not increase allowable development in the city’s transit-oriented areas, which could increase the need to develop housing in areas that are not transit-focused or are further away from employment, thus potentially increasing regional GHG emissions. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in a similar impact related to GHG emissions compared to the project, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Energy
Although the 2035 General Plan EIR did not include a dedicated Energy chapter, the analyses of vehicle trips and energy conservation are applicable to energy impacts. The analysis concluded that emissions from on-road transportation would decrease by 2035 due to reduced VMT per capita with implementation of the 2035 General Plan and the 2035 General Plan would be consistent with the City’s adopted CAP and regional plans to reduce energy use. The project would reduce VMT per capita compared to the No Project Alternative and increase development intensity in transitoriented development areas. However, the No Project Alternative would use less energy for development construction and operation-related uses. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have an overall impact level similar to the project, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Land Use and Planning
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the 2035 General Plan would not result in an established community being physically divided or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations or habitat conservation and natural community preservation plans. However, the No Project Alternative would not help achieve the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA and the City would not have a certified Housing Element, which would conflict with State and regional plans and policies, and reduce the City’s ability to receive grant funding. However, conflict with these plans and policies would not result in environmental effects. Therefore, this alternative would have a similar impact to land use and planning to the project, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Noise
The No Project Alternative would continue to plan development under the 2035 General Plan buildout, resulting in less intensive development and decreased level of noise from less construction Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-5
and operation compared to the Housing Element and General Plan Update project. As a result, the No Project Alternative would result in less temporary construction-related noise from grading and development construction than the project. Ambient noise impacts from increased roadway noise for the 2035 General Plan was determined to be significant and unavoidable in the 2035 General Plan EIR. Similarly, the project would result in greater levels of ambient noise levels due off-site increases in traffic volumes compared to the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer noise-related impacts than the project, and impacts would be less than significant.
f. Population and Housing
The No Project Alternative would continue the adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element and buildout of the 2035 General Plan, resulting in fewer new residents than buildout of the project. While neither the No Project Alternative nor the project would result in unplanned substantial population growth or displace residents or housing, and impacts for both scenarios would be less than significant, the No Project Alternative would not accommodate the City’s most recent RHNA as required by State law, help the City meet regional housing needs, or enact new Housing Element policies that would strengthen tenant protections, promote fair housing across neighborhoods, or support the development of various housing types appropriate for all income levels. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be similar to the project, and impacts would be less than significant. g. Public Services and Recreation
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the 2035 General Plan would not result in the need for new or physically altered to the San Leandro Police Department (SLPD) facilities, fire protection facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or libraries.

Development under the No Project Alternative would incrementally increase population to a level that would impact the SLPD, schools, parks, and libraries. However, new or expanded facilities needed to meet service goals in each of these areas would be mitigated by tax or fee payments incorporated with each resource, and that potential environmental impacts would be analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible at the time of their proposal. Impacts from the No Project Alternative would be similar to those of the project, and impacts would be less than significant. h. Transportation
The No Project Alternative would have a smaller increase in overall trips than the project. The VMT analysis conducted for the 2035 General Plan EIR found that VMT per population and VMT per service population would decrease under the 2035 General Plan EIR. While the overall 2040 residential VMT would be less than the project, per capita VMT would be about the same under both the project and the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would not conflict with any transportation plans or policies and would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. Based on this analysis, the No Project Alternative would result in a similar impact on transportation and traffic and impacts would be less than significant. i. Utilities and Service Systems
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the 2035 General Plan would not result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater, storm drainage, electrical power or natural gas, telecommunications, or solid waste facilities. While buildout of the No Project Alternative could result in additional service connections and/or improvements associated with utilities and service City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
6-6
systems, such connections would not result in disturbance beyond individual development sites and adjacent infrastructure corridors and substantial environmental impacts would be limited. The No Project Alternative would result in a similar level of impact as the project, and impacts would be less than significant.

No Project Alternative Summary
The No Project Alternative would result in equal levels of impacts as the project in all issue areas except noise, which would result in a reduced impact compared to the project. The No Project Alternative would not achieve project objectives as it would not amend the allowable densities, FAR, and building heights in land use designations and zoning districts in the city’s PDAs, which would not accommodate the City’s State-mandated RHNA. The No Project Alternative would not implement the Housing Element update and the Environmental Hazards Element update and would not implement the proposed policies of the Environmental Justice Element, and the City would not be in compliance with State law.

6.2 Alternative 2: Downtown Emphasis Alternative

6.2.1 Description
Alternative 2 would intensify development in Downtown San Leandro and decrease intensity in other areas as compared to the project. This alternative would increase the maximum allowable densities in the Downtown Priority Development Area and provide no change to maximum allowable densities or maximum allowable building heights in the East 14th Street Priority Development Area.

The proposed allowable density of the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation would increase from 100 du/acre to 150 du/acre. Proposed maximum densities in the Downtown Area zoning districts would increase correspondingly, as shown in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Alternative 2 Allowable Density by Zoning District Compared to the Project Zoning
District
Current Maximum
Density (du/a)
Project Maximum Density
(du/a)
Alternative 2 Maximum Density
(du/a)
DA-1 100 125 150
DA-2 40 85;
Within the General Plan
Downtown Mixed Use land use
category: 125
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use
category: 125
85;
Within the General Plan
Downtown Mixed Use land use category:
150
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use
category: 150
DA-3 60 100;
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use
category: 125
100;
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use
category: 150
DA-4 100 125 150
DA-6 N/A N/A N/A
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 35 85 35
DA = Downtown Area; SA = South Area
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-7
Additionally, the maximum height limit would be eliminated in the DA-2 zoning district and no change would occur in the SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 zoning districts as described in detail below in Table 6-3. This change would be necessary to accommodate the increased maximum density in the DA-2 zoning district.

Table 6-3 Alternative 2 Changes to Maximum Allowable Building Heights Compared to the Project
Zoning
District
Current Maximum Height
(feet)
Project Maximum Height
(feet)
Alternative 2 Maximum Height
(feet)
DA-2 50 65 No Maximum
DA-6 75 No Maximum No Maximum
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 50 65 50
DA = Downtown Area; SA = South Area
Alternative 2 would assume the same number of residential units and square feet of office space in the BTOD area as the project (2,460 housing units and 75,000 square feet of office space over what was assumed in the 2017 BTOD Specific Plan EIR). The total development capacity assumption for Alternative 2 would be the same as the project (a net increase of 4,960 residential units and 75,000 square feet of office space), but all residential units assumed in the SA zoning districts that are assumed in the project would be redistributed to the DA zoning districts.

6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Air Quality
Since Alternative 2 would concentrate development near the city’s two BART stations, the City’s per capita VMT would be reduced compared to the project; therefore, air quality impacts associated with vehicle emissions would be less than the project. As with the project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and VMT would not exceed the projected population increase per BAAQMD guidelines. However, temporary construction for implementation of the development under Alternative 2 would increase air pollutant emissions in Downtown due to increased construction periods and potentially heavier construction equipment required to construct larger individual projects, which would potentially increase impacts from TACs to sensitive receptors. Like the project, Alternative 2 would adhere to Mitigation Measures AQ-2B-2 to mitigate potential air quality impacts associated with construction, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts to air quality would be similar to the project. b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would intensify development to increase maximum allowable densities, similar to the proposed project. However, unlike the project, Alternative 2 buildout would be concentrated in Downtown San Leandro, creating higher density around the Downtown BART station, which would promote mode choice to transit-related modes and would reduce the VMT per capita to a greater degree than for the project. Therefore, long-term operational GHG emissions from future buildout of this alternative would be less than the project. Temporary construction in Downtown for implementation of the development under Alternative 2 would increase GHG emissions compared to the project but would reduce GHG emissions in the SA zoning districts. Overall, Alternative 2 City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
6-8
would reduce impacts to GHG emissions compared to the project, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Energy
Development facilitated by Alternative 2 would reduce VMT per capita and long-term operational GHG emission in comparison to the project. However, more energy may be required to utilize potentially heavier construction equipment for increased amounts of construction time. This alternative would be consistent with the City’s adopted CAP and regional plans to reduce energy use. Overall, Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact, similar to the project. d. Land Use and Planning
Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities, as it would encourage infill development within designated urban service areas. Under Alternative 2, development would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies identified in Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning, as development under Alternative 2 would encourage housing development, development of infill sites, and mixed-use development.

Alternative 2 would not introduce new land uses and would be consistent with local and regional plans to intensify residential development near transit. As such, Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact, similar to the project.
e. Noise
Alternative 2 would result in increased construction periods and potentially heavier construction equipment required to construct larger individual projects compared to the project, which may increase noise and vibration exposure near sensitive uses such as residences, schools, and historic structures. Impacts may be reduced through the mitigation measures identified in the 2035 General Plan EIR and the City’s Standard Condition of Approval, but it is uncertain whether impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Construction-related noise would be greater than the project.

Long-term operational impacts from roadway vehicle noise would be less than the project due to the increase in mode split and decrease in VMT per capita. Overall, impacts related noise would be similar to the project, and would remain significant and unavoidable. f. Population and Housing
Buildout under Alternative 2 would result in the same overall development capacity as the project but would concentrate development in Downtown San Leandro. Alternative 2 would also accommodate the City’s RHNA, update the City’s Housing Element, and would not result in substantial unplanned population growth or displace substantial numbers of residents or housing, since it would enact the same housing policies as the project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact to population and housing, similar to the project. g. Public Services and Recreation
Buildout under Alternative 2 would be similar to the project, and would result in reduction of service ratios for police or fire stations in that area and increased use of school, library, and park and recreation facilities. However, similar to the project, these impacts would be mitigated by 2035 General Plan policies and payment of required development impact fees at the time of development Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-9
of individual projects. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact, similar to the project.
h. Transportation
Alternative 2 would increase public transit use compared to the project due to the concentration of new residents located near the Downtown BART station, which would reduce VMT per capita.

Emergency access would not be impacted by development under Alternative 2. As a result, Alternative 2 impacts to transportation and traffic would be reduced compared to the project and would be less than significant.
i. Utilities and Service Systems
Development under Alternative 2 would result in an increase in demand for water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities at a similar level as the project. Similar to the project, the remaining facilities may require connections, but would not result in disturbance beyond individual development site, adjacent infrastructure corridors, or significant environmental effects. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have a similar impact compared to the project.

Alternative 2 Summary
Alternative 2 would result in equal levels of impacts as the project in all issue areas except noise and transportation, which would result in a reduced impact compared to the project. Alternative 2 would achieve project objectives as it would amend the allowable densities, FAR, and building heights in land use designations and zoning districts in two of the city’s PDAs, which would accommodate the City’s State-mandated RHNA. Alternative 2 would implement the Housing Element update and the Environmental Hazards Element update and would implement the proposed policies of the Environmental Justice Element, and the City would be in compliance with State law.

6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives to the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an alternative that reduces some of the project’s environmental impacts, regardless of the financial costs associated.

Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative may not be that which best meets the goals or needs of the project. Table 6-4 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to the proposed project for each issue area studied.

Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative.

Alternative 2 would reduce two impacts compared to the project. Because Alternative 2 would concentrate development in the San Leandro Downtown area, impacts related to GHG emissions and transportation would be reduced compared to the project.

None of the alternatives analyzed would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise to below a level of significance.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
6-10
Table 6-4 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:

No Project/Adopted 2035
General Plan
Alternative 2:

Downtown Emphasis
Alternative
Air Quality SU Equal to project Equal to project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS Equal to project Less than project Energy LTS Equal to project Equal to project
Land Use and Planning LTS Equal to project Equal to project Noise SU Less than project Equal to project
Population and Housing LTS Equal to project Equal to project Public Services and
Recreation
LTS Equal to project Equal to project
Transportation LTS Equal to project Less than project
Utilities and Service Systems LTS Equal to project Equal to project LTS = Less than Significant
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References

7.1 Bibliography
Executive Summary
Introduction
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2022. About the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection https://bof.fire.ca.gov/about/ (accessed August 2022).

Project Description
San Leandro, City of. 2016. 2035 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed August 2022).

Environmental Setting
Western Regional Climate Center. 2022. U.S. Climate Normals Quick Access. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset=normalsannualseasonal&timeframe=15&location=CA&station=US1CAAL0030 (accessed June 2022).

Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. December. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/permit-modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed August 2022).
______. 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-airquality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status (accessed August 2022).
______. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed August 2022). ______. 2017c. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed August 2022). ______. 2019. Bay Area Air Pollution Summary – 2019. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-airquality/air-quality-summaries. (accessed: May 2022). ______. 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-riskreduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol-pdf.pdf?la=en ______. 2022. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/?sc_itemid=AD652ACE-4CD0-4283-8992-BDF6FB0AAB65 (accessed August 2022).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
7-2
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure near HighVolume Roadways. April. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/rd_technical_advisory_final.pdf (accessed August 2022).
______. 2021a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overviewdiesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed August 2022). ______. 2021b. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics Top 4 Summary. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed August 2022).

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/noticeadoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40 San Leandro, City of. 2016a. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Transportation Element. September 19, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022). ______. 2016b. 2035 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022). ______. 2018. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/810/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-MasterPlan-PDF?bidId= (accessed August 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2022. What is MERV Rating. https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating (accessed August 2022).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
American Lung Association. 2022. “The Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA Decision.” July 20, 2022. https://www.lung.org/blog/supreme-court-wv-epa-lung-health (accessed August 2022).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2013 Resolution No. 2013-11. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/climate-protectionprogram/climateresolution.pdf?la=en (accessed August 2022). _____. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed August 2022). ______. 2017b. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed August 2022).

BREEZE Software. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0. May 2021.

References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-3
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.
https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf (accessed August 2022).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. December 7, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf (accessed April 2021). ______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed August 2022). ______. 2019. “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2019 Edition. Last modified: August 12, 2019. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed December 2020). ______. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. July.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-

19.pdf (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update. May 10, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed August 2022).

California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptationlibrary/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. “California Agricultural Production Statistics.” https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ (accessed August 2022).

California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climatechange/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed August 2022).

California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. March 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf (accessed August 2022). ______. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programsand-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency (accessed August 2022).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed August 2022).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
7-4
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 2022. Federal Vehicle Standards. https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon-emissions/ (accessed August 2022).

East Bay Community Energy. 2020. East Bay Community Energy 2019 Emissions Factor. https://res.cloudinary.com/diactiwk7/image/upload/v1605569904/Item_11_- _East_Bay_Community_Energy_2019_Emissions_Factor_corrected_uckkss.pdf (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022. San Leandro is Going Green with 100% Renewable Energy. https://ebce.org/sanleandro/ (accessed August 2022).

IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.

Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.

Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed August 2022).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2021. “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet – Sea Level.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (accessed April 2021).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2022. 2021 was the World’s 6th Warmest Year on Record. https://www.noaa.gov/news/2021-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-on-record (accessed August 2022).

Parmesan, C. August 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change.

San Leandro, City of. 2016. San Leandro 2035 General Plan. September 19, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022). ______. 2018. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/810/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-MasterPlan-PDF?bidId= (accessed August 2022). ______. 2021. San Leandro 2021 Climate Action Plan.
https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/6490/San-Leandro-CAP-ADOPTED2021-08-06 (accessed August 2022).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed August 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021a. Climate Change Indicators:

Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. Last updated April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmosphericconcentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed August 2022). ______. 2021b. Climate Change Indicators: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last updated April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-globalgreenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed August 2022).

References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-5
______. 2021c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks1990-2019 (accessed August 2022).

World Meteorological Organization. 2013. A summary of current and climate change findings and figures: a WMO information note. March 2013.
https://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15892#.Wt9-Z8gvzIU (accessed December 2020).
______. 2022. Greenhouse Gases. https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focusareas/environment/greenhouse%20gases (accessed August 2022) Energy
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October _2021.pdf. (accessed August 2022).

California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. 2022.

Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources – Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close (accessed August 2022).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2018-05/energy-commission-adopts-standards-requiringsolar-systems-new-homesfirst#:~:targetText=Energy%20Commission%20Adopts%20Standards%20Requiring%20Solar, New%20Homes%2C%20First%20in%20Nation&targetText=SACRAMENTO%20%2D%20Movi ng%20to%20cut%20energy,photovoltaic%20systems%20starting%20in%202020 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2021. Integrated Energy Policy Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022a. CEC-A15 Gasoline Sales by City. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/5869 (accessed July 2022).
______. 2022b. Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed June 2022).
______. 2022c. Natural Gas Consumption by County.
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed June 2022). ______. 2022d. 2020 Total Electricity System Power. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electricgeneration/2020 (accessed August 2022).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action.

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%20 Reasons_111218.pdf (accessed August 2022).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
7-6
Department of Finance. 2022. 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 August 2022).

East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). 2022. The East Bay’s Public Power Agency. https://ebce.org/about/ (accessed June 2022).

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019a. Table C14. Energy Consumption Estimates per Capita by End-Use Sector, Ranked by State, 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_use_cap ita.html&sid=US (accessed August 2022).
_____. 2019b. California Energy Consumption Estimates, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2 (accessed August 2022). _____. 2021a. Primary Energy Production Estimates in Trillion Btu, California, 1960-2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/PT2_CA.pdf (accessed August 2022). _____. 2021b. Profile Data. Updated August 19, 2021.
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=CA#ConsumptionExpenditures (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022a. Table C14. Total Energy Consumption Estimates per Capita by End-Use Sector, Ranked by State, 2020.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_use_cap ita.html&sid=US (accessed July 2022).
______. 2022b. Units and calculators explained: British thermal units (Btu). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-and-calculators/british-thermal-units.php (accessed July 2022).

San Leandro, City of. 2016a. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element. https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26255 (accessed November 2021).
______. 2016b. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Transportation Element. September 19, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022). ______. 2016c. 2035 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022). ______. 2021. San Leandro 2021 Climate Action Plan. July 2021. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/6490/San-Leandro-CAP-ADOPTED2021-08-06. (accessed August 2022).

United States Department of Energy. 2022. Biodiesel Fueling Station Locations. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=BD&location=sa n%20leandro (accessed July 2022).

Energy Star. 2022. Energy Star History and Major Milestones. https://www.energystar.gov/about/history/major-milestones (accessed July 2022).

References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-7
Land Use and Planning
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October _2021.pdf (accessed October 2021)
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. General Plan Guidelines and Technical Advisories Chapter 9: Implementation. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_C9_final.pdf (accessed August 2022).

San Leandro, City of. 2015. San Leandro 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed October 2021) ______. 2016a. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed October 2021) ______. 2016b. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Land Use Element. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed October 2021) ______. 2016c. 2035 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed August 2022).

Population and Housing
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October _2021.pdf (accessed August 2022).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change – January 2020 and 2021.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-1/ (accessed November 2021).

San Leandro, City of. 2016a. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Land Use Element. September 19, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022). ______. 2016b. San Leandro General Plan Update EIR. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26283 (accessed November 2021).

Public Services and Recreation
Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). 2021a. About Us. https://fire.acgov.org/about-us/ (accessed October 2021).
_____. 2021b. Stations and Facilities. https://fire.acgov.org/stations-and-facilities/ (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Education. 2021a. 2020-21 Enrollment by Grade: San Leandro Unified. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=0161291&agglevel=distr ict&year=2020-21 (accessed November 2021).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
7-8
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. Cities, Counties, and State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2020 and 2021.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/ (accessed November 2021).

San Leandro, City of. 2016a. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Community Services and Facilities Element. https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26258 (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2016b. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Land Use Element. https://civicaadmin.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=26481 (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2016c. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element. https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26255 (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2017. San Leandro Creek Trail Master Plan. March 2017. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/1346/San-Leandro-Creek-TrailMaster-Plan-Feasibility-Study-PDF (accessed November 2021). _____. 2021a. Aquatics. https://www.sanleandro.org/411/Aquatics (accessed November 2021). _____. 2021b. Facilities. https://www.sanleandro.org/458/Facilities (accessed November 2021).

San Leandro Police Department (SLPD). 2019. 2019 Annual Report. https://www.sanleandro.org/356/Year-in-Review 21(accessed November 2021).

San Leandro Unified School District (SLUSD). 2020. 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study. February 2020. slusd.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/San-Leandro-Unified-Dev-Fee-Study-2020.pdf (accessed November 2021).

State of California, Office of Public School Construction. 2019. School Facility Program Handbook. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Services/Guides-andResources/SFP_Hdbk_ADA.pdf?la=en&hash=B871984008A7D2E35D16DB50DDE0C87791C2 94A7 (accessed August 2022).

Transportation
Alameda Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit). 2019. AC Transit Strategic Plan. https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/2021-
03/AC%20Transit%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). 2022. CMP Land Use Analysis Program Transportation Analysis Requirements. https://www.alamedactc.org/cmp-land-use-analysisprogram-transportation-impact-analysis-requirements/ Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2015. BART Station Access Policy Update. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20Access%20Policy%20Update%20- %20Policy%20Context%20and%20Best%20Practices%20Review_1.pdf ______.2022. Monthly Ridership Reports – August 2022.
https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-9
San Leandro, City of. 2018. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/810/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-MasterPlan-PDF?bidId= Utilities and Service Systems
Alameda County Clean Water Program. 2021. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. https://cleanwaterprogram.org/images/uploads/C.3_Technical_Guidance_Version_7.1_202 10208.pdf (accessed July 2022)
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCD). 2022. Neighborhood Zones. https://acfloodcontrol.org/get-involved/get-involved-neighborhood-zones/ (accessed July 2022).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022a. SWIS Facility/Site Search https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search (accessed July 2022). ______. 2022b. Residential Sector Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates#Residential (accessed July 2022).

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2021a. Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Regulation. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gas.aspx (accessed April 2022). ______. 2021b. Communications Division. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/aboutcpuc/divisions/communications-division (accessed April 2022).

EBMUD. 2020a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-yourwater/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan (accessed December 2021) ______. 2020b. 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. https://www.ebmud.com/water/aboutyour-water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan (accessed April 2022). ______. 2021. Sustainable Groundwater Management. https://www.ebmud.com/water/aboutyour-water/water-supply/groundwater-sustainability-agencies (accessed April 2022).

Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD). 2021a. Oro Loma Sanitary District Flow Sewage Treatment. https://oroloma.org/sewage-treatment/ (accessed December 2021) ______. 2021b. Sewer System Management Plan. https://oroloma.org/sewer-system-managementplan/ (accessed December 2021) San Leandro, City of. 2016a. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element. September 19, 2016.
https://civicaadmin.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=26493 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2016b. San Leandro General Plan Update EIR. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/1257/Chapter-4-1-Aesthetics-PDF (accessed August 2022).
______. 2018. Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan EIR. February 20, 2018. https://sanleandro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3341764&GUID=27545BA5- E957-407D-95F5-B712E86FC6FA (accessed August 2022).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
7-10
______. 2021a. Water Pollution Control. https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/pw/wpcp/about.asp (accessed December 2021).
______. 2021b. Fiber Optic Master Plan and Smart City Strategy. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/5908/Fiber-Optic-Master-Plan-andSmart-City-Strategy-PDF?bidId= (accessed December 2021).

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). 2019. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html (accessed August 2022).

State Water Resources Control Board. 2013. Construction Stormwater General Permits. January 23, 2013.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.html (accessed August 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pd f (accessed July 5, 2022).

Less Than Significant Environmental Effects
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed January 2022).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed January 2022).

San Leandro, City of. 2016a. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element.

September 19, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022).
______. 2016b. San Leandro 2035 General Plan Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element.

September 19, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022).
______. 2016c. 2035 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. June 1, 2016. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed January 2022).

Other CEQA Related Discussions
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-11

7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of San Leandro, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the SEIR are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darcy Kremin, Director, Environmental Planning
Emily Green, Project Manager
Josh Carman, Director, Noise, Air Quality & GHG
Kayleigh Limbach, Environmental Planner
Nichole Yee, Environmental Planner
Leslie Trejo, Environmental Planner
Leeza Segal, Environmental Planner
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
7-12
This page intentionally left blank.