Att A Exh A - Draft Housing Element Update Supplemental EIR — San Leandro City Council, December 5, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Housing Element and General Plan Update
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of San Leandro
Department of Community Development
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Contact: Avalon Schultz
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2022
Exhibit A
Housing Element and General Plan Update
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of San Leandro
Department of Community Development
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Contact: Avalon Schultz
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2022
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis.........................................................................................................................ES-1 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ES-2 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-3 Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................................................ES-3 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR.....................................................................................ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-3 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Basis for a Supplemental EIR ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ......................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Environmental Impact Report Background ................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Scope of the Supplemental EIR...................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR......................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies...................................................................... 1-6

1.7 Environmental Review Process...................................................................................... 1-6 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Lead Agency Name and Contact.................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Existing City Characteristics........................................................................................... 2-4

2.3.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning .................................................... 2-4

2.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................. 2-4

2.4 Project Characteristics................................................................................................. 2-10

2.4.1 Housing Element Update ............................................................................. 2-10

2.4.2 Regional Housing Needs Assessment .......................................................... 2-11

2.4.3 Proposed Zoning and Land Use Changes..................................................... 2-13

2.4.4 Development Capacity Assumptions........................................................... 2-16

2.4.5 Environmental Hazards Element Update..................................................... 2-16

2.4.6 Environmental Justice Element.................................................................... 2-17

2.5 Project Objectives........................................................................................................ 2-17

2.6 Required Discretionary Actions................................................................................... 2-18 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project Setting ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Cumulative Impact Setting ............................................................................................ 3-2 Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................vii City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ii
4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.1-7

4.1.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 4.1-10

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 4.1-23

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.2-5

4.2.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 4.2-13

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 4.2-23

4.3 Energy ......................................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.3-3

4.3.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 4.3-9

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 4.3-16

4.4 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................ 4.4-1

4.4.1 Existing Setting............................................................................................ 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.4-5

4.4.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 4.4-10

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 4.4-13

4.5 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.5-6

4.5.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 4.5-9

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 4.5-22

4.6 Population and Housing.............................................................................................. 4.6-1

4.6.1 Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.6-2

4.6.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 4.6-4

4.6.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis........................................................................ 4.6-8

4.7 Public Services and Recreation................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-6

4.7.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 4.7-13

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 4.7-21 Table of Contents
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report iii

4.8 Transportation............................................................................................................ 4.8-1

4.8.1 Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................... 4.8-5

4.8.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 4.8-11

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................. 4.8-19

4.9 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.1 Setting............................................................................................................ 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.9-6

4.9.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.9-14

4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................... 4.9-22

4.10 Effects Found Not to be Significant .......................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................. 4.10-1

4.10.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources......................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.3 Biological Resources.................................................................................. 4.10-2

4.10.4 Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 4.10-3

4.10.5 Geology and Soils...................................................................................... 4.10-5

4.10.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 4.10-6

4.10.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................... 4.10-8

4.10.8 Mineral Resources .................................................................................... 4.10-9

4.10.9 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................ 4.10-10

4.10.10 Wildfire .................................................................................................... 4.10-11 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions.............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement ...................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Population Growth......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Economic Growth........................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth ................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects................................................................................ 5-3 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Adopted 2035 General Plan ................................................. 6-3

6.1.1 Description ..................................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................. 6-3

6.2 Alternative 2: Downtown Emphasis Alternative ........................................................... 6-6

6.2.1 Description ..................................................................................................... 6-6

6.2.2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................. 6-7

6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................................... 6-9 7 References .................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Bibliography................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................... 7-11 City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
iv
Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of SEIR Environmental Impacts, 2035 General Plan EIR Conclusions, Relevant 2035 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures, and SEIR Residual Impacts.......................................................................................................................ES-4 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and SEIR Response............................................................................ 1-3 Table 2-1 Residential and Mixed Use Land Use Designations .................................................... 2-6 Table 2-2 Non-Residential Land Use Designations...................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-3 City of San Leandro Regional Housing Needs Allocation .......................................... 2-12 Table 2-4 Proposed FAR – San Leandro General Plan Land Use Designations ......................... 2-13 Table 2-5 Proposed Allowable Density by General Plan Land Use Designation in San Leandro ..................................................................................................................... 2-13 Table 2-6 Proposed Allowable Density by Zoning District in San Leandro ............................... 2-14 Table 2-7 Proposed Changes to Maximum Height.................................................................... 2-14 Table 4.1-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................... 4.1-5 Table 4.1-2 Ambient Air Quality at Nearest Monitoring Stations............................................... 4.1-6 Table 4.1 3 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Screening Levels................................................... 4.1-11 Table 4.1-4 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds........................................ 4.1-12 Table 4.1-5 BAAQMD Odor Source Thresholds......................................................................... 4.1-14 Table 4.1-6 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures........ 4.1-16 Table 4.1-7 Increase in Population Compared to VMT Under Project...................................... 4.1-18 Table 4.2-1 Operational GHG Emissions ................................................................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2 2 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050........................................................ 4.2-19 Table 4.2-3 City of San Leandro General Plan Consistency for GHG Emissions........................ 4.2-20 Table 4.2-4 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Measures..................... 4.2-22 Table 4.3-1 Annual and Daily Transportation Energy Consumption in San Leandro.................. 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 Consistency with State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans ............... 4.3-13 Table 4.3-3 Consistency with the City General Plan and Climate Action Plan.......................... 4.3-14 Table 4.4-1 Existing Land Use Summary for San Leandro........................................................... 4.4-2 Table 4.5-1 Typical Noise Levels.................................................................................................. 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2 Criteria for Vibration Damage Potential .................................................................. 4.5-4 Table 4.5-3 Criteria for Vibration Annoyance Potential.............................................................. 4.5-4 Table 4.5-4 City of San Leandro Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines......................... 4.5-7 Table 4.5-5 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................... 4.5-11 Table 4.5-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment............................................ 4.5-12 Table 4.6-1 City of San Leandro Population Growth................................................................... 4.6-1 Table 4.7-1 SLUSD Public School Enrollment .............................................................................. 4.7-3 Table 4.7-2 Existing Parks and Recreation Areas........................................................................ 4.7-4 Table 4.7-3 San Leandro Parkland Space per 1,000 Residents ................................................... 4.7-5 Table 4.7-4 SLUSD Student Generation Rates........................................................................... 4.7-18 Table 4.7-5 Estimated Student Generation from Project ......................................................... 4.7-18 Table of Contents
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report v
Table 4.7-6 Anticipated Parkland Per 1,000 Residents............................................................. 4.7-19 Table 4.8-1 Project VMT Per Capita Compared to Thresholds ................................................. 4.8-17 Table 4.9-1 EBMUD Normal and Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020-2050........... 4.9-2 Table 4.9-2 Estimated Landfill Capacities and Closure Date....................................................... 4.9-6 Table 4.9-3 Project Solid Waste Generation............................................................................. 4.9-21 Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives’ Proposed Allowable Density by Zoning District ............ 6-2 Table 6-2 Alternative 2 Allowable Density by Zoning District Compared to the Project............ 6-6 Table 6-3 Alternative 2 Changes to Maximum Allowable Building Heights Compared to the Project................................................................................................................... 6-7 Table 6-4 Impact Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... 6-10 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process.................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 2-1 Regional Location......................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Site Location .................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 San Leandro Land Use Designations............................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-4 Priority Development Areas ...................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 4.5-1 2020 Roadway Traffic Volume Increase ................................................................. 4.5-17 Figure 4.5-2 2040 Roadway Traffic Volume Increase ................................................................. 4.5-18 Figure 4.7-1 Fire and Police Stations Serving San Leandro........................................................... 4.7-2 Appendices
Appendix NOP Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
Appendix AQ California Emissions Estimator Model Outputs Appendix TRA VMT Impact Assessment Memorandum and Traffic Volumes City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
vi
This page intentionally left blank.

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACFD Alameda County Fire Department
AC Transit Alameda Contra Costa Transit
ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission
ADT Average daily traffic
ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
AIM Advance Infrastructure Mitigation
ALUCPs Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans
AMI Area Median Income
AQ Air Quality
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BMP Best Management Practices
BTOD Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development
BTU British thermal unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Cal-EMA California Emergency Management Agency
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation
CC Commercial Community
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDOC California Department of Conservation
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
viii
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CN Commercial Neighborhood
CN Commercial Neighborhood
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO Carbon monoxide
COG Council of Governments
CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CR-M Commercial Regional Mall
CS Commercial Services
CVP Central Valley Project
CVSD Castro Valley Sanitary District
DA Downtown Area
dBA Decibels
DMP Drought Management Program
DNL Day-Night Average Level
DOC Department of Conservation (CA)
DOF Department of Finance
DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DPS drought planning sequence
EBCE East Bay Community Energy
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIA Energy Information Administration
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ix
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HCD Housing and Community Development
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HRA Health risk assessment
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HWD Hayward Executive Airport
IG General Industrial
IL Industrial Limited
IP Industrial Park
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IT Industrial Transportation
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq Equivalent noise level
LEV Low-Emission Vehicle
LID Low impact development
LSAT Land-Surface Air Temperature
LU Land Use
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
MMT Million metric tons
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater
MT Metric tons
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NA North Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCP Noise Compatibility Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration NO Nitrogen monoxide
NOX Oxides of nitrogen
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
x
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OAK Oakland International Airport
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OES Office of Emergency Service
OLSD Oro Loma Sanitary District
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OS Open Space
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administrations
P Professional Office
Pb Lead
PCE Peninsula Clean Energy
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PDA Priority Development Area
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM10 Particulate Matter (10 micrometers)
PM2.5 Particulate Matter (2.5 micrometers)
PPV Peak particle velocity
PS Public and Semi-Public
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Residential Duplex
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RM Residential Multi-Family
RMS Root mean square
RO Residential Outer
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RS Residential Single Family
RS-PD Residential Single Family (Planned Development)
RS-VP Residential Single Family (View Preservation)
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Boards
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report xi
SA South Area
SAF Plan State Alternative Fuels Plan
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SEMS Standard Emergency Management System
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SLCTMP San Leandro Creek Trail Master Plan
SLMC San Leandro Municipal Code
SLPD San Leandro Police Department
SLRHS San Leandro Recreation Division
SLUSD San Leandro Unified School District
SLZO San Leandro Zoning Ordinance
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
STC Sound transmission class
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TAC Toxic air contaminant
TOD Transit Oriented Development
US United States
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB Vibration decibels
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
WTP Water treatment plants
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
xii
This page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed City of San Leandro 2023-2031 Housing Element and General Plan Update, including updates to the Environmental Hazards Element, and a proposed Environmental Justice Element (“project”). This SEIR is supplemental to the 2035 General Plan Update Draft EIR for the City of San Leandro (2035 EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2001092001, adopted in June 2016,1 in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15163.

This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, alternatives to the project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project.

Project Synopsis
Lead Agency
City of San Leandro
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Lead Agency Contact Person
Avalon Schultz, AICP, Principal Planner
City of San Leandro
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
510-577-3422
Project Description
This document has been prepared as an SEIR to the 2016 General Plan Update Draft EIR for the City of San Leandro (2035 General Plan EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2001092001, adopted in June 2016, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15163. This SEIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the proposed City of San Leandro 2023-2031 Housing Element and General Plan Update. The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Section 2.0, Project Description.

The Housing Element update presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions for the years 2023-2031. The Housing Element update includes a series of Zoning Amendments to reduce barriers to housing development, comply with State law, and address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, which determined that the City needs to plan for approximately 3,855 residential units during the planning period, plus a buffer to ensure ongoing compliance with the No Net Loss provisions of State housing law. The General Plan Update will include updates to the Environmental Hazards Element and the adoption of an Environmental Justice Element. To fulfill the requirements of the Housing Element, the City will also make changes to the General Plan Land Use Element, land use designations, and Zoning Code. 1 The 2016 EIR is incorporated by reference and is available on the City’s website at: https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-2
Project Objectives
 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.

Alternatives
As required by CEQA, this SEIR examines alternatives to the project. Studied alternatives include the following two alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.
 Alternative 1: No Project/Adopted 2035 General Plan
 Alternative 2: Downtown Emphasis Alternative
Alternative 1
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. 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.

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would intensify development in Downtown San Leandro by increasing the maximum allowable densities in the Downtown Priority Development Area. The proposed allowable density of the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation would increase from 100 dwelling units (du)/acre to 150 du/acre. Additionally, the maximum height limit would be eliminated in the Downtown Area (DA)-2 zoning district. Alternative 2 would assume the same number of residential units and square feet of office space in the Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (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 North Area (NA), Parking (P), and South Area (SA) zoning districts that are assumed in the project would be redistributed to the DA zoning districts.

Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-3
Refer to Section 6.0, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The SEIR scoping process did not identify any areas of known controversy for the project. Responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR and input received at the SEIR scoping meeting held by the City are summarized in Section 1.0, Introduction.

Issues to be Resolved
The Housing Element Update would require approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR
Section 4.10, Effects Found Not to be Significant, summaries issues from the environmental checklist that were not studied in detail in this SEIR, which include: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the project as described in the SEIR, the original 2035 General Plan EIR conclusions, the relevant 2035 General Plan mitigation measures and if any revisions or additions are required by the SEIR, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-4
Table ES-1 Summary of SEIR Environmental Impacts, 2035 General Plan EIR Conclusions, Relevant 2035 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures, and SEIR Residual Impacts
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The project would support the
primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan,
would implement applicable control measures
for the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and would not
disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017
Clean Air Plan control measures. The project’s
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increase would be
less than the population increase. Impacts
would be less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Impact AQ-2. Development facilitated by the
project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of criteria pollutants
with adherence to policies in the 2035 General
Plan and continued implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-2A and AQ-2B-1 in the
2035 General Plan EIR. This impact would be
less than significant with mitigation.

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

Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-1. As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of particulate matter (PM) 10 (Table 8-1, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).

No additional mitigation measures would be required from the SEIR.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Impact AQ-3. Construction activities for
individual projects could potentially expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Projects would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-2 from
the 2035 General Plan EIR but impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. The
project would not include new sources of toxic
air contaminants (TACs). Operational impacts
would be less than significant.

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

No additional mitigation measures would be required from the SEIR.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact AQ-4. Development facilitated by the
project would not create objectionable odors
that could affect a substantial number of
people. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1. Development facilitated by the
project would not directly or indirectly
generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that
would have a significant effect on the
environment. GHG emissions from the project
would not exceed 2035 General Plan EIR
thresholds. This impact would be less than
significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-6
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Impact GHG-2. The project would not conflict
with the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area
2050, the City’s 2035 General Plan, or the
City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Impacts would
be less than significant.

Significant and
Unavoidable
None required Less than Significant
Energy
Impact E-1. The project would not result in a
significant environmental impact due to the
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources. Impacts
would be less than significant.

Not applicable Not applicable Less than Significant
Impact E-2. Development facilitated by the
project would not conflict with or obstruct an
applicable renewable energy or energy
efficiency plan. Impacts would be less than
significant.

Not applicable Not applicable Less than Significant
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The project would not change
current land use designations and would not
physically divide an established community.

There would be no impact.

Less than Significant None required No Impact
Impact LU-2. The project would update the
Housing Element, Environmental Hazards
Element, and implement a proposed
Environmental Justice Element to bring the
City’s 2035 General Plan into conformance
with State requirements and facilitate
development aligned with the vision of the
2035 General Plan, BTOD Specific Plan, and
Plan Bay Area 2050. These updates would not
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect. There
would be no impact.

Less than Significant None required No Impact
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Noise
Impact N-1. Development facilitated by the
project could involve construction with lengthy
durations, substantial soil movement, or use of
large, heavy-duty equipment near noisesensitive land uses that would exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) daytime
noise limits and result in significant impacts.

Impacts would be reduced to less than
significant with adherence with revisions to
2035 General Plan EIR Mitigation NOI-4.

Therefore, impacts generated by temporary
construction noise would be less than
significant and no new or additional mitigation
would be required.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Revised Mitigation Measure NOI-4. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq) at residential receptors during the daytime) and when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater). Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least

1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.

No additional mitigation measures would be required from the SEIR.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact N-2. Development facilitated by the
project would result in a substantial increase in
ambient noise levels from off-site increases in
traffic volumes. Potential mitigation would be
infeasible or would not guarantee a reduction
in noise below significance thresholds.

Permanent impacts to ambient noise levels
would be significant and unavoidable.

Significant and
Unavoidable
No feasible mitigation measures Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact N-3. Development facilitated by the
project would be residential and office space
and not anticipated to involve operational
activities that could result in substantial
vibration or groundbourne noise. Construction
associated with project development could
result in potential vibration impacts from
heavy equipment. However, issuance of a
Standard Conditions of Approval by the City
prior to a building permit for projects would
reduce potential vibration impacts to sensitive
resources and nearby residents. Impacts would
be less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-8
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Impact N-4. Development facilitated by the
project would be residential and office space
would not modify the city’s existing land use
designations and therefore would not add
residential or commercial uses within the 65
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
noise contours of any public or private airstrip
where not currently allowed and would
therefore not expose people residing or
working to excessive noise levels. Impacts
would be less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Population and Housing
Impact PH-1. The project would be consistent
with the RHNA, the 2035 General Plan, and
Plan Bay Area 2050 population forecasts. The
project would not induce unplanned growth
directly or indirectly, and impacts would be
less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Impact PH-2. The project would accommodate
increased residential development in Priority
Development Areas on sites that are currently
zoned for residential and mixed use
development. The project would therefore not
result in the displacement of people or
housing, and there would be no impact.

Less than Significant None required No Impact
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PS-1. Implementation of the project
would not result in the need for new or
physically altered fire protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives. Impacts would
be less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Impact PS-2. Implementation of the project
would incrementally increase the service
population of the San Leandro Police
Department (SLPD) and potentially require
new or expanded facilities. The project’s
incremental contribution to demand for new
police protection services would be offset by
payment of proportionate property taxes, sales
taxes, and/or development fees. Additionally,
development facilitated by the project would
comply with General Plan policies related to
fire services and fire safety. Impacts would be
less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Impact PS-3. Implementation of the project
would increase the enrollment of students in
local schools. However, payment of school fees
fully mitigates impacts to schools under Senate
Bill (SB) 50. Therefore, the project would not
result in the need for the provision of new or
physically altered schools. impacts would be
less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Impact PS-4. Development under the project
would incrementally increase the City’s
population and increase the use of existing
parks and recreational facilities and reduce the
City’s parkland to population ratio. However,
development fees for parks or donation of
parkland pursuant to the Quimby Act would be
required as part of the individual projects.
impacts related to the physical deterioration of
parkland or recreational facilities, and the
need to construct new facilities, would be less
than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-10
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Impact PS-5. Development under the project
would incrementally increase the City
population and increase the use of existing
library facilities. However, property taxes
related to new development would contribute
to any necessary new or expanded library
facilities. impacts related to the provision of
new or physically altered public facilities would
be less than significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Transportation
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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1A: Intersections. The City of San Leandro should implement the following traffic improvements and facilities to reduce impacts to standard:
 E. 14th Street and Davis Street (SR-112) (#3). The addition of Cumulative with proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service (LOS) to degrade from LOS C to LOS F in the AM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the AM peak hour to LOS D:
 Add an additional northbound left-turn lane on E. 14th Street.

This would result in the northbound approach having two exclusive left-turn lanes, an exclusive through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane.
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.
 Because this intersection is within the East 14th Street Priority Development Area (PDA), implementation of the following measures would improve intersection operations during the AM peak hour to LOS E:
 Implement proposed Policy T-5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts.  Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

This mitigation is considered feasible if the intersection was under City control. However, this intersection is under California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) jurisdiction, so the Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact implementation and timing of the mitigation measures remain uncertain since the intersection is not under the City’s control.

Consequently, the Cumulative with proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 E. 14th Street and San Leandro Boulevard (#4). The addition of Cumulative with proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS E in the AM peak hour.

Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measure would improve
intersection operations during the AM peak hour to LOS D:
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

This intersection is within the Bay Fair BART Transit Village PDA and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has already designated Bay Fair BART Transit Village a potential PDA. Upon adoption of the Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan, currently anticipated in 2017, Bay Fair will achieve official PDA status. Since this intersection is currently in a potential PDA area the degradation of intersection operations from LOS C to LOS E in the AM peak hour due to the addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would not be considered a significant impact under proposed Plan Policy T5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts.

Upon implementation of this measure, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the AM peak hour. This mitigation is considered feasible if the intersection was under City control.

However, this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, so the implementation and timing of the mitigation measures remain uncertain since the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Cumulative with proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 E. 14th Street and Hesperian Boulevard/Bancroft Avenue (#5). The addition of Cumulative with proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS E in the AM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-12
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Implementation of the following measure would improve
intersection operations during the AM peak hour:
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology
This intersection is within the Bay Fair BART Transit Village PDA and ABAG/MTC has already designated Bay Fair BART Transit Village a potential PDA. Upon adoption of the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan, currently anticipated in 2017, Bay Fair will achieve official PDA status.

Since this intersection is currently in a potential PDA area, the degradation of intersection operations from LOS C to LOS E in the AM peak hour due to the addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would not be considered an impact under proposed Plan Policy T-5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts.

Upon implementation of this measure, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the AM peak hour. This mitigation is considered feasible if the intersection was under City control.

However, this intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, so the implementation and timing of the mitigation measures remain uncertain since the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction.  Hesperian Boulevard and Halcyon Drive/Fairmont Drive (#10). The addition of Cumulative with proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS D to LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours to LOS D:
 Widen the south leg of the intersection in order to add a second northbound left-turn lane. This would result in the northbound approach having two exclusive left-turn lanes, two exclusive through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
 Provide an overlap signal phase for the northbound right turns.  Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

This intersection is within the Bay Fair BART Transit Village PDA and ABAG/MTC has already designated Bay Fair BART Transit Village a potential PDA. Upon adoption of the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan, Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact currently anticipated in 2017, Bay Fair will achieve official PDA status.

Since this intersection is currently in a potential PDA area, the degradation of intersection operations from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour due to the addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would not be considered an impact under proposed Plan Policy T-5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts. Implementation of the following measures, which do not involve evaluation or acquisition of right-of-way, would improve intersection operations during the AM peak hour to LOS E:
 Implement proposed Policy T-5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts.
 Provide an overlap signal phase for the northbound right turns.  Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

Upon implementation of the first three measures, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The availability of right-of-way for the required widening on the south leg of the intersection is uncertain; therefore, the measures may be infeasible. Consequently, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.  Washington Avenue and San Leandro Boulevard (#15). The addition of Cumulative with proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS F in the AM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Upon implementation of this measure, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the AM peak hour and lessen the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact to less than significant.  San Leandro Boulevard and Marina Boulevard (#16). The addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS D to LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS C to LOS F in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-14
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours:
 Add a northbound left-turn lane on San Leandro Boulevard to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, one exclusive through lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. (Consistent with the findings of the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project EIR)  Restripe lanes on the west leg to provide two corresponding receiving lanes. (Consistent with the findings of the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project EIR)
 Provide an exclusive southbound right-turn lane to feed the existing channelized right-turn lane from San Leandro Boulevard southbound to Marina Boulevard westbound so that southbound through traffic does not block access to the channelized southbound right-turn lane.
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

Upon implementation of these measures, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The availability of right-of-way for the required widening on the south and north legs of the intersection is uncertain; therefore, the measure may be infeasible. Consequently, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.  San Leandro Boulevard and Davis Street (#17). The addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS C to LOS E in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours to LOS D:
 Add a northbound right-turn lane on San Leandro Boulevard to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, two exclusive through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane.
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

Because this intersection is within the Downtown Transit Oriented Development PDA, the degradation of intersection operations from LOS C to LOS E in the PM peak hour due to the addition of Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would not be considered an impact under Proposed Plan Policy T-5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts. Implementation of the following measures, which do not involve evaluation or acquisition of right-of-way, would improve intersection operations during the AM peak hour to LOS E:
 Implement proposed Policy T-5.2: Evaluating Development Impacts.
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

Upon implementation of the first two measures, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The availability of right-of-way for the required widening on the south leg of the intersection is uncertain; therefore, the measure may be infeasible. This intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the implementation and timing of the mitigation measures are not under the City’s control. Consequently, the Cumulative with proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.  Philips Lane and Davis Street (#28). The addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS F in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the PM peak hour:
 Convert the existing shared through/right-turn lane on the westbound approach to an exclusive through lane to provide an exclusive left-turn lane, two exclusive through lanes and an exclusive right-turn lane.
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

Upon implementation of these measures, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during
the PM peak hour. This intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the implementation and timing of the mitigation measures are not under the City’s control. Consequently, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-16
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact  Warden Avenue/Timothy Drive and Davis Street (#29). The addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS E in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the PM peak hour:
 Restripe the three northbound lanes from Timothy Drive to provide an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared leftturn/through/right-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane.  Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits in conjunction with adaptive traffic control technology.

Upon implementation of these measures, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the PM peak hour. This intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the implementation and timing of the mitigation measures are not under the City’s control.

Consequently, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 Doolittle Drive and Davis Street (#30). The addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS F in the PM peak hour.

Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the PM peak hour:
 Restripe the four westbound lanes from Davis Street to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, one exclusive through lane and two exclusive right-turn lanes.
 Restrict westbound right turns on red to reduce conflict between right-turning vehicles in the two exclusive right-turn lanes as well as between right-turning vehicles and movements with the rightof-way.  Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits.

Upon implementation of these measures, intersection operations would improve to LOS D during the PM peak hour. Even if this intersection was under City control, the availability of right-of-way for the required widening on the east leg of the intersection is Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact uncertain; therefore, the measure may be infeasible. This intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the implementation and timing of the mitigation measures are not under the City’s control. Consequently, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 Doolittle Drive and Marina Boulevard (#31). The addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS C to LOS F in the AM peak hour and from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours to LOS D and lessen the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact to less than significant:
 Restripe the eastbound approach on Marina Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. (Consistent with the findings of the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project EIR).
 Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits. (Consistent with the findings of the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project EIR).
 Implement a right-turn overlap signal phase for the northbound and westbound approaches. (A new mitigation not called for in the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project EIR).
 Alvarado Street and Aladdin Avenue (#35). The addition of Cumulative with Proposed Plan traffic would cause the intersection level of service to degrade from LOS D to LOS F in the AM peak hour.

Therefore, the Cumulative with Proposed Plan impact is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measures would improve
intersection operations during the AM peak hour to LOS D and lessen the proposed Plan impact to less than significant:
 Convert the left-turn signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches on Aladdin Avenue from protected leftturn signal phasing to permitted left-turn signal phasing with flashing yellow arrows.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-18
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact  Convert the northbound left-turn signal phasing on Alvarado Avenue from protected left-turn signal phasing to
protected/permitted left-turn signal phasing with flashing yellow arrows.
 Convert the southbound left-turn signal phasing on Alvarado Avenue from protected left-turn signal phasing to permitted leftturn signal phasing with flashing yellow arrows.  Optimize the traffic signal cycle length and splits.

While implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1A would secure future roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future development in the city based on current standards, some impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the City cannot guarantee improvements at all of the impacted intersections.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-1B: Freeway Segments: The City of San Leandro shall initiate efforts to coordinate with Caltrans and Alameda CTC to identify
 I-880 Northbound segments between Washington Avenue and 98th Avenue. These three mainline segments experience LOS F conditions during the AM peak hour under both existing and cumulative plus Proposed Plan conditions.

Implementation of the following measure would improve freeway segment operations during the AM peak hour to LOS D or better and lessen the proposed Plan impact to less than significant:
 Add additional capacity to the freeway segment by increasing the number of travel lanes in the northbound direction.

However, the implementation and timing of the Mitigation Measure is not under the City’s control and widening I-880 is not considered to be feasible due to cost and freeway right-of-way constraints.

Consequently, the Cumulative plus Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 I-580 Northbound segment between 150th Avenue and Benedict Drive, which is at LOS F during the AM peak hour under both existing and cumulative plus Proposed Plan conditions.

Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Implementation of the following measure would improve freeway segment operations during the AM peak hour to LOS D or better and lessen the proposed Plan impact to less than significant:
 Add additional capacity to the freeway segment by increasing the number of travel lanes in the northbound direction.

Consequently, the Cumulative plus Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 I-580 Northbound segment between Foothill Boulevard and 106th Avenue, is at LOS E during the AM peak hour under existing and LOS F under cumulative plus Proposed Plan conditions.

Consequently, the Cumulative plus Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 I-880 Southbound segment between Marina Boulevard and Washington Avenue would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under cumulative plus Proposed Plan condition, which is considered to be significant.

Implementation of the following measure would improve freeway segment operations during the AM peak hour to LOS D or better and lessen the Proposed Plan impact to less than significant:
 Add additional capacity to the freeway segment by increasing the number of travel lanes in the southbound direction.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-20
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Consequently, the Cumulative plus Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.
 I-238 Eastbound segment between Hesperian Boulevard and SR 185 would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour under cumulative plus Proposed Plan condition, which is considered to be significant.

Consequently, the Cumulative plus Proposed Plan impact remains significant and unavoidable.

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 Proposed Plan would contribute its fair share through development fees for street improvements. To this end, the City shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) to develop a cooperative agreement to fund these improvements and determine the fair share contribution. Since these mitigations are not certain, the findings remain as significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-2A. Implementation of the following improvement would reduce the impact to acceptable levels:
 Widen Doolittle Drive to provide an additional travel lane in the northbound direction; or
 Provide transit or shuttle service that operates between the Proposed Plan site and key locations such as San Leandro and Coliseum BART stations and Oakland International Airport.

Widening Doolittle Drive to provide an additional travel lane in the northbound direction would improve the level of service to LOS D in Year 2040 and would mitigate the Proposed Plan impact to less than significant. However, the feasibility of this measure is uncertain due to right of way constraints along this mostly developed corridor.

Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-21
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Alternatively, provision of a shuttle service that operates between the City site and key locations, such as San Leandro and Coliseum BART stations and Oakland International Airport, during the AM and PM peak hour would likely lessen the Proposed Plan’s impact on the segment.

However, the effectiveness of the shuttle service in reducing the number of Proposed Plan trips on Doolittle Drive cannot be adequately quantified.

As discussed above, the ongoing I-880 Integrated Corridor Management effort led by the MTC that aims to optimize freeway, arterial signal, rail, and bus systems and incorporate Intelligent Transportation System would also help enhance efficiency on the freeway. However, for the reasons listed above this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

No additional mitigation measures would be required from the SEIR.

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 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
station. Impacts would be less than significant.

Not applicable Not applicable Less than Significant
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.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Impact TRA-4. Development facilitated by the
project would not result in inadequate
emergency access. Impacts would be less than
significant.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
ES-22
Impact Original EIR Conclusion Relevant 2035 General Plan Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact Utilities and Service Systems
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.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant 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.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant 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.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant 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.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared as a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) to the 2016 General Plan Update Draft EIR for the City of San Leandro (2035 General Plan EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2001092001, adopted in June 2016, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15163.1

This SEIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed City of San Leandro (City) 2023-2031 Housing Element and General Plan Update which includes amendments to land use and zoning development standards, updates to the Environmental Hazards Element, and the proposed Environmental Justice Element (hereinafter referred to collectively as “project”). This section discusses (1) the basis for a SEIR, (2) the SEIR’s purpose and legal authority, (3) the background of the 2035 General Plan EIR and this SEIR, (4) the scope of the SEIR, (5) issues not studied in detail in this SEIR, and (7) the environmental review process required under CEQA. The project is described in detail in Section 2, Project Description.

1.1 Basis for a Supplemental EIR
The key considerations in determining the need for the appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined CEQA Guidelines Section 15163:
(a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and
2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
(b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
(c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.

CEQA Guidelines 15162 describes the conditions under which a SEIR would be an appropriate document for actions not considered in the Final EIR. A SEIR is appropriate when:

Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 The 2035 General Plan EIR is incorporated by reference and is available on the City’s website at:
https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
1-2
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The project would increase allowable densities, floor area ratio (FAR), and building heights under the City’s land use and zoning code. Therefore, only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the 2035 General Plan EIR adequately apply to the project, and thus the City has determined that the preparation of an SEIR is the appropriate approach to CEQA compliance. The 2035 General Plan EIR is incorporated into this document by reference. A summary of impacts and applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2035 General Plan EIR is included as Appendix A and in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
The project would require the approval of the City of San Leandro. Therefore, the project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), the purpose of this SEIR is to serve as an informational document that:
“will inform public agency decisionmakers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
As discussed above, this document is an SEIR to the 2035 General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. An SEIR is appropriate when, “Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.”
This SEIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public and City of San Leandro decisionmakers. The process will include public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to consider certification of a Final SEIR and approval of the proposed project.

Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3

1.3 Environmental Impact Report Background
In 2016, the City of San Leandro adopted and certified the Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001092001) for the San Leandro 2035 General Plan Update. The 2015-2023 Housing Element, which the City adopted in January 2015, is part of the General Plan Update and was evaluated under the 2035 General Plan EIR.

The City of San Leandro distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of this SEIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on January 14, 2022, and ending on February 14, 2022. The City held an EIR Scoping Meeting on January 19, 2022. The scoping meeting was held via Zoom at 6:00 p.m. and provided information about the project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders, and residents/community members. A recording of the meeting was posted on the project website at www.slhousingelement.com.

The City received letters from four agencies in response to the NOP during the public review period, as well as various spoken comments during the EIR Scoping Meeting. The NOP is presented in Appendix NOP of this EIR, along with the NOP comments received. Table 1-1 summarizes the content of the letters and verbal comments and where the issues raised are addressed in the EIR.

Table 1-1 NOP Comments and SEIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Agency Comments
Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC)
Recommends consultation with Native
American tribes that are affiliated with the
project area and provides a summary of the
requirements for compliance with Assembly
Bill (AB 52) and Senate Bill (SB) 18.

Please refer to subsection 4.10.9, Tribal
Cultural Resources, of Section 4.10, Effects
Found Not to be Significant, which discusses
the less than significant impacts to tribal
cultural resources and summarizes consultation
completed pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18.

East Bay Municipal
Utility District
(EBMUD)
Notes that main extensions to serve specific
developments facilitated by the project will
be at the project sponsor’s expense.

Please refer to subsection 4.10.6, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, and subsection 4.10.7,
Hydrology and Water Quality, in Section 4.10,
Effects Found Not to be Significant. These
subsections discuss the less than significant
impacts related to groundwater and hazardous
materials. Also refer to Section 4.9, Utilities and
Service Systems, which discusses impacts to
water service.

Notes that EBMUD will not design piping or
service and will not begin underground work
until soil quality data, groundwater quality
data, and remediation plans have been
received and reviewed.

Encourages the use of recycled water and
the implementation of water conservation
measures in development facilitated by the
project.

Alameda County
Transportation
Commission (ACTC)
Notes that the City is required by the
Congestion Management Land Use analysis
Program to conduct a transportation impact
analysis for the project with the Countywide
Travel Demand Model.

Please refer to Section 4.8, Transportation,
which addresses impacts to transportation
systems.

Notes that the EIR should identify the
project’s potential impacts to roadways and
Metropolitan Transportation System transit
operators, and that the EIR should provide
adequate mitigation.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
1-4
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
(BAAQMD)
Encourages the full evaluation of potential
significant impacts and feasible mitigation
measures in San Leandro community census
tracts that are in the top 30 percent of
pollution burden statewide, as identified in
CalEnviroscreen 4.0.

Please refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, which
discusses potential impacts to air quality and
consistency with applicable air quality
regulations and policies. Also refer to Section

4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which discusses
potential impacts to GHG emissions and
consistency with applicable GHG emissions
regulations and policies. Notes that the EIR should provide a detailed analysis of the project’s effects on local and
regional air quality, air pollutant emissions,
and the project’s consistency with State and
regional greenhouse gas (GHG) and air
pollutant emissions goals.

Notes that the EIR should evaluate all
feasible mitigation measures to minimize air
pollutant emissions and exposure.

Verbal Comments
Suggests that the City examines potential
impacts of development on schools.

Please refer to Section 4.7, Public Services and
Recreation, which discusses potential impacts
to schools.

Notes that the EIR should consider the
regional context of the No Project
Alternative – for example, not increasing
housing in urban places results in greater
housing demand in rural areas.

Please refer to Section 6, Alternatives.

Notes that the EIR should consider impacts
related to creeks, and hazards associated
with flood zones, sea level rise, and
hazardous materials sites.

Please refer to subsection 4.10.6, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, and subsection 4.10.7,
Hydrology and Water Quality, in Section 4.10,
Effects Found Not to be Significant.

Notes that San Leandro High School is
currently at capacity and that the project
would impact school capacity.

Please refer to Section 4.7, Public Services and
Recreation, which discusses potential impacts
to schools.

1.4 Scope of the Supplemental EIR
As noted in subsection 1.3, Environmental Impact Report Background, an NOP was circulated to potentially interested parties on January 14, 2022, and responses received on the NOP were considered when setting the scope and content of the environmental information in this SEIR.

Subsections 4.1 through 4.9 in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, address the resource areas outlined in the bullet points below. Environmental topic areas that are addressed in this SEIR include:
 Air Quality
 Energy
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services and Recreation
Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-5
 Transportation
 Utilities and Service Systems
Section 5, Other CEQA Required Discussions, covers topics, including growth-inducing effects and significant and unavoidable impacts. The alternatives section of the SEIR (Section 6) was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the basic project objectives. In addition, the alternatives section identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and one alternative development scenario.

The level of detail contained throughout this SEIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The CEQA Guidelines state:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

In preparing the SEIR, use was made of pertinent City policies and guidelines including the 2035 General Plan EIR and other background documents. A full reference list is contained in Section 7, References and Preparers.

1.5 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR
Environmental topic areas not covered in Sections 4.1 through 4.9 are discussed in Section 4.10, Effects Found Not to be Significant. This section provides a summary of the less than significant impact determinations made by the 2035 General Plan EIR and how these areas remain to be less than significant with the implementation of the project.

There is no substantial evidence that the project would result in significant impacts to the following environmental topic areas:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Mineral Resources
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Wildfire
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
1-6

1.6 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of San Leandro is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the only responsible agency for the project. HCD is responsible for the review and certification of the Housing Element.

The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board), which is a government-appointed body within the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), is responsible for reviewing the Environmental Hazards Element under Government Code section 65302.5. The Board reviews the Environmental Hazards Element and responds to the City with its findings regarding the uses of land and policies in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) that will protect life, property, and natural resources from unreasonable risks associated with wildfires, and the methods and strategies for wildfire risk reduction and prevention within SRAs or VHFHSZs (Gov. Code, Section 65302.5, subd. (b)(3); California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2022).

A trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no trustee agencies for the project.

1.7 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study. After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (City of San Leandro) must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the project could create significant environmental impacts.

Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

Notice of Completion (NOC). The lead agency must file a NOC with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the NOC in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the NOC to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-7
review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the State Clearinghouse approves a shorter period (Public Resources Code 21091).

Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.

Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.

Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the County Clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
1-8
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
The Housing Element Update and General Plan Update, herein referred to collectively as the “project,” would amend the City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “2035 General Plan”) by replacing the current Housing Element with the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, updating the Environmental Hazards Element, and a proposed Environmental Justice Element. To fulfill the requirements of the Housing Element, the project would also involve minor changes to the City of San Leandro’s Land Use Element, land use designations, and zoning code.

This section describes the project, including the lead agency, major characteristics, objectives, and discretionary actions needed for approval.

2.1 Lead Agency Name and Contact
City of San Leandro
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Contact: Avalon Schultz, AICP, Principal Planner
City of San Leandro Planning Division
510-577-3422

2.2 Project Location
The City of San Leandro (hereinafter referred to as “City”) is in northern Alameda County in the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area. The City is adjacent to the cities of Alameda and Oakland to the north, the unincorporated community of San Lorenzo and the City of Hayward to the south, the San Francisco Bay to the west, and unincorporated Alameda County and the Diablo Range to the east. Interstate 880 (I-880), State Route (SR) 185, and Interstate 580 (I-580) generally run north-south through the city. A grid system of east-west and north-south roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local streets, provide vehicular access throughout the city. Major thoroughfares in the city include Davis Street (SR 112) and Marina Boulevard, which run east-west; and San Leandro Boulevard, East 14th Street (SR 185), Washington Avenue, and Doolittle Drive (SR 61), which run north-south.

San Leandro’s city limits, which constitute the project area for this Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), encompass approximately 15 square miles. The regional location of the city is shown in Figure 2-1 and the city boundary is shown in Figure 2-2.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Site Location
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-4

2.3 Existing City Characteristics

2.3.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning
Single-family residential areas are generally located in the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the city. In the western portion of the city, the area generally bounded by Menlo Street, Williams Street, and Estudillo Canal contains mostly single-family residential with multi-family residential parcels distributed throughout. Multi-family residential areas are dispersed throughout the city but are generally concentrated along Davis Street, Washington Avenue, East 14th Street, and areas between. Low-density residential uses are mostly in the city’s southern, northeastern, and northern areas, with pockets of low-density residential in the Mulford Gardens area in the western portion of the city. Mulford Gardens consists of “garden” density, low-, low-medium, and medium-density residential areas. Other low-medium and medium-density residential areas are in the southwestern portion of the city on either side of Wicks Boulevard (City of San Leandro 2016).

Commercial and industrial areas are generally located near the center of the city; there is a concentration of commercial land use near the intersection of Marina Boulevard and I-880, and mixed-use areas are clustered near Downtown and along East 14th Street. Industrial areas are mostly on the western side of I-880 with some light industrial areas between I-880 and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail line near Washington Avenue. Land use locations are shown in Figure 2-3.

The dominant land use designation in San Leandro is residential, with the 2035 General Plan defining six categories of residential land uses. The categories, definitions and acreage of each residential land use type are described in Table 2-1. Other land use designations in the city include commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and public/open space. Table 2-2 describes the definitions, categories, and acreage of each designation.

2.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The city is surrounded by the urbanized San Francisco Bay Area, with the City of Oakland and the greater Oakland area to the north and the community of San Lorenzo and City of Hayward to the south. Immediately west of the city is the San Francisco Bay, and the Diablo Range, unincorporated communities, and regional parkland of Alameda County are to the east. Land uses immediately adjacent to the city’s borders are primarily low- to medium-density residential with some industrial uses to the north and southwest. Oakland International Airport is approximately 0.7-mile northwest of the city.

Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Figure 2-3 San Leandro Land Use Designations
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-6
Table 2-1 Residential and Mixed Use Land Use Designations Residential Land
Use Type Definition
Corresponding
Zoning Codes
Acres
in City
Percentage
of City Area
Garden Residential Detached single family homes with new lots being no smaller than 8,000 square feet. Generally one to four units per acre.

RO, RS, PS 160 1.9
Low Density
Residential
Detached single family homes on lots of 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. Gross densities range from three to six units per acre, with a maximum allowable net density of 8.7 units per acre.

RS, RS-40, RS-VP,

RS-PD, RD, PS, CN
3,098 37.4
Low-Medium
Density Residential
Attached and detached single family homes on small lots (<5,000 square feet permitted). Gross densities range from seven to 11 units per acre with a maximum allowable net density of 12.4 units per acre.

RS-PD, RD, RS, PS 206 2.5
Medium Density
Residential
Attached and detached housing types, such as townhomes, duplexes, and planned unit developments, as well as single family homes on standard lots (5,000 square feet) or smaller. Gross densities range from 12 to 18 units per acre with a maximum allowable net density of 21.7 units per acre (maximum not allowed in all corresponding zoning districts).

RD, RM-3500, RM2500, RM-2000, RSPD, PS
410 4.9
Medium-High
Density Residential
Multi-family residences, apartments, townhomes, and condominiums, with single family homes also permitted. Gross densities range from 19 to 25 units per acre with a maximum allowable net density of 29 units per acre.

RM-1800, RM-2000,
RM-2500, RM-3500,
PS
217 2.6
High Density
Residential
Multi-family residences, multi-story apartments, and condominiums. This designation is intended to identify and conserve existing concentrations of such development where existing net densities exceed 29 units per acre. Maximum allowable net density of 50 units per acre (not allowed in all corresponding zoning districts).

RM-875, RM-1800 118 2.4
Downtown Mixed
Use
Corresponds to an area that has historically been the central business district of San Leandro. Allows a range of uses to create a pedestrian oriented street environment, including retail, services, offices, cultural activities, public and civic buildings, and other compatible uses. Upper story residential uses are permitted. A maximum FAR of 3.5 applies but is not permitted in all corresponding zoning districts.

DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, P,
RM-875, RM-1800,
CN, PS
98 1.2
Transit Oriented
Mixed Use
High-intensity land uses that capitalize on proximity to the San Leandro BART Station. Encourages the vertical mixing of different uses, including residential, office, and retail uses. Maximum far ranges from 4.0 to 5.0, with approximately 60 to 80 units per acre allowed.

DA-2, DA-3, DA-4,
DA-6, RM-875, RM1800, PS
158 1.9
Corridor Mixed Use A mix of commercial and residential uses oriented in linear development along major transit arterials such as East 14th Street. Commercial and office uses permitted, with residential uses allowed in freestanding structures or in upper floors of mixed use developments.

NA-1, NA-2, SA-1,
SA-2, SA-3, DA-2,
RM-875, RM-1800,
RM-2000, RM-2500,
RM-3000, CN, CC, P,
PS, IL
184 2.2
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Residential Land
Use Type Definition
Corresponding
Zoning Codes
Acres
in City
Percentage
of City Area
Bay Fair Transit
Oriented District
Mixed Use
Approximately 120 acres around the Bay Fair BART station, including Bayfair Center, Fairmont Square, Fashion Faire Place, and other commercial properties along Hesperian Boulevard, Fairmont Drive, and East 14th Street. Retail, office, higher density housing, open space, and public land uses permitted with a maximum FAR of 3.0.

Subject to Bay Fair
Transit Oriented
District Specific Plan
121 1.5
Total 4,768 58.5
RD = Residential Duplex; RO = Residential Outer; RS = Residential Single Family; RM = Residential Multi-Family; RM-3000 = 3,000 square feet (sf) per unit; RM-2500 = 2,500 sf/unit; RM-2000 = 2,000 sf/unit; RM-1800 = 1,800 sf/unit; RM-875 = 875 square feet per unit; RS-40 = Residential Single Family with 40-foot front setback; RS-VP = Residential Single Family (View Preservation); RS-PD = Residential Single Family (Planned Development); PS = Public and Semi-Public; CN = Commercial Neighborhood, DA = Downtown Area; NA =North Area; SA = South Area Source: City of San Leandro 2016
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-8
Table 2-2 Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Land Use
Designation Categories Definition
Corresponding
Zoning Codes
Acres in
City
Percent of
City Area
Commercial Neighborhood
Commercial
Small shopping centers or clusters of street front buildings with local-serving businesses and services. Allowable uses include groceries, local-serving offices, pharmacies, laundromats, dry cleaners, restaurants, and other businesses. Maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. Residential uses and mixed-use development may be considered to a maximum net density of 24.2 units per acre.

CN, P, CC, PS 55 0.7
General
Commercial
Larger shopping centers or districts and commercial uses providing a broader range of goods and services serving a broader market. Allowable uses include supermarkets, department stores, apparel stores, theaters, offices, and banks. These areas can also contain auto-oriented commercial uses such as hotels, car dealerships, and service centers. Maximum FAR of 1.0, with some zoning districts in this category allow residential uses subject to conditional use permits and a maximum net density of 24.2 units per acre.

CC, CS, CN, PS, P 343 4.1
Industrial Light Industrial Wholesale activities, distribution activities, research and development, e-commerce uses, business services, technology, and manufacturing operations with minimal offsite impacts. Uses must be compatible with adjacent residential uses. A maximum FAR of 1.0 applies but may not be attainable in all districts.

IL, IP, IG, CC, CS,
P, PS
518 6.3
General Industrial A wide range of manufacturing, transportation, food and beverage processing, technology, warehousing, vehicle storage, office flex, and distribution uses. A maximum FAR of 1.0 applies but may not be attainable in all districts.

IG, IL, IP, CC, CS,
P, PS
1,003 12.1
Industrial
Transition
Areas that have historically been industrial but have transitioned or may transition to a diverse mix of uses, including general commercial activities. Industrial uses are permitted, but a broader mix of commercial uses including offices, medical facilities, retail, services, and restaurants are encouraged. Residential uses are permitted on properties within 0.5 mile of a BART station. Maximum FAR is 1.0 with no density limit.

IT, IG, CC, IL, IP 172 2.1
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Land Use
Designation Categories Definition
Corresponding
Zoning Codes
Acres in
City
Percent of
City Area
Public/Open
Space
Public/Institutional Public schools, libraries, post offices, churches, public hospitals, and utility properties and facilities. Maximum FAR of 1.0 applies.

PS 354 4.3
Parks and
Recreation
Land uses for active recreation purposes, including neighborhood, community, and regional parks; golf courses; and recreational amenities at Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline. Related structures generally should not exceed ten percent of the area within any park.

OS, PS, CR 548 6.6
Resource
Conservation
Land to remain undeveloped due to high environmental sensitivity, or land used primarily for passive recreation such as walking trails. Includes land within and along the banks of San Leandro Creek. Development is generally not permitted.

OS, PS 522 6.3
Total 3,515 42.5
CC = Commercial Community; CN = Commercial Neighborhood; CR-M = Commercial Regional Mall; CS = Community Services; P = Professional Office; PS = Public and Semi-Public; IL = Industrial Limited; IG = General Industrial; IP = Industrial Park; IT = Industrial Transition; OS = Open Space Source: City of San Leandro 2016 City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-10

2.4 Project Characteristics

2.4.1 Housing Element Update
The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of a city’s General Plan. The Housing Element identifies the city’s existing housing conditions and needs, and establishes goals, objectives, and policies that comprise the City’s housing strategy to accommodate projected regional housing needs. Pursuant to Housing Element law, the City of San Leandro must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide for and do not unduly constrain housing development within the city. Housing needs addressed in the Housing Element include but are not limited to the provision of adequate housing for low-income households and for special-needs populations (e.g., people experiencing homelessness, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities), and the evaluation and removal of constraints that inhibit development of housing for all income levels.

The State requires local governments to update their Housing Element every eight years in update “cycles,” with the 6th Housing Element update cycle currently underway (which will cover the planning period of 2023 through 2031). In each cycle, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to each regional planning agency in the state, which determines the total number of new housing units at certain affordability levels to meet the housing needs of people of all income levels. The City of San Leandro is a member of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the regional planning agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG distributes the RHNA to each member community in the ABAG region. On May 20, 2021, the ABAG Executive Board approved the Final RHNA Methodology and Draft Allocations, which includes a “fair share” allocation for meeting regional housing needs for each community in the ABAG region. In December 2021, the ABAG Executive Board adopted the Final RHNA allocations.

The City’s current Housing Element was adopted in 2003 and updated in 2011 and 2015. The 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update would bring the element into compliance with State legislation since adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and would reflect San Leandro’s “fair share” allocation of housing to meet regional housing needs. The City completed a public review draft of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element in July 2022 and submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD for review. The draft Housing Element is available on the City’s website: www.SLHousingElement.com.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following chapters:
 Housing Needs Assessment. The Housing Needs Assessment of the 2023-2031 Housing Element incudes an assessment of the City’s population, household, and housing stock characteristics; existing and future housing needs by household types; an analysis of housing needs and resources for special needs populations; and a review of historic and current integration and segregation patterns. The Housing Needs Assessment evaluates existing and projection population characteristics, including population growth, age characteristics, race and ethnicity, household characteristics, and economic characteristics such as employment and income. The Housing Needs Assessment also considers the housing needs of special needs groups, including but not limited to seniors, large households, persons with disabilities, and extremely-low income residents. Additionally, the Housing Needs Assessment evaluates housing affordability and cost burden of housing.
 Housing Constraints. The Housing Constraints chapter of the 2023-2031 Housing Element includes an analysis of resources and constraints related to housing production and Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-11
preservation, including governmental regulations; infrastructure requirements and market conditions such as land, construction, and labor costs; as well as financing availability. Nongovernmental constraints evaluated in this chapter include the housing market and affordability; land costs which vary depending on location, zoning, and current land uses; and availability of financing for affordable housing and capital used by site developers, homeowners, and investors. Governmental constraints considered in the Housing Constraints chapter include but are not limited to land use controls such as zoning and specific plans; residential development standards, and planning and development fees and processing times. Finally, this chapter also evaluates infrastructure constraints, such as water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure and capacity.
 Housing Resources. The Housing Resources chapter of the 2023-2031 Housing Element includes an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development that meets the city’s regional housing need by income level. The City conducted a housing Sites Inventory to demonstrate the City’s ability to satisfy its share of the regional housing need, and this chapter documents the methodology and results of the Sites Inventory. The Housing Resources chapter evaluates future housing needs and how the City will accommodate the RHNA while considering the adequacy of the Sites Inventory, availability of infrastructure and services environmental constraints, and financial and administrative resources.

In addition, the 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following components: review of the 2015- 2023 Housing Element to identify progress and evaluate the effectiveness of previous policies and programs, and a Housing Plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, with goals, policies, and actions. Proposed goals, policies, and programs in the 6th Cycle Housing Element support the city’s diverse community and housing needs by addressing the following issues:
 Housing and support for residents experiencing homelessness  Affordable housing production and preservation
 Overall housing development, especially near transit
 Homeownership education and opportunities
 Development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and diverse housing types  Workforce and moderate-income housing
 Fair housing and tenant protections
 Mobile home park affordability and protections
 Housing that accommodates special needs residents
 Community development, planning, and infrastructure
 Racial/ethnic and economic equity, integration, and opportunities  Encourage all-electric construction in new housing

2.4.2 Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Housing Element must address the City's fair share of the regional housing needs and specific State statutory requirements and must reflect the vision and priorities of the local community. As of December 2021, ABAG determined a final RHNA Allocation of 3,855 units for the City, broken down by units appropriate for very low, low, moderate, and above-moderate-income households. It is important to note that the City is not required to build enough housing to meet its RHNA allocation; rather, the City must provide the appropriate land use designations in its General Plan and in City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-12
subsequent rezoning to allow for additional housing and housing appropriate for different income levels. The Housing Element in and of itself does not develop housing – it is a policy document. Most development is built by the private market. The Housing Element identifies opportunities for the City to remove barriers to market development and enhances opportunities for affordable housing.

HCD requires local jurisdictions to identify enough future housing sites inventory to not only cover the jurisdiction’s 6th Cycle RHNA, but to also provide for an additional buffer capacity above the RHNA. The buffer capacity is required to accommodate realistic production rates of affordable housing units; plus having the buffer can allow for instances when a smaller residential project may have to be considered for a given property. The “No Net Loss” Law (Government Code Section 65863) requires maintenance of sufficient sites to meet the RHNA for all income levels throughout the planning period. The recommendation from HCD is to adopt a housing sites inventory with a buffer of at least 20 percent over the allocated RHNA for low and moderate-income sites. The RHNA allocation is detailed in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3 City of San Leandro Regional Housing Needs Allocation Income Category (Percent of Alameda County Area Median Income [AMI]) Total Housing
Units
Very Low
(31-50% AMI)
Low
(51-80% AMI)
Moderate
(81-120%)
Above Moderate
(120% or more)
RHNA Housing Units 489 868 696 1,802 3,855
The City plans to meet the RHNA requirements through planned and approved projects, projected ADUs, and vacant and underutilized sites with modifications to land use and zoning districts as further detailed below. Housing units approved, permitted but not yet built (“pipeline projects”), or units in receipt of a certificate of occupancy as of June 30, 2022, can be credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. An estimated number of ADUs, also referred to as granny flats and secondary units, can be counted towards the RHNA. The City’s ADU ordinance allows ADUs and junior ADUs in single-family and multi-family uses.

After accounting for the units from planned and approved projects and from projected ADU development, the City will meet the remaining RHNA and buffer through the identification of sites suitable for housing development. The City assumed a development potential of 70 percent on each site. Jurisdictions can utilize a percentage factor to calculate the realistic capacity of sites to conservatively reflect a reduction in density at a project level due to factors such as local land use controls, typical densities of existing or approved residential development, and the availability of infrastructure. A projection of densities at 70 percent of the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is a conservative but reasonable estimate for the Bay Area region.

As described in Chapter 4, Housing Resources, of the Housing Element Update, most vacant and underutilized sites identified as opportunities for multifamily and mixed-use housing are located within the Downtown Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Transit-Oriented Mixed Use, and Bay Fair Transit-Oriented Development land use designations. These areas are generally referred to as Downtown, the Bay Fair TOD, and the East 14th Street corridor. These areas are “Priority Development Areas,” a term used by regional agencies to identify locations approved for future higher density growth that are typically accessible by one or more transit services near services, and targeted for more focused public funding (e.g., infrastructure, affordable housing, economic development). These areas, as shown in Figure 2-4, are locations for transit-oriented development, generally within walking distance of high-quality public transit and commercial centers. The City of San Leandro made significant efforts during the 4th and 5th cycle housing element planning periods Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-13
to decrease constraints to multifamily residential and mixed use development, particularly in these areas.

2.4.3 Proposed Zoning and Land Use Changes
To fulfill the vision of Priority Development Areas as centers of development and accommodate the city’s RHNA, the City proposes changes to land use and zoning districts that would achieve largerscale residential and mixed use development typologies in Priority Development Areas. Specifically, the City proposes to increase the allowable densities in the General Plan Land Use Element and the San Leandro Zoning Code in the Downtown Mixed Use District and Transit Oriented Mixed Use District land use designations and increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Corridor Mixed Use District.

The allowable density would be increased in the following zoning districts:
 DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4 (Downtown Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4)  SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 (South Area 1, 2, and 3 District)
The tables below outline the proposed changes to density, FAR, and building heights in San Leandro.

Table 2-4 shows the proposed allowable FAR in the General Plan land use designations in Priority Development Areas in San Leandro. The proposed maximum allowable FAR in these districts ranges from 2.5 to 5.0.

Table 2-4 Proposed FAR – San Leandro General Plan Land Use Designations Land Use Designation Current FAR Proposed FAR
Downtown Mixed Use Maximum 3.5 Maximum 3.5
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use Maximum 4.0, 5.0 adjacent to BART Maximum 4.0, 5.0 adjacent to BART Corridor Mixed Use Maximum 1.5 Maximum 2.5 (increase of 1.0 FAR) Average Maximum 3.5 Maximum 3.8
FAR = Floor Area Ratio
BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit
Table 2-5 outlines the proposed increase in maximum density for the Downtown Mixed-Use land use designation in San Leandro, which will increase by 25 du/acre above the current standard.

Table 2-5 Proposed Allowable Density by General Plan Land Use Designation in San Leandro
Land Use Designation Current Maximum Density (units/acre) Proposed Allowable Density Range
(units/acre)
Downtown Mixed Use 100 125 (increase of 25 du/acre)
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Table 2-6 shows the proposed allowable densities by zoning district in San Leandro’s Priority Development Areas. The proposed updates include an increase of 25 du/ac in the DA-1 and DA-4 zones, 40 du/ac to 85 du/ac in the DA-2 zone (depending on proximity to transit), 40 du/ac to 65 du/ac in the DA-3 zone (depending on proximity to transit) and 50 du/ac in the SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 zones. The proposed maximum density by zoning district ranges from 85 to 125 du/ac.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-14
Table 2-6 Proposed Allowable Density by Zoning District in San Leandro Zoning District
Current Maximum Density
(du/a)
Proposed Maximum Density
(du/a)
DA-1 100 125 (increase of 25 du/acre)
DA-2 40 85; or
Within the General Plan
Downtown Mixed Use land use category: 100
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use category: 125
(increase of 45-85 du/acre)
DA-3 60 100; or
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use category: 125
(increase of 40-65 du/acre)
DA-4 100 125 (increase of 25 du/acre)
DA-6 N/A N/A
NA-1, NA-2, P 24 24
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 35 85 (increase of 50 du/acre)
DA = Downtown Area
NA = North Area
P = Parking
SA = South Area
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Additionally, the maximum height limit would be raised in the DA-2, SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 zoning districts as described in detail below in Table 2-7.

Table 2-7 Proposed Changes to Maximum Height
Zoning Current Maximum Height (feet) Proposed Maximum Height (feet) DA-2 50 65
DA-6 75 No Maximum
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 50 65
DA = Downtown Area; SA = South Area
Increasing dwelling unit/acre density limitations and allowable FAR for residential development would bring the development allowances more closely into conformance with the intent of the 2035 General Plan. The proposed changes to land use and zoning districts would occur in Priority Development Areas, which are shown in Figure 2-4.

Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-15
Figure 2-4 Priority Development Areas
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-16

2.4.4 Development Capacity Assumptions
The environmental analysis encompasses impacts resulting from the changes to land use and zoning districts that apply to all applicable parcels in the city beyond the housing inventory sites. These changes would allow the City to achieve the development capacity assumed in the 2035 General Plan. Although it is unlikely that these changes would result in an increase in development capacity beyond what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, this SEIR conservatively assumes an additional 2,500 residential units in the Downtown Transit Development District and East 14th Street Corridor Priority Development Areas compared to what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2001092001).

Although there is no change at this time to the Bay Fair Transit Oriented District (BTOD) zoning districts, for purposes of the environmental analysis and to be conservative, this SEIR assumes an increase of 2,460 housing units and 75,000 square feet of office space in the 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. Therefore, this SEIR analyzes a net increase of 4,960 residential units and 75,000 square feet of office space in the three Priority Development Areas in the city compared to the assumptions analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR.

2.4.5 Environmental Hazards Element Update
The proposed Environmental Hazards Element Update (the City’s safety element) will address the requirements of new State legislation and incorporate proposed policies based on updated local and regional data. The update will address the following legislative requirements:
 Senate Bill (SB) 99 requires jurisdictions, upon the next revision of the Housing Element on or after January 1, 2020, to review and update the safety element to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. The Environmental Hazards Element Update includes an assessment of residential emergency evacuation routes consistent with SB 99.  Senate Bill 379 requires Safety Elements to include a climate change vulnerability assessment, measures to address vulnerabilities, and a comprehensive hazard mitigation and emergency response strategy. In addition, Senate Bill 1035 requires cities and counties to update their safety element during a housing element or local hazard mitigation plan update cycle, but not less than once every eight years, if new information on flood hazards, fire hazards, or climate adaptation or resilience is available that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. The Environmental Hazards Element Update identifies populations vulnerable to climate change, present climate change projection information, and include proposed goals, policies and implementation programs addressing climate change.  Senate Bill 1241 requires review and update of the safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, as necessary to address the risk of fire in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones. The Environmental Hazards Element update includes proposed goals, policies and programs related to fire hazard planning and preparedness consistent with CAL FIRE requirements.

Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-17
 Assembly Bill (AB) 747 requires each jurisdiction to review and update as necessary the Safety Element to identify evacuation routes and capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. This information must be included by January 1, 2022, or upon approval of the next update to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Safety Element Update will identify emergency scenarios and goals, policies, and implementation programs to mitigate potential impacts associated with emergency evacuation.

Updates to the proposed Environmental Hazards Element, which incorporates the State-mandated Safety Element of the General Plan, will address the requirements of these bills. Areas of the Environmental Hazards Element that would be updated include geology and seismicity, stormwater management and flooding, fire hazards, climate change, and disaster response.

2.4.6 Environmental Justice Element
California State Senate Bill (SB) 1000, signed into law in 2016, states that revisions or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018, trigger a requirement to “adopt or review the environmental justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements.” Per Government Code Section 65040.12(e), environmental justice is “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives must aim to reduce health risks to disadvantaged communities (DACs), promote civil engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities.

San Leandro proposes to adopt an Environmental Justice Element that would include policies to reduce pollution exposure and prioritize public transit, recreational opportunities, food access, safe and sanitary housing, physical health of residents, community equity, and engagement of residents in disadvantaged communities.

2.5 Project Objectives
The project presents a comprehensive set of policies and actions to update the Housing and Environmental Hazards Elements, and the new Environmental Justice Element; and amend the development standards of the land use and zoning districts to support the goals of the City’s 2035 General Plan. The project will encompass the entire City of San Leandro. Objectives for the project include the following:
 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.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-18

2.6 Required Discretionary Actions
With recommendations from the Planning Commission, the City of San Leandro City Council would need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the project:
 Certification of the SEIR
 Adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element
 Adoption of changes to the Land Use Element of the 2035 General Plan, the Environmental Hazards Element, and the City’s zoning ordinance
 Adoption of the Environmental Justice Element
 Review of the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update by HCD to determine compliance with State law and submittal of written findings to the City The City will seek certification of the Housing Element from the HCD subsequent to the City’s adoption.

Environmental Setting
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the project. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section

4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
The City of San Leandro is in northern Alameda County in the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, referred to as the “East Bay.” The East Bay region generally includes cities along the eastern shores of the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay and inland communities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Approximately one-third of the Bay Area’s population resides in the East Bay.

The city is adjacent to Oakland to the north, the unincorporated Alameda County communities of San Lorenzo and Ashland to the south, the San Francisco Bay to the west, and the Diablo Range to the east.

San Leandro is in the San Francisco Hydrologic Region. Drainage generally flows to west toward the San Francisco Bay. San Leandro is in a seismically active region in the vicinity of the San Andreas and Hayward faults. The nearest active fault is the Hayward Fault, which runs in a north-south direction adjacent to the city’s eastern border.

The San Francisco Bay Area is known to have a variable Mediterranean climate with generally moderate temperatures year-round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. Although air quality in the area has steadily improved in recent years, the San Francisco Bay Area remains a nonattainment area for ozone (urban smog) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10).

Annual rainfall average in the eastern Bay Area is about 21 inches per year, with most rainfall occurring between October and April (Western Regional Climate Center 2022).

The City of San Leandro is located in the jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq.

Pursuant to federal and State law, ABAG serves as a regional planning agency and local government service provider for the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, which include Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Solano, San Francisco, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties. ABAG is responsible for preparing the RHNA, and ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission are jointly responsible for preparing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in coordination with other State and local agencies. These documents include population, employment, and housing projections for the region, the most recent version being Plan Bay Area 2050.

3.2 Project Setting
The project setting is the San Leandro city limits. San Leandro’s limits encompass approximately

15.4 square miles. Interstate 880 (I-880), State Route (SR) 185, and Interstate 580 (I-580) generally run north-south through the city. A grid system of east-west and north-south roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local streets, provide vehicular access throughout the city. Major thoroughfares in the city include Davis Street (SR 112) and Marina Boulevard, which run east-west; and San Leandro Boulevard, East 14th Street (SR 185), Washington Avenue, and Doolittle Drive (SR City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
3-2
61), which run north-south. The city is also served by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system with stations in Downtown San Leandro at San Leandro Boulevard and W. Juana Avenue, and at Hesperian Boulevard and Thornally Drive south of the Bay Fair shopping center.

The focus of the proposed land use and zoning changes is concentrated in the city’s three Priority Development Areas: Downtown San Leandro, the Bay Fair TOD, and the East 14th Street corridor.

These three areas generally span the city along East 14th Street on the eastern side of the city.

Downtown San Leandro is in the northern portion of the city, around the intersection of East 14th Street and Callan Avenue/Davis Street. The San Leandro Creek flows through the Downtown area.

The Bay Fair TOD area is at the southeastern edge of San Leandro, adjacent to unincorporated Alameda County. It includes the Bay Fair BART Station, Bayfair Center, East 14th Street and Hesperian Boulevard corridors, and small pockets of residential neighborhoods. The Priority Development Areas are almost entirely built out with retail, office, civic, and residential uses.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires EIRs to include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the project area which constitutes the “baseline” conditions and helps determine whether the project would have a significant impact. For purposes of this environmental analysis, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published on January 14, 2022, which sets the baseline for comparison of the project’s impacts with the 2035 General Plan EIR. The analysis contained in this EIR compares the project’s impacts with the 2035 General Plan EIR’s conclusions and confirms whether impacts would be less than, similar to, or greater than those of the 2035 General Plan EIR.

3.3 Cumulative Impact Setting
As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15335, “cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonable foreseeable probable future nearby projects. For example, transportation impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impacts analysis provides a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), a discussion of significant cumulative impacts shall include a list of past, present, and probable future projects related to cumulative impacts; or a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.

The cumulative setting for each environmental issue area is described in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. The project is in San Leandro; however, cumulative impacts as analyzed in this SEIR may be spread throughout the region. Cumulative impact discussions of hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems, rely on larger geographic areas such as the hydrologic region, watershed, or utility district boundary.

CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential.

The 2035 General Plan EIR considered development of cumulative projects through the year 2035; therefore, the cumulative time frame has also been extended in this SEIR to account for the passage of time.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the project for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15382:
means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation, if applicable. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.  Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). The mitigation section also identifies if mitigation measures are new measures, not included in the 2035 General Plan EIR. In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the project in conjunction with other past, planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update
4-2
The Executive Summary of this SEIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the project.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1

4.1 Air Quality
This section analyzes the effects of the project on air quality emissions and the associated impacts.

This section analyzes both temporary air quality impacts relating to construction activity and possible long-term air quality impacts associated development facilitated by the project. The analysis herein is based partially on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data provided by Kittelson & Associates (2022).

4.1.1 Setting
a. Existing Air Quality Setting
Local Climate and Meteorology
The City of San Leandro is located within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB encompasses the nine-county region including all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and Napa counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. SFBAAB is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which is tasked with regulating stationary sources of air pollution and operates a regional monitoring network that measures the ambient concentrations of the six criteria air pollutants in the SFBAAB. Air quality in the SFBAAB is affected by the region’s emission sources and by natural factors. Topography, wind speed and direction, and air temperature gradient all influence air quality. The SFBAAB has a Mediterranean climate, with warm, dry summers and cool, damp winters.

Stationary and mobile sources generate air pollutant emissions in the basins. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack. Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area sources are widely distributed and are generated by residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products, among other things.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and construction equipment. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

The SFBAAB typically has high concentrations of pollutants due to its high population density.

Air Quality Pollutants of Primary Concern
The federal and State clean air acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.

Under these laws, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for certain criteria pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations are affected by the rates and distributions of corresponding air pollutant emissions, and by the climate and topographic influences discussed above. Proximity to major sources is the primary determinant of concentrations of non-reactive pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulate matter. Ambient CO levels City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-2
usually follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. A discussion of each primary criteria air pollutant is provided below.

Ozone
Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (i.e., triggered by sunlight) between nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG).1
NOX is formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG is formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mostly occurs in substantial concentrations between the months of April and October.

Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.

Carbon Monoxide
CO is an odorless, colorless gas and causes health problems such as fatigue, headache, confusion, and dizziness. The incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels by on-road vehicles and at power plants is a major cause of CO, which is also produced during the winter from wood stoves and fireplaces. CO tends to dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere; consequently, violations of the State CO standards are associated generally with major roadway intersections during peak-hour traffic conditions.

Localized CO “hotspots” can occur at intersections with heavy peak-hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high that the local CO concentration exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of 35.0 ppm or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) of 20.0 ppm. The entire Basin is in conformance with state and federal CO standards, as indicated by the recent air quality monitoring. There are no current exceedances of CO standards within the air district and there has not been a CO exceedance in the Bay Area since before 1994.2 For 2019, the latest available data, the Bay Area’s reported maximum 1-hour and average daily concentrations of CO were 5.6 ppm and 1.7 ppm, respectively (BAAQMD 2019). These concentrations were well below the respective 1-hour and 8-hour standards of 20 ppm and 9 ppm. Given the ambient concentrations, which includes mobile as well as stationary sources, a project in Bay Area would need to emit concentrations three times the hourly maximum ambient emissions for all sources before project emissions would exceed the 1-hour standard. Additionally, the project would need to emit seven times the daily average for ambient concentrations to exceed the 8-hour standards. Typical development projects, even plan level growth, would not emit the levels of CO necessary to result in a localized hot spot.

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. Nitric oxide is the principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion, but nitric oxide reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of nitrogen monoxide (NO) and NO2 commonly called oxides of nitrogen (NOX). Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis may occur in 1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions (CARB 2009). For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions and the term ROG is used in this report.
2 BAAQMD only has records for annual air quality summaries dating back to 1994.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
young children at concentrations below 0.3 ppm. NO2 can potentially irritate airways in the human respiratory system (U.S. EPA 2016b). Short term exposures can aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, leading to respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing or difficulty breathing. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections requiring hospital admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Much of the information on distribution in air, human exposure and dose, and health effects is specifically for NO2 and there is only limited information for NOX, as well as large uncertainty in relating health effects to NO2 or NOX exposure (CARB, 2019c).

Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.

Suspended Particulate Matter
PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates, and sulfates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are by-products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads and are directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions.

PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulates (those 2.5 microns and below) can be very different.

The small particulates generally come from windblown dust and dust kicked up by mobile sources.

The fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes, and form in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter inhaled into the lungs remains there. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.

Lead
Lead is a metal found in the environment and in manufacturing products. Historically, the major sources of lead emissions have been mobile and industrial sources. In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The U.S. EPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, atmospheric lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Because of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions. The highest level of lead in the air is found generally near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

Development under the proposed project would not introduce any new sources of lead emissions; consequently, lead emissions are not required to be quantified and are not further evaluated in this analysis.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-4
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a gaseous air pollutant composed of sulfur and oxygen, which forms when sulfur-containing fuels such as coal, oil, or diesel are burned. The largest source of SO2 emissions is derived from fossil fuel combustion at powerplants and other industrial facilities. Short term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2 (US EPA 2022).

Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Health and Safety Code Section 39655 defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” Most of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines. CARB identified DPM as a TAC in 1998, primarily based on evidence demonstrating cancer effects in humans. According to CARB, diesel engine emissions are believed to be responsible for about 70 percent of California’s estimated known cancer risk attributable to TACs and they make up about 8 percent of outdoor PM2.5 (CARB 2021a). Mobile sources such as trucks and buses are among the primary sources of diesel emissions, and concentrations of DPM are higher near heavily traveled highways Air Quality Standards
The federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. The US EPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the State equivalent in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). The BAAQMD provides local management of air quality in the city. CARB has established air quality standards and is responsible for the control of mobile emission sources, while the BAAQMD is responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources.

The U.S. EPA has set primary NAAQS for ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. Primary standards are those levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. In addition, California has established health-based ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the federal standards.

Table 4.1-1 lists the current federal and State standards for regulated pollutants and the attainment status of the air basin with respect to these standards.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
Table 4.1-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration
Attainment
Status Concentration
Attainment
Status
Ozone 8 Hour 0.070 ppm N 0.070 ppm N
1 Hour 0.09 ppm N
Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm A 9 ppm A
1 Hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A
Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 0.18 ppm A 0.100 ppm U
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm A
Sulfur Dioxide 24 Hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm A
1 Hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm A
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm A
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 N
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 N 150 µg/m3 U
Particulate Matter -
Fine (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 N 12 µg/m3 U/A
24 Hour 35 µg/m3 N
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 A
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 A
Rolling 3 Month Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 A
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm U
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene)
24 Hour 0.010 ppm No
information
available
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (10:00 to 18:00
PST)
U
A=Attainment N=Nonattainment U=Unclassified; mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter ppm=parts per million µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter
Source: BAAQMD 2017a, http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status As a local air quality management agency, the BAAQMD must monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet them. Depending on whether standards are met or exceeded, a local air basin is classified as in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” The SFBAAB is designated non-attainment for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 and in non-attainment for the State standard for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10.

Current Air Quality
CARB and the U.S. EPA established ambient air quality standards for major pollutants, including ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, Pb, and PM10 and PM2.5. Standards have been set at levels intended to be protective of public health. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards for each of these pollutants except for lead and the eight-hour average for CO. The local Air Pollution Control Districts are required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

The City of San Leandro is located within the SFBAAB under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. As the local air quality management agency, the BAAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-6
that state and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

The closest air quality monitoring station to the city is the Oakland-9925 International Blvd station, located approximately 0.5 mile north of the city. The Oakland-9925 International Blvd station monitors ozone, CO, NO2, and PM2.5. For PM10 measurements, the San Francisco-Arkansas station at 10 Arkansas Street was used, located approximately 13 miles northwest of the city. Table 4.1-2 indicates the number of days that each of the air quality standards have been exceeded at the stations during the monitoring period from 2018 through 2020. The 8-hour ozone state thresholds were exceeded twice in 2019. The one-hour ozone state thresholds were once in 2019. PM2.5 exceeded federal thresholds 13 times in 2018 and 11 times in 2020. PM10 exceeded state thresholds twice in 2020. No other thresholds were exceeded in the years 2018 through 2020.

Table 4.1-2 Ambient Air Quality at Nearest Monitoring Stations Pollutant 2018 2019 2020
Oakland-9925 International Blvd
8-Hour Ozone (ppm), maximum 0.052 0.073 0.066
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 0 2 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0 1-hour Ozone (ppm), maximum 0.061 0.098 0.090
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 1 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.112 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen dioxide (ppb), 1-hour maximum 72.9 61.8 59.2
Number of days of state exceedances (>180 ppb) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>100 ppb) 0 0 0
Particulate matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, 24-hour maximum 172.1 24.7 167.7 Number of days above federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 13 0 11 San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station
Particulate matter <10 microns, µg/m3, 24-hour maximum 43 42 105 Number of days of state exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 0 0 2
Number of days of federal exceedances (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 ppm = parts per million
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2021b
Sensitive Receptors
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient to protect public health and welfare, with a margin of safety. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to the effects of air pollutants and subsequent respiratory distress, such as children under 14, the elderly over 65, persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as children, adults, and seniors occupying or residing in residential dwellings, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and senior-care facilities. Workers are not considered sensitive receptors because they have other legal protections; specifically, employers must follow regulations set forth by the Occupation Safety and Health Administration to ensure the health and Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
well-being of their employees (BAAQMD 2020). The following locations contain sensitive receptors within San Leandro:
 Residences throughout the city
 Childcare centers, preschools, and K-12 schools
 Hospitals such as the San Leandro Hospital, Kaiser Permanente San Leandro, Kindred Hospital, and the Fairmont Hospital
 Senior centers such as the San Leandro Senior Community Center Odorous Emissions
 The BAAQMD lists wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants as land uses with the potential to generate substantial odor complaints (BAAQMD 2017b). The following odorous land uses are present within San Leandro: San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant
 Davis Street Transfer Station
Food and beverage manufacturers

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. EPA is charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), passed in 1963 by the U.S.

Congress and amended several times. The 1970 federal CAA amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including non-attainment requirements for areas not meeting NAAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 federal CAA amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate air quality in the United States.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The federal CAA requires U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for several criteria air pollutants. The air pollutants for which standards have been established are considered the most prevalent air pollutants known to be hazardous to human health. NAAQS have been established for ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.
b. State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California CAA, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. CARB is the State air pollution control agency and is a part of CalEPA. CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, and for implementing the requirements of the California City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-8
CAA. CARB overseas local district compliance with federal and California laws, approves local air quality plans, submits the State implementation plans to the U.S. EPA, monitors air quality, determines and updates area designations and maps, and sets emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The California CAA requires CARB to establish ambient air quality standards for California, known as CAAQS. Similar to the NAAQS, CAAQS have been established for criteria pollutants and standards are established for vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. In general, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS on criteria pollutants. The California CAA requires all local air districts to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The California CAA specifies that local air districts focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

CARB released a technical advisory on reducing air pollution near high-volume roadways to clarify the 500-foot recommendation from 2005 due to the increased focus on and benefits from infill development, which can often occur within 500 feet of a major roadway (CARB 2017). As described in the technical advisory, California has implemented various measures to improve air quality and reduce exposure to traffic emissions. These include the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, which aims to reduce particulate matter emissions from diesel vehicles. The continued electrification of California’s vehicle fleet would also reduce PM2.5 levels, and ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from cars and trucks and to move vehicles towards “zero emission” alternatives will continue to drive down traffic pollution (CARB 2017).

As shown in Table 4.1-2, the nearest monitoring stations to the city have shown the area to have relatively clean air, with only one exceedance of ozone and a handful of exceedances of PM2.5. c. Regional and Local Regulations
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring national and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. The BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area, including the including the City of San Leandro.

The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate, which would apply to SFBAAB. To fulfill State ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors—ROG and NOX—and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins, such as stationary-source control measures to be implemented through the BAAQMD regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. In Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
addition, the 2017 Clean Air Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the state 1-hour ozone standard (BAAQMD 2017a).

City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan, adopted in September 2016, lists several GHGreduction goals, policies, and actions as part of the Transportation Element and Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element that support the goal of reducing criteria air pollutants. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (City of San Leandro 2016a):

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 singleoccupancy 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 services close to residential areas and employment centers.

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-1.10 Reduced Trip Generation. Encourage local employers to develop programs that promote ridesharing, flextime and telecommuting, bicycle use, and other modes of transportation that reduce the number and distance of vehicle trips generated.

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, welllit streets and sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture should be provided within new employment areas, shopping destinations, multi-modal transportation facilities, and community facilities.

Policy OSC-7.8 Green Building. Promote green building in new construction and remodels.

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

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-10
Policy OSC-8.2 Planning and Building Practices. Encourage construction, landscaping, and site planning practices that minimize heating and cooling costs and ensure that energy is efficiently used. Local building codes and other City regulations and procedures should meet or exceed state and federal standards for energy conservation and efficiency, and support the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

City of San Leandro Reach Code (Proposed)
As part of the San Leandro Climate Action Plan 2021 commitments, the City has started developing its Reach Code with technical support from East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). Under the Reach Code, new construction would be required to be all-electric with limited exceptions such as infeasibility. New single-family, two-unit residential, and townhomes would be required to include two EV spaces (one Level 2 EV ready and one Level 1 EV ready); new multi-family buildings with more than 20 units would be required to include 40 percent Level 2 EV charging stations and 60 percent Level 1 EV ready spaces; and new office buildings would be required to include 20 percent Level 2 EV charging stations and 30 percent Level 2 EV capable spaces. The reach codes are scheduled for adoption in late 2022, concurrently with adoption of the 2022 Building Standards Code that will go into effect on January 1, 2023.

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to air quality, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
This analysis uses the BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to evaluate air quality. The plan-level thresholds specified in the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were used to determine whether the proposed project impacts exceed the thresholds identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

Consistency with Air Quality Plan
Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with CEQA Guidelines thresholds should demonstrate that a project:

1. Supports the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan

2. Includes applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan

3. Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
Short-Term Emissions Thresholds
The BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines have no plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutants emissions. However, they do include project-level screening and emissions thresholds for temporary construction-related emissions of air pollutants. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB‘s existing air quality conditions and are discussed in detail below (BAAQMD 2017b). Construction emissions associated with plan implementation are discussed qualitatively to evaluate potential air quality impacts.

The BAAQMD developed screening criteria in the 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. The screening criteria for residential land uses are shown in Table 4.1-3.

Table 4.1-3 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Screening Levels Land Use Type
Operational Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size (du)
Construction Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size (du)
Single-family 325 (NOX) 114 (ROG)
Apartment, low-rise 451 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
Apartment, mid-rise 494 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
Apartment, high-rise 510 (ROG) 249 (ROG)
Condo/townhouse, general 451 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
Condo/townhouse, high-rise 511 (ROG) 252 (ROG)
Mobile home park 450 (ROG) 114 (ROG)
Retirement community 487 (ROG) 114 (ROG)
Congregate care facility 657 (ROG) 240 (ROG)
du = dwelling unit; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases Source: BAAQMD 2017b
If a project is equal to or less than the screening criteria, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions.

These screening levels are generally representative of new development on greenfield sites without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration (BAAQMD 2017b).

In addition to the screening levels above, several additional factors are outlined in the 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that construction activities must satisfy for a project to meet the construction screening criteria:
 All basic construction measures from the 2017 CEQA Guidelines must be included in project design and implemented during construction
 Construction-related activities would not include any of the following:
 Demolition
 Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously)
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-12
 Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development)
 Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity
For projects that do not meet the screening criteria above, the BAAQMD construction significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, shown in Table 4.1-4, are used to evaluate a project’s potential air quality impacts.

Table 4.1-4 BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Operational Threshold
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Operational Threshold
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
Fugitive Dust Construction Dust Ordinance or
other Best Management Practices
Not Applicable Not Applicable
lbs = pounds; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns
Source: BAAQMD 2017b
For all projects in the SFBAAB, the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends implementation of the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed in Table 8-2 of the Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017b). For projects that exceed the thresholds in Table 4.1-4, the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends implementation of the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures listed in Table 8-3 of the Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017b).

Operation Emissions Thresholds
The BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain specific operational plan-level significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Plans must show the following over the planning period:
 Consistency with current air quality plan (AQP) control measures, and  Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle trips increase is less than or equal to the plan’s projected population increase.

If a plan can demonstrate consistency with both criteria, then impacts would be less than significant.

The current air quality plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

For project-level thresholds, the screening criteria for operational emissions are shown in Table 4.1-3. For projects that do not meet the screening criteria, the BAAQMD operational significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, shown in Table 4.1-4, are used to evaluate a project’s potential air quality impacts.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-13
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
BAAQMD provides a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively determine whether a proposed project would exceed CO thresholds. If the following criteria are met, a project would result in a less than significant impact related to local CO concentrations:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

2. Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

3. Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

Toxic Air Contaminants
For health risks associated with TAC and PM2.5 emissions, the BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state a project would result in a significant impact if the any of the following thresholds are exceeded (BAAQMD 2017b):
 Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;  Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
 Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or  Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
Lead
Projects would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 1 (Lead), which is intended to control the emission of lead to the atmosphere.

Asbestos
Demolition of buildings would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. This rule requires notification of BAAQMD of any regulated demolition activity, and contains specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. Impacts related to asbestos emissions from projects that comply with Regulation 11, Rule 2 are considered to be less than significant since the regulation would ensure the proper and safe disposal of asbestos containing material.

Odors
The BAAQMD provides minimum distances for siting of new odor sources shown in Table 4.1-5. A significant impact would occur if the project would result in other emissions (such as odors) affecting substantial numbers of people or would site a new odor source as shown in Table 4.1-5 within the specified distances of existing receptors.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-14
Table 4.1-5 BAAQMD Odor Source Thresholds
Odor Source Minimum Distance for Less than Significant Odor Impacts Wastewater treatment plant 2 miles
Wastewater pumping facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Source: BAAQMD 2017b
Methodology
Construction Emissions
Construction-related emissions are temporary but may still result in adverse air quality impacts.

Construction of development facilitated by the project would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles (e.g., scrapers, loaders, dump trucks, etc.); ground disturbance during site preparation and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances.

At this time, there is not sufficient detail to provide analysis of individual construction projects that would be facilitated by the project, and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts. Rather, consistent with the programmatic nature of the project and this SEIR, construction impacts for the project are discussed qualitatively and emissions are not compared to the projectlevel thresholds.

Operation Emissions
Based on plan-level guidance from the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, long-term operational emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project are discussed qualitatively by comparing the proposed project to the 2017 Clean Air Plan goals, policies, and control measures. In addition, comparing the rate of increase of plan VMT and population is recommended by BAAQMD for determining significance of criteria pollutants. If the proposed project does not meet either criterion then impacts would be potentially significant. b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.2 of the 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. However, the 2035 General Plan EIR found that the 2035 General Plan could violate an air quality standard and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures AQ-2A, AQ-2B-1, AQ- Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-15
2B-2, and AQ-3 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (pages 4.2-42 through 4.2-43). 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 conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact AQ-1 THE PROJECT WOULD SUPPORT THE PRIMARY GOALS OF THE 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN, WOULD IMPLEMENT APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR THE 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN, AND WOULD NOT DISRUPT OR HINDER IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES. THE PROJECT’S VMT INCREASE WOULD BE LESS THAN THE POPULATION INCREASE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Project Consistency with the Current Air Quality Plan
The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan due to compliance with policies within the 2035 General Plan.

A project that supports the goals within the 2017 Clean Air Plan would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.

Consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the 2017 Clean Air Plan goals. In addition, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s primary goal of achieving and maintaining attainment status for AAQS as the land use patterns in the project would not be substantially different from existing land use patterns. The project would result in a net increase of 4,960 residential units and 75,000 square feet of office space in the three Priority Development Areas in the city, which would encourage denser housing on sites in proximity to services, transit, and bicycle routes. By allowing for the easier use of alternative modes of transportation, the project would promote more efficient land use interaction and could reduce the use of personal vehicles and subsequent mobile emissions than if the residential units and office space were placed farther from transit. In addition, development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations, including requirements for residential indoor air quality. The analysis is based on compliance with 2019 Title 24 requirements although individual projects developed under the plan would be required to comply with the most current version of Title 24 at the time of project construction. These requirements currently mandate Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV)-13 (or equivalent) filters for heating/cooling systems and ventilation systems in residences (Section 150.0[m]) or implementation of future standards that would be anticipated to be equal to or more stringent than current standards. Therefore, the project would improve air quality compared to development farther from transit and services through reducing VMT and would protect public health through stringent requirements for MERV13 filters or equivalent indoor air quality measures, which would be consistent with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area under the following sectors: stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-GHG pollutants. These control measures are designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. BAAQMD City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-16
encourages lead agencies to incorporate these measures into plan elements. Many of these measures are industry-specific and would not be applicable to development facilitated by the project (e.g., stationary sources, agriculture, and natural and working lands). Measures from transportation, energy, building, water, waste, and super-GHG pollutants sectors are focused on larger-scale planning efforts (e.g., transit funding, utility energy procurement, regional energy plans) and would not directly apply to development facilitated by the project. Table 4.1-6 shows project consistency with applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Table 4.1-6 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measures Consistency
Transportation
TR2: Trip Reduction Programs. Implement
the regional Commuter Benefits Program
(Rule 14-1) that requires employers with 50
or more Bay Area employees to provide
commuter benefits. Encourage trip
reduction policies and programs in local
plans, e.g., general and specific plans while
providing grants to support trip reduction
efforts. Encourage local governments to
require mitigation of vehicle travel as part
of new development approval, to adopt
transit benefits ordinances in order to
reduce transit costs to employees, and to
develop innovative ways to encourage
rideshare, transit, cycling, and walking for
work trips. Fund various employer-based
trip reduction programs.

Consistent: Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, which requires Bay area employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer one of the four following commuter benefits to their employees:
 Option 1: Allow employees to exclude their transit or vanpool costs from taxable income, to the maximum amount, as allowed by federal law (currently $130 per month).
 Option 2: Employer-provided transit subsidy (or transit pass) or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month.
 Option 3: Employer-provided free or low cost bus, shuttle or vanpool service operated by or for the employer.
 Option 4: An alternative employer-provided commuter benefit that is as effective as in reducing single occupant vehicles as Options 1-3.

TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and
Facilities. Encourage planning for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g.,
general and specific plans, fund bike lanes,
routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent: The project would facilitate development of housing and office spaces within the city’s three Priority Development Areas and transportation corridors currently served by Class II and Class III bicycle lanes, which would encourage the use of bicycles and reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. Since development would be focused in the Downtown Area and the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area, future residents would be able to utilize city provided bicycle parking spaces and lockers at Downtown San Leandro and Bay Fair BART stations, which would encourage residents to bicycle and walk to transit and services (City of San Leandro 2018).

Energy
EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Work
with local governments to adopt additional
energy-efficiency policies and programs.

Support local government energy efficiency
program via best practices, model
ordinances, and technical support. Work
with partners to develop messaging to
decrease electricity demand during peak
times.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, Chapter 7.5.7, which mandates the implementation of Title 24. Compliance would include rooftop solar on residences that are three stories or less in height. Future development would also be required to comply with the City’s Reach Code which will go into effect January 2023. Electricity would be provided either by PG&E or EBCE, which are required to generate electricity that would increase renewable energy resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. EBCE currently defaults to the Renewable 100 program for San Leandro customers to source 100 percent renewable energy.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-17
Control Measures Consistency
Buildings
BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with
partners such as KyotoUSA to identify
energy-related improvements and
opportunities for on-site renewable energy
systems in school districts; investigate
funding strategies to implement upgrades.

Identify barriers to effective local
implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24)
statewide building energy code; develop
solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement. Work with
ABAG’s BayREN program to make
additional funding available for energyrelated projects in the buildings sector.

Engage with additional partners to target
reducing emissions from specific types of
buildings.

Consistent: Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the energy and sustainability standards of Title 24 (including the California Energy Code and CALGreen) and the City’s associated amendments that are in effect at that time. For example, the current 2019 CALGreen standards and the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance require a minimum of 65 percent diversion of non-hazardous construction/demolition waste and 100 percent recycling of all asphalt/concrete. New low-rise residential buildings would also be required to install solar PV panels. The Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time.

Future development would also be required to comply with the City’s Reach Code which will go into effect January 2023.

Water
WR2: Support Water Conservation.

Develop a list of best practices that reduce
water consumption and increase on-site
water recycling in new and existing
buildings; incorporate into local planning
guidance.

Consistent: Future development that needs new or expanded water service would be required to comply with East Bay Municipal Utility District’s Section 31 water efficiency regulations, which include best practice requirements that are more stringent than CALGreen and the state’s Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance to reduce indoor and outdoor water use.

Source: BAAQMD 2017c
As shown in Table 4.1-6, the project would be consistent with the applicable measures as development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations and would increase density in Priority Development Areas, allowing for greater use of alternative modes of transportation. Development facilitated by the project would not contain elements that would disrupt or hinder implementation of a 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures, such as precluding an extension of a planned transit line or bike bath or proposing excessive parking Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Project VMT and Population Growth
According to the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors includes an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT versus population growth. As discussed above under Section 4.1.3a, to result in a less than significant impact, the analysis must show that over the course of the planning period, the project’s projected VMT increase would be less than or equal to its projected population increase. As shown in Table 4.1-7, the proposed net percentage VMT increase associated with the project (approximately 7 percent) would be less than the net percentage population increase (approximately 25 percent).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-18
Table 4.1-7 Increase in Population Compared to VMT Under Project Scenario 2020 Without Project 2040 With Project Net Increase Percent Change Population 96,907 121,372 24,465 25%
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
4,063,817 4,352,428 288,611 7%
Source: Data provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc 2022 (Appendix TRA) Therefore, similar to findings in the 2035 General Plan EIR, the project’s VMT increase would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines operational plan-level significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures would not be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact AQ-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS WITH ADHERENCE TO POLICIES IN THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN AND CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION IN THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN EIR. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

The 2035 General Plan EIR found that despite implementation of policies within the 2035 General Plan, criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the 2035 General Plan would cause a substantial net increase in emissions that exceeds the BAAQMD regional significance threshold.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2A would require implementation of BAAQMD-approved mitigation measures if future development facilitated under the 2035 General Plan would generate operational emissions in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds (page 4.2-40). Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-1 would require future development to comply with BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended for all projects (BAAQMD 2017b). Therefore, impacts on criteria air pollutants were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

Construction
The SFBAAB is in non-attainment for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 and in nonattainment for the state standard for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The project would not directly result in construction of any development or infrastructure; however, future development supported by the project would result in short-term construction-related criteria pollutant emissions that have the potential to have an adverse effect on air quality. Construction such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-19
other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROGs and NOX emissions, generated by construction equipment, would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts. According to the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, during construction PM10 is the greatest pollutant of concern.

Development facilitated by the project may have longer construction durations than development currently allowed under local zoning and land use designations since the project would increase allowable density, FAR, and height applicable in portions of the three Priority Development Areas.

Therefore, although impacts related to air quality from construction have been examined in the City’s 2035 General Plan EIR, this analysis conservatively assumes that construction activities would be greater than what could occur under existing conditions.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3a, the BAAQMD does not require plan-level thresholds of significance for construction emissions; however, the BAAQMD does maintain and recommend project-level thresholds that potential future development projects would be subject to. Development facilitated by the project would be required to continue to comply with Policies EH-3.4 and OSC-8.2 of the 2035 General Plan, which would minimize impacts during construction through regulating design and encouraging construction and site planning practices that would ensure energy efficiency.

Development would also be required to comply with local and regional air quality regulations, as well as Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-1 listed in the 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.2-42), which would require adherence to BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures includes 8 measures outlining requirements for watering exposed surfaces, using wet power vacuum street sweepers, vehicle speeds, paving, idling times, maintaining and checking all construction equipment, and posting a visible sign with Lead Agency contact information for dust complaints. Therefore, impacts from construction emissions would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-1, and no new or additional mitigation would be required.

Operation
According to the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors requires an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT and population. As discussed under Impact AQ-2, the VMT associated with project buildout would not exceed the rate of increase from the forecast population. VMT increases at a lower percentage because the proposed project would amend development standards to concentrate residences closer to jobs and services to reduce singular vehicle trips and encourage alternative models of travel.

It should be noted that the project would not itself authorize specific development to occur within the city. The project would focus development in the city’s PDAs, which are located in the 50 to 70 percentile for pollution burden as determined by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (OEHHA 2022). However, as discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.2-37), development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with applicable policies in the 2035 General Plan which would reduce criteria air pollutants to the maximum extent possible. Policies related to green building, transportation, and land use choices as discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, including Policies OSC-7.8 and 7.9, T1.3 through 1.5, T-5.7 through T-5.9, LU-2.5, and LU-6.5, would reduce criteria air pollutants from development projects to the maximum extent feasible (page 4.2-37). Additionally, future City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-20
development would need to implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2A from the 2035 General Plan EIR, which would require implementation of BAAQMD-approved mitigation measures if operational emissions were found to be in excess of BAAQMD thresholds (page 4.2-40). Therefore, impacts concerning criteria pollutants generated from operation of the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with existing mitigation.

Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQ-3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS COULD POTENTIALLY EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. PROJECTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-2B-2 FROM THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN EIR BUT IMPACTS WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INCLUDE NEW SOURCES OF TACS.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts on CO hotspots would be less than significant, and impacts on operational TACs would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure AQ-3 which would require preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA) for future non-residential land uses that have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (pages 4.2-46 through 4.2-48). However, the 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that construction TACs would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-2, which would require implementation of BAAQMD-approved mitigation measures if future development facilitated under the 2035 General Plan would generate construction exhaust emissions in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds (page 4.2-42). This is because it is not possible to predict the specific characteristics of the construction and operation of those projects and accurately model their individual emissions (page 4.2-42).

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
As discussed in Section 4.1.1a above, the project would need to emit seven times the daily average for ambient CO concentrations to exceed the 8-hour standards. Based on the low background level of carbon monoxide in the project area, ever-improving vehicle emissions standards for new cars in accordance with state and federal regulations, and the low level of operational carbon monoxide emissions anticipated for development facilitated by the project, the project would not create new hotspots or contribute substantially to existing hotspots. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of CO, and impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-21
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, and clearing), building construction, and other miscellaneous activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential non-cancer3 health impacts (CARB 2021a).

Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of development facilitated by the project would occur over approximately a decade but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur for no more than a few years for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. It is impossible to quantify risk without identified specific project details and locations.

The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the development (OEHHA 2015). BAAQMD uses an exposure period of 30 years (BAAQMD 2016).

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during demolition, site preparation, and grading activities, which would only occur for a portion of the overall estimated timeframe of individual projects. These activities would typically last for approximately two weeks to two years, depending on the extent of grading and excavation required (e.g., projects with subterranean parking structures or geological constraints require additional grading as compared to those without). PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period. This would represent between 0.1 to 7 percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation.

Development facilitated by the project would be required to be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD regulatory requirements and control strategies, and the CARB In-Use OffRoad Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which are intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Development facilitated by the project would continue to implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-2 from the 2035 General Plan EIR, which would require applicants for projects that exceed BAAQMD screening sizes to prepare a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. However, as with the 2035 General Plan EIR, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable since it is not possible to predict the specific 3 Non-cancer risks include premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function (CARB 2021a).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-22
characteristics of the construction and operation of future individual residential and office space development that would be facilitated by the project and accurately model their individual emissions. Due to the programmatic nature of the project, no additional mitigation measures are available that could be certain to reduce the emissions of individual development projects to a less than significant level.

Operation
In the Bay Area, there are several urban or industrialized communities where the exposure to TACs is relatively high in comparison to others. The entire city is located in an impacted community according to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Figure 5-1) due to its proximity to the freeway, rail, and industry. Sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and highvolume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities (BAAQMD 2017b). Operation of development facilitated by the project would not involve these uses; therefore, it is not considered a source of TACs. In addition, residences and office uses do not typically include new stationary sources onsite, such as emergency diesel generators. However, if residences or office uses did include a new stationary source onsite, it would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 (New Source Review) and require permitting. This process would ensure that the stationary source does not exceed applicable BAAQMD health risk thresholds. Additionally, BAAQMD employs the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program, which applies strategies to reduce health impacts in impacted communities (BAAQMD 2022). CARE is currently activated in San Leandro since it is an impacted community. This impact would be less than significant.

Project Siting
The project would not place new land uses; it would only facilitate additional residences and office space on parcels already zoned for these uses. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan (page 4.2-43), placement of sensitive receptors proximate to existing sources of air pollutants would not substantially worsen the concentrations of air pollutants. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate TACs and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with existing mitigation.

Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact AQ-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS THAT COULD AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2035 General Plan would not result in odor impacts that would affect a substantial number of people (page 4.2-51).

During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust both during normal use and when idling. However, these odors would Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-23
be temporary and transitory and would cease upon completion. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Table 4.1-5 provides BAAQMD odor screening distances for land uses with the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. Those uses include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants. Since development facilitated by the project would include residential and office uses, none of the uses identified in the table would occur on the sites. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during operation. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative context for air quality is regional. The SFBAAB is in non-attainment for federal standards of ozone and PM2.5 and in non-attainment for the State standard for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The SFBAAB is in attainment of all other federal and State standards. Development facilitated by the project would generate particulate matter and the ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) in the area during construction and operation.

As described under Impact AQ-1, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures as development facilitated by the project would comply with the latest Title 24 regulations and would increase density and height in Priority Development Areas in proximity to transit, allowing for greater use of alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, the increase in VMT would not exceed the projected population increase per the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for operational emissions from plans. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of criteria pollutants in the region. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

As described under Impact AQ-2, project construction would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution levels or air quality nuisances.

BAAQMD has identified feasible fugitive dust control measures for construction activities because fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 is of concern. These temporary impacts would be mitigated with continued implementation of mitigation measures from the 2035 General Plan EIR. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of criteria pollutants in the region; therefore, with mitigation the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant from construction emissions.

As identified under Impact AQ-3, development facilitated by the project would not have a significant impact from CO hotspots or operational TACs with implementation of existing mitigation. However, impacts from construction TACs would remain significant and unavoidable even with existing mitigation. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of the pollutants in the region, e.g., the cancer risk and non-cancer risk thresholds have been set per existing cancer risks in the area and exceeding those thresholds would be considered a cumulative impact. As development City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-24
facilitated by the project does not exceed those thresholds, it would not expose sensitive receptors to a cumulatively considerable amount of substantial pollutant concentrations from CO hotspots or operational TACs. It could, however, expose sensitive receptors to a cumulatively considerable amount of substantial pollutant concentrations from construction TACs. Therefore, cumulative impacts of TACs would remain significant and unavoidable for the same reasons discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, since it is not possible to predict the specific characteristics of the construction and operation of future projects to accurately model their individual emissions.

As identified under Impact AQ-4, development facilitated by the project would not have a significant impact from odor emissions. The consideration of cumulative odor impacts is limited to cases when projects constructed simultaneously are within a few hundred yards of each other because of the short range of odor dispersion. It is unlikely that construction of the residential units and office uses would occur within a few hundred yards of major off-site construction, especially since development would be concentrated in the city’s Priority Development Areas. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable odor impact.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section analyzes the potential for the project to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in excess of standards or to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The analysis in this section considers the GHG emissions analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis of potential changes proposed by the project. The analysis in this section is based in part on modeling using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod); modeling outputs are included in Appendix AQ. One comment letter was received from BAAQMD which noted that the SEIR should provide a detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with State and regional GHG goals.

4.2.1 Setting
a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted (IPCC 2021). It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (U.S. EPA 2021a). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The gases widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation, largely determine its atmospheric concentrations.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-2
landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (U.S. EPA 2021a).

Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2021).1 The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius (°C) cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2022). GHG emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of concentrations that occur naturally.
b. Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Global
In 2015, worldwide anthropogenic total 47,000 million MT of CO2e, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (U.S. EPA 2021b). Specifically, 34,522 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and use (includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed for three percent and two percent was due to international transportation sources. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink2 of two percent from land-use change and forestry. (U.S. EPA 2021b).

Federal
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by 1.7 percent from 2018 to 2019; since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of

0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to 2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes, economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy efficiency, and decrease carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of nationwide GHG emissions while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16 percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors (U.S. EPA 2021c). 1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWPs from the Fourth Assessment Report.
2 Net sink refers to the taking in of more carbon than can be emitted.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
California
Based on the CARB California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2019, California produced 418.2 MMT of CO2e in 2019, which is 7.2 MMT of CO2e lower than 2018 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 40 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 21 percent of the state’s GHG emissions while electric power accounts for approximately 14 percent (CARB 2021). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, the State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2019). The annual 2030 statewide target emissions level is 260 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2017).

City of San Leandro
The City of San Leandro released a 2021 Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a GHG inventory for 2005-2017, which includes business-as-usual emissions forecasts for 2030 and 2050 (City of San Leandro 2021). The CAP established a baseline communitywide GHG inventory for calendar year 2005, in which the City emitted approximately 720,990 metric tons (MT) of CO2e. The CAP included a 2017 inventory that showed emissions reduce to approximately 573,580 MT of CO2e. Most of the emissions in the baseline year of 2005 were from transportation, accounting for 60 percent of emissions, while the nonresidential energy sector accounted for 25 percent and the residential energy sector accounted for 14 percent.
c. Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, 2013 through 2021 all rank among the ten-warmest years on record. It also marked the 45th consecutive year (since 1977) with global temperatures rising above the 20th century average (NOAA 2022).

Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations jointly indicate that LSAT and sea surface temperatures have increased.

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 0.6 to 1.1°C higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). In addition to statewide projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state and regionally specific climate change case studies (State of California 2018). However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-4
Air Quality and Wildfires
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by

2.4 to 3.2°C (36.32°F to 37.76°F) in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C (37.58°F to 40.82°F) in the next century (State of California 2018). Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (State of California 2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains could tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution, which would effectively reduce the number of large wildfires and thereby ameliorate the pollution associated with them (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.

Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century.

During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow and the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack (State of California 2018). Projections indicate that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of California 2018).

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding (State of California 2018). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century.

Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2020, observed by satellites, is approximately 3.3 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2021). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea level rise ranging Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
between 0.25 to 0 1.01 meters by 2100 with the sea level ranges dependent on a low, intermediate, or high GHG emissions scenario (IPCC 2021). A rise in sea levels could erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches and cause flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events. This would also jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018). Furthermore, increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.

Agriculture
California has an over $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2020). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant wateruse efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). Temperature increases could also change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).

Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions as a result of higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018).

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal GHG Emissions Regulation
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the U.S. Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-6
of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.

In the most recent West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (20-1530 [2022]), the U.S.

Supreme Court held that the USEPA may not regulate emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants using generation shifting3 that was implemented as part of the 2015 Clean Power Plan. The Court held that the USEPA is not permitted, under the Clean Air Act, to implement regulations for power plants that were allowed under the Clean Power Plan. However, the Court upheld EPA’s authority to continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector (American Lung Association 2022).

Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Rule
In April 2020, EPA and NHTSA issued the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, which required automakers to improve fuel efficiency 1.5 percent annually from model years 2021 through 2026. The SAFE rule also upended State emission programs, and withdrew the waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, Zero Emission Vehicle Program (ZEV), and Low-Emission Vehicle Program (LEV). In response, California and other states sued in federal court to challenge the final action on preemption of state vehicle standards. In April 2021, the Biden administration, USEPA, and Department of Transportation began the process of dropping limitations on California’s waiver. In December 2021, NHTSA issued a repealing of the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One. In March 2022, USEPA did the same, thereby reinstating California’s waiver and the ability of other states to adopt the California standards (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions [C2ES] 2022). b. State Regulations
California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (Assembly Bill 1493) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as Pavley), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and costeffective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, USEPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “Low Emission Vehicle III GHG”, regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emission Vehicle, Zero Emissions Vehicles, and Clean Fuels Outlet programs, and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011). The implementation of these rules is currently delayed due to the SAFE Vehicle Rule, described under Federal Regulations.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. AB 32 requires 3 Switching electricity generation from fossil fuels to clean sources.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.

Senate Bill (SB) 32, signed into law on September 8, 2016, extends AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below).

The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development.

Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of 6 MT CO2e by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State (CARB 2017).

The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update has been prepared to assess the progress towards the 2030 target as well as to outline a plan to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022).

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the EO established total GHG emission targets for the state. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (Senate Bill 100) Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-8
and 2035. SB 375 directs each of the State’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan. On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. ABAG was assigned targets of a 10 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. In the ABAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.

PRC Division 30 Part 3 Chapter 13.1 and Health and Safety Code Sections 39730.5-8 (Senate Bill 1383)
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires the CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:

Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels The bill also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20, which established the following new statewide goals:
 All new passenger cars and trucks sold in-state to be zero-emission by 2035;  All medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state to be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and
 All off-road vehicles and equipment to be zero-emission by 2035 where feasible.

EO N-79-20 directs CARB, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the CEC, the California Department of Transportation, and other state agencies to take steps toward drafting regulations and strategies and leveraging agency resources toward achieving these goals.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 341) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows: diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 1995, through source reduction, Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
recycling, and composting activities; diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000; and diversion of 75 percent of all solid waste by 2020, and annually thereafter. CalRecycle is required to develop strategies to implement AB 341, including source reduction.

California Building Standards Code
The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, is referred to as the California Building Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, handicap accessibility, and so on. The California Building Code’s energy efficiency and green building standards are outlined below.

Part 6 – Building Energy Efficiency Standards
CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The 2019 Title 24 standards are the applicable building energy efficiency standards for the project because they became effective on January 1, 2020 (CEC 2018). 2022 Building Energy Standards will become effective at the beginning of 2023 and improve upon the 2019 standards. It will include several amendments including revisions to residential energy efficiency standards for solar photovoltaic systems, establish requirements that mixed fuel buildings are electric ready, enhancements of requirements for duct sealing and ventilation, among others (CEC 2021).

Part 11 – California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11 first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Code). The 2016 CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of non-residential and residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers (I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory Green Building Standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.

The mandatory standards require the following practices:
20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels 50 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency Use of low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particleboards
Implementation of dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in newly constructed attached garages for single-family and duplex dwellings Installation of EV charging stations at least three percent of the parking spaces for all new multifamily developments with 17 or more units City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-10
The voluntary standards require the following:

Tier I—15 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste, 10 percent recycled content, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, cool/solar reflective roof
Tier II—30 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste, 15 percent recycled content, 30 percent permeable paving, and 30 percent cement reduction, cool/solar reflective roof
Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Building Energy Efficiency Standards compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen water-reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms for new low-rise residential and non-residential buildings. Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate. c. Regional and Local Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan that would support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (MTC/ABAG 2021). The SCS builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on advancing equity and improving resiliency in the Bay Area by creating strategies in the following four elements: Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Environment. The Plan discusses how the future is uncertain due to anticipated employment growth, lack of housing options, and outside forces, such as climate change and economic turbulence. These uncertainties will impact growth in the Bay Area and exacerbate issues for those who are historically and systemically marginalized and underserved and excluded. Thus, Plan Bay Area 2050 has created strategies and considered investments that will serve those systemically underserved communities and provide equitable opportunities. The Plan presents a total of 35 strategies to outline how the $1.4 trillion dollar investment would be utilized. The strategies include, but are not limited to, the following: providing affordable housing, allowing higher-density in proximity to transit-corridors, optimizing the existing roadway network, creating complete streets, providing subsidies for public transit, reducing climate emissions, and expanding open space area. Bringing these strategies to fruition will require participation by agencies, policymakers, and the public. An implementation plan is also included as part of the Plan to assess the requirements needed to carry out the strategies, identify the roles of pertinent entities, create an appropriate method to implement the strategies, and create a timeline for implementation (ABAG/MTC 2021).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
In 2013, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted resolution no. 2013-11, “Resolution Adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal and Commitment to Develop a Regional Climate Protection Strategy” that builds on state and regional climate protection efforts by (BAAQMD 2013):

Setting a goal for the Bay Area region to reduce GHG emissions by 2050 to 80 percent below 1990 levels
Developing a Regional Climate Protection Strategy to make progress towards the 2050 goal, using BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan to initiate the process
Developing a 10-point work program to guide the BAAQMD’s climate protection activities in the near-term
The BAAQMD is currently developing the Regional Climate Protection Strategy and has outlined the 10-point work program, which includes policy approaches, assistance to local governments, and technical programs that will help the region make progress toward the 2050 GHG emissions goal.

The BAAQMD is responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources in its jurisdiction, including the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basins and all Belmont. The BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through specific rules and regulations, as well as project and plan level emissions thresholds for GHGs to ensure that new land use development in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin contributes to its fair share of emissions reductions (BAAQMD 2017a).

The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate, which would apply to SFBAAB. The 2017 Clean Air Plan is consistent with GHG reduction targets adopted by the State, and lays the groundwork for a long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (BAAQMD 2017b).City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan, adopted in September 2016, lists several GHGreduction goals, policies, and actions as part of the Transportation Element and Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element that support the goal of reducing GHG emissions. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (City of San Leandro 2016):

Goal T-1 Coordinate land use and transportation planning 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 services close to residential areas and employment centers.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-12
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-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.

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

Policy OSC-7.1 Recycling. Actively promote recycling, composting, and other programs that reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal in landfills.

Policy OSC-7.8 Green Building. Promote green building in new construction and remodels.

Policy OSC-7.9 Reducing Greenhouse Gases Through Land Use and Transportation Choices.

Locate and design new development in a manner which maximizes the ability to use transit, walk, or bicycle for most trips, reduce dependence on fossil fuel powered vehicles, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Goal OSC-8 Promote the efficient use of energy and the increased use of renewable energy by San Leandro residents and businesses.

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

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

City of San Leandro Climate Action Plan
In July 2021, the City of San Leandro adopted an update to its Climate Action Plan (CAP), a citywide strategy to reduce GHG. The CAP contains the following GHG reduction strategies that are applicable to the project (City of San Leandro 2021):

Strategy BE-2 Electrified New Construction. Commit to developing a reach code limiting natural gas use in new construction, or as directed by the State or regional agencies.

Strategy AD-2 Transit-Oriented Development. Continue to concentrate multi-family development and pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development within existing TOD areas and along major transit corridors.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
Strategy AD-3 Infill Development. Focus new housing development on underutilized or vacant infill sites on flatter lands and continue to discourage new development in hillside areas.

Strategy AT-8 Autonomous Vehicles. Explore opportunities to effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with autonomous vehicles.

Strategy TE-2 EV Charging Stations. Increase the availability of publicly accessible EV charging stations at multifamily residential buildings, retail centers, offices, and public facilities.

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

City of San Leandro Municipal Code
Section 3.24.400 of the SLMC requires commercial business organic waste generators and multifamily dwelling units to participate in organic waste collection services. These uses must subscribe to collection services for compost containers, recycling containers, and landfill containers.

Section 7.5.600 of the SLMC requires compliance with the California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 11, which details requirements for energy conservation and green design.

Section 7.5.700 of the SLMC requires compliance with the California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, which details requirements for the use of energy-efficient design and technologies as well as provisions for incorporating renewable energy resources into building design.

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:

Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to create significant project-specific environment effects. However, the environmental effects of a project’s GHG emissions can contribute incrementally to cumulative environmental effects that are significant, contributing to climate change, even if an individual project’s environmental effects are limited (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]). The issue of a project’s environmental effects and contribution towards climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards climate change is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which the project may increase or reduce City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-14
GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a threshold of significance. Lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).

CARB recommended local plan-level GHG thresholds of no more than 6 MT CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than 2 MT CO2e per capita by 2050 in the 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017). However, since the project would tier from the 2035 General Plan EIR, the 2035 and 2050 significance thresholds4 outlined within the 2035 General Plan EIR were interpolated to establish a 2040 threshold consistent with the project’s buildout year. This would be more conservative and more applicable to the City than CARB’s plan-level thresholds in the 2017 Scoping Plan. The 2035 General Plan EIR’s 2050 threshold of 1.2 MT CO2e per service population per year was subtracted by the 2035 threshold of 3.2 MT CO2e per service population per year, which was then divided by 15 years to reach a MT CO2e reduction per year of 0.13 MT CO2e. A 5-year reduction from the 2035 threshold of 3.2 MT CO2e would equate to an MT CO2e per service population per year of 2.6 MT CO2e for the year 2040. Therefore, the 2.6 MT CO2e per service population per year threshold is applied to the project, and is consistent with the GHG reduction targets of EO B-30-15, which is to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and S-03-05, which is to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

GHG emissions for development facilitated by the project (operation) were calculated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land-use emissions model designed to quantify greenhouse gases associated with construction and operations of development projects.

CalEEMod can be based on default settings within the model where project specific data is unknown, providing a consistent baseline for emissions estimates. CalEEMod is recommended by BAAQMD for use in quantifying development related GHG emissions. The model calculates emissions of the following GHGs: CO2, N2O, and CH4, which are combined using each GHGs’ GWP and reported as CO2e. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, D, and E (CAPCOA 2021). GHG emissions include water and solid waste sources and area, energy, and mobile sources. The input data and subsequent operation GHG emission estimates for development facilitated by the project are discussed below.

Construction Emissions
According to BAAQMD, GHG emissions from construction represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions; BAAQMD does not analyze construction GHG emissions in their thresholds. Rather, the BAAQMD recommends the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions during construction. Examples of BMPs include using alternative fueled construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet; using building materials of at least 10 percent; and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. The proposed City thresholds for land use projects are designed to address operational GHG emissions that represent most of the project’s GHG emissions, and therefore similar to BAAQMD, the City does not include construction GHG emissions in their GHG thresholds. 4 Based on long-term GHG reduction targets of EO B-30-15, which set a goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and EO S-03-05, which set a goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (City of San Leandro 2016).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
Operational Emissions
Energy Sources
Emissions from energy use include electricity and natural gas use. The electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies. CalEEMod currently incorporates California’s 2019 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards.

Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use times the carbon intensity of the utility district per kWh. East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) would serve development facilitated by the project. Because EBCE would be residents default electricity provider, the company’s specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2, CH4, and N2O per kWh) were used in the calculations of GHG emissions. Per SB 100, the statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030, which EBCE is already in compliance with. EBCE has introduced a Renewable 100 option in 2022 which consists of 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources (EBCE 2022). However, since customers have the option to opt out of the Renewable 100 program and enroll in the Bright Choice Program which would be supplied by 40 percent eligible renewable energy, energy intensity factors were set to reflect 40 percent renewable energy for a conservative analysis (EBCE 2020). Although customers also have the option to select PG&E as their electricity provider, this analysis assumes EBCE as the main provider since the San Leandro City Council voted to set the default electricity option for residential and commercial customers to EBCE’s Renewable 100 (EBCE 2022). In accordance with Section 150.1(c)(14) of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, development facilitated by the project would be required to install PV systems on all low-rise residential structures up to three stories equal to the expected electricity usage. Since the project would increase height allowances in the Downtown Area and South Area, it would allow residential structures more than three stories and development facilitated by the project may not all include PV systems. As a conservative analysis, CalEEMod assumed that no structures would include PV systems.

Area Sources
Emissions associated with area sources, including space and water heating, consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and use standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (BREEZE Software 2021).

Waste Sources
GHG emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (BREEZE Software 2021). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by CalRecycle.

Water and Wastewater Sources
GHG emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for northern and southern California. A 20 percent reduction in indoor potable water use was incorporated in the model in accordance with CALGreen standards.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-16
Mobile Sources
Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in vehicle trips to and from sites that would where development facilitated by the project would occur. Trip generation rates were calculated using City VMT data provided in the VMT analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates (Appendix TRA). Mobile emissions also assumed 2040 fleet mixes and emission factors, as this is the year in which the project’s development is analyzed against GHG reduction goals. b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2035 General Plan EIR analyzes the 2035 General Plan’s impacts related to GHGs. As discussed in that chapter, the 2035 General Plan would generate GHG emissions but would not exceed the identified GHG efficiency targets for 2020 or 2035, and impacts concerning GHG emissions would be less than significant (pages 4.6-26 through 4.6-28).

However, the 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2035 General Plan could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases since it cannot yet be demonstrated that the City will achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with CARB’s 2014 Update to the Scoping Plan, which calls for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that no mitigation measures are available to address post-2030 GHG reductions beyond continued implementation of existing and proposed policies and programs (page 4.6-40). Actions outside of the City’s jurisdictional control, such as additional State and federal actions, are necessary to achieve the 2050 target. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact GHG-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY GENERATE GHG EMISSIONS THAT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXCEED 2035 GENERAL PLAN EIR THRESHOLDS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2035 General Plan would directly and indirectly generate GHG emissions but would not exceed identified GHG efficiency targets for 2020 or 2035.

Therefore, impacts were less than significant (pages 4.6-26 through 4.6-28).

Long-term operational sources of GHG emissions associated with the project would include mobile sources (e.g., vehicle exhaust), energy consumption (e.g., electricity and natural gas), solid waste (e.g., emissions that would occur at a landfill associate with solid waste decomposition), wastewater treatment, and water consumption (e.g., electricity used to deliver and treat water consumed by customers in the city). Table 4.2-1 shows the operational GHG emissions associated with development facilitated by the project. As shown therein, annual emissions from full buildout of an additional 4,960 dwelling units and 75,000 square feet of office space would be 24,809 MT of CO2e per year. With a project increase in service population of 12,700, this would result in emissions of

2.0 MT of CO2e per service population per year. The relatively low annual emissions from the project are mostly due to EBCE’s sourcing of renewable energy under the Bright Choice and Renewable 100 programs, which would decrease GHG emissions from energy sources. The project’s 2.0 MT of CO2e per service population per year would not exceed the interpolated 2040 MT CO2e per service Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
population target of 2.6 as outlined in the 2035 General Plan EIR. As discussed below under Impact GHG-2, the project would not conflict with goals and policies in the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s 2035 General Plan, or the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project would not result in more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-1 Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Annual Emissions
(MT of CO2e)
Operational
Area 239
Energy 3,561
Mobile 19,527
Waste 1,182
Water 300
Operational Total 24,809
Project Population Increase1 12,700
MT of CO2e per Service Population 2.0
Interpolated 2040 Threshold from the 2035 General Plan EIR (MT of CO2e per Service Population) 2.6 Exceed Target? No
1 Residential population increase (12,400) plus employee population increase (using 250sf/job, 75,000sf divided by 250 = 300 jobs) Source: Appendix AQ
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact GHG-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE 2017 SCOPING PLAN, PLAN BAY AREA 2050, THE CITY’S 2035 GENERAL PLAN, OR THE CITY’S CAP. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR (pages 4.6-28 through 4.6-41) concluded that the 2035 General Plan would be consistent with Plan Bay Area and policies within the City’s CAP. However, while the 2035 General Plan supports progress toward the long term-goals identified in EO B-30-15 and EO S-03-05, it cannot yet be demonstrated that San Leandro will achieve GHG emissions reductions that are consistent with an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by the year 2050 based on existing technologies and currently adopted policies and programs. The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that no mitigation measures are currently available to address post-2030 GHG reductions beyond continued implementation of existing and proposed policies and programs. Although the 2035 General Plan and the CAP include measures to align the City with GHG reduction targets of AB 32 and EO B-30-15, additional State and federal actions are necessary to ensure that State and City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-18
federally regulated sources take similar aggressive measures to ensure the deep cuts needed to achieve the 2050 target. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable since there are no post-2020 federal and state measures that would assist the City in achieving the efficiency target by 2035.

The project was evaluated for consistency with applicable State and local plans that were developed with the intent of reducing GHG emissions. Each applicable plan is discussed separately below. 2017 Scoping Plan
Development facilitated by the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan through requirements to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. Development facilitated by the project would be required to install PV systems on all low-rise residential structures up to three stories equal to the expected electricity usage system per the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen energy efficient design and construction provisions.

Additionally, policies P.1.4 and P.2.6 of the Housing Element Update would encourage infill development in locations near public transit and services to support the State’s climate goals. The land use designation and zoning amendments included with the project would facilitate development of residences and office uses near transit corridors and BART stations in Priority Development Areas, which would reduce reliance on personal vehicles. Implementation of the project would align with the 2017 Scoping Plan’s recommendations for local jurisdictions to adopt general plan policies and diagram designations and zone map and standards that are consistent with the SCS, and to enable mixed use, walkable, compact, infill development that includes a range of housing types and affordability levels. As discussed in Impact AQ-1 of Section 4.1, Air Quality, the net percentage VMT increase associated with the project (approximately 8 percent) would be less than the net percentage population increase (approximately 25 percent). The project would reduce per capita vehicle trips compared to the population increase and would therefore reduce the City’s GHG proportion of emissions attributed to fossil fuel use. Furthermore, as analyzed above under Impact GHG-1, project emissions of 2.0 MT CO2e would be below the 2035 General Plan EIR interpolated 2040 threshold of 2.6 MT CO2e, which would also be consistent with the plan-level thresholds in the 2017 Scoping Plan. As noted in Section 4.2.3, these thresholds are more conservative and more applicable to the City. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan goals for the encouragement of alternative transportation use and VMT reduction.
2017 Clean Air Plan
A project that supports the goals within the 2017 Clean Air Plan would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.

As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, the project would be consistent with the primary goals and applicable control measures within the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The project would facilitate development of housing and office spaces within the city’s three PDAs and transportation corridors currently served by Class II and Class III bicycle lanes, which would encourage the use of bicycles and reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. Development facilitated by the project would also be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations, as well as the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments which include requirements for Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
the use of energy-efficient design and technologies as well as provisions for incorporating renewable energy resources into building design.

Plan Bay Area 2050
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 Priority Development Areas (PDAs). The project concentrates new housing and office space in the city’s three PDAs to increase transit opportunities and reduce dependence on vehicle travel, consistent with the Plan Bay Area 2050 directive. The strategies from Plan Bay Area 2050 related to GHG emissions and applicable to the project are shown in Table 4.2-2. As shown, the project would be consistent with the goals and strategies of Plan Bay Area 2050.

Table 4.2-2 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Measure Project Consistency
H3. Allow a greater mix of housing densities and
types in Growth Geographies. Allow a variety of
housing types at a range of densities to be built in
Priority Development Areas, select Transit-Rich
Areas and select High-Resource Areas.

Consistent. The project would facilitate development of housing at a range of densities and office spaces within the city’s three PDAs and transportation corridors.

T8. Build a Complete Streets network. Enhance
streets to promote walking, biking and other micromobility through sidewalk improvements, car-free slow streets, and 10,000 miles of bike lanes or multiuse paths.

Consistent. The project would facilitate development of housing and office spaces within the city’s three PDAs and transportation corridors currently served by Class II and Class III bicycle lanes, which would encourage the use of bicycles and reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. The city also has bicycle parking spaces at the downtown San Leandro and Bay Fair BART stations, as well as additional bicycle parking spaces and bicycle lockers along major transportation corridors and in proximity to transit and services which future residents could utilize (City of San Leandro 2018). Since the project would increase allowable density and height in the city’s three PDAs, it would place more residents and employees within walking distances to services (commercial, retail, restaurants), employment, and transit, which would promote active
transportation.

EN4. Maintain urban growth boundaries. Using
urban growth boundaries and other existing
environmental protections, focus new development
within the existing urban footprint or areas
otherwise suitable for growth, as established by local
jurisdictions.

Consistent. The project would facilitate development of housing and office uses through increasing allowable density, FAR, and height on sites within San Leandro’s urban footprint and PDAs. By placing residents and workers close to jobs and alternative methods of transportation, the project would reduce GHG emissions and other criteria pollutants associated with vehicle use to help communities stay healthy and safe.

EN8. Expand clean vehicle initiatives. Expand
investments in clean vehicles, including more fuelefficient vehicles and electric vehicle subsidies and chargers.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with EV requirements pursuant to 2022 CalGreen. Two-family residences and townhomes would be
required to include one Level 2 EV capable space per dwelling unit; multi-family buildings with more than 20 units would be required to include 10 percent Level 2 EV capable parking spaces, 25 percent Level 2 EV ready spaces, and 5 percent Level 2 EV charging spaces; and non-residential uses would be required to include 15 percent Level 2 EV capable parking spaces and 5 percent Level 2 EV charging spaces.

Source: ABAG 2021
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-20
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The Transportation Element and Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element of the 2035 General Plan contain policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4.2-3, the proposed project would be consistent with these policies and actions.

Table 4.2-3 City of San Leandro General Plan Consistency for GHG Emissions General Plan Policy or Action Consistency
Transportation Element
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-1.6 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.

Consistent. The project would increase allowable
density and height on sites within the city’s Priority
Development Areas adjacent to BART stations and
transit corridors, which would reduce the use of
single-occupancy vehicles and encourage future
residents and workers to utilize alternative modes
of transportation.

Consistent. The transportation analysis for
development facilitated by the project uses VMT as
the primary metric for evaluating impacts, as
conducted in Section 4.8, Transportation, of this
SEIR.

Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element
Policy OSC-7.1 Recycling. Actively promote recycling,
composting, and other programs that reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal in landfills.

Consistent. Future development would be required
to comply with organic waste recycling pursuant to
SLMC Section 3.24.400 and SB 1383, which would
reduce methane emissions.

Policy OSC-7.8 Green Building. Promote green building in new construction and remodels.

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

Consistent: Development facilitated by the project
would be required to be constructed in accordance
with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California
Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments
which include requirements for the use of energyefficient design and technologies as well as provisions for incorporating renewable energy
resources into building design. The City would
require individual projects to comply with the latest
Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency
Energy Standards pursuant to SLMC Section 7.5.700
which would reduce energy use from lighting,
water-efficient faucets and toilets, and water
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
General Plan Policy or Action Consistency
efficient landscaping and irrigation. Future
development would also be required to comply
with the City’s Reach Code that will go into effect in
January 2023. EBCE already has an option for
residents to source 100 percent renewable energy.

San Leandro customers have Renewable 100
service as default since March 2022. Customers
would have the option to enroll in their Bright
Choice program that sources 40 percent renewable
energy or select PG&E as their electricity provider.

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

Consistent. The project would increase allowable
density, FAR, and height on sites within the city’s
Priority Development Areas adjacent to BART
stations and transit corridors, which would place
residents and workers in proximity to transit,
services, and jobs. This would encourage the
bicycling or walking which would reduce the use of
single-occupancy vehicles and overall VMT.

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

Consistent: Development facilitated by the project
would be required to be constructed in accordance
with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California
Energy Code, and locally adopted amendments
such as SLMC Section 7.5.700, which include
requirements for the use of energy-efficient design
and technologies as well as provisions for
incorporating renewable energy resources into
building design. Future development would also be
required to comply with the City’s Reach Code
which will go into effect in January 2023.

Additionally, pursuant to the City’s Construction
and Demolition Ordinance, future development
would be required to recycle 100 percent of all
asphalt/concrete, and divert 65 percent of nonhazardous construction materials.

Source: City of San Leandro 2016
City of San Leandro Climate Action Plan
The City’s 2021 CAP contains 52 strategies to reduce communitywide and municipal GHG emissions to achieve the City’s target of reducing emissions by 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The strategies included in the CAP cover the main categories of building electrification, residential energy efficiency, commercial energy efficiency, municipal renewable energy and energy efficiency, renewable energy, reducing auto dependency, active and alternative transportation, transportation electrification and low-carbon fuels, waste management, waste reduction and reuse, water efficiency, community consumption, and equity and just transition. The strategies applicable to the project are summarized in Table 4.2-4. As shown therein, the project would be consistent with applicable GHG reduction strategies in the City’s CAP.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-22
Table 4.2-4 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Measures Recommended Goals Project Consistency
Strategy BE-2 Electrified New
Construction. Commit to developing a
reach code limiting natural gas use in
new construction, or as directed by the
State or regional agencies.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the 2022 State Energy Code, which encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards (CEC 2022). Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to requirements within the city’s Reach Code, which will go into effect January 2023 and contain more stringent requirements than the 2022 State Energy Code.

Strategy AD-2 Transit-Oriented
Development. Continue to
concentrate multi-family development
and pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
development within existing TOD areas
and along major transit corridors.

Consistent. The project would increase allowable density, FAR, and height on sites within the city’s Priority Development Areas adjacent to BART stations and transit corridors, which would reduce the use of singleoccupancy vehicles and encourage future residents and workers to bicycle or walk and use alternative modes of transportation.

Strategy AD-3 Infill Development.

Focus new housing development on
underutilized or vacant infill sites on
flatter lands and continue to
discourage new development in
hillside areas.

Consistent. The project would focus development within portions of the city’s three Priority Development Areas by increasing allowable density and height, which would allow the efficient utilization of currently underutilized or vacant infill sites.

Strategy AT-8 Autonomous Vehicles.

Explore opportunities to effectively
reduce GHG emissions associated with
autonomous vehicles.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with EV requirements pursuant to 2022 CalGreen. Two-family residences, and townhomes would be required to include one Level 2 EV capable space per dwelling unit; multi-family buildings with more than 20 units would be required to include 10 percent Level 2 EV capable parking spaces, 25 percent Level 2 EV ready spaces, and 5 percent Level 2 EV charging spaces; and non-residential uses would be required to include 15 percent Level 2 EV capable parking spaces and 5 percent Level 2 EV charging spaces. Furthermore, the project would focus development within the city’s three Priority Development Areas which would place residents and workers in proximity to transit, services, and jobs, thereby reducing the reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and reducing GHG emissions.

Strategy TE-2 EV Charging Stations.

Increase the availability of publicly
accessible EV charging stations at
multifamily residential buildings, retail
centers, offices, and public facilities.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with EV requirements pursuant to 2022 CalGreen. Single-family residences, two-family residences, and townhomes would be required to include one Level 2 EV capable space per dwelling unit; multi-family buildings with more than 20 units would be required to include 10 percent Level 2 EV capable parking spaces, 25 percent Level 2 EV ready spaces, and 5 percent Level 2 EV charging spaces; and non-residential uses would be required to include 15 percent Level 2 EV capable parking spaces and 5 percent Level 2 EV charging spaces.

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

Consistent. Pursuant to the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance, future development would be required to recycle 100 percent of all asphalt/concrete, and divert 65 percent of non-hazardous construction materials.

Source: City of San Leandro 2021
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-23
Summary
As described above, the proposed project would be consistent with 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, City of San Leandro General Plan, and the City’s CAP. Although this impact was significant and unavoidable under the 2035 General Plan EIR, since it cannot yet be demonstrated that the City would achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by the year 2050, the project would only facilitate increased allowable height and density within the city’s Priority Development Areas, which in and of themselves would not create or exacerbate this impact. Additionally, since the adoption of the 2035 General Plan EIR in June 2016, Governor Brown has issued EO B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and provided direction to address post-2030 GHG reductions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for related projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis for GHG emissions is global because impacts of climate change are experienced on a global scale regardless of the location of GHG emission sources. The impact of GHG emissions generated by development facilitated by the project would not be confined to a particular air basin but instead is dispersed worldwide. Therefore, GHG emissions and climate change are, by definition, cumulative impacts.

Thus, the issue of climate change involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable.

GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from any project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions, which is the basis for determining a significant cumulative impact. This is determined through the project’s consistency with applicable GHG emission thresholds and applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

As discussed under Impact GHG-1, GHG emissions from development facilitated by the project would not exceed the 2035 General Plan EIR threshold. In addition, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, City General Plan, and the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-24
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1

4.3 Energy
This section evaluates impacts to energy, including the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, associated with development facilitated by the proposed project and potential conflicts of the project with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The physical environmental impacts associated with the generation of electricity and burning of fuels have been accounted for in Section 4.1, Air Quality, and Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

4.3.1 Setting
Energy relates directly to environmental quality as it can adversely affect air quality and other natural resources. Fossil fuels are burned to create electricity to power homes and vehicles, which creates heat. Transportation energy use relates to the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks, and the availability and use of public transportation, the choice of different travel modes (auto, carpool, and public transit), and the miles traveled by these modes. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of infrastructure also consume energy, as do residential land uses, typically in the form of natural gas and electricity.

Energy Production
In 2019 (latest available data), the two largest sources of energy produced in California were crude oil at approximately 920.1 trillion British thermal units (Btu), and renewable energy sources at approximately 1,139.6 trillion Btu, while natural gas production was 220.8 trillion Btu and nuclear electric power was 168.8 trillion Btu (EIA 2022a). The City of San Leandro does not have any oil well sites (California Department of Conservation [DOC], Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources [DOGGR] 2022).

Energy Consumption
Electricity and Natural Gas
Total energy consumption in the United States in 2020 was approximately 93 quadrillion Btu (EIA 2021a). In 2020, petroleum provided approximately 35 percent of that energy, with other sources of energy derived from natural gas (approximately 34 percent), coal (approximately 10 percent), renewable sources (approximately 12 percent), and nuclear power (approximately 9 percent). On a per capita basis in 2020, California was ranked the fourth lowest state in terms of total energy consumption (EIA 2022a).

Most of the electricity generated in California is from natural gas-fired power plants, which provided approximately 37 percent of total electricity generated in 2020 (CEC 2022d). In 2020, California produced 70 percent of the electricity it used and imported the rest from outside the state. In 2020, California used 272,576 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity, with 190,913 GWh produced in-state (CEC 2022d).

The smallest scale at which energy consumption information is readily available is the county level.

Therefore, energy consumption in Alameda County is used herein to characterize the city’s existing consumption of electricity and natural gas. Alameda County consumed approximately 10,247 GWh of electricity in 2020 from residential and non-residential uses (most recent available data) (CEC 2022b). San Leandro is served by East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), which supplies electricity to all City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-2
accounts (residential, business, and municipal) and is delivered through Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). EBCE buys power mainly from clean sources like wind, solar, and hydropower. EBCE's Board of Directors established the goal of purchasing 100 percent clean power for all customers by 2030 (EBCE 2022). Alameda County consumed approximately 367 millions of therms of natural gas in 2019 in both residential and non-residential uses (CEC 2022c).

Petroleum
Energy consumed by the transportation sector accounts for roughly 39 percent of California’s energy demand, amounting to approximately 3,073.3 trillion Btu in 2019 (EIA 2019a). Petroleumbased fuels are used for approximately 98 percent of the state’s transportation activity (EIA 2019b).

Most gasoline and diesel fuel sold in California for motor vehicles is refined in California to meet state-specific formulations required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). California’s transportation sector, including on-road and rail transportation, consumed approximately 662 million barrels of petroleum fuels in 2019 (EIA 2021b).

In 2020 (most recent available data), San Leandro consumed 51.6 million gallons of retail gasoline (CEC 2022a). One gallon of finished motor gasoline (containing about 10 percent fuel ethanol by volume) is equal to 120,286 British thermal units (Btu) (EIA 2022b). Based on this formula, approximately 1.7 billion Btu in gasoline was consumed per day in 2020 in the city (see Table 4.3-1).

Table 4.3-1 Annual and Daily Transportation Energy Consumption in San Leandro Fuel Type
Annual Fuel Use
(million gallons)
Daily Fuel Use
(million gallons)
Daily Energy
Use (billions of
Btu)
San Leandro
Population
Daily per Capita
Energy Use
(thousands of Btu)
Gasoline 51.6 0.14 1.7 88,404 190.5
Notes: Btu = British thermal units
Source: CEC 2022a, EIA 2022b, DOF 2022
Alternative Fuels
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Health and Safety Code Section 38566 [Senate Bill (SB) 32]). Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced, depending on the capability of the vehicle, with many alternative fuels including the following:

Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is biodegradable and cleaner-burning than petroleumbased diesel fuel. Biodiesel can run in any diesel engine generally without alterations but fueling stations have been slow to make it available. There are nine biodiesel refueling stations in California, two of which are in the San Francisco Bay Area (U.S. Department of Energy 2022).

Electricity can be used to power electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles directly from the power grid. The electricity grid usually provides electricity used to power vehicles, which store it in the vehicle's batteries. Fuel cells are being explored to use electricity generated on board the vehicle to power electric motors. Electrical charging stations are available throughout San Leandro and Alameda County.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The law placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), a part of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards.

National Energy Policy Act of 1992
The National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT92) calls for programs that promote efficiency and the use of alternative fuels. EPACT92 requires certain federal, state, and local governments and private operators to stock vehicle fleets with a percentage of light duty alternative fuel vehicles each year.

In addition, EPACT92 has financial incentives: federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. EPACT92 also requires states to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote alternative fuel vehicles.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted by Congress in 2007, is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce the United States dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting climate change.

Specifically, it does the following:

Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard, requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels
Reduces United States demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020 – an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appliances. Development would also be required to install photosensors and energy-efficient lighting fixtures consistent with the requirements of 42 USC Section 17001 et seq.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-4
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are Federal rules established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that set fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The CAFE standards generally become more stringent with time, reaching an estimated 38.3 miles per gallon for the combined industry-wide fleet for model year 2020 (77 Federal Register 62624 et seq. October 15, 2012 Table I1). It is, however, legally infeasible for individual municipalities to adopt more stringent fuel efficiency standards. The Clean Air Act (42 United States Code [USC] Section 7543[a]) states that “no state or any political subdivision therefore shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part.” In August 2016, the USEPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two programs related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1.9 billion metric tons of CO2 and reduce oil consumption by up to 3.9 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (77 Federal Register 62665 et seq. October 15, 2012 Table I-22).

NHSTA and USEPA finalized the rulemaking process to establish the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The SAFE Vehicles Rule would amend the existing CAFE standards such that the requirements for model years 2021 through 2026 are lowered to the 2020 standards of 43.7 miles per gallon (mpg) and 204 grams of CO2 per mile for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light duty trucks (83 Federal Register 42989 August 24, 2018, Table I-1 and Table I-2).

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
USEPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The first federal standards (Tier 1) were adopted in 1994 for all off-road engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in by 2000. A new standard was adopted in 1998 that introduced Tier 1 for all equipment below 50 hp and established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were phased in by 2008 for all equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were to be completely phased in by the end of 2015.

Energy Star Program
In 1992, USEPA introduced Energy Star© as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems. Under this program, appliances that meet specification for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star© label.

In 1996, USEPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes qualifying commercial and industrial buildings, as well as homes (Energy Star 2022).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5
b. State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the CEC. The Act established a State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures.

California Energy Action Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the California Energy Action Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The 2008 California Energy Action Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and CARB prepared and adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand. Furthermore, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety. The most recent assessment, the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report, highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy and provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and integrating more renewable energy into the electricity system (CEC 2021).

California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Established in 2002 under SB 1078, and accelerated by SB 107 (2006), SB X 1-2 (2011), and SB 100 (2018), California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to procure 33 percent total retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

SB 100 also states “that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-6
zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.” The CPUC and the CEC are jointly responsible for implementing the program.

Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. The Act also requires doubled energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through increased efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assembly Bill 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the Pavley bill, amended Health and Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 requiring CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California.

Implementation of new regulations prescribed by AB 1493 required that the state apply for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act. Although the USEPA initially denied the waiver in 2008, the USEPA approved a waiver in June 2009, and in September 2009, CARB approved amendments to its initially adopted regulations to apply the Pavley standards that reduce GHG emissions to new passenger vehicles in model years 2009 through 2016. According to CARB, implementation of the Pavley regulations is expected to reduce fuel consumption while also reducing GHG emissions.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other State, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative, nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Bioenergy Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06
Executive Order (EO) S-06-06, April 25, 2006, establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower, and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. EO S-06-06 also calls for the State to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies those barriers and recommends actions to address them so that the State can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
 Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste  Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
 Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the State  Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR)
CCR, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods. In 2019, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020 must follow the 2019 standards. The 2022 update was adopted August 11, 2021 and goes into effect January 1, 2023. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary due to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards exceed those provided in Title 24.

Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards)
Part 6 of Title 24 contains the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for new residential and CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The most current standards are the 2019 Title 24 standards.

The 2019 Standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements (CEC 2018). Under the 2019 Standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy-efficient compared to the 2016 Standards. The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, and applies starting January 1, 2023. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements, expands solar and battery storage standards, and other stricter requirements.

California Green Building Standards Code (2019), CCR Title 24, Part 11 California’s green building code, referred to as CALGreen, was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building within the State. CALGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. The requirements pertain to energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-8
internal air contaminants. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design. c. Regional and Local Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a State-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan, known as a Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), that would support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (ABAG/MTC 2021). Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on advancing equity and improving resiliency in the Bay Area by creating strategies in the following four elements: Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Environment. Strategies include allowing higher-density in proximity to transit-corridors, optimizing the existing roadway network, creating complete streets, providing subsides for public transit, and reducing climate emissions, which will reduce overall per capita energy use from nonrenewable resources.

San Leandro Municipal Code
San Leandro’s Municipal Code Chapter 7.5.7, Energy Code, mandates the implementation of California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code, which has specific requirements for building design to reduce energy consumption. Some of the measures in the California Energy Code include the use of certain building materials to ensure a greater degree of energy efficiency during building operation and construction and energy efficiency standards for appliances, lighting amenities, and water fixtures, among other project components. San Leandro’s Municipal Code Chapter 3.19 requires all new municipal building projects to meet the United States Green Building Council LEED Silver rating. San Leandro Municipal Code Chapter 7.5.6, Green Building Code, adopts California Building Standards Code, Title 24, part 11, Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

San Leandro 2021 Climate Action Plan
In July 2021, the City of San Leandro adopted an update to its Climate Action Plan (CAP), a citywide strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Chapter 4 of the CAP includes strategies that target energy reduction through energy efficiency and conservation, including prioritizing increasing and installing renewable energy generation systems and energy storage systems on rental homes, multi-family buildings, and affordable housing; reducing automobile dependency and increasing transit-oriented development; and committing to developing a reach code limiting natural gas use in new construction, or as directed by the State or regional agencies (City of San Leandro 2021). 2035 General Plan
There are several energy-related policies of the 2035 General Plan in the Open Space and Conservation, Environmental Hazards, Land Use, and Transportation Elements. Policies include using best practices for energy conservation in building and construction, using renewable energy sources where possible, utilizing energy-reducing transportation strategies and alternative fuel vehicles, reducing VMT and increasing active transportation options, and reducing emissions.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9

4.3.3 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:

Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Methodology
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) states that an EIR shall include “mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Construction energy demand for the project is evaluated qualitatively because project-specific information regarding construction is unavailable for individual projects. Construction energy demand accounts for anticipated energy consumption during construction of development facilitated by the proposed project, such as fuel consumed by construction equipment and construction workers’ vehicles traveling to and from the construction site. These construction activities would temporarily create a higher demand for energy supplies. The extent of energy use generated by construction equipment would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0 was used to approximate the operational natural gas and electricity consumption from development facilitated by the proposed project. This analysis then determined whether energy consumed during operation for full buildout of the project would be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Operational energy demand accounts for the anticipated energy consumption from development facilitated by the project, such as fuel consumed by cars, trucks, and public transit; natural gas consumed for on-site power generation and heating building spaces; and electricity consumed for building power needs, including, but not limited to, lighting, water conveyance, and air conditioning. The estimate of total daily VMT associated with the project is based on VMT data provided in Section 4.8, Transportation. b. Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2035 General Plan EIR did not include a dedicated Energy chapter, but it did include an analysis of vehicle trips in Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and an analysis of energy conservation in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.14-73) acknowledged that future development in the city would result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electricity demands and therefore the commitment of nonrenewable resources for construction and operation, including electricity and natural gas resources. Development within San Leandro would be subject to several measures that address the commitment of nonrenewable resources. Future development would be required to comply with applicable building and design requirements, including energy conservation and efficiency standards set by Chapter 3.19 of the Municipal Code and CALGreen. The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.14-80) concluded that compliance with these standards, as well as implementation of applicable 2035 General Plan goals and policies, would City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-10
reduce the use of nonrenewable resources to the maximum extent practicable. The analysis provided concluded that emissions from on-road transportation would decrease between 2015 and 2035 due to reduced VMT per capita with implementation of the 2035 General Plan. The 2035 General Plan EIR determined the 2035 General Plan would be consistent with the City’s adopted CAP and regional plans to reduce energy use (page 4.14-80) (City of San Leandro 2016c). c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Impact E-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DUE TO THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Demolition and Construction
As described in Section 2, Project Description, the project would result in a net increase of 4,960 residential units and 75,000 square feet of office space in the three Priority Development Areas in the city compared to the assumptions analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR. The project would not change the types of uses designated by current land use designations analyzed under the 2035 General Plan EIR and 2018 BTOD Specific Plan EIR. The project would support the infill, transitoriented development envisioned in the 2035 General Plan and 2018 BTOD Specific Plan.

The project would not require more demolition than what is currently possible, but it would accommodate increased construction labor and materials associated with larger scale building types and increased number of residential units. Increased building heights and densities could result in more construction-related energy-consuming activities such as construction of deeper foundations to support the building construction and increased parking and storage space for residents.

Construction activities would require energy resources primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary power may be provided for construction trailers and electric construction equipment. The manufacture and procurement of building materials used in construction of development facilitated by the project would require energy use. The California Natural Resources Agency’s (CNRA) Final Statement of Reasons notes that “a full ‘lifecycle’ analysis that would account for energy used in building materials and consumer products will generally not be required” (CNRA 2018). It is reasonable to assume that manufacturers of concrete, steel, lumber, or other building materials would employ energy conservation practices to minimize their cost of doing business.

Energy use during demolition and construction would be temporary, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. Development facilitated by the project would utilize construction contractors that comply with applicable CARB regulations such as accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment, and restricted idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles. Construction contractors are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Title 13, sections 2449 and 2485, prohibiting dieselfueled commercial and off-road vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, minimizing unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would minimize inefficient fuel Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
consumption. These construction equipment standards are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of construction would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect.

Electrical power would be consumed during demolition and construction activities, and the demand, to the extent required, would be supplied from existing electrical infrastructure in the area. When not in use, electric equipment would be powered off so as to avoid unnecessary energy consumption. The electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and minimal; it would be within the supply and infrastructure service capabilities of EBCE and it would not require additional local or regional capacity.

Overall, demolition and construction activities would not have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies or infrastructure. Demolition and construction activities would utilize fuelefficient equipment consistent with State and federal regulations and would comply with state measures, including the latest Title 24 standards, to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Per applicable regulatory requirements such as 2019 or later CALGreen, development facilitated by the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert construction and demolition debris from landfills. These practices would result in efficient use of energy by construction facilitated by the project. Therefore, project construction activities would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Operation of the project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity and gasoline and diesel fuels. Electricity and natural gas would be used for heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes. Vehicle trips associated with residents of development facilitated by the project would represent the greatest operational use of energy associated with the project. According to the CalEEMod modeling outputs included in Appendix GHG, electricity use associated with the additional residences facilitated by the project would be approximately 19.2 million kWh per year of electricity and 41.8 billion BTU per year of natural gas. The 75,000 square feet of office space would use approximately 0.9 million kWh per year of electricity and 1.4 billion BTU per year of natural gas. The general location of the project parcels within the three Priority Development Areas in the city proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands.

All development would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24), which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment during operation. California’s CALGreen standards require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. Further, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6) require newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by CEC. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Pursuant to CALGreen, all plumbing fixtures used for the project would be high-efficiency fixtures, which would minimize the potential inefficient or wasteful consumption of energy related to water and wastewater.

Further, the default EBCE electricity service for development facilitated by the project would provide 100 percent renewable energy.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-12
Therefore, operation of development facilitated by the project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT or associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption and would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Impacts would be less than significant.

The City’s GHG reduction goals are consistent with goals recommended by the State pursuant to AB

32. San Leandro maintains a goal to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The CAP contains 52 GHG emissions reduction strategies related to building electrification, residential energy efficiency, renewable energy, reducing automobile dependency, transportation electrification, and community consumption (City of San Leandro 2021). Development facilitated by the project would be designed to comply with the targets and strategies established by the CAP. For example, new construction would be encouraged to be entirely electric structures with electric appliances, and rehabilitated structures would be incentivized to retrofit residences with electric appliances. Further, development facilitated by the project would generally be sited near alternative transit options to reduce vehicle miles traveled by automobile. In addition to compliance with CALGreen and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, development facilitated by the project would also be designed to be consistent with the goals outlined in the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project would not obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact E-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT AN APPLICABLE RENEWABLE ENERGY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.3.2, Regulatory Setting, several State plans, and the City’s adopted 2035 General Plan and CAP include energy conservation and energy efficiency strategies intended to enable the State and the City to achieve GHG reduction and energy conservation goals. A full discussion of the project’s consistency with GHG reduction plans is included in Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 4.3-2 and Table 4.3-3, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with (and not conflict with nor obstruct) State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
Table 4.3-2 Consistency with State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum.

Pursuant to AB 2076, the CEC and CARB prepared and
adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing California’s
Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce
petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand.

Consistent. The project would encourage housing
development in urbanized areas that are near transit,
employment, and services, thereby encouraging the use
of active transportation (walking, biking) and public
transit, and reducing the city’s per capita VMT.
2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The 2019 report
highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy, as well as provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing
buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and
integrating more renewable energy into the electricity
system.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, Chapter 7.5.7, which mandates the implementation of Title 24.

Compliance would include rooftop solar on all residential building types that are three stories or less in height.

Electricity would be provided either by PG&E or EBCE,
which source some or all their power from renewable
sources. Given these features, the project would
facilitate decarbonization of buildings (removing GHG
emissions from the building’s energy use), the increase in energy efficiency savings, and integration of more
renewable energy into the electricity system. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy
Report.

California Renewable Portfolio Standard. California’s RPS obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to procure 33 percent
total retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Consistent. EBCE and PG&E supply electricity in the city and they are required to generate electricity that would increase renewable energy resources to 60 percent by
2030 and 100 percent by 2045. EBCE already has an
option for residents to source 100 percent renewable
energy. Because PCE and PG&E would provide electricity
service to the areas affected by the proposed land use
and zoning changes, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the California Renewable
Portfolio Standard.

Energy Action Plan. In the October 2005, the CEC and
CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some
important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues, and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the
context of global climate change. The nine major action areas in the EAP include energy efficiency, demand
response, renewable energy, electricity
adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure,
transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure,
research/development/demonstration, and climate
change.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, Chapter 7.5.7, which mandates the implementation of Title 24.

Compliance would include rooftop solar on all residential building types that are three stories or less in height.

Electricity would be provided either by PG&E or EBCE,
which source some or all their power from renewable
sources. The project also would encourage housing
development in urbanized areas that are near transit,
employment, and services, thereby encouraging the use
of active transportation (walking, biking) and public
transit, and reducing the city’s per capita VMT. Given
these features, the project would facilitate
implementation of the nine major action areas in the
EAP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the EAP.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-14
Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency AB 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plans. The State
Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state
production of biofuels without causing a significant
degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Bioenergy Action Plan, EO S-06-06. The EO establishes the following targets to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050.

Consistent. The project would not interfere with or
obstruct the production of biofuels in California. Vehicles used by future residents would be fueled by gasoline and diesel fuels blended with ethanol and biodiesel fuels as required by CARB regulations. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the Bioenergy Action Plan or the State Alternative Fuels Plan.

Title 24, CCR – Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency
Standards) and Part 11 (CALGreen). The 2019 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards move toward cutting energy
use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less.

The CALGreen Standards establish green building criteria for residential and nonresidential projects. The 2019
Standards include the following: increasing the number of parking spaces that must be prewired for electric vehicle chargers in residential development; requiring all
residential development to adhere to the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance; and requiring more
appropriate sizing of HVAC ducts.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, Chapter 7.5.7, which mandates the implementation of Title 24.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Title 24 standards.

The City’s 2035 General Plan includes goals and policies that necessitate actions to track energy use and improve energy efficiency and conservation. The City’s CAP also includes measures that work to improve energy efficiency and conservation. As shown in Table 4.3-3, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with (and not conflict with nor obstruct) energy conservation and efficiency strategies contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP.

Table 4.3-3 Consistency with the City General Plan and Climate Action Plan Proposed Project Consistency
General Plan Energy Efficiency Goal or Policy
Goal OSC-8: Energy. Promote the efficient use of
energy and the increased use of renewable
energy by San Leandro residents and businesses.

Policy OSC-8.2: Planning and Building Practices.

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

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, Chapter 7.5.7, which mandates the implementation of Title 24. Development facilitated by the project would be required to use efficiency lighting, implement sustainable purchasing, study feasibility of solar or other renewable energy. EBCE and PG&E supply electricity in the city and they are required to generate electricity that would increase renewable energy resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. EBCE already has an option for residents to source 100 percent renewable energy. San Leandro customers have Renewable 100 service as default since March 2022. Because PCE and PG&E would provide electricity service to the areas affected by the proposed land use and zoning changes, the project would be consistent with the general plan’s goals and policies regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy mix.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15
Proposed Project Consistency
Pol T-1.10: Reduced Trip Generation. Encourage
local employers to develop programs that
promote ridesharing, flextime and
telecommuting, bicycle use, and other modes of
transportation that reduce the number and
distance of vehicle trips generated.

Consistent. The project would encourage infill housing and office space development in urbanized areas near public transit, which facilitates active transportation and public transit use by residents and employees in the city. Although the project would not directly involve programs at places of employment to reduce VMT, the project would make it easier for active transportation and public transit use to occur.

CAP Measure
Measure AD-2: Continue to concentrate multifamily development and pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development within existing Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) areas and along
major transit corridors.

Measure AD-3: Focus new housing development
on underutilized or vacant infill sites on flatter
lands and continue to discourage new
development in hillside areas.

Consistent. The project would encourage multifamily and mixed use infill housing development on vacant and underutilized sites in the city’s Priority Development Areas near the public transit, employment, and services.

Measure RE-1: Encourage San Leandro
households and businesses to switch from PG&E
electricity supplies to East Bay Community
Energy, and commit to defaulting to Renewable
100 tier for 100-percent renewable energy.

Measure RE-3: Prioritize increasing and installing
renewable energy generation systems and energy
storage systems on rental homes, multi-family
buildings, and affordable housing.

Consistent. EBCE and PG&E supply electricity in the City and they are required to generate electricity that would increase renewable energy resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045.

EBCE already has an option for residents to source 100 percent renewable energy. Because PCE and PG&E would provide
electricity service to the areas affected by the proposed land use and zoning changes, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City’s CAP. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, Chapter

7.5.7, which mandates the implementation of Title 24. Compliance would include rooftop solar on all residential building types that are three stories or less in height. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Title 24 standards.

Source: City of San Leandro 2016a, City of San Leandro 2016b, City of San Leandro 2021 The project would be consistent with the City’s adopted energy conservation and efficiency strategies contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP. Further, approval of the project itself would not change these regulations and would not provide any goals, policies, or programs that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-16

4.3.4 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]). The geographic scope for energy consumption is the City of San Leandro. This geographic scope is appropriate because the smallest scale at which energy consumption information is readily available is the city level. Cumulative buildout of the City’s 2035 General Plan is considered part of this cumulative analysis.

Cumulative development would increase demand for energy resources, but those resources would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner as all projects would be required to comply with Federal, state and local laws and regulations related to energy efficiency and reduction/conservation of energy. Further, new iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would require increasingly more efficient appliances and building materials that reduce energy consumption in new development. In addition, vehicle fuel efficiency is anticipated to continue improving through implementation of the existing Pavley Bill regulations under AB 1493.

As described under Impact E-1, development facilitated by the project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Additionally, housing development in infill locations is presumed to lower VMT due to the proximity to office and commercial uses. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact is not cumulatively considerable.

Development facilitated by the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and operation of the new residential structures would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

The geographic scopes for the cumulative impact analysis of consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans are the State of California and the City of San Leandro. Projects throughout the State of California are required to adhere to applicable renewable energy and energy efficiency laws, programs, and policies such as California’s RPS, AB 1493, and Title 24 standards. All other pending and future projects in the county would be required to adhere to General Plan policies to mitigate energy impacts where feasible. In addition, all pending and future projects would be reviewed for consistency with the City General Plan and CAP. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. As discussed under Impact E-2, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with the energy-related goals, policies, and actions of the statewide plans and the City General Plan and measures of the CAP; therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact with respect to consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1

4.4 Land Use and Planning
This section analyzes the consistency of the project with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and identifies environmental effects that would arise from such inconsistencies. The analysis in this section considers the land use and planning analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis of potential changes proposed by the project.

4.4.1 Existing Setting
a. Existing Land Uses
The general distribution of land uses and their corresponding zoning districts within San Leandro are shown in Table 4.4-1. Residential uses comprise half of the city’s land area, while Industrial and Public/Open Space uses make up the second and third largest uses of land area in the city.

Commercial and Mixed-Use uses are dispersed throughout the city. Each land use designation consists of multiple zoning districts, which allows for clearer distinctions between specific allowable land uses and development standards applied.

City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan Land Use Designations The following section describes the zoning districts allowable within each land use area in San Leandro.

Residential
 Garden Residential (1-4 du/ac): Garden Residential land use designation applies to use of land for single family detached residences in a county or semi-rural environment no smaller than 8,000 square feet. Small-scale commercial gardens and animal husbandry, consistent with the residential character of the area, are also permitted.
 Low Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]): The Low Density Residential land use designation applies to use of land for single family detached residences between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. This is the predominant residential type in San Leandro.  Low-Medium Density Residential (7-11 du/ac): The Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation applies to use of land for single family attached and detached residences on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet.
 Medium Density Residential (12-18 du/ac): The Medium Density Residential land use designation applies to use of land for attached residences, such as townhomes and duplexes.

Single family detached homes on standard lots, smaller lots, and clustered or planned unit developments are also permitted in areas with this designation. These areas may include common open space and private recreational facilities, or mobile home parks.  Medium-High Density Residential (19-25 du/ac): The Medium-High Density Residential land use designation applies to use of land for multi-family residences, such as garden apartments, townhomes, and two-story condominiums. Single family homes are also permitted.  High Density Residential (>29 du/ac): The High Density Residential land use designation applies to use of land for multi-family residences.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-2
Table 4.4-1 Existing Land Use Summary for San Leandro
Land Use Designation Corresponding Zoning Designations
Total Acres
(approximate)1
Percent of City
Land Acreage (%)
Residential 4,209 49.5
Garden Residential  Residential Outer District (RO)
 Residential Single-Family District (RS)
 Public and Semipublic District (PS)
160 1.9
Low Density Residential  Residential Single-Family District (RS)  Residential Single-Family District with 40 ft front yard setback (RS-40)  Residential Single-Family District with view preservation (RS-VP) 3,098 36.5
Low-Medium Density Residential  Residential Single-Family District with Planned Development (RS-PD)  Residential Duplex District (RD), Public and Semipublic District (PS) 205 2.4
Medium Density Residential  Residential Duplex District (RD),  Residential Multi-Family District with 14.5 dwellings per gross acre (RM-3000)  Residential Multi-Family District with 17.5 dwellings per gross acre (RM-2500),  Residential Multi-Family District with 22 dwellings per gross acre (RM-2000) 412 4.9
Medium-High Density Residential  Residential Multi-Family District with 24 dwellings per gross acre (RM-1800) 217 2.6 High Density Residential  RM-8751 117 1.4
Commercial 369 4.4
Neighborhood Commercial  Commercial Neighborhood District (CN)  Professional Office District (P)
52 0.6
General Commercial  Commercial Community District (CC)  Commercial Services District (CS)
 Commercial Recreation District (CR)
 Commercial Regional Mall District (CR-M)
316 3.7
Mixed Use 591 7.0
Downtown Mixed Use  Downtown Area 1 (DA-1)
 Downtown Area 2 (DA-2)
 Downtown Area 3 (DA-3)
 Professional Office District (P)
 Public and Semipublic District (PS)
 Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
107 1.3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
Land Use Designation Corresponding Zoning Designations
Total Acres
(approximate)1
Percent of City
Land Acreage (%)
Transit Oriented Mixed Use  Downtown Area 2 (DA-2)
 Downtown Area 3 (DA-3)
 Downtown Area 4 (DA-4)
 Downtown Area 6 (DA-6)
 Public and Semipublic District (PS)
149 1.7
Corridor Mixed Use  North Area 1 District (NA-1)
 North Area 2 District (NA-2)
 South Area 1 District (SA-1)
 South Area 2 District (SA-2)
 South Area 3 District (SA-3)
 Downtown Area 2 (DA-2)
 Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
 Professional (P)
 Public and Semipublic District (PS)
174 2.1
Bayfair Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Mixed Use
 Bay-Fair Transit Oriented Development District (B-TOD) 161 1.9 Industrial 1,693 19.9
Light Industrial  Industrial Limited District (IL)
 Industrial Park District (IP)
518 6.1
General Industrial  Industrial General District (IG)
 Industrial Limited District (IL)
 Industrial Park District (IP)
1,004 11.8
Industrial Transition  Industrial Transition District (IT) 171 2.0 Public/Open Space 1,426 16.8
Public/Institutional  Public and Semipublic District (PS) 354 4.2 Parks and Recreation  Open Space District (OS) 550 6.5 Resource Conservation  Open Space District (OS) 522 6.1 Total Acres 8,286 100.0
1 Excludes 224 acres of Freeway right-of-way and 1,384 acres of surface water in San Francisco Bay.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-4
Commercial
 Neighborhood Commercial (Maximum Floor Area Ratio [FAR] 0.5): The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation applies to small shopping centers or clusters of street front buildings with local-serving businesses and services. Other permitted uses include groceries, local-serving offices, pharmacies, laundromats, dry cleaners, restaurants, and other businesses that serve the daily needs of nearby residential areas.  General Commercial (Maximum FAR 1.0): The General Commercial land use designation applies to larger shopping centers, shopping districts, and commercial uses providing a broader range of goods and services and serving a broader market than the neighborhood commercial areas.

Permitted uses include but are not limited to supermarkets, department stores, apparel stores, theaters, and non-retail services such as offices and banks. These areas also contain primarily auto-oriented uses such as hotels and motels, car dealerships, auto service and repair businesses, and construction suppliers.

Mixed Use
 Downtown Mixed Use (Maximum FAR 3.5): The Downtown Mixed Use land use designation applies to a range of uses which create a pedestrian-oriented street environment. Uses include retail shops, services, offices, cultural activities, public and civic buildings, and similar and compatible uses, including upper story residential uses.  Transit Oriented Mixed Use (Maximum FAR 4.0): The Transit Oriented Mixed Use land use designation aims to provide a mix of high-intensity land uses in close proximity to the San Leandro BART station. Vertical mixing of different uses is emphasized, with housing being the predominant use in some areas and office/retail the major use in others.  Corridor Mixed Use (Maximum FAR 1.0-1.5): The Corridor Mixed Use land use designation allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses oriented in linear development pattern along major transit-served arterials. A range of commercial and office uses is permitted, and residential uses may either be free-standing or integrated into the upper floors of mixed-use projects. The maximum permitted FAR in this district is 1.0 with a FAR up to 1.5 permitted for projects that incorporate housing.
 Bay Fair TOD (Maximum FAR 3.0): The Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan adopted in 2018 envisions a walkable, transit-oriented community hub with a mix of retail, neighborhood services, housing, and office spaces.

Industrial
 Light Industrial (Maximum FAR 1.0): The Light Industrial land use designation contains wholesale activities, distribution facilities, research and development or e-commerce uses, business services, technology, and manufacturing operations which produce minimal off-site impacts. Campus-style industrial parks, professional offices, and a limited range of commercial uses are also permitted.
 General Industrial (Maximum FAR 1.0): The General Industrial land use designation contains a wide range of manufacturing, transportation, food and beverage processing, technology, warehousing, vehicle storage, office-flex, and distribution uses. A limited range of commercial uses is also permitted.
 Industrial Transition (Maximum FAR 1.0): The Industrial Transition land use designation applies to areas that used to be industrial but have or may transition to a more diverse mix of uses, Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5
including general commercial activities. Industrial uses will continue to be permitted in these areas in the future, but a broader mix of commercial uses such as offices, medical facilities, retail, services, home furnishing stores, construction showrooms, and restaurants is also encouraged. Residential uses in this land use designation are only permitted if properties are within 0.5 miles of a BART station, or where live-work development is proposed.

Public/Open Space
 Public/Institutional (Maximum FAR 1.0): The Public/Institutional land use designation applies to public schools, libraries, post offices, churches, public hospitals, and other public or institutional buildings. It also applies to major utility properties or facilities.  Parks and Recreation: The Parks and Recreation land use designation applies to land used for active recreational purposes, including neighborhood, community, and regional parks, golf courses, and the recreational amenities at Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline. Permitted uses include athletic fields and sports facilities, civic buildings with a primarily recreational or social function, and leisure-oriented uses such as picnic areas, boat slips, and tot lots.  Resource Conservation: The Resource Conservation land use designation applies to undeveloped land due to high environmental sensitivity, or land used primarily for passive recreation (such as walking trails). Development is generally not permitted in this land use designation.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
California Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8) includes provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of local government General Plans. Among these requirements are an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting these needs. Additionally, to assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goals, this section of the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions to plan for, and facilitate the construction of, their fair share of the region’s projected housing needs, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of San Leandro’s current 2015- 2023 Housing Element Update was adopted in January 2015.

Local Agency Formation Commissions
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act) of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) establishes the process through which local agency boundaries are established and revised. Each county must have a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which is the agency that has the responsibility to create orderly local government boundaries, with the goal of encouraging "planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns," the preservation of open-space lands, and the discouragement of urban sprawl. While LAFCOs have no land use power, their actions determine which local government will be responsible for planning new areas. LAFCOs address a wide range of boundary actions, including the creation and modifications of spheres of influence for cities and special districts, annexations, City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-6
reorganizations, incorporations, and the detachment of areas from special districts. A city’s or special district’s sphere of influence is an indication of an agency’s future growth boundaries.

Planning and Zoning Law
State law requires each city and county in California to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the land within its planning area (Government Code Sections 65300-65404). The general plan must contain land use, housing, circulation, open space, conservation, noise, and safety elements, as well as any other elements that the city or county may wish to adopt. The circulation element of a local general plan must be correlated with the land use element.

Zoning authority originates from city and county police power and from the State’s Planning and Zoning Law, which sets minimum requirements for local zoning ordinances. The city or county zoning code is the set of detailed requirements that implement the general plan policies at the level of the individual parcel. The zoning code presents standards for different uses and identifies which uses are allowed in the various zoning districts of the jurisdiction. Since 1971, State law has required the city or county zoning code to be consistent with the jurisdiction’s general plan.

Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) supports the State's climate goals by helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions through coordinated transportation, housing, and land use planning. Under the Act, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set targets for 2020 and 2035 for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organization regions in 2010 and updated them in 2018. Each of the regions must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as an integral part of its regional transportation plan, that contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet CARB’s targets. The Act establishes some incentives to encourage implementation of the development patterns and strategies included in an SCS. Developers can get relief from certain environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS that meets the targets (see Public Resources Code Sections 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28).
b. Regional Regulations
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range, integrated transportation and land-use plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan is the combined Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (also referred to as the RTP/SCS) and was jointly adopted by the ABAG and the MTC in October 2021. The Plan describes where and how the region can accommodate two million new people and one million new jobs from 2021 to 2050 and details the regional transportation investment strategy over the next 30 years. Growth in the plan area is promoted in Priority Development Areas and limited in Priority Conservation Areas to promote preservation of key resources.

The RTP/SCS consists of 35 strategies and over 80 individual implementation actions, as well as an Implementation Plan for Plan Bay Area 2050 that builds upon the Plan Bay Area 2040 Action Plan, which identifies specific actions that focuses and improves upon the categories of housing, Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
economy, transportation, and environment. ABAG and MTC developed land use and transportation scenarios in the Plan known as Horizon that distribute the total amount of anticipated growth across the region and measure how well each scenario measures against the Plan goals. Based upon performance, the preferred scenario provides a regional pattern of household and employment growth and a corresponding transportation investment strategy (ABAG/MTC 2021).

San Francisco Bay Plan
The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in 1968 and was transmitted to the California Legislature and the Governor in 1969. This comprehensive plan is concentrated on the conservation of the San Francisco Bay (the Bay) and pertains to all development at the Bay’s shoreline. BCDC has jurisdiction within 100 feet of the Bay’s shoreline. The McAteer-Petris Act designated BCDC as the permanent agency for carrying out the Bay Plan and directs BCDC to exercise its authority to issue or deny permit applications for placing fill, extracting materials, or changing the use of any land, water, or structure within the area of its jurisdiction.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Public Access Design Guidelines
As mentioned above, BCDC has jurisdiction within 100 feet of the Bay’s shoreline. As such, proposed development within that jurisdiction is subject to BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines, which are intended to ensure that maximum feasible public access is provided. BCDC defines “public access” as including physical public access to and along the shoreline of the Bay and visual public access to the Bay from other public spaces. Physical improvements, as defined by BCDC, may include waterfront promenades, trails, plazas, play areas, overlooks, parking spaces, landscaping, site furnishings, and connections from public streets to the water’s edge. In general, the Public Access Design Guidelines provide recommendations for improving and maximizing public access; however, they do not establish a specific set of design requirements, recognizing that development and character differs from location to location.

Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Trail Plan
The Bay Trail Plan proposes development of a continuous regional hiking and bicycling trail around the perimeter of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Implementation of the Bay Trail is coordinated by the San Francisco Bay Trail Project; a nonprofit organization created by and housed within ABAG. A proposed trail route goes through San Leandro near Monarch Bay Drive and currently continues to the south as a Class I bicycle and pedestrian path.

San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail
The San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail is an ongoing effort to create a network of launch and landing sites to accommodate non-motorized boats and sail craft throughout the San Francisco Bay and is intended to promote recreational water access opportunities. The Water Trail is a regional trail linking nine counties in the Bay Area and joins three other trail systems, including the San Francisco Bay Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail, and the California Coastal Trail. The nearest designated Water Trail site to the city is at the Tidewater Boating Center in Oakland, which is approximately 7 miles north. The Water Trail program is implemented by the Coastal Conservancy in collaboration with the ABAG, BCDC, and the State Department of Boating and Waterways.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-8
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) for Oakland International Airport (OAK) and Hayward Executive Airport (HWD) present the criteria, maps, and policies to be utilized by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (Land Use Commission) and other local jurisdictions.

These policies apply when reviewing proposals for land use development within the airports’ Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) for compatibility with airport operations. The AIAs are defined based on political boundaries, noise contours, and flight tracks. Portions of San Leandro are within the AIAs for OAK and HWD. The ALUCPs establish Safety Compatibility Zones that depict the relative risk of aircraft accidents. General Plan amendments are subject to review by the Land Use Commission. c. Local Regulations
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan was adopted in 2016 and provides guidelines for land use decision-making in the city. The General Plan contains eight elements: Land Use; Transportation; Economic Development; Open Space, Conservation and Parks; Environmental Hazards; Historic Preservation and Community Design; Community Services and Facilities; and Housing. Together, the Land Use, Housing, and Environmental Hazards Elements are intended to ensure that adequate land, infrastructure services, and safety measures are provided to accommodate existing and future development.

Land Use Element
The Land Use Element describes existing land use patterns and provides the physical framework for land use and development in the city. The Land Use Element contains goals, policies, and actions for the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial areas. In addition, the Land Use Element provides strategies for focus areas where change is likely through 2035 and guidelines for San Leandro’s Planning Area and Sphere of Influence (City of San Leandro 2016b).

Housing Element
The Housing Element presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions that builds on an assessment of San Leandro’s housing needs and an evaluation of existing housing programs, available land, and constraints on housing productions. The Housing Element consists of the following components: a review of past accomplishments and progress of implementation and effectiveness of the previous Housing Element; an assessment of existing and future housing needs; a constraints analysis addressing governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing development; an inventory of housing opportunity sites; housing policies and programs; and quantified objectives for housing development, preservation, and rehabilitation (City of San Leandro 2015).

Environmental Hazards Element
The Environmental Hazards Element identifies natural and man-made public health and safety hazards that exist within the city, and establishes preventative and responsive policies and programs to mitigate their impacts. The Environmental Hazards Element addresses earthquakes, landslides, floods, sea level rise, wildfire, air and water pollution, hazardous materials, aviation accidents, and noise. This Element allows for the consideration of hazards in land use designations and their Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
density and intensity standards, and places restrictions on development of hazardous areas (City of San Leandro 2016a).

City of San Leandro Municipal Code (SLMC) and Zoning Ordinance (SLZO) The SLMC establishes regulations that implement the City’s General Plan. Chapter 7 of the SLMC describes the City’s building codes, planning procedures, construction requirements, and fee requirements for new construction. The SLZO describes the six categories of districts within the City in Title 2: Residential, Commercial and Professional, Bay Fair Transit-Oriented Development, Industrial, Open Space, and Public and Semipublic. The SLZO establishes development regulations and landscape requirements in Titles 2 and 4 and requirements for affordable housing and residential density bonuses in Title 6.

Climate Action Plan
The San Leandro 2021 Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in July 2021, establishes the City’s comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a manner consistent with state reduction targets for 2020, 2030, and the long-term goal of 2050. The CAP includes goals, policies, and strategies intended to help the City reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, updated in 2018, contains goals and policies which are intended to guide development of the bicycle and pedestrian network in San Leandro. These policies include those that encourage natural and man-made corridors including shorelines to be used for the alignment of future multi-use trails.

Bay Fair Transit-Oriented Development Specific Plan
The Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan was adopted by the San Leandro City Council in 2018 and updated in 2020, following an extensive community engagement and planning process. The Specific Plan sets a vision for the 154-acre area around the Bay Fair BART station to become a walkable, transit-oriented community hub, with public gathering spaces and a mix of retail, neighborhood services, housing, and office space.

Downtown San Leandro Transit-Oriented Development Strategy The Downtown San Leandro Transit-Oriented Development Strategy (TOD Strategy), adopted in September 2007, is intended to encourage housing, retail, jobs, and more attractive and pedestrianfriendly streets and sidewalks in downtown San Leandro. The TOD Strategy’s study area is defined by a half-mile radius circle around the intersection of East 14th and Davis Streets. The TOD Strategy identifies opportunity sites and recommends land use categories to take advantage of opportunities for increased density, usage, and height, where appropriate. The TOD Strategy also identifies land use objectives for special policy areas, and establishes an open space framework for the Downtown.

East 14th South Area Development Strategy
The East 14th South Area Development Strategy was developed in 2004. It contains goals and policies, a corridor concept plan, illustrative opportunity site development studies, design guidelines, a streetscape improvements plan, and implementation strategies. The primary goal of the South Area Development Strategy is to revitalize the southern portion of the East 14th Street City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-10
corridor between downtown and the Bay Fair TOD area by attracting desirable land uses, implementing streetscape improvements, and guiding new development to ensure high-quality design.

4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The analysis in this section focuses on the potential environmental impacts from the proposed land use changes and subsequent rezoning, as well as consistency with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of 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. Physically divide an established community

2. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect The consistency analysis describes existing regional and local plans and policies and is intended to fulfill the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). The emphasis of the analysis is on the project’s inconsistency and potential conflicts between the project and existing applicable land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and whether any inconsistencies are significant environmental effects. The project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it meets the general intent of the applicable plans and does not conflict with directly applicable policies. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy nor does state law require precise conformity of a proposed project with every policy or land use designation (Sequoayah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland, (1998) 23 Cal.App 4th 704, 719 (1993)). In Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341, the court held that “[t] he nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.” A project is clearly inconsistent when it conflicts with one or more specific, fundamental, and mandatory policies of the general plan (State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR] 2017). Courts have also acknowledged that general and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests, and that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan.

Additionally, in reaching such consistency conclusions, the City may also consider the consequences of denial of a project, which can also result in other policy inconsistencies. For example, Government Code Section 65589.5 explains that the potential consequences of limiting the approval of housing are reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.

For an impact to be considered significant, an inconsistency would also have to result in a significant adverse change in the environment not already addressed in the other resource chapters of this EIR.

The analysis below provides a discussion of the most relevant policies from the various planning documents. However, the City’s consistency conclusions are based upon the planning documents as a whole.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.9 (Land Use and Planning) of the 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in new development or features that would divide existing residential neighborhoods or communities. The 2035 General Plan would not conflict with any land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 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: Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact LU-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CHANGE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND WOULD NOT PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.9-9) determined that the 2035 General Plan would not result in new development or features that would divide existing residential neighborhoods or communities (City of San Leandro 2016c). Compliance with the 2035 General Plan policies would promote cohesive and compatible neighborhoods and prevent new development from dividing existing communities.

As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project would result in a net increase of 4,960 residential units and 75,000 square feet of office space in the three Priority Development Areas in the city compared to the assumptions analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR. The project would not change the types of uses designated by current land use designations analyzed under the 2035 General Plan EIR and 2018 BTOD Specific Plan EIR. Sites that are currently zoned for residential or mixed use would continue to accommodate those uses. The project would support the development envisioned in the 2035 General Plan and 2018 BTOD Specific Plan.

Changes to development standards as outlined in Section 2, Project Description, and new or updated policies in the Housing Element, Environmental Justice Element, and Environmental Hazards Element would not create structures, such as new roadways, or railways that could physically divide an established community, nor would the project change types of land use. Policies of the Housing Element Update would continue to promote the vision and goals of the 2035 General Plan to increase neighborhood cohesion, including neighborhood equity, housing mobility, and housing stability. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.

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

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-12
Threshold: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-2 THE PROJECT WOULD UPDATE THE LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT,

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT, AND IMPLEMENT A PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT TO BRING THE CITY’S 2035 GENERAL PLAN INTO CONFORMANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS AND FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT ALIGNED WITH THE VISION OF THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN, BTOD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND PLAN BAY AREA 2050. THESE UPDATES WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY LAND USE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR MITIGATING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.9-17) compared the goals and policies of the 2035 General Plan to existing land use plans, and concluded that the 2035 General Plan would not conflict with any land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and thus would result in a less than significant impact (City of San Leandro 2016c).

As set forth by State law, the General Plan serves as the primary planning document for the City and all subordinate documents and plans are required to be consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update would amend the 2035 General Plan and associated changes with the Land Use Element as described in Section 2, Project Description, to remove constraints to housing development and facilitate the sufficient development of housing at densities appropriate for respective income levels consistent with the RHNA. The building types supported by the amendments to the allowable densities, FAR, and building heights would support the type of residential and mixed use infill development envisioned in the 2035 General Plan and 2018 BTOD Specific Plan for the city’s Priority Development Areas near the city’s two BART stations and along East 14th Street.

By focusing residential development in the city’s Priority Development Areas as transit-oriented infill development and redevelopment, the project reduces potential impacts to biologically and culturally sensitive areas; risk from wildfire hazards; per capita VMT and impacts to air quality, GHG, and energy; and the need for additional utility infrastructure. The project would be consistent with the Policy LU-3.4 of the 2035 General Plan, which promotes development on vacant and underused sites within residential and commercial areas (City of San Leandro 2016b). As with the 2035 General Plan, the project would remain consistent and would not conflict with the goals and policies of land use plans discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, including Plan Bay Area (updated 2021), the San Francisco Bay Plan (updated 2019), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission Public Access Design Guidelines (updated 2022), the ABAG Trail Plan (updated 2022), and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan (updated 2022). The project would also be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 land use policies, including Policy H3 which aims to allow a greater of mix of housing densities and types in Growth Geographies, and Policy H6, which aims to transform unused commercial areas into housing for residents of all income levels (ABAG/MTC 2021).

The project would facilitate development that would exceed the buildout projections described in the 2035 General Plan, as discussed in Section 4.6, Population and Housing. However, the Housing Element Update would comply with pertinent State housing law and the City’s 6th cycle RHNA allocation and has been prepared specifically to be consistent with applicable requirements of housing law. Thus, despite accommodating growth beyond that anticipated in the 2035 General Plan, housing growth under the project would not be substantial or unplanned. The project would Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13
update the 2035 General Plan to reflect new housing requirements; therefore, the planned growth under the project would not conflict with the adopted General Plan.

Development standards associated with the project would be required to be consistent with the other portions of the 2035 General Plan, including policies and programs adopted to address environmental impacts. All development in the city would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s development standards set forth in SLMC and SLZO as part of the design review process. The project would not remove or modify any policies or measures from the 2035 General Plan that are intended for environmental protection and would not conflict with any 2035 General Plan policies or measures that are intended for environmental protection. Policies in the Environmental Justice Element and updated to the Environmental Hazards Element would not result in significant environmental impacts.

Therefore, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and there would be no impact.

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

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Division of an Established Community
The cumulative setting for land use and planning impacts is the City of San Leandro. Cumulative land use and planning impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and consistency with adopted plans and regulations, are typically site- and project-specific. The project would not include any features (such as roadways or railways) that would physically divide an established community, and as such, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use changes and impacts would be less than significant.

Consistency with Land Use Plans/Policies
The project would be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, including the 2035 General Plan, BTOD Specific Plan, and Plan Bay Area 2050, and would not require significant land use changes that would create cumulative land use conflicts. Further, cumulative development will be required to comply with local regulations, plans, and policies adopted to avoid environmental effects, and as such, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use changes and impacts would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-14
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1

4.5 Noise
This section evaluates the potential for significant impacts to noise and vibration resulting from implementation of the project. The analysis in this section considers the noise and vibration analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis of potential changes proposed by the project.

4.5.1 Setting
Overview of Environmental Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs (e.g., the human ear). Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler et. al. 1999).

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; similarly, dividing the energy in half would result in a decrease of 3 dB (Caltrans 2013).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive an increase (or decrease) of up to 3 dBA in noise levels (i.e., twice [or half] the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Caltrans 2013). Sources of noise include stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, loading dock activity, and processing machinery associated with industrial and commercial operations, and mobile sources, such as motor vehicles, trains, and aircrafts. Noise sources can also be temporary, for example noise generated by construction equipment.

Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in sound level as the distance from the source increases.

The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation, and the changes in noise levels with distance (i.e., the drop-off rate) result simply from the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013). Noise City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-2
levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver. Structures can substantially reduce occupants’ exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.

The impact of noise is not a function of sound level alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time.

Typically, the Leq is summed over a one-hour period. The Lmax is the highest root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007). Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65 dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Table 4.5-1 provides examples of noise levels from common sounds.

Table 4.5-1 Typical Noise Levels
Perceived Sound Noise Level (dBA Leq) Examples
Painfully Loud 160 Fireworks at 3 feet
150 Jet takeoff
140 Threshold of pain
Uncomfortably Loud 130 Power drill
120 Thunder
110 Auto horn at 3 feet, Rock band
Very Loud 100 Snowmobile, Pile driver
90 Diesel truck, Lawn mower at 3 feet
80 Garbage disposal, Siren at 100’
Moderately Loud 70 Vacuum cleaner, Leaf blower at 50’
60 Ordinary conversation
50 Average home, Light traffic
Quiet 40 Library
30 Quiet conversation
Very Quiet 20 Soft whisper
10 Rustling leaves
Barely Audible 0 Threshold of hearing
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level
Source: City of San Leandro 2016, Chart 7-1
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (DNL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Community noise can also be measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013).

Noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 CNEL, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ CNEL range. There is no precise way to convert a peak hour Leq to DNL or CNEL - the relationship between the peak hour Leq value and the DNL/CNEL value depends on the distribution of traffic volumes during the day, evening, and night.

Overview of Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hertz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body is from a low of less than 1 Hertz up to a high of about 200 Hertz (Crocker 2007). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hertz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020a). When a building is impacted by vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.

However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean square (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV is normally described in inches per second (in/sec) and RMS is normally described in vibration decibels (VdB). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration and other construction activity because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020). Table 4.5-2 summarizes the vibration damage criteria recommended by the FTA for evaluating the potential for architectural damage to buildings and the potential for annoyance.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-4
Table 4.5-2 Criteria for Vibration Damage Potential
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: FTA 2018
In addition to the potential for building damage, the human body responds to vibration signals.

However, unlike buildings, which are rigid, it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration. In a sense, a building responds to the instantaneous movement while the human body responds to average vibration amplitude, which is measured as RMS. The averaging of the particle generally results in the RMS conservatively being equivalent to 71 percent of the PPV. Thus, human annoyance usually results in a more restrictive vibration limit than structural damage limits.

Numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. The vibration annoyance potential criteria recommended for use by the FTA, which are based on the general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels, are described in Table 4.5-3.

Table 4.5-3 Criteria for Vibration Annoyance Potential
Land Use Category VdB Level (Frequent Events)
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations1 65 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 1 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. For equipment that is more sensitive, a detailed vibration analysis must be performed.

VdB = vibration decibel
Source: FTA 2018
Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. The San Leandro 2035 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element identifies noise-sensitive land uses as residences, schools, child care centers, hospitals, churches, libraries, nursing homes, and certain types of parks and recreational areas. Vibration-sensitive receivers, which are similar to noise-sensitive receivers, also includes the above-mentioned land use types.

However, vibration-sensitive receivers also include fragile/historic-era buildings and buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment that is affected by vibration levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance (e.g., recording studies or medical facilities with sensitive equipment). Downtown San Leandro, one of the Priority Development Areas that would be impacted by the project, has a large concentration of historic and potentially historic buildings, which includes local, State, and federally designated historic properties, as shown on Figure 4.4-1 of the 2035 General Plan EIR (City of San Leandro 2016).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
Existing Noise Environment
The primary source of noise is vehicular traffic on roadways; therefore, the highest noise levels are generally adjacent to Interstate 880 (I-880) and Interstate 580 (I-580), as described in Chapter 4.10 of the 2035 General Plan EIR. BART transit noise is a major source of community noise in San Leandro as well. The BART tracks transect the center of the city in a northwest-to-southeast direction, and the system has two stops in the city, including San Leandro Station located in the north-central portion of the city near the intersection of Davis Street and San Leandro Boulevard, and Bay Fair Station located in the southeast portion of the city near Bayfair Center. Both stations serve the Daly City-Dublin/Pleasanton, Daly City-Berryessa/North San Jose, and RichmondBerryessa/North San Jose lines. Passing trains are among the loudest noise sources in the city, exceeding 95 dBA at 100 feet. Train horns may be even louder, approaching 110 dBA. Brakes, coupling impacts, and crossing guard warnings are also common sources of noise along the rail transit corridors.

Noise from aircraft overflights is a concern in San Leandro mainly due to the proximity of Oakland International Airport. As shown in Figure 4.10-2 in the 2035 General Plan EIR, the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour associated with the airport extends to the southwest edge of San Leandro. While the 24- hour ambient noise levels are within levels deemed acceptable by the FAA, some areas experience short-duration incidents where noise levels exceed 70 dBA (City of San Leandro 2016b).

Noise monitoring for the 2035 General Plan indicated noise levels up to 65-67 dB DNL at locations near the freeway and BART tracks. The 2035 General Plan EIR measured 15-minute Leq noise levels at 13 short-term locations and the 24-hour LDN noise levels at three long-term locations spread throughout the city. Noise levels at these locations, measured in 2015, were between 50.8 and 69.8 dBA. The following noise measurement locations in or near the Priority Development Areas measured the following dBA:
 LT-1: 64.8 dBA LDN
 LT-3: 67.4 dBA LDN
 ST-5: 65.5 dBA Leq
 ST-7: 58.5 dBA Leq
 ST-10: 64.2 dBA Leq
 ST-12: 57.7 dBA Leq
Noise measurements were also conducted for the BTOD Specific Plan in 2017. Two noise measurements were taken at different locations on Hesperian Boulevard and one on East 14th Street. Locations were selected as representative of actual noise levels from major roadways and the BART line during peak hours for traffic (between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.). Noise measurements ranged from 67.6 to 70.0 dBA Leq (City of San Leandro 2017).

The main sources of vibration in San Leandro are from construction equipment. The highest levels of vibration from construction are typically caused by grading and demolition activities. Vibration caused by construction is short-term in nature and impacts are generally restricted to areas within the immediate vicinity of active construction equipment.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-6

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Department of Housing and Urban Development
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets environmental criteria and standards in Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51. New construction proposed in areas that exceed 65 dB LDN must incorporate noise attenuation features to maintain interior noise levels at 45 dB LDN. Development in areas exceeding 65 dB LDN requires further attenuation features. In general, the HUD regulations match the California state regulations discussed below.

The FTA provides guidelines on vibration limits that are used to evaluate human annoyance and architectural damage caused by groundborne vibration (FTA 2018). Annoyance is a subjective measure that can vary per individual, as some individuals are more sensitive to than others. The FTA’s criteria on human annoyance are based on experience with rapid transit and commuter rail systems. The severity of architectural damage varies from cosmetic damage such as cracking of building elements to structural damage that can threaten the integrity of a building. Buildings that are older and in disrepair are susceptible to damage from vibration. b. State Regulations
California Building Code
CCR Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 12, and the California Building Code codify the State noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources and interior noise sources from separate areas. The regulations specify that interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA LDN in any habitable room, as well as specifying sound transmission class requirements for walls, floors, and ceilings around sleeping units. c. Local Regulations
City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
Noise
The Environmental Hazards Element of the City’s General Plan establishes noise and land use compatibility guidelines in San Leandro. Table 4.5-4 identifies areas where uses are acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, or clearly unacceptable based on ambient noise level. Policy EH-7.1 ensures that new developments are evaluated for noise impacts using the standards listed in the table below. The City requires projects that could significantly increase noise levels to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. Policy EH-7.4 states that a project’s noise impacts should be evaluated based on the potential for adverse community response, as well as its conformance to the adopted standards, and that projects should not degrade noise levels in neighborhoods to the maximum tolerable levels shown in the table below.

Policy EH-7.4 of the 2035 General Plan states that for CEQA purposes, an increase of 3 dB LDN should generally be considered a significant adverse impact.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7
Table 4.5-4 City of San Leandro Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Noise Exposure Levels (CNEL/Ldn, dBA)
Land Use Category
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
<60 55-70 70-75 75+
Residential- Multiple Family <65 60-70 70-75 75+
Transient Lodging, Motels, Hotels <65 60-70 70-80 80+
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
<70 60-70 70-80 80+
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA <70 NA 65+ Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA <75 NA 70+
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks <70 67.5-75 NA 72.5+
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
<75 70-80 NA 80+
Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and
Professional
<70 67.5-77.5 75+ N/A
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural <75 70-80 75+ N/A Notes: N/A = not applicable
Source: City of San Leandro 2016a
The 2035 General Plan contains additional goals, policies, and actions related to noise. Policy EH-7.2 ensures that interior noise levels in new residential construction do not exceed 45 dB LDN, as required by Title 24 of the California Building Code. For non-residential construction, the acceptable interior noise levels are determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of activity proposed. Policy EH-7.3 maintains a goal for the City to maintain an exterior noise level of no more than 60 dB LDN in residential areas, although some San Leandro neighborhoods already exceed this noise level. This policy directs the City to encourage a variety of noise abatement measures that benefit these areas.

Policy EH-7.5 discourages noise-sensitive uses such as hospitals, schools, and rest homes from locating in areas with very high noise levels unless sufficient noise mitigation and buffering can be provided. Conversely, this policy discourages new uses likely to produce high levels of noise from locating in areas where noise sensitive uses would be adversely impacted. Policy EH-7.6 states that if new housing is constructed in areas that exceed normally acceptable noise levels, the City requires project design and construction measures that minimize noise intrusion. Policy EH-8.3 requires new development or redevelopment near freeways, arterials, BART, and major bus routes to incorporate site planning and architectural design measures that reduce the exposure of future building occupants to traffic noise.

Vibration
Policy EH-7.9 of the 2035 General Plan intends to limit the potential for vibration impacts from construction and ongoing operations to disturb sensitive uses such as housing and schools by directing the City to adopt Standard Conditions of Approval or Construction Development Standards for new non-residential land uses that are subject to CEQA and require the use of large construction City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-8
equipment to reduce the potential for vibration related construction impacts for development projects near sensitive uses.

The City issues Standard Conditions of Approval for projects prior to the issuance of a building permit for projects that require the use of large construction equipment (e.g., vibratory roller, pile drivers). The Standard Conditions of Approval stipulate that proposed projects shall use the best available technology for construction equipment and permanent operations so that vibrations are reduced to a level consistent with FTA guidelines for annoyance and architectural damage. The Standard Conditions of Approval stipulates that construction activity for a proposed project shall not create noise or safety hazards for adjacent residents and properties. The Standard Conditions of Approval also require a vibration control plan for projects near sensitive receptors such as schools or residences, or near sensitive historic resources. The City issues Standard noise and vibration Conditions of Approval for new construction projects that require the use of large construction equipment (e.g., vibratory rollers, dozers, pile drivers) within 135 feet for pile driving near historic structures, 100 feet for pile driving near residential structures, 40 feet for vibratory rollers near historic structures, 25 feet for vibratory rollers near residential structures, and 20 feet for dozers and other heavy earthmoving equipment. Methods to reduce construction-related vibration include the use of smaller and well-maintained equipment, use of static rollers in lieu of vibratory rollers, cast-in-place drilling as opposed to pile driving, limitations on construction hours, and guidelines for the positioning of vibration-generating equipment. The developer is required to adhere to the Standard Conditions of Approval prior to commencement of construction, and the City requires the Standard Conditions of Approval to be recorded on the property.

City of San Leandro Municipal Code
San Leandro Municipal Code Chapter 4.1 provides restrictions and regulations for noise within San Leandro. Municipal Code Section 4.1.1115 provides restrictions for construction activities adjacent to or across the street from residential uses. Under Section 4.1.1115(b) of the City’s Municipal Code, construction is restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends. All construction activities adjacent to or across the street from residential uses are prohibited on federal holidays. Section 4.1.1115(c) of the Municipal Code also restricts sustained operation of mechanical devices from between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., unless the device is enclosed within a sound insulated structure, preventing the noise from being plainly audible from any residential property line.

Alameda County Code of Ordinances
Because the City of San Leandro’s General Plan and Municipal Code do not contain quantified thresholds for stationary noise sources, thresholds from the Alameda County Code of Ordinances are used in this analysis. Pursuant to the Alameda County Code of Ordinances Chapter 6.60, stationary sources of noise should not exceed 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or 50 dBA Leq during nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan This Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Oakland International Airport presents the criteria, maps, and policies to be utilized by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and other local jurisdictions. The policies within the ALUCP apply to all lands within the airport influence area, which includes the western portion of San Leandro. Noise compatibility policies in the ALUCP are established to prevent the development of noise-sensitive land uses in Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
portions of the airport environ that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. The ALUCP states that for residential land uses, a 60 dB CNEL noise level is considered conditionally acceptable and 65 and greater dB CNEL is considered incompatible. Noise level contours with noise levels 60 dBA CNEL and greater do not reach land in San Leandro, as shown in Figure 3-3 of the ALUCP (Alameda County ALUC 2010).

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The analysis in this section focuses on the potential environmental impacts related to noise and vibration from the proposed land use and zoning changes. The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of 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:

Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels Specific thresholds of significance for construction, operation, vibration, and land use compatibility are discussed below:

Construction Noise
This analysis references guidance from the FTA to establish a quantified threshold against which to assess the impact of construction noise (FTA 2018). The FTA recommends a threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8hr) for daytime construction noise received at residential receptors, which is used in this analysis.

Operational Noise
Policy EH-7.4 of the 2035 General Plan states that for CEQA purposes, an increase of 3 dB LDN should generally be considered a significant adverse impact.

For traffic-related noise, impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to an unacceptable increase in noise levels. As described under Overview of Environmental Noise above, a doubling of sound power (increase of 3 dB) is considered ‘barely perceptible’ to the human ear, while an increase of 5dB is considered ‘readily perceptible.’ For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the ambient noise environment of noise-sensitive locations by 3 dBA or more.

Land Use Compatibility
A substantial number of homes in San Leandro are within the 65 dB Ldn contour, as shown in Figure

4.10-1 in the 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.10-13). The City uses development review and zoning through the conditional use permit process to limit the hours of operation for noise-producing activities and to identify noise muffling and buffering requirements. The City also requires noise mitigation when residences are located near freeways, industrial uses, and other noise sources, as City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-10
described in Chapter 4-1 of the City’s Municipal Code. This includes the use of sound walls, doublepaned windows, and other measures that would protect future residents while still allowing nearby industrial and commercial uses (City of San Leandro 2016).

Vibration
The City has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation. Therefore, the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) is used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts related to both potential building damage and human annoyance. Construction vibration impacts from housing development would be significant if vibration levels exceed the Caltrans criteria shown in Table 4.5-2 and Table 4.5-3, using the lower range of the thresholds. For example, impacts would normally be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.2 in./sec. PPV for residential structures and 0.3 in./sec. PPV for commercial structures. This is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings. However, groundborne vibration would also have the potential to impact structures near a site with historic significance at much lower levels. Therefore, for a conservative analysis to these buildings, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.12 in./sec.

PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings, as shown in Table 4.5-2. In addition, construction vibration impacts would cause human annoyance at nearby residences if vibration levels exceed 72 VdB from frequent events such as construction activity.

Methodology
Construction Noise
For assessment purposes, noise levels for common construction equipment provided in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) guidance document were used to analyze potential noise levels associated with future development facilitated by the project.

Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile.

Stationary equipment operates in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixedpower operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around a construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). Each phase of construction has its own noise characteristics due to specific equipment mixes; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others and some may have high-impact intermittent noise levels (FTA 2018). Therefore, construction noise levels may fluctuate depending on the type of equipment being used, construction phase, or equipment location. In typical construction projects on vacant sites, grading activities typically generate the highest noise levels because grading involves the largest equipment and covers the greatest area.

Variation in power imposes difficulty in characterizing the noise source level from construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the activity to determine the Leq of the operation (FHWA 2018). It is very common for programmatic analysis such as this to utilize a conservative standard reference distance of 50 feet for development occurring in urban areas; project-specific noise analysis might use more specific values and it would be uncommon for there to be multiple pieces of heavy equipment operating together so close to a nearby property line for very long.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11
Heavy construction equipment during grading and site preparation for development facilitated by the project would typically include bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and graders. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location due to the different tasks performed by each piece of equipment. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.

Impact devices such as pile drivers may be used for construction of development facilitated by the project. The use of pile drivers is not anticipated and is very unlikely to occur during construction for the type of development facilitated by the project. However, this analysis considers the potential for use of this equipment as a conservative analysis. A pile driver could be used to drive foundation piles into the ground. These devices would typically operate separately from other equipment.

Typical noise levels associated with the types of heavy equipment most likely to be utilized during development associated with the project are given in Table 4.5-5 below.

Table 4.5-5 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from Source Concrete Mixer 85
Dozer 85
Grader 85
Jackhammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pile-driver (Impact) 101
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95
Truck 84
Sources: FTA 2018
On-site Operational Noise
The primary on-site noise sources associated with operation of residential units, and those discussed in this analysis, would include noise from stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, on-site vehicle movement (e.g., trash hauling), and outdoor activities.

Off-site Operational Noise
Residential development facilitated by the project would be expected to generate vehicle trips, thereby increasing off-site traffic on area roadways. The project’s off-site traffic noise impacts are analyzed based on average daily traffic (ADT) roadway volume data provided by Kittelson and Associates (Kittelson) for existing conditions (2020), existing conditions with the project, future without project conditions (2040), and future with project conditions, which is included as Appendix TRA. The percentage increase with the project was used to identify roadway segments which could experience a doubling of traffic volumes (100 percent), which would indicate potential increase of 3 dBA Ldn or more.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-12
Groundborne Vibration
Development facilitated by the project, being entirely residential, would not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate ground-borne vibration affecting nearby receivers, especially during grading and excavation. The greatest vibratory source during general construction activities would be anticipated to be a dozer; however, an impact pile driver may be used during impact construction activities, if required, and if so, would generate higher vibration than a large bulldozer. Construction vibration estimates are based on vibration levels reported by Caltrans and the FTA (Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018). Table 4.5-6 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the assessment of construction vibration (FTA 2018).

Because groundborne vibration could cause physical damage to structures and is measured in an instantaneous period, vibration impacts are typically modeled based on the distance from the location of vibration-intensive construction activities, which is conservatively assumed to be edge of a project site, to the edge of the nearest off-site structures. For assessment purposes, potential vibration impacts from construction activities were based on a reference distance of 25 feet to conservatively analyze potential vibration levels impacting residents near construction sites.

Equipment operating so closely to nearby buildings and structures for other than brief periods would be unlikely.

Table 4.5-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (Inches/Second) at 25 Feet VdB
Pile Driver (Impact – upper range) 1.518 112
Pile Driver (Sonic – upper range) 0.734 105
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Truck 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Sources: FTA 2018.
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.10 (Noise) of the 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan would not cause or worsen exposure of sensitive land uses to existing elevated noise levels, would not result in the perception of excessive noise and vibration by sensitive receptors in new developments and would not result in the perception of excessive vibration by individuals living or working in areas of existing sensitive land uses, but would cumulatively contribute to the substantial increase in ambient noise environment at existing sensitive land uses proximate to certain roadway segments.

Although City policies could, in certain cases, reduce or prevent significant increases in ambient noise under implementation of the 2035 General Plan, the measures described in these policies would not be universally feasible and some of the most effective noise attenuation measures, including sound walls and berms, would be infeasible or inappropriate in some locations where sensitive land uses already exist. Therefore, even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and 2035 General Plan policies, traffic noise impacts would remain significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13
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 result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION WITH

LENGTHY DURATIONS, SUBSTANTIAL SOIL MOVEMENT, OR USE OF LARGE, HEAVY-DUTY EQUIPMENT NEAR

NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE FTA DAYTIME NOISE LIMITS AND RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH ADHERENCE WITH REVISIONS TO 2035 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-4. THEREFORE, IMPACTS GENERATED BY TEMPORARY

CONSTRUCTION NOISE WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND NO NEW OR ADDITIONAL MITIGATION WOULD BE REQUIRED.

The 2035 General Plan EIR (pages 4.10-51 to 4.10-53) determined that although limiting construction to the least noise-sensitive hours of the day would help reduce construction noise impacts, it remains possible that construction activities may lead to substantial temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise levels, and the impact would be potentially significant. The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that with Mitigation Measure NOI-4, ambient noise impacts from construction activities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 requires all new development to adhere to Standard Conditions of Approval or Construction Development Standards, which restricts construction activities to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, or between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday and Saturday, and requires construction contractors to enact a series of measures that reduce noise impacts to surrounding uses, particularly residences.

The areas of the city included in the project are currently zoned such that development could occur under existing conditions. Development facilitated by the project (4,960 residential units and 75,000 square feet of office space) may have longer construction durations than development allowed by current zoning and land use designations, especially on sites that are proposed to have increased height allowances. Therefore, although impacts related to construction noise have been examined in the City’s 2035 General Plan EIR, this analysis conservatively assumes that construction activities would be greater than what could occur under existing conditions.

As described in Table 4.5-5, noise levels for typical construction equipment used for residential development may exceed 80 dB at 50 feet, assuming no intervening barriers or mitigation has been applied. Since the project would allow for more intensive development in concentrated areas, additions to Mitigation Measure NOI-4 are included to ensure that construction noise from individual projects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. When needed, the use of temporary noise barriers can reduce construction noise by 15 dBA or more.

The following revisions will be made to Mitigation Measure NOI-4 from the 2035 General Plan EIR:

Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receptors during the daytime) and when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater).

Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-14
at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.

Adherence to the construction hours and adherence to revised Mitigation Measure NOI-4 would reduce sustained construction-related noise impacts. Therefore, construction noise impacts from the project would be less than significant with revised Mitigation Measure NOI-4, and no new or additional mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with revised mitigation.

Impact NOI-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS FROM OFF-SITE INCREASES IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES. POTENTIAL MITIGATION WOULD BE INFEASIBLE OR WOULD NOT GUARANTEE A REDUCTION IN NOISE BELOW SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.

PERMANENT IMPACTS TO AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

Operational On-Site Noise
The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.10-37) determined that residential land uses are generally not associated with substantial permanent increases in ambient noise from long-term operations. In the case of these land uses, very specific sources of noise, such as lawn equipment or social gatherings, would be the most likely source of excessive noise. Noise sources associated with residential land uses are generally not sufficiently frequent or sustained to result in permanent substantial increases to ambient noise levels (i.e., periodic increase in the ambient noise environment would not affect average daily or hourly average noise levels). The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.10-37) determined that the noise-related policies of the General Plan Environmental Hazards Chapter would serve to prevent or mitigate substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels from long-term operations of commercial and mixed use development.

The project would increase maximum allowed heights for residential and mixed use land uses in certain locations and density in the city’s Priority Development Areas, and would increase the allowable number of residential units and office space in Priority Development Areas beyond the assumptions of the 2035 General Plan EIR. Following residential development, the operational use of residential property would not be expected to lead to permanent increases in ambient noise in a residential area.. Existing City Municipal Code regulations and 2035 General Plan policies would limit and minimize potential noise impacts from typical noises associated with residential uses, such as loud music; gardening equipment; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units (General Plan Policy EH-7.8, Municipal Code Section 4.1.1115).

For large buildings, HVAC units are typically located on the roof, where operational noise is greatly reduced by distance and the intervening building itself; however, for smaller buildings including smaller multi-family residential units (fewer than four stories), large HVAC units are often placed at ground level on a concrete pad adjacent to the building. As the project would increase maximum Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-15
allowed heights in certain locations and result in the construction of larger buildings, HVAC units used in development facilitated by the project would most likely be roof-mounted units that create less operational noise than units on the ground. Therefore, the project would not increase the amount or nature of HVAC units analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR and, by increasing the likelihood of rooftop siting, may in fact reduce the potential noise impacts from HVAC units.

The project also includes 75,000 square feet of new office space in the BTOD area. Office buildings are generally not associated with substantial permanent increases to on-site ambient noise levels since they do not utilize sources of substantial noise such as large generators. There may potentially be some increase due to the activity of vehicles in the parking areas and noise from HVAC units. The slight increase in ambient noise would not significantly increase on-site ambient noise or constitute a significant impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, the noise-related policies of the 2035 General Plan would serve to prevent or mitigate substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels from long-term operations of commercial and mixed use development. The project would not substantially increase on-site ambient noise beyond the assumptions analyzed for the buildout of the 2035 General Plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Transportation-Related Noise
The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.10-50) determined that even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and 2035 General Plan policies, the impact to ambient noise levels from longterm project operation due to increases to transportation-related noise, especially that of automobile traffic, would remain significant and unavoidable. Development of land uses under implementation of the 2035 General Plan would result in traffic increases that would cause substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels, particularly at ten major road segments where increases in the ambient noise level within 50 feet from the roadway centerline would exceed 3 dB LDN by 2035.

Policies EH-7.4 and EH-7.5 would be applicable to future development and ensure that future development would be discouraged if it would significantly increase noise levels or produce high noise levels in noise-sensitive areas. Although these policies could, in certain cases, reduce or prevent significant increases in ambient noise under implementation of the 2035 General Plan, the measures described in these policies would not be universally feasible and some of the most effective noise attenuation measures, including sound walls and berms, would be infeasible or inappropriate in locations where sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, and open space already exist. Factors which would render these mitigations infeasible include but are not limited to cost, aesthetic considerations, and negative impacts to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The 2035 General Plan EIR considered NOI-3 to achieve project and site-specific noise reduction features but concluded that NOI-3 would be infeasible due to the same financial and practical considerations as listed above.

The project would generate additional vehicle trips. Traffic noise impacts were estimated using average daily traffic (ADT) roadway volumes provided by Kittelson & Associates (see Appendix TRA).

The percent increase between with and without project ADT traffic volumes was used to determine roadways that would experience at 100 percent increase (or doubling in traffic volumes) or more.

The threshold of significance for traffic noise throughout the entire city is 3 dBA Ldn, or an approximate doubling of traffic volume, which is the barely perceptible limit of human ear response to noise level changes. Figure 4.5-1 shows the roadway segments in the city that would experience a doubling of traffic volume due to the project above 2020 conditions. Based on 2020 conditions, the City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-16
project would result in a decrease in traffic volume on I-580 and I-880 but would result in double or more traffic volumes on roadways near Downtown San Leandro and the BTOD area. Figure 4.5-2 shows the roadway segments in the city that would experience a doubling of traffic volume due to the project above 2040 No Project conditions. Based on 2040 conditions, the project would result in double or more traffic volumes on roadway segments throughout the city. The doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3 LDN dBA increase in noise levels. Therefore, the project would contribute to ambient noise increase related to traffic. Impacts attributed to off-site traffic noise would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
For the reasons stated in the 2035 General Plan EIR, site-specific noise reduction features, such as sound walls and berms, may not be feasible to implement or may not fully reduce traffic-related noise below threshold levels. No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate noise impacts to a less than significant level.

Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-17
Figure 4.5-1 2020 Roadway Traffic Volume Increase
City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-18
Figure 4.5-2 2040 Roadway Traffic Volume Increase
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-19
Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact NOI-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE SPACE

AND NOT ANTICIPATED TO INVOLVE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES THAT COULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL VIBRATION OR GROUNDBOURNE NOISE. CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COULD RESULT IN POTENTIAL VIBRATION IMPACTS FROM HEAVY EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER, ISSUANCE OF A STANDARD CONDITION

OF APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROJECTS WOULD REDUCE POTENTIAL VIBRATION IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES AND NEARBY RESIDENTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction-Related Groundbourne Noise and Vibration
The 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.10-31) determined that the City’s Municipal Code Section

4.1.1115, which provides restrictions for construction activities adjacent to or across the street from residential uses, and Policy EH-7.9 and Action EH-7.9A of the Environmental Hazards Chapter of the 2035 General Plan, would ensure that construction activities do not result in sustained levels of vibration that could result in architectural damage or ongoing annoyance and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

Construction from development facilitated by the project would result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. As depicted in Table 4.5-6 above, the greatest source of vibration during most construction would be caused by use of vibratory rollers, which would create approximately 0.21 in/sec PPV at the modeled distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018).

As discussed under Thresholds of Significance above, the vibration level for potential annoyance is 72 VdB and the most conservative level for structures is 0.12 in/sec PPV for structures with high historic significance; the level is higher for residential units at 0.2 in/sec PPV, and at 0.3 in/sec PPV for commercial uses. Vibration Impacts from typical construction equipment, such as vibratory rollers and bulldozers, would not result in vibration levels above building architectural damage thresholds beyond approximately 35 feet in any direction. However, development facilitated by the project could require additional construction equipment and/or longer periods of construction than what is allowed under the current land use designations and zoning districts due to the potential for new or deeper underground parking garages or deeper foundations to support taller buildings. Pile driving may be required due to the increase in allowable height in DA-2, SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 zoning districts to 65 feet. DA-2 is in the Downtown San Leandro area, which has a large concentration of historic resources, and it is likely that development facilitated by the project would be near a structure of historic significance (see Figure 4.4-1 in the 2035 General Plan EIR). Given typical setbacks and equipment size, a pile driver may be used within close distance of nearby buildings and structures. This analysis conservatively assumes the use of an impact pile driver, which would generate approximately 1.518 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). This would exceed the building architectural damage thresholds of between 0.12 and 0.3 in/sec PPV depending on the type of building impacted.

The City issues a Standard Conditions of Approval for projects prior to the issuance of a building permit for projects that require the use of large construction equipment (e.g., vibratory roller, pile drivers). The Standard Conditions of Approval stipulate that proposed projects shall use the best available technology for construction equipment and permanent operations so that vibrations are reduced to a level consistent with FTA guidelines for annoyance and architectural damage., The City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-20
Standard Conditions of Approval stipulates that construction activity for a proposed project shall not create noise or safety hazards for adjacent residents and properties. The Standard Conditions of Approval may include a vibration control plan if near sensitive receivers such as schools or residences, or near sensitive historic resources. The City issues Standard Conditions of Approval for new construction projects that require the use of large construction equipment (e.g., vibratory rollers, dozers, pile drivers) within 135 feet for pile driving near historic structures, 100 feet for pile driving near residential structures, 40 feet for vibratory rollers near historic structures, 25 feet for vibratory rollers near residential structures, and 20 feet for dozers and other heavy earthmoving equipment. Methods to reduce construction-related vibration include the use of smaller and wellmaintained equipment, use of static rollers in lieu of vibratory rollers, cast-in-place drilling as opposed to pile driving, limitations on construction hours, and guidelines for the positioning of vibration-generating equipment. The developer is required to adhere to the Standard Conditions of Approval prior to commencement of construction, and the City requires the Standard Conditions of Approval to be recorded on the property.

With issuance of a Standard Conditions of Approval for projects requiring large construction equipment, potential impacts from vibration due to construction would be minimized and would result in a less than significant level.

Operation-Related Groundbourne Noise and Vibration
Development facilitated by the project would not involve substantial vibration sources associated with operation. The primary sources of operational vibration would be from related vehicular traffic and the operation of HVAC units; no heavy industrial equipment would be expected in residential developments. Neither HVAC units nor light-duty vehicle traffic generate significant vibration. The Standard Condition of Approval stipulates that no use, activity, or process shall produce vibrations that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property lines of a site.

Therefore, operational vibration impacts of development facilitated by the project would be less than significant.

Implementation of the project would not result in levels of long-term operation-related groundborne noise or vibration that would exceed the FTA thresholds for annoyance or architectural damage. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-21
Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact NOI-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE SPACE WOULD NOT MODIFY THE CITY’S EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT ADD RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE 65 CNEL NOISE CONTOURS OF ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE

AIRSTRIP WHERE NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED AND WOULD THEREFORE NOT EXPOSURE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR (pages 4.10-55 to 4.10-56) concluded that development under the 2035 General Plan would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to airport-related noise. The western portion of San Leandro is in the Oakland International Airport ALUCP airport influence area. However, noise level contours with noise levels 60 dBA CNEL and greater do not reach land in San Leandro, as shown in Figure 3-3 of the ALUCP (Alameda County ALUC 2010). Therefore, the project would not be located in an area that would expose people to excessive noise levels from the Oakland International Airport.

The nearest heliport is the Sutter Medical Center Castro Valley heliport, located approximately 1.8 miles east of the city boundary. Medical heliports are typically used infrequently, and only in emergency situations. The nearest private airport is Little Hands Airport, located 7.5 miles northeast of the city limit. Due to the small number of flights operating at these private airstrips or heliports, coupled with the distances to the nearest noise-sensitive receptors within the city, the noise level impacts due to operations at these facilities do not generate substantial noise impacts in the city (City of San Leandro 2016). The project would be located in the city; therefore, it would not be impacted by excessive noise from private airstrips or heliports.

The project would not be located in an area that would expose people residing or working to excessive noise levels from public airports or private airstrips. Therefore, the impact due to noise levels produced by public and private airports would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-22

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative noise impacts is generally limited to areas within 0.5 mile of the project area, which is the City of San Leandro. This geographic scope is appropriate for noise because the project’s noise impacts related to construction would be localized and site-specific.

Beyond this distance, impulse noise may be briefly audible, but steady noise associated with development facilitated by the project would generally dissipate such that the level of noise would reduce to below the daytime and nighttime thresholds and/or blend in with the background noise level. Cumulative projects include the full development potential of the City’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Diagram.

Short-Term Cumulative Construction Phase Impacts
Construction activities associated with the project may overlap with construction activities for other cumulative development projects within and near the city. Construction noise is localized and rapidly attenuates within an urban environment. It remains possible that construction activities may lead to substantial temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise levels. Combined noise levels associated with simultaneous construction activities at sites in close proximity to each other may result in a significant temporary increase in ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive uses, such as residences and schools, in excess of established thresholds, and impacts would be potentially cumulatively significant. Vibration impacts from development facilitated by the project has the potential to exceed building architectural damage thresholds. Multiple developments facilitated by the project could occur near each other (i.e., less than 200 feet) in the city’s PDAs, and simultaneously, noise and vibration from individual construction projects may combine to create significant cumulative impacts.

As discussed under Impacts NOI-1, adherence to the construction hours established in the Standard Conditions of Approval and adherence to revised Mitigation Measure NOI-4 for individual projects would reduce sustained construction-related noise impacts. Implementation of this revised mitigation measure would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative construction noise impacts such that it would not be cumulatively considerable with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in Impact NOI-3 projects would be required to adhere to Standard Conditions of Approval to minimize potential impacts from vibration due to construction, and individual projects would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable vibration impact. Therefore, cumulative vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Long-Term Cumulative Operational Noise Impacts
Traffic-Related Noise
As discussed in Impact NOI-2, the project would result in a doubling of traffic volumes on roadway segments in the city under both 2020 and 2040 conditions as shown in Figure 4.5-1 and Figure 4.5-2, which would result in a 3 LDN dBA increase in noise levels in areas near those roadways. The noise contours and traffic-related noise levels developed for the project include and account for regional travel patterns as they affect traffic levels in San Leandro. Existing and future traffic volumes, as well as cumulative traffic noise increases, were discussed above in Impact NOI-2. These traffic counts inherently include cumulative traffic as generated by regional trips. This data accounts for growth both within San Leandro under the project as well as anticipated regional growth. As discussed in Impact NOI-2, cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate noise impacts to a less than significant level in all Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-23
cases. Therefore, the incremental effect of traffic-related noise from development facilitated by the project would be significant and unavoidable.

On-Site Operational Noise
As discussed in Impact NOI-2, the primary source of cumulative operational noise associated with development facilitated by the project would be HVAC units. Similar to construction noise and vibration, operational noise from these sources is localized and rapidly attenuates within an urbanized setting due to the effects of intervening structures and topography that block the line of sight, and due to other noise sources closer to receivers that obscure project-related noise. Any proposed HVAC units would be required to incorporate siting or baffling considerations to comply with the exterior noise standards in Table 4.5-4. Therefore, the incremental effect of operational HVAC noise from development facilitated by the project would not be cumulatively considerable.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-24
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1

4.6 Population and Housing
This section evaluates potential significant impacts to population and housing that could result from implementation of the project. The analysis in this section considers the population and housing analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis of potential changes proposed by the project.

4.6.1 Setting
Population
The City of San Leandro had an estimated population of 88,404 residents in 2022, representing approximately 5.4 percent of the Alameda County population of 1,651,979 (DOF 2022). The city’s population increased by 3,454, or approximately 4.1 percent, from the 2010 population of 84,950.

The city’s population change from 2010 to 2020 is shown in Table 4.6-1. The city’s population grew by approximately 4.2 percent between 2010 to 2015 but decreased slightly from 2015 to 2020. Total growth from 2010 to 2020 was 2,890, or approximately 3.4 percent.

Table 4.6-1 City of San Leandro Population Growth
2010 2015 2020
Population 84,950 88,537 87,840
Difference from Previous Five Years – 3,597 -697
Percent Total Change from Previous Five Years – 4.2% -0.8% Source: DOF 2022
The 2035 General Plan EIR assumed up to 14,790 new residents between 2015 and 2035, a 16.7 percent increase.

Housing
As of January 1, 2022, there were 32,952 housing units in the city.

The average household size in the city is 2.75 persons. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of housing units increased in the city by 533, including 266 detached or attached single family units and 165 multi-family units (DOF 2022). Attached and detached single family units increased by 1.2 percent and multi-family units increased by 2.6 percent, totaling a percent increase that is lower than the city’s 3.4 percent increase in population between 2010 and 2020.

The 2035 General Plan EIR assumed 5,370 new housing units between 2015 and 2035, a 17.1 percent increase, to a total of 36,685 units by 2035. The city had 31,970 housing units in 2015.

Between 2015 and 2022, housing increased by 982 units (approximately 3.1 percent) (DOF 2022).

The 2035 General Plan estimated an annual growth rate of 268.5 units per year, equating to an increase of 1,880 units between 2015 and 2022. Actual growth (3.1 percent) was just over half of than the 2035 General Plan estimated growth (5.9 percent) for this time period.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-2

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section summarizes regulations that pertain to population and housing.

State
California Housing Element Law
Section 65583 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties to prepare a housing element, as one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan, with specific direction on its content.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a)(1), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for determining the regional housing needs assessment (segmented by income levels) for each region’s planning body known as a “council of governments” (COG). ABAG is the COG serving the San Francisco Bay area. HCD prepares an initial housing needs assessment and then coordinates with each COG to arrive at the final regional housing needs assessment. To date, there have been five previous housing element update “cycles.” California is now in its sixth “housing-element update cycle.” The ABAG RHNA and the City’s General Plan Housing Element are discussed further below. California Government Code Section 65584(a)(2) states that jurisdictions should undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need, and reasonable actions should be taken by local and regional governments to ensure that future housing production meets, at a minimum, the regional housing need established for planning purposes.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3), the Housing Element is required to include a program to impose housing replacement requirements on certain sites identified in the inventory of sites. Under these requirements, the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level, consistent with those requirements set forth in State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915(c)(3)), would be required.

Pursuant to Section 65583(c)(7), the Housing Element must develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low, or moderate-income households.

AB 1763
AB 1763, effective January 1, 2020, amends the State Density Bonus Law (Section 65915) to allow for taller and denser 100 percent affordable housing developments, especially those near transit, through the creation of an enhanced affordable housing density bonus.

Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 focuses on aligning transportation, housing, and other land uses to achieve regional GHG emission reduction targets established under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan, with the purpose of identifying policies and strategies to reduce per capita passenger vehicle-generated GHG emissions. As set forth in SB 375, the SCS must: (1) identify the general location of land uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region; (2) identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, over the course of the planning period; (3) identify areas within the region sufficient to Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need; (4) identify a transportation network to service the regional transportation needs; (5) gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region; (6) consider the state housing goals; (7) establish the land use development pattern for the region which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks to achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), if there is a feasible way to do so; and (8) comply with air quality requirements established under the Clean Air Act.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner)
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) seeks to speed up housing production in the next half decade by eliminating some of the most common entitlement impediments to the creation of new housing, including delays in the local permitting process and cities enacting new requirements after an application is complete and undergoing local review—both of which can exacerbate the cost and uncertainty that sponsors of housing projects face. In addition to speeding up the timeline to obtain building permits, the bill prohibits local governments from reducing the number of homes that can be built through down-planning or down-zoning or the introduction of new discretionary design guidelines. The bill is in effect as of January 1, 2020 and expires on January 1, 2025.

Relocation Assistance: California Government Code Section 7261(a) Section 7261(a) of the California Government Code requires that programs or projects undertaken by a public entity must be planned in a manner that (1) recognizes, at an early stage in the planning of the programs or projects and before the commencement of any actions which will cause displacements, the problems associated with the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, and farm operations, and (2) provides for the resolution of these problems in order to minimize adverse impacts on displaced persons and to expedite program or project advancement and completion. The displacing agency must ensure the relocation assistance advisory services are made available to all persons displaced by the public entity. If the agency determines that any person occupying property immediately adjacent to the property where the displacing activity occurs has caused substantial economic injury as a result of the displacement, the agency may also make the advisory services available to that person.

Regional
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 serves as the third RTP/SCS for the Bay Area and is a major update to Plan Bay Area 2040 while accompanying a current RHNA cycle. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on four interrelated elements: housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment. Plan Bay Area 2050 is composed of 35 integrated strategies that provide a blueprint for how the Bay Area can accommodate future growth and make the region more equitable and resilient in the face of unexpected challenges and achieve regional GHG emissions reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) pursuant to SB 375. Strategies in the context of Plan Bay Area 2050 are defined as either a public policy or a set of investments that can be implemented in the Bay Area over the next 30 years. However, Plan Bay Area 2050 does not mandate any changes to local zoning rules, general plans or processes for reviewing projects; nor does the plan create an enforceable direct or indirect cap on development locations or targets in the region (ABAG/MTC 2021).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-4
Local
City of San Leandro General Plan
The 2035 General Plan, adopted in 2016, was prepared pursuant to State law to guide future development and to identify the community’s environmental, social, and economic goals and functions as a blueprint that defines how the City will evolve through 2035. The General Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and programs to provide a guideline for day-to-day land use policies and to meet the existing and future needs and desires of the community, while at the same time integrating a range of State-mandated elements including Land Use, Transportation, Economic Development, Community Services and Facilities, and Open Space, Conservation, and Parks (City of San Leandro 2016a).

The Housing Element of the General Plan is prepared pursuant to state law and provides planning guidance in meeting the housing needs identified in ABAG’s RHNA. The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs, and establishes the goals, objectives, and policies that are the foundation of the City’s housing and growth strategy. The current 2015-2023 Housing Element (responsive to the 5th RHNA cycle) was adopted by the City Council in January 2015.

San Leandro Municipal Code
Zoning regulations provide for the types and densities of residential and other uses permitted in each of the City’s zoning districts. Zoning in the City establishes the maximum allowable development in a zoning district. Zoning also includes height limitations and other development standards which together regulate development standards, such as setbacks, building heights, floor area ratios (FAR), open space and parking for each parcel in the city, as applicable.

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance were developed based on the CEQA Guidelines, specifically from Appendix G. Accordingly, the project would have a significant impact with respect to population and housing if it would:

Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.11 (Population and Housing) of the 2035 General Plan EIR analyzes the 2035 General Plan’s impacts related to population, housing, and employment. The 2035 General Plan EIR determined that the 2035 General Plan anticipated an increase of up to 14,790 new residents by 2035. Buildout under the 2035 General Plan would be consistent with regional projections and would not induce unexpected population growth. Implementation of the 2035 General Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people or substantial numbers of existing housing units, Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
necessitating the construction of replacement housing. All impacts related to population and housing were determined to be less than significant in the 2035 General Plan EIR (pages 4.11-6 through 4.11-12), including cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing (City of San Leandro 2016b).
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact PH-1 THE PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RHNA, THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN, AND PLAN BAY AREA 2050 POPULATION FORECASTS. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INDUCE UNPLANNED GROWTH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, this SEIR assumes an additional 2,500 residential units in the Downtown TOD 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 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. In total, the project would include a net increase of 4,960 residential units and 75,000 square feet of office space in the three Priority Development Areas in the city compared to the assumptions analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR. 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. Updates to the Environmental Hazards Element and the implementation of the policies included in the Environmental Justice Element would not result in impacts to population growth.

Consistency with the 2035 General Plan
The project would generate an increase of 4,960 housing units above projections of the 2035 General Plan. Since the new housing units would be multifamily units, it can be assumed that the average household size would be smaller than the average for the city. The VMT analysis provided for the project by Kittelson and Associates (Appendix TRA) assumed a persons per household population of 2.5 based on the average multifamily household size. Using this estimate, the 4,960 housing units would support an estimated 12,400 residents beyond what was estimated for the 2035 General Plan. The 2035 General Plan EIR assumed a population of 101,250. Thus, under the project, San Leandro’s population with the project would be 113,650.

The increase in population as a result of the project would be 12.2 percent above the buildout projection of the 2035 General Plan EIR. The assumed population increase would occur in areas that are generally developed and located near existing residential uses, transit corridors, job centers, neighborhood services, and amenities, consistent with the goals of the 2035 General Plan. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the project would allow sufficient density to accommodate the RHNA and reduce identified constraints to housing development. The project would update the Housing Element of the 2035 General Plan and bring it into compliance with California Housing Element Law, specifically California Government Code Section 65584, which directs jurisdictions to undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need. Therefore, the project City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-6
would be consistent with the 2035 General Plan and California Housing Element Law, and the increase in population would not be substantial or unplanned.

Consistency with the RHNA
The State requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their communities. Given that the state is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional units under the project would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the city’s communities. All growth under the project would be planned to accommodate development required to meet the City’s RHNA allocation.

Furthermore, the Housing Element Update would first be submitted to the 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.

Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 does not provide population forecasts by jurisdiction. Therefore, the population forecast for San Leandro is extrapolated based on available information included in the plan’s supportive documents. The Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Pattern assumes a 33 percent growth in households from 2015 to 2050 Central Alameda County, an area that includes the City of San Leandro, or 40,000 households between 2015 to 2050. This growth equates to approximately 1,143 households per year (40,000 divided by 35 years).

In 2022, San Leandro and Hayward had a combined population of 248,995, and San Leandro’s population (88,404) comprised 35.5 percent of the total. Therefore, it can be assumed that San Leandro’s annual household growth forecasted in Plan Bay Area would be 35.5 percent of 1,143, or approximately 406 households. Using San Leandro’s current persons per household rate of 2.75 persons per household, the annual population growth would occur at an estimated 1,117 residents1 .

Multiplying 1,117 residents by 28 years (2022 to 2050), the population growth estimate for San Leandro based on the projections of the Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Pattern is 31,276 residents.

Adding that number to the 2022 population, the total population estimate is 119,680.

The project’s contribution to the city’s population of 12,400 residents, with the total expected city population of 113,650, would not exceed the population estimate for San Leandro under the assumptions of the Plan Bay Area 2050; therefore, the project’s contribution would not be considered unplanned population growth.

Growth-Inducing Impacts
As discussed in Section 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, the city is mostly developed and is supported by existing infrastructure even in the relatively few vacant areas available for new development. The project does not require new construction or expansion of existing roadway infrastructure (e.g., new roads). Accordingly, the project would not create new roads or other infrastructure that would be sized to accommodate additional population growth beyond the growth disclosed herein. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant. 1 Calculation: 2.75 persons per household multiplied by 406 households equals 1,117 residents.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7
Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IMPACT PH-2 THE PROJECT WOULD ACCOMMODATE INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS ON SITES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROJECT WOULD THEREFORE NOT RESULT IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE OR HOUSING, AND THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

For the purpose of this analysis, “substantial” displacement would occur if allowed land uses would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth facilitated by the project.

As discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, displacement of existing residential units could occur during potential redevelopment, and there is the potential that increased residential growth could temporarily displace existing housing units. The project consists of updating the General Plan Housing Element, as well as other General Plan elements, and no actual development is proposed as part of the update. The project analyzed in this SEIR would not result in displacement of existing housing beyond the impacts identified in the 2035 General Plan EIR because it would accommodate an increased number of housing units on sites already zoned for housing development and thus facilitate an increase in housing supply. Therefore, the potential for temporary displacement of residents on any particular location remains the same as it is under the current 2035 General Plan land use designations and the City’s zoning code.

Additionally, the Housing Element Update includes proposed policies and programs to increase tenant services and protections. Goal 4 and related policies support low-income residents from displacement and increase community stability:

Goal 4: Protect Residents from Displacement
P.4.1 Minimize Displacement of Vulnerable Residents. The City shall make all neighborhoods places of opportunity while minimizing the involuntary displacement of vulnerable populations, such as low-income households, seniors on fixed incomes, and people with disabilities, due to increased housing costs.

P.4.2 Strengthen Tenant Protections. The City shall explore options to strengthen measures for eviction prevention, limits on sudden or annual rent increases, and tenant relocation assistance.

P.4.3 Support Households Impacted by Foreclosure. The City shall work to identify funding to establish counseling and other resources to assist households at risk of foreclosure.

P.4.4 Support Alternative Ownership Models. The City shall support resident-driven alternative ownership models to help low-income residents remain in their communities and build equity (e.g.: land trusts, tenant opportunity to purchase programs, etc.).

P 4.5 Support Affordable Home Ownership Opportunities. The City shall promote home ownership programs and opportunities for moderate and low-income households.

P.4.6 Support Regional Partnerships. The City shall partner with local and regional organizations to identify joint strategies and funding opportunities to help stabilize neighborhoods and protect vulnerable residents.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-8
Therefore, the project would not result in displacement of a substantial numbers of existing people or housing beyond what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan EIR, and there would be no impact.

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

4.6.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative population and housing impacts consider residential and nonresidential development and growth in the city.

Inducement of Substantial Population Growth
The cumulative projects in the city would have the potential to result in a significant cumulative impact if they would, in combination, directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. The project would accommodate all projected citywide population and housing growth through 2031. Employment growth would be mostly filled by the existing workforce and would not induce substantial population growth. Therefore, cumulative impacts relating to population and housing would be the same as project impacts under Impact PH-1 and would be less than significant. The project incorporates regional growth anticipated by ABAG’s RHNA projections and thus considers cumulative growth.

Displacement of People and Housing
The project would not result in the displacement of people or housing above what was considered in the 2035 General Plan EIR. Additionally, the Housing Element Update’s proposed goals, policies, and programs support the development of housing for low-income and special needs populations and tenant protections and services. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1

4.7 Public Services and Recreation
This section assesses potential impacts to public services, including fire and police protection, public schools, libraries, and parks and recreation that could result from implementation of the project.

The analysis in this section considers the public service and recreation analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis of potential changes proposed by the project.

4.7.1 Setting
Fire Protection
The Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical service to San Leandro. ACFD is divided into four branches: Operations, Special Operations, Fire Prevention, and Administrative Support Services. These branches provide services such as advanced life support, fire suppression, hazardous materials response, urban search and rescue, water rescue, community outreach and education, disaster preparedness, fire code compliance, and regional dispatch to residents within ACFD’s service area (ACFD 2021a, City of San Leandro 2021).

The following ACFD fire stations serve the City of San Leandro (ACFD 2021b):
 Station No. 9, 450 Estudillo Avenue, San Leandro
 Station No. 10, 2194 Williams Street, San Leandro
 Station No. 11, 14903 Catalina Street, San Leandro
 Station No. 12, 1065 143rd Avenue, San Leandro
 Station No. 13, 637 Fargo Avenue, San Leandro
 Station No. 24, 1430 164th Avenue, San Leandro
Police Protection
The San Leandro Police Department (SLPD) provides law enforcement services for the city. SLPD has one police station located at San Leandro City Hall at 835 East 14th Street. As of 2019, SLPD is staffed by 90 sworn personnel and 44 civilian employees (SLPD 2019).

Fire and police stations in San Leandro are shown in Figure 4.7-1.

Public Schools
The San Leandro Unified District (SLUSD) and San Lorenzo Unified School District provide public educational services to San Leandro. The project would amend land use designation and zoning district standards in a select portion of the city, as described in Section 2, Project Description. These areas are in the SLUSD and therefore only impacts to SLUSD are analyzed in this SEIR. SLUSD serves approximately 8,828 students. SLUSD schools are organized as kindergarten through 5th grade elementary schools, 6th through 8th grade middle schools, and 9th through 12th grade high schools.

SLUSD manages eight elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, and one adult education school. Table 4.7-1 shows public school student enrollment for SLUSD schools.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-2
Figure 4.7-1 Fire and Police Stations Serving San Leandro Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3
Table 4.7-1 SLUSD Public School Enrollment
School 2020/2021 Enrollment1
Garfield Elementary 316
Jefferson Elementary 540
Madison Elementary 584
McKinley Elementary 447
Monroe Elementary 413
Roosevelt Elementary 520
Washington Elementary 438
Wilson Elementary 750
Bancroft Middle 952
John Muir Middle 972
San Leandro High 2,697
Lincoln Alternative 168
Other2 31
Total 8,828
1 California Department of Education 2021a
2 Includes adult education and nonpublic, nonsectarian schools According to SLUSD’s 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study, the district is slightly under capacity, with enrollment availability for 73 additional students. Broken down by grade level, kindergarten through 6th grade facilities are over capacity by 282 students, 7th through 8th grades have an available capacity for 532 students, and 9th through 12th grade facilities are over capacity by 178 students (SLUSD 2020). Special education has available capacity for one student.

Community Library
The City of San Leandro Public Library (SLPL) serves the city with the Main Library, the Manor Branch, the Mulford-Marina Branch, and the South Branch. The library is funded through the City’s general fund (City of San Leandro 2021b).

Parks and Recreational Services
Parkland
The City of San Leandro Recreation Division (SLRHS) maintains neighborhood parks, school facilities, special use recreation areas, community parks, and golf courses in the city, totaling 382.8 acres of improved parkland. Table 4.7-2 lists the existing parks and their areas.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-4
Table 4.7-2 Existing Parks and Recreation Areas
Park Name Park Area (acres)
School Facilities1 81.7
Bancroft Middle 4.2
Corvallis Elementary 6.0
Dayton Elementary 0.5
Garfield Elementary 4.3
Jefferson Elementary 5.6
Lewelling Campus 5.2
Madison Elementary 6.4
McKinley Elementary 3.2
Monroe Elementary 2.8
John Muir Middle 11.1
Roosevelt Elementary 3.9
San Leandro High School 15.6
Washington Elementary 1.3
Washington Manor 4.9
Wilson Elementary 6.7
Regional Parks 19
Oyster Bay 19
Community Parks 36.7
Chabot 4.8
Marina 17.9
Washington Manor 14.0
Neighborhood Parks 42.2
Bonaire 5.4
Cherry Grove 7.0
Floresta 0.8
Grover Cleveland 1.0
Halcyon 4.9
McCartney 1.6
Memorial 2.7
Mulford 1.4
Siempre Verde 1.8
Stenzel 9.3
Thrasher 4.2
Toyon 2.1
Mini Parks 4.7
Halcyon Dr Linear 0.7
Heron Bay 1.4
Root 0.8
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5
Park Name Park Area (acres)
Victoria Circle 0.3
Warden 0.3
Cherrywood 0.9
Cherry Glen 0.3
Special Use Parks 20.5
Farrelly 0.5
Heath 0.7
Burrell/Pacific Sports2 13.7
San Leandro Ball Park 5.6
Golf Courses 178.0
Total 382.8
Source: City of San Leandro 2016c
1 SLUSD and SLZUSD schools
2 Owned and operated by SLUSD
The 2035 General Plan’s Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element outlines a goal to provide at least 5 acres of improved parkland for every 1,000 residents. As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the population of San Leandro is currently estimated at 87,289 residents.

As shown in Table 4.7-3, the city has approximately 4.34 acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents.

Table 4.7-3 San Leandro Parkland Space per 1,000 Residents Existing Parkland (acres) Plan Area Population (2021) Acres per 1,000 Residents 382.8 87,289 4.34
Source: City of San Leandro 2016c; DOF 2021
The City intends to achieve this goal by working with the East Bay Regional Park District to continue the improvement of Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline and to develop the East Bay Greenway, and by requiring on-site parkland within new development where appropriate. The City also intends to supplement traditional parks with urban plazas, creek-side parks, and community gardens. The 2035 General Plan projects that the city will have a population of approximately 102,300 by 2035; therefore, the City would need a total of 511 acres of parkland to meet their goal of five acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents (City of San Leandro 2016c).

Recreational Facilities
In addition to parks and open space, the City maintains public pools, community centers, and sports fields. The City maintains three public pools including: Farrelly Pool, an outdoor, heated lapswimming pool; San Leandro Boys and Girls Club pool, an indoor, heated lap-swimming pool; and the San Leandro Family Aquatic Center, an outdoor, heated water park with play structures, water slides, and three 25-yard lap lanes (City of San Leandro 2021a). The Marina Community Center contains a variety of rooms available for events, including a patio, an auditorium, and several multipurpose rooms that are available to rent. In addition, the Senior Community Center contains a main hall, meeting rooms, health and fitness facilities, and arts and crafts rooms (City of San Leandro 2021b).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-6

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) as well as California OSHA (CalOSHA) enforce the provisions of the federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Acts, respectively, which collectively require safety and health regulations for construction under Part 1926 of Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The fire-related requirements of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act are specifically contained in Subpart F, Fire Protection and Prevention, of Part 1926. Examples of general requirements related to fire protection and prevention include maintaining fire suppression equipment specific to construction on-site; providing a temporary or permanent water supply of sufficient volume, duration, and pressure; properly operating the on-site fire-fighting equipment; and keeping storage sites free from accumulation of unnecessary combustible materials.

Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
FEMA was established in 1979 via executive order and is an independent agency of the federal government. In March 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with the mission to lead the effort in preparing the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
Disaster Mitigation Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 5121) provides the legal basis for FEMA mitigation planning requirements for state, local, and Indian Tribal governments as a condition of mitigation grant assistance. It amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Section 5121-5207) by repealing the previous mitigation planning provisions and replacing them with a new set of requirements that emphasize the need and creates incentives for state, tribal, and local agencies to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. This Act reinforces the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide and the streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
 Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities
 Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk  Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements  Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
 Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded The mitigation planning provisions outlined in Section 322 of this Act establish performance-based standards for mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance Infrastructure Mitigation [AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that fail to develop an infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced federal share of Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-7
damage assistance from 75 percent to 25 percent if the damaged facility has been damaged on more than one occasion in the preceding 10-year period by the same type of event.

State Regulations
Fire Protection

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
The California Building Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 2) is a compilation of building standards, including general fire safety standards for new buildings, which are presented with more detail in the California Fire Code (CCR Title 24, Part 9). California Building Code standards are based on building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from a national model code; building standards based on a national model code that have been changed to address California conditions; and building standards authorized by the California legislature but not covered by the national model code. The 2019 edition of the California Building Code became effective on January 1, 2020.1 The building standards in the California Building Code apply to all locations in California, except where more stringent standards have been adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies. Typical fire safety requirements of the California Fire Code include: the installation of fire sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures within wildfire hazard areas.

CALIFORNIA FIRE SERVICE AND RESCUE EMERGENCY AID SYSTEM ACFD participates in the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid System through which the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Service (OES), Fire and Rescue Division is responsible for the development, implementation and coordination of the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan (Mutual Aid Plan) (Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue Division 2014). The Mutual Aid Plan outlines procedures for establishing mutual aid agreements at the local, operational, regional, and State levels, and divides the State into six mutual aid regions to facilitate the coordination of mutual aid. ACFD is located in Region II. Through the Mutual Aid Plan, the OES is informed of conditions in each geographic and organizational area of the state, and the occurrence or imminent threat of disaster.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (CAL OES) In 2009, the State of California passed legislation creating the Cal OES and authorized it to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program (Gov. Code Section 8607; Title 19 CCR Section 2401 et seq.), which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. In California, SEMS provides the mechanism by which local government requests assistance. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the state withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster. Cal OES coordinates the state’s preparation for, prevention of, and response to major disasters, such as fires, floods, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. During an emergency, Cal OES serves as the lead state agency for emergency management in the state. It also serves as the lead agency for mobilizing the state’s resources and obtaining federal resources. Cal OES coordinates the state response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for emergency management resides with 1 California Building Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 2).

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-8
local government. Local jurisdictions first use their own resources and, as they are exhausted, obtain more from neighboring cities and special districts, the county in which they are located, and other counties throughout the state through the statewide mutual aid system. California Emergency Management Agency (Cal-EMA) maintains oversight of the state’s mutual aid system.

Public Schools
SENATE BILL 50
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (known as the Greene Act), enacted in 1998, is a program for funding school facilities largely based on matching funds. For new school construction, grants provide funding on a 50/50 State and local match basis. For school modernization, grants provide funding on a 60/40 State and local match basis. Districts that are unable to provide some, or all, of the local match requirement and are able to meet the financial hardship provisions may be eligible for additional State funding (State of California, Office of Public School Construction 2019).

The Greene Act permits the local district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project within its boundaries, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The Act also sets a maximum level of fees a developer may be required to pay. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities that may result from implementation of a project to a less-than-significant level.

Parks and Recreation

QUIMBY ACT
California Government Code Section 66477, also known as the Quimby Act, was enacted by the California legislature in 1965. The Quimby Act authorizes cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring the dedication of land, or the payment of fees for park and/or recreational facilities in lieu thereof, or both, by developers of residential subdivisions as a condition to the approval of a tentative tract map or parcel map.

Public Facilities

MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, Government Code Section 53311 et seq., provides an alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services through special taxes.

This state law empowers local agencies to establish Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) to levy special taxes for facilities such as libraries. Such districts exist within San Leandro.

Local Regulations
Fire Protection
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO 2035 GENERAL PLAN
The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan Community Services and Facilities Element addresses the provision of community services, including fire protection. Additionally, the element emphasizes the importance of reducing risk and the effects of disaster prevention and/or preparedness (City of Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-9
San Leandro 2016a). The following policies found within the element are applicable to fire protection services within the City:

Goal CSF-1. Provide and maintain high-quality police, fire, and emergency medical services.

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

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

SAN LEANDRO MUNICIPAL CODE
San Leandro Municipal Code (SLMC) Title 1, General Provisions and Administration, and Title 3, Health and Safety, include regulations relevant to fire protection services in San Leandro.

Section 1-2-129, Functions of Fire Department, outlines the terms of the agreement for fire protection services between the City of San Leandro and the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD).

Section 7-5-800 adopts the California Fire Code, which contains regulations for safeguarding life and property from the hazards of fire and explosion; dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials; and hazardous conditions in the use of occupancy of buildings. Development within San Leandro would be required to comply with the requirements on the California Fire Code.

Police Protection
The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan Community Services and Facilities Element addresses the provision of community services, including law enforcement. Additionally, the element emphasizes the importance of reducing risk and the effects of disaster prevention and/or preparedness (City of San Leandro 2016a). The following policies found within the element are applicable to police protection services within the City:

Goal CSF-1. Provide and maintain high-quality police, fire, and emergency medical services.

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

4.7-10
response time for 90 percent for a full first alarm assignment response (17 firefighters).

Policy CSF-1.6 Incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in the design of new development and City facilities. This includes the use of lighting, landscaping, site planning, and design features to reduce the potential for crime
Public Schools

SCHOOL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT FEES
As discussed above, Government Code Section 65995(h) was adopted by the State legislature in 1996, school fees generated by new development are deemed legally sufficient mitigation of any impacts to school facilities resulting from generation of new students associated with development.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan Community Services and Facilities Element addresses the provision of community services, including public education (City of San Leandro 2016a). The following policies found within the element are applicable to public educational services within the City:

Goal CSF-2. Encourage and support high-quality educational facilities and services in San Leandro.

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

SAN LEANDRO MUNICIPAL CODE
Article 8 of Title 7 of the SLMC enables the City Council to require dedication of lands deemed necessary for the purpose of constructing schools necessary to assure the residents of a subdivision have adequate elementary school service as a condition of final map approval for a subdivision.

City Library
The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan Community Services and Facilities Element addresses the provision of community services, including library services (City of San Leandro 2016a). The following policies found within the element are applicable to library services within the city:

Policy CSF-3.3 Ensure that library funding remains adequate to sustain or increase existing service levels, including staffing, programming, and technology upgrades.

Maintain or exceed American Library Association standards throughout the City’s library system.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-11
Parks and Recreation

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan Community Services and Facilities Element addresses parkland, open space, and recreational facilities in and nearby San Leandro. This element has particular goals for parkland accessibility, stating the City aims to provide at least five acres of improved parkland for every 1,000 residents and to have a park accessible within one-half mile of every City resident. In addition, the Element describes how the City works collaboratively with EBRPD, as well as neighboring cities and communities, to create regional parks and trails (City of San Leandro 2016c). The following policies found within the element are applicable to parks, open space, and recreation in the City:

Goal OSC-1. Maintain and improve San Leandro’s parks and recreational facilities.

Policy OSC-1.2 Provide for the regular, systematic maintenance of San Leandro’s parks and recreational facilities to prevent deterioration, ensure public safety, and permit continued public use and enjoyment.

Policy OSC-1.4 Where cost savings and equivalent benefits would be achieved, rehabilitate existing recreational facilities before building entirely new facilities. A priority should be placed on renovating athletic fields and swimming pools, improving energy efficiency, and replacing outdated facilities with new facilities that are safe, attractive, and more responsive to current needs.

Policy OSC-1.11 Require that capital improvement or development projects with the potential to adversely affect or temporarily disrupt San Leandro's park operations and open spaces include measures to mitigate impacts. This should include projects outside the City limits, such as work by EBMUD on Lake Chabot Dam and in the San Leandro watershed.

Goal OSC-2 Develop additional parkland in the city to better meet existing needs and to respond to future needs.

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

Policy OSC-2.2 Allow no net loss of open space within San Leandro’s parks and recreational facility system. In the event that land currently included in the City’s park inventory (Table 5-1) is to be converted to a non-park related purpose, an area of equivalent or larger acreage shall be set aside as parkland. Replacement open space should be comparable in value and function to the space that is lost.

Policy OSC-2.3 Require new residential development to pay an impact fee and/or to dedicate parkland to offset the increase in park needs resulting from new residents.

Where on-site parkland is dedicated, it should be improved, maintained, and accessible to the general public.

Policy OSC-2.4 Pursue opportunities for new parks that augment those dedicated within private development. When planning for such parks, place a priority on sites and/or facilities that: (a) Would benefit neighborhoods or user groups that are City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-12
currently underserved by park and recreational facilities; (b) Meet a recreational facility need that has been identified by the community as a top priority; (c) Have a funding source identified; (d) Have strong community support and advocacy; (e) Would protect a special resource such as a historic building or sensitive natural area; (f) Have a willing seller or site donor; and (g) Are located in areas where substantial residential growth is planned.

Policy OSC-2.5 Take a creative approach to identifying new prospective parks and open spaces, including such features as rooftops and urban plazas. Streets themselves should be recognized as an important potential component of the open space system, with opportunities for additional greening, planting, parklets, food production, public art, trails, and recreational activities within public rights of way.

Policy OSC-2.7 Support the development of additional community gardens in the city, with a priority on underused utility-owned and School District owned properties.

Policy OSC-2.8 Ensure that new parks are designed to maximize public access and visibility, and minimize the potential for conflicts with surrounding uses Policy OSC-2.9 Ensure that any proposal for new park or recreational facilities includes a commitment to a high level of ongoing maintenance.

Policy OSC-2.10 Encourage the development of additional trails within the City.

Policy OSC-2.12 Promote the inclusion of plazas, courtyards, landscaped commons, rooftop gardens/ green space, and other publicly accessible open spaces within new commercial, industrial, and public facility development.

Policy OSC-2.13 Encourage privately owned and operated recreational facilities that are open to the general public, provided that such facilities are compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with community goals. Examples of such facilities include skating rinks, driving ranges, batting cages, family fun centers, and bowling alleys.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO LAND USE ELEMENT
The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element contains strategies for shaping the physical form of San Leandro and addresses land use management and enhancement, including acquiring and maintaining land for parks, open space, and recreation (City of San Leandro 2016b).

The following policies found within the element are applicable to parks, open space, and recreation in the City:

Policy LU-3.8 Encourage new affordable housing development to provide amenities for future residents, such as on-site recreational facilities and community meeting space. Where feasible, consider the integration of social services such as childcare within such projects.

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

Policy LU-4.1 To the extent permitted by law, allow new residential development to occur only when the public facilities needed to serve that development are available or will be provided concurrently with the development.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-13
Policy LU-4.3 Promote collaborative, creative solutions between the public and private sectors to develop additional schools, parks, and other public facilities in the city.

Policy LU-4.4 Consider acquiring vacant or underutilized sites for park or school development in addition to facilitating private development on those sites.

Goal LU-6 Foster the development of Downtown San Leandro as a vibrant pedestrian-oriented destination that is the civic and social heart of the City.

Policy LU-6.14 Develop a network of Downtown open spaces to serve the growing population and workforce. This network should include civic plazas, parks, a linear greenway along the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (part of the East Bay Greenway), and a San Leandro Creek greenway along the northern edge of Downtown. In addition, streetscape improvements should include street trees and sidewalks which connect these spaces and increase greenery in the downtown area.

SAN LEANDRO CREEK TRAIL MASTER PLAN
Adopted in March 2017, the San Leandro Creek Trail Master Plan (SLCTMP) describes the San Leandro Creek Trail, a six-mile bicycle and pedestrian trail between the Chabot Dam and the San Leandro Bay, that passes through San Leandro and Oakland. The trail runs generally east-west and is intended to improve connectivity through the highly-urbanized area, with connections to schools, other trails, and the BART station in San Leandro. Several governments, agencies, and other groups collaborated to create the trail, including the Cities of San Leandro and Oakland, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, the San Leandro Creek Alliance, and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4. The trail is comprised of eight segments, the final three of which are jointly maintained by San Leandro and Oakland as San Leandro Creek demarcates the borders between the two cities (City of San Leandro 2017).

SAN LEANDRO MUNICIPAL CODE
SLMC Chapter 7-13 establishes the City’s park facilities development impact fee which, pursuant to Government Code Section 66001, allows the City to apply fees to new development to pay for new or renovated park facilities. Development in San Leandro is required to pay appropriate park development fees. Further, SLMC Section 7-1-810 requires that as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map, subdivisions are required to offer to dedicate parkland, pay a fee in lieu, or a combination of both (at the option of the City).

4.7.3 Impact Analysis
Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The public services analysis focuses on determining whether the project would result in adverse physical impacts to the environment due to the expansion of existing or construction or new fire and/or police protection and emergency facilities, library facilities, or school facilities, or construction of new facilities.

The recreation analysis focuses on determining whether reasonably foreseeable development under the project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-14
accelerated. Furthermore, the analysis discusses whether the proposed project would create the need for new parks, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. This analysis focuses on the existing conditions of parks and recreational facilities, and the potential for these facilities to be substantially degraded or deteriorated, at an increased rate due to implementation of the project. This analysis estimates the number of residents that would be generated by reasonably foreseeable housing development under the project and assesses whether the project would result in substantial physical deterioration of park/recreational facilities or the need for new facilities.

Public Services
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would have significant impact related to public services if it would:

Result in potentially significant impacts related to public services if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable services ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
a) Fire protection
b) Police protection
c) Schools
d) Parks
e) Other public facilities (such as libraries)
Recreation
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would result in potentially significant impacts related to recreation if it would:

Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-15
Threshold 1a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE NEED FOR NEW OR PHYSICALLY

ALTERED FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE SERVICE RATIOS, RESPONSE TIMES, OR OTHER PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES. THE NEED FOR NEW OR EXPANDED FACILITIES WOULD BE DUE TO CUMULATIVE GROWTH IN THE SERVICE AREA AND NOT SOLELY DUE TO THE PROJECT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with Title 24, the City’s Municipal Code, the California Health and Safety Code, California Fire Code, and implementation of the 2035 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, would ensure that ACFD facilities, staff, and equipment would be adequate to accommodate future growth under the 2035 General Plan.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the project would facilitate the net increase of 4,960 residential units and 75,00 square feet of office space in the three Priority Development Areas of the city. New residential units and office space facilitated by the project would be in the existing service area of ACFD and would not require expansion of the service area for ACFD to respond to calls in a new or more distance area. The population growth accommodated under the project would be approximately 3 percent of the ACFD’s current service population across its service area.

The fire stations that would be most impacted by the project would be ACFD Stations 9, 12, and 24.

Planning for new or physically altered ACFD stations is based on an assessment of the cumulative need for new facilities. The project’s incremental contribution to demand for new fire protection services would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes, sales taxes, and/or development fees that would result from increased development and population growth. Taxes to the City’s General Fund would support the City’s budget for new or expanded fire protection services. New or expanded fire protection facilities needed to accommodate future growth in ACFD’s service area would be speculative at this time. Future proposals, if warranted, would undergo independent environmental review under CEQA. Local policies, including those in the Community Services and Facilities Element and the update to the Environmental Hazards Element would continue and improve disaster preparedness efforts, community safety, and coordination between fire protection agencies. Specifically, Community Services and Facilities Element Goal CSF-1 and Policies CSF-1.1 through CSF-1.9, as discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.12-6) would ensure the provision of adequate fire services in the City. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services, including adequate fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants, such as the 2016 California Fire Code and 2019 California Building Code. Potential future development under the proposed project would be subject to ACFD review to ensure that sufficient provisions for emergency access and response are made, fire code requirements are satisfied, and adequate levels of service can be provided.

Therefore, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts associated with the need for the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-16
Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 1b: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Impact PS-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD INCREMENTALLY INCREASE THE SERVICE POPULATION OF THE SLPD AND POTENTIALLY REQUIRE NEW OR EXPANDED FACILITIES. THE PROJECT’S

INCREMENTAL CONTRIBUTION TO DEMAND FOR NEW POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES WOULD BE OFFSET BY PAYMENT OF PROPORTIONATE PROPERTY TAXES, SALES TAXES, AND/OR DEVELOPMENT FEES. ENVIRONMENTAL

ADDITIONALLY, DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD COMPLY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO FIRE SERVICES AND FIRE SAFETY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Police protection services are not “facility-driven,” meaning such services are not as reliant on facilities to effectively patrol a beat. An expansion of, or intensification of development within, a beat does not necessarily result in the need for additional facilities if police officers and patrol vehicles are equipped with adequate telecommunications equipment to communicate with police headquarters. However, if the geographical area of a beat is expanded, population increases, or intensification/redevelopment of an existing beat results in the need for new police officers, new or expanded facilities may be needed.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the population increase would require increased levels of staffing to meet acceptable service ratios. Compliance with the General Plan goals and policies would ensure adequate police protections services are available for residents of San Leandro.

New residential units and office space facilitated by the project would be in the existing service area of SLPD and would not require expansion of the service area or for the SLPD to respond to calls in a new or more distance area. The population growth accommodated under the project, or additional population compared to that anticipated by the 2035 General Plan, would be approximately 14 percent compared to the current and future service population of the SLPD. SLPD does not have a service ratio standard; however, SLPD uses the formula of 10.4 officers per 10,000 residents to assess the need for additional officers and staff (City of San Leandro 2016c). As discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR (page 4.12-10), the SLPD is currently not meeting its preferred service ratio formula of 10.4 officers per 10,000 residents and has indicated that they would need to hire additional officers and staff to meet the service ratio to serve new growth. In addition, the SLPD has indicated that it would need to purchase additional equipment to accommodate the new officers and incur training costs. As described above, the City Council approved a capital expenditure to renovate the police building and City offices within the Civic Center (where City Hall and the Police Station are located) to expand police operations services, based on existing levels of development and independent of the project. These renovations were primarily interior and do not involve construction of a new building. Construction began in early 2019 and was completed in late 2021.

Development facilitated by the project would not require any additional construction or expansion of SLPD facilities.

Planning for new or physically altered SLPD stations is based on an assessment of the need for new facilities. The project’s incremental contribution to demand for new police protection services would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes, sales taxes, and/or development fees Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-17
that would result from increased development and population growth. Taxes to the City’s General Fund would support the City’s budget for police protection services. Funds for police services are allocated during the annual monitoring and budgeting process to ensure that the provision of police services is adequate to respond to changes in the city. New or expanded police protection facilities needed to accommodate future growth in SLPD’s service area would be speculative at this time.

Future proposals, if warranted, would undergo independent environmental review under CEQA.

Additionally, local policies, including those in the update to the Environmental Hazards Element would continue and improve disaster preparedness efforts, community safety, and coordination between law enforcement agencies. Specifically, Goal CSF-1 of the 2035 General Plan aims to provide and maintain high-quality police services, and Policy CSF-1.1 establishes target levels of service for police services. Therefore, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts associated with the need for the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Threshold 1c: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE ENROLLMENT OF STUDENTS IN LOCAL SCHOOLS. HOWEVER, PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEES FULLY MITIGATES IMPACTS TO SCHOOLS UNDER SB

50. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE NEED FOR THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED SCHOOLS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that the students generated under the 2035 General Plan could potentially exceed the remaining capacity at SLUSD schools under worst-case conditions.

Future development under the 2035 General Plan is expected to generate up to 1,958 new students within the SLUSD service area. The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that development would occur gradually over the 19-year buildout horizon and would be subject to development impact fees that are current at the time of development; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.13.1, Setting, SLUSD was slightly under district-wide capacity, but K-6 facilities and 9-12 facilities were over capacity during the 2020-2021 school year.

Estimated student generation rates were calculated using the methodology in SLUSD’s 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study, shown in Table 4.7-4. Estimated student generation from the project is shown in Table 4.7-5.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-18
Table 4.7-4 SLUSD Student Generation Rates
Grade Level Students per Household
K through 6 0.1835
7 through 8 0.0534
9 through 12 0.1141
Total 0.351
Source: SLUSD 2020
Table 4.7-5 Estimated Student Generation from Project
Grade Level
Students per
Household1
Dwelling
Units
Total Students
Generated2
2020-21
District
(Shortfall)
Capacity
District
(Shortfall)
Capacity
with Project
Exceeds
Available
Capacity?
K through 6 0.1835 4,960 911 (282) (1,193) Yes
7 through 8 0.0534 4,960 265 532 267 No
9 through 12 0.1141 4,960 566 (178) (744) Yes
Total 1,742 (75) (1,670) Yes
1 SLUSD 2020
2 Results rounded up to the nearest whole number
The project could generate an estimated 1,742 new students beyond the 2035 General Plan’s estimated generation of 1,958 new students. Project implementation may contribute to the existing need for new or expanded school facilities. Previous facility expansions at SLUSD schools involved the installation of temporary portable units, which typically result in minor environmental impacts.

Schools that would be most impacted by the project are those in or near the city’s Priority Development Areas.

In 2010, the SLUSD passed bond Measure M, which is a $50.1 million bond that funds renovations and expansions of SLUSD school facilities, which would offset some of the impacts resulting from increased use of facilities. In addition, project applicants would be required to pay State-mandated school impact fees, which is considered full mitigation under CEQA and therefore the project cannot be found to have a significant impact pursuant to SB 50. According to California Government Code Section 65995(h), the payment of statutory mitigation fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.” Further, Goal CSF-2 and Policies CSF=2.1 through CSF-2.6 would ensure the provision of adequate school services and school facilities in San Leandro. Therefore, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts associated with the need for the provision of new or physically altered schools, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-19
Threshold 1d: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Threshold 2: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold 3: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact PS-4 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROJECT WOULD INCREMENTALLY INCREASE THE CITY’S

POPULATION AND INCREASE THE USE OF EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND REDUCE THE CITY’S PARKLAND TO POPULATION RATIO. HOWEVER, DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR PARKS OR DONATION OF PARKLAND PURSUANT TO THE QUIMBY ACT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS.

IMPACTS RELATED TO THE PHYSICAL DETERIORATION OF PARKLAND OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND THE NEED TO CONSTRUCT NEW FACILITIES, WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The city currently has 382.8 acres of parkland, with a parkland to population ratio of 4.33 acres per 1,000 residents.

The project’s anticipated population increase would reduce the city’s parkland per 1,000 residents from 4.33 acres per 1,000 residents to 3.80 acres per 1,000 residents (see Table 4.7-6). The current parkland to population ratio does not meet the City’s goal of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents, and the project would result in a further reduction from that goal.

Table 4.7-6 Anticipated Parkland Per 1,000 Residents
Existing Parkland
(Acres)
Existing Plan Area
Population
Existing Parkland
per 1,000 residents
Population With
Project
Future Parkland per
1,000 Residents
382.8 88,404 4.33 100,804 3.80
Sources: City of San Leandro 2016c, DOF 2022
The 2035 General Plan noted that there are several parks and recreation facilities planned to be developed during its horizon year. With this increase in parks and recreational facilities, the 2035 General Plan estimated a total of 512 acres would be available in San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2016c). Planned parkland, including the proposed San Leandro Shoreline Park, will also contribute to additional parkland in the city. The 2035 General Plan estimated a population of 101,250 and a ratio of 5.1 acres of parks and recreational facilities per 1,000 population. With the project’s addition of 12,400 residents, this ratio would be 4.51. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the city’s population would decrease the ratio of parkland per 1,000 residents to a ratio that does not meet the City’s goal of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. It is anticipated that the City would need to acquire new parkland to achieve the City’s goal. Additionally, existing parkland and recreation facilities, especially in or near Priority Development Areas, may have accelerated physical deterioration due to the incremental increase in population associated with the project.

As future residential development projects are approved, development fees for parks or donation of parkland (pursuant to the Quimby Act) would be required as part of the individual projects. Funding for maintenance of new and existing facilities is provided through property assessments and taxes.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-20
Park and recreational facility maintenance and acquisition needs in the city are evaluated with respect to population growth, locational needs, and budget. The project would not preclude implementation or expansion of any parkland, trails, or recreation facility. Additionally, the City’s development standards for multifamily housing in the Priority Development Areas require publicly accessible open space on site for new projects.

Any project associated with new or expanding parkland or recreation facilities would be subject to project-specific environmental review and mitigation pursuant to CEQA. It is anticipated that the City’s review processes would adequately mitigate potential environmental impacts relating to the development of new or redeveloped parkland, open space, or other recreational facilities as new residential development would be required to pay an impact fee and/or to dedicate parkland to offset the increase in park needs resulting from new residents (Policy OSC-2.3). Additionally, other policies of the Open Space, Parks, and Conservation Element would minimize potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities, including Goal OSC -1 and Policies OSC-1.1 through OSC-2.6.

Therefore, the project would not result in significant substantial physical deterioration of existing parkland or substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parkland.

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

Threshold 1e: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-5 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROJECT WOULD INCREMENTALLY INCREASE THE CITY POPULATION AND INCREASE THE USE OF EXISTING LIBRARY FACILITIES. HOWEVER, PROPERTY TAXES RELATED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO ANY NECESSARY NEW OR EXPANDED LIBRARY FACILITIES. IMPACTS

RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED PUBLIC FACILITIES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2035 General Plan EIR concluded that new development would help fund SLPL primarily through property taxes, which would offset an increase in use of library facilities. Furthermore, compliance with the goals and policies included under the 2035 General Plan, including the Community Services and Facilities and Land Use Elements, would ensure adequate library services are available to San Leandro residents; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not include the provision of new or physically altered existing library space.

Although the City does not have specific facility service goals or policies for the SLPL, the City’s General Plan Policies CSF-3.1 through CSF-3.5 promote the expansion and rehabilitation of library facilities, and acquisition of technology and materials to serve the needs of San Leandro residents.

Impacts from development would be offset by payment of property taxes and General Plan goals, policies, and actions.

If needed in the future, new or expanded library facilities would be subject to project-specific environmental review and mitigation pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the project would not result in significant substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-21
altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

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

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area to analyze cumulatively considerable impacts to facilities related to public services is the service area of each agency, respectively: ACFD, SLPD, SLUSD, and the SLPL. The geographic area to analyze cumulatively considerable impacts to facilities related to parkland and recreation facilities is the city.

Fire Protection Facilities
A significant cumulative environmental impact would result if this cumulative growth would exceed the ability of ACFD to adequately serve its service area, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities that could cause significant impacts. Jurisdictions in the ACFD service area, including the cities of Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, San Leandro, and Union City; unincorporated areas of Alameda County; and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, are anticipated to experience population growth, and ACFD will likely need new or expanded facilities to meet service goals. Planning for new or physically altered ACFD stations is based on an assessment of the cumulative need for new facilities. The incremental contribution to demand for increased ACFD protection services from implementation of the project would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes and sales taxes by developers and the addition of new residents.

If new ACFD facilities are needed, such facilities would undergo their own independent environmental review pursuant to CEQA when details about the project are known. Projects would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations related to their physical impacts on the environment. Furthermore, implementation of proposed policies and actions would ensure that ACFD facilities, staff, and equipment would be adequate to accommodate future cumulative growth.

Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.

Police Protection Facilities
Planning for new or physically altered SLPD stations is based on an assessment of the cumulative need for new facilities. The incremental contribution to demand for increased SLPD protection services from implementation of the project would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes and sales taxes by developers and the addition of new residents. Funds for police services are allocated during the annual monitoring and budgeting process to ensure that the provision of police services is adequate to respond to changes in the city.

If new SLPD facilities are needed, such facilities would undergo their own independent environmental review pursuant to CEQA when details about the project are known. Projects would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations related to their physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, other growth inducing projects in San Leandro would be reviewed by the SLPD, in accordance with the aforementioned General Plan Policy CSF-1.5, Review of Development Plans. This would ensure that there is adequate funding when expansion is necessary.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-22
Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.

School Facilities
Cumulative projects would add new students to the SLUSD, in addition to those generated by development allowed by the project, which could potentially result in the need for new or expanded school facilities. However, development projects associated with increased population growth in the SLUSD service area would be subject to compliance with the goals, policies, and actions, included in the General Plan and would be required to pay impact fees consistent with local jurisdiction requirements to ensure the adequate provision of future facilities associated with public services, including schools. As part of the renovation and revitalization process, school projects would undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and be required to comply with federal, State and local regulations related to their physical impacts on the environment. All cumulative development would also be subject to payment of statutory mitigation fees. Therefore, with payment of mandatory school mitigation fees, the cumulative impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.

Public Facilities
Impacts to SLPL facilities from increased residential development would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes. Any project associated with new or expanding library facilities would be subject to project-specific environmental review and mitigation pursuant to CEQA. It is anticipated that the City’s review processes would adequately mitigate potential environmental impacts relating to the development of new or redeveloped library facilities. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.

Parks and Recreation
The project would not preclude implementation or expansion of any parkland, trails, or recreation facility, but it would decrease the parkland to population ratio that is below the City’s desired goal of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

As future residential development projects are approved, onsite publicly accessible open space will be provided and development fees for parks or donation of parkland (pursuant to the Quimby Act) would be required. Further, Section 7-13-100 of the City’s Municipal Code requires developers to pay park impact fees which would help ensure the provision of adequate parklands. In addition, the General Plan contains policies, under Goal OSC-2, that would help ensure that park and recreation facility goals are met. Any project associated with new or expanding parkland or recreation facilities would be subject to project-specific environmental review and mitigation pursuant to CEQA.

Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable substantial physical deterioration of existing parkland or substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parkland. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1

4.8 Transportation
This section evaluates the impacts of the project on the local transportation system and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region. The analysis in this section considers the transportation analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR, supplemented by analysis of potential changes as proposed by the project. The analysis is based on a VMT study prepared by Kittelson in August 2022, which is included as Appendix TRA of this document. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) provided comments during the scoping period of the SEIR, which are provided in Appendix NOP. The comment letter noted that the City is required by the Congestion Management Land Use Analysis Program to conduct a transportation impact analysis for the project with the Countywide Travel Demand Model, and that the SEIR should identify the project’s potential impacts to roadways and Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) transit operators, and identify adequate mitigation.

4.8.1 Setting
The existing vehicular circulation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit services in the project vicinity are described below.

Circulation System
Overview
The study area is defined by the boundaries of the City of San Leandro which encompasses 5.2 miles square miles. The city is served by a circulation system that facilitates multimodal travel including walking, bicycling, public transportation, and motor vehicles, and includes a network of freeways, highways, local streets, and bicycle facilities.

Freeway
Interstate 238 is a four- to six-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. This eastwest freeway connects Interstate 880 (I-880) in San Leandro with Interstate 580 (I-580) in Ashland and Castro Valley. Westbound exits provide access to East 14th Street (on and off ramps) and Washington Avenue (off-ramp). Eastbound exits provide access to East Lewelling Boulevard (on and off ramps).

Interstate 580 is a six- to eight-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. This freeway provides north-south access within and north of San Leandro and provides east-west access east of San Leandro. To the north, it is a connector to nearby cities, including Oakland and Emeryville, as well as regional destinations, such as Richmond and San Rafael. To the east, it is a connector to nearby communities, such as Castro Valley, as well as regional destinations, such as the cities of Dublin and Livermore. I-580 also provides access to the larger freeway and highway network in the region with direct connections to I-5, I-80, I-205, I-880, and I-980; US Highway 101; and State Routes (SR) 13, 24, 84, and 132. The city is served by interchanges along I-580 at 150th Avenue/Fairmont Drive7 and Estudillo Avenue/Grand Avenue.

Interstate 880 is an eight- to 10-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. This north-south freeway connects San Leandro with nearby cities, including Hayward and Oakland, as well as regional destinations such as Fremont and San Jose. I-880 also provides access to the larger freeway network in the region with direct connections to Interstates 80, 238, 580, and 980; U.S.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-2
Highway 101; and SR 17, 92, and 237. San Leandro is served by freeway interchanges along I-880 at Davis Street, Marina Boulevard, and Washington Avenue.

Arterials
Arterial roadways are the basis of a city’s circulation network. They connect freeways and major destinations in the city and are used primarily for cross-town travel, commercial vehicle travel, and access to collector streets and local streets. Arterials typically provide access to adjacent land uses, but access may be restricted by medians at some locations. Driveways are limited or consolidated to a few locations, and on-street parking may be limited or absent to provide the greatest travel capacity within the available right-of-way. Depending on the intensity of adjacent land uses, arterials may have two, four, or six lanes. Intersections with arterials may be signalized and may have dedicated left or right turn lanes. Caltrans is responsible for the design, operation, and maintenance of three arterials in San Leandro: East 14th Street (Route 185), Doolittle Drive north of Davis Street (Route 61), and Davis Street from Doolittle to East 14th Street (Route 112). These arterials are referred to by Caltrans as Tier 2 highways. The City of San Leandro is responsible for the other arterials in the city, including Bancroft Avenue, Hesperian Boulevard, Washington Avenue, San Leandro Boulevard, and Marina Boulevard.

Collectors
Collectors are designed to connect neighborhoods with arterials. They carry a moderate amount of traffic, typically less than 10,000 vehicles per day, although somewhat higher volumes are not unusual. Collectors may be subject to different design standards and traffic management strategies based on adjacent land uses to accommodate neighborhoods, commercial areas, and industrial areas. These streets typically have four lanes, may have curbed parking, and have traffic signals at major intersections. Intersections with relatively lower volume streets may be four-way or two-way stop controlled. Examples of collector streets include Springlake Drive, Teagarden Street, and Farnsworth Street.

Local Streets
Local streets provide immediate connections between parcels, whether in residential, commercial, or industrial areas. These are low-speed streets that typically have two lanes with curbed parking and may be four-way or two-way stop controlled. Except for a few private streets, the City of San Leandro is responsible for the design, operation, and maintenance of all local streets.

Transit Facilities
San Leandro is served by several transit providers of varying service type, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC) Transit, Amtrak, the FLEX Shuttle, and the LINKS program.

BART
BART provides heavy-rail, regional transit service to the Counties of Alameda, San Francisco, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. Two BART stations are located in San Leandro: one is located to the west of downtown San Leandro and the other is adjacent to Bayfair Mall. Using the latest available data on ridership counts from August 2022, on an average weekday, 2,263 BART riders exited at the Bayfair station, and 2,721 riders exited at the downtown San Leandro station. Monthly ridership exiting at these stations in August 2022 were 61,743 riders at Bayfair and 72,852 riders at the downtown Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-3
station (BART 2022). . Direct service is provided to San Francisco, Oakland, Fremont, San Jose, Richmond, and Dublin/Pleasanton. Connecting service is provided to Concord/Pittsburg. BART operates with 15-minute headways during commute periods and provides service between 5:00 a.m. and 1:20 a.m. for East Bay and Transbay travel. Future improvements to BART service include the extension to Livermore. In addition, the Bayfair Connector project, which is funded by Alameda CTC through Measure BB funds, will provide for a smoother transfer at Bayfair once completed for traveling between Pleasanton and Fremont. Anticipated completion of the Bayfair Connector project is 2026.

Long-term planning for BART is guided by the BART Station Access Policy, adopted in 2000 and last updated in 2015. Updates to the Station Access Policy emphasize regional land use planning concentrating future population and employment within priority development areas (PDAs) around major transit hubs. Every BART station is in a PDA. The Station Access Policy recognizes the importance of local and regional partnerships for transit-oriented development around the stations (BART 2015).

AC TRANSIT
Alameda Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) provides bus service in Alameda County and the western portion of Contra Costa County, and it provides commuter, transbay service to San Francisco and the Peninsula. Its local buses connect San Leandro neighborhoods and business districts with desirable destinations, including the two local BART stations. AC Transit provides school bus and paratransit services, and it is a participating transit provider for the regional, All-Nighter bus system, providing “night owl” bus service when BART is not operating. AC Transit buses are equipped with front-loading racks that can hold up to two bicycles. Some of AC Transit’s busiest service corridors pass through San Leandro. Daily ridership on AC Transit buses was 63,000 and ridership annually was 21,242,000 in 2020. Additionally, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) completed construction in June 2020 which provides East Bay residents with access to bus routes that operate every seven minutes during peak hours along a 9.5-mile corridor from Downtown Oakland to San Leandro BART.

Long-term planning for AC Transit is guided by the AC Transit Strategic Plan adopted in 2019.

Strategic initiatives are service quality; infrastructure modernization; employee recruitment, training, and retention; zero emission program; and financial efficiency and revenue maximization (AC Transit 2019).

AMTRAK
Amtrak operates intercity and interstate heavy rail service. Its Capital Corridor and Coast Starlight routes run through San Leandro, but currently no Amtrak stops are within the city. The Capital Corridor route is served by the Oakland Coliseum Station located about two miles northwest of the city limits and adjacent to a BART station. The Coast Starlight route is served by the Oakland Jack London Square Station, seven miles northwest of the San Leandro city limits. The current San Leandro General Plan calls for further exploration of an Amtrak station stop in San Leandro, possibly near the San Leandro BART station near downtown.

FLEX SHUTTLE
The City of San Leandro provides transportation for seniors and people with disabilities through the FLEX Shuttle service. Riders must be residents of San Leandro and must be 60 years of age or older, or at least 18 years of age and East Bay Paratransit certified. FLEX Shuttle requires an annual registration fee of $20 along with an application which must be renewed by June 30 of each year in City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-4
order to continue using the shuttle; however, after the annual fee is paid, the shuttle can be used at no additional charge. The shuttle operates Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. and operates two routes. The northern route operates in the northern portion of San Leandro and the southern route operates in the southern half of the city. Each route has 15 stops at various locations.

LINKS
The LINKS program is a free shuttle that provides transportation between the San Leandro BART Station and major employment centers in west San Leandro. The program is funded by a Business Improvement District fee and various grants, including those from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). It is managed by the San Leandro Transportation Management Organization and operated by M.V. Transportation. On non-holiday weekdays, shuttles operate every 30 minutes from 5:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
The city has approximately 43.4 miles of existing bikeway facilities. Existing bicycle facilities in San Leandro include shared-use paths (Class I), on-street striped bike lanes and buffered bike lanes (Class II) and on-street signed bike routes (Class III). This plan also recommends bicycle boulevards, an enhanced version of a bicycle route (Class III) and separated bikeways (Class IV). Class I and Class II bike routes connect to the San Leandro downtown BART station, and mostly along Alvarado Steet, Fairway Drive, Halcyon Drive, and Spring Lake Drive. San Leandro has nearly 200 miles of roadway, which corresponds to a widespread adjacent pedestrian network. The state of the pedestrian network varies greatly throughout the city. Much of the city is a very walkable and pedestrian friendly environment, composed of small blocks, complete sidewalks, street trees and accessibility features. However, there are areas of the city that are missing sidewalks, street trees, or accessibility features. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are identified in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (San Leandro 2018).

Bay Trail
Segments of the Bay Trail are along the San Leandro waterfront between Oakland to the north and San Lorenzo to the south. The Bay Trail facilities are also included on the Alameda Countywide and Regional Bikeway networks. Most of the Bay Trail consists of Class I bike paths with the exception of a short segment of Class III bike route on Neptune Drive between the Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline and Marina Boulevard. Included in the Bay Trail network are path loops around Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, Mulford Point, and the Small Boat Lagoon in Marina Park. Much of this alignment has paved or unimproved pathways, but most do not meet standards for Class I bike paths. The San Leandro Bay Trail Slough Bridge, completed in 2010, provides a connection for the Bay Trail between San Leandro and Oakland.

Goods Movement
The abundance of industrial and commercial uses in the city has resulted in substantial infrastructure components related to goods movement.

RAILROAD CROSSINGS
San Leandro is served by three major rail lines, linking local industrial areas with the Port of Oakland, other west coast markets, and the rest of the state and nation. Following consolidation of Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5
ownership, the rail lines are under the ownership of the Union Pacific Railroad. Spurs from each railroad provide service to industrial developments in central and west San Leandro. Railroads cross arterial and collector streets at locations within the city, most of which are equipped with warning bells and crossing guards that activate while trains approach and pass the intersections.

TRUCK ROUTES
The city has several established truck routes along 30 roadways. The City of San Leandro provides transportation permits for qualified loads and vehicles to operate safely on the roadways in the city.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) provides a number of grant programs, primarily for the construction and upgrading of major highways and transit facilities. Many of these grants are administered by the state and regional governments. Use of federal grant funding also invokes the National Environmental Protection Act in some cases. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sets design standards (such as interchange spacing) for interstate highways, such as I-880.

The Federal Railroad Administration within the USDOT establishes safety rules regarding the operation of railroads (e.g., maximum train speeds, maximum allowed highway crossing blockage time).

Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides comprehensive rights and protections to individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. To implement this goal, the United States Access Board has created accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. The guidelines address various issues, including roadway design practices, slope and terrain issues, pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way. The City of San Leandro works to ensure that people with disabilities have access to City programs, services, activities, and facilities. The ADA Coordinator for the City of San Leandro coordinates the City’s efforts to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws through implementation of its ADA Transition Plan. The City also has adopted a Reasonable Accommodation Policy. In all of its services, programs, events, activities, facilities, and public meetings, the City will strive to eliminate any barriers that prohibit people with disabilities from full access to facilities.

Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. EPA is charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), passed in 1963 by the U.S.

City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-6
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was passed, which authorized federal funds for public infrastructure projects, including public transit, passenger rail, airports, ports, roads, bridges, climate change mitigation and resiliency, electric vehicle charging stations, clean energy, water infrastructure, and roadway safety. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act aims to modernize transit and continuing the existing transit programs as part of surface transportation reauthorization.
b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA generally requires state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, and to reduce those environmental impacts to the extent feasible. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 describes specific considerations for determining a project’s transportation impacts. Generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

The criteria used to analyze transportation impacts are included in Section 4.13.3, Impact Analysis.

California Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law on September 27, 2013 and directed OPR to develop revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. SB 743 was enacted, in part, as further implementation of California’s Climate Action Plan to meet California Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 32) GHG emission reduction targets. SB 743 seeks to reduce criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions in the transportation sector by reducing VMT. SB 743 changed the approach to transportation impact analysis by establishing measures such as VMT, VMT per capita, or automobile trip generation rates as the primary measures of transportation impacts and eliminates the traditionally used measures of auto delay and congestion, such as Level of Service (LOS), and other measures of traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts.

In December 2018, OPR adopted and promulgated its changes to the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.) in response to SB 743. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines contains the operative language for implementing the goals of SB 743 when determining the significance of a project’s transportation impacts. There are four key aspects of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 that apply in the case of the project:

1. “[A] project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact” (Section 15064.3[a]).

2. For a land use project like the proposed project, “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact… Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact” (Section 15064.3[b][1]).

3. “A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure” (Section 15064.3[b][(4]).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7

4. The terms and conditions of Section 15064.3 apply prospectively and a lead agency “may elect to be governed by the provisions of [15064.3] immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of [15064.3] shall apply statewide” (Section 15064.3[c]).

California Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375 The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” (AB 32) outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected under a “business as usual” scenario. On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged).

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.

Under SB 375, some development and transportation projects assumed as a part of the proposed project may be eligible to use a streamlined version of the environmental review process. Among other criteria, these projects must be consistent with the land use designation, density, intensity, and policies of Plan Bay Area 2050, and fall within the identified criteria for development and transportation projects.

Senate Bill 226
CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects (SB 226) sets forth a streamlined review process for infill projects and includes performance standards that will be used to determine an infill project’s eligibility for streamlined review. The purpose of SB 226 and updated CEQA Guideline Section 15183.3 is to streamline the environmental review process by “limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies.” Residential, commercial and retail, public office buildings, transit stations, and schools are eligible for this streamlining provided they: (1) are located in an urban area on a site that has been previously developed or adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least 75 percent of the site’s perimeter; (2) satisfy the performance standards provided in Appendix M [of CEQA]; and, (3) are consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, with some exceptions.

Under SB 226, some development and transportation projects assumed as a part of the proposed Plan may be eligible to use a streamlined version of the environmental review process. Among other criteria, these projects must be consistent with the land use designation, density, intensity, and City of San Leandro
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-8
policies of Plan Bay Area, and fall within the identified criteria for development and transportation projects.
c. Regional and Local Regulations
Alameda County Transportation Commission
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) coordinates transportation planning efforts throughout Alameda County and programs local, regional, State, and federal funding for project implementation. Additionally, it prepares the Congestion Management Program (CMP), 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 Alameda County CMP is a short-range plan that includes a variety of congestion management strategies, programs, and projects designed to meet, and often exceed, the legislative requirements with the goal of further improving the countywide transportation system to better meet the needs of all users. The CMP also supports the 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan, a long-range policy document that guides transportation funding decisions for Alameda County's transportation system over a 25-year horizon. Additionally, the Countywide Transportation Plan serves as Alameda County’s input to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in its development of the RTP/SCS. Alameda CTC has initiated several countywide planning efforts, including the Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan, the Countywide Goods Movement Plan, and the Countywide Transit Plan.

The 2021 Alameda County CMP was adopted in October 2021. As the congestion management agency for Alameda County, Alameda CTC develops and updates the CMP. The program applies strategies to assess, monitor, and improve the performance of the county's multimodal transportation system; address congestion; and ultimately protect the environment with strategies to help reduce GHG emissions. CMP legislation was initially passed in 1991 and last updated in 2001 and is currently in conflict with other regulations like SB 743, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Complete Streets legislation, and current industry best practices.

Almeda CTC annually monitors jurisdictions to ensure conformance with the implementation of four elements: LOS standards on the CMP network, travel demand management including the required transportation demand management program, the Land Use Analysis Program, and the Capital Improvement Program. While Alameda CTC does not have the authority to approve or deny local land use projects, it may find the local jurisdiction in non-conformance. Alameda CTC reviews land use projects that will cause a net increase of 100 or more p.m. peak hour trips. Projects that Alameda CTC reviews include development projects as well as plans such as specific plans, master plans and general plan amendments. Alameda CTC has not adopted thresholds of significance for CMP land use analysis purposes. Project sponsors should use professional judgment to 1) define a threshold appropriate for the project context; and 2) use this threshold to determine if segments are impacted. Projects should be evaluated for impacts to all modes, including vehicles, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and other impacts and opportunities (Alameda CTC 2022).

Alameda Countywide Arterial Corridors Plan
The Alameda Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan was approved by the Alameda CTC Commission in June 2016 and provides a basis for the integrated management of major arterial corridors and identifies a priority list of short- and long-term improvements and strategies. The Alameda Countywide Multimodal Arterial Plan identifies 21 miles of dedicated transit lane improvements, 82 Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-9
miles of Rapid Bus improvements, and 39 miles of Enhanced Bus improvements in the county. The plan also proposes vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and goods movement network improvements. The plan identifies BRT along East 14th Steet in San Leandro which was completed in 2020.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments: Plan Bay Area 2050
The MTC serves the nine-county Bay Area as the transportation planning, coordination, and financing agency and the metropolitan planning organization. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) serves as a regional planning agency for the Bay Area and provides resources for local governments to accommodate growth trends in land use and housing, environmental protection, and disaster resilience to name a few key issue areas.

MTC, ABAG, and cities and counties throughout the Bay Area prepared the current RTP, Plan Bay Area 2050, which was adopted by MTC on October 21, 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 is an integrated long-range transportation and land use/housing plan intended to support growth in the Bay Area, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution. It also includes finance strategies to implement the plan.

San Leandro City CouncilDecember 5, 2022

San Leandro City Council
December 5, 2022