D - CEQA Consistency Checklist — San Leandro City Council, November 18, 2024

Hillcrest Village Residential Project
Environmental Consistency Checklist
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
prepared by
City of San Leandro
Planning Division, Community Development Department
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Contact: Lourdes Juarez
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
July 2024
Attachment D – CEQA Consistency Checklist

Table of Contents
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 i Table of Contents
Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1

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

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 1

4. Project Sponsor................................................................................................................... 1

5. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

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

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

8. Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 4

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.................................................................................... 8

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required .......................................................... 8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected........................................................................................... 9 Determination ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................11 Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR Analysis....................................................11 1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................13 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................15 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................17 4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................23 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................27 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................29 7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................33 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................39 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................41 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................45 11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................51 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................53 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................55 14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................61 15 Public Services...................................................................................................................63 16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................67 17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................69 18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................73 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................75 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................79 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................81 City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
ii
References............................................................................................................................................85 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................85 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................86 Tables
Table 1 Project Summary................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollution Emissions.....................................19 Table 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Air Pollution Emissions......................................19 Table 4 Estimated Construction Noise ..........................................................................................56 Table 5 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels..........................................................................58 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Project Location ................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Project Site Location ........................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan .............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 4 Proposed Building Renderings............................................................................................ 6 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Appendix B 2022 Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix C 2018 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 1 Project Description

1. Project Title
Hillcrest Village Residential Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of San Leandro
Planning Division, Community Development Department
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Lourdes Juarez, Planner
Planning Division, Community Development Department
510-577-3325
[email protected]

4. Project Sponsor
Shoonya, LLC
33837 6th Street
Union City, California, 94587

5. Project Location
The project site is located at 13489 East 14th Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number 077D-1405-001-1) in the City of San Leandro, Alameda County, California. The approximately 12,588-square foot project site is currently vacant and consists of a relatively flat, grass lot with minor vegetation and a chainlink perimeter fence. Access to the project site is provided by East 14th Street and 135th Avenue, and regional access is provided by Interstate 580 and San Leandro Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project site within a local context.

6. General Plan Designation
The project site is designated Corridor Mixed Use by the City of San Leandro’s General Plan. The Corridor Mixed Use designation allows a mix of commercial and residential uses oriented in a linear development pattern along major transit-served arterials, such as East 14th Street. Within the Corridor Mixed Use designation, residential uses may be either free-standing or integrated into the upper floors of mixed use projects (City of San Leandro 2016a).

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
2 Figure 1 Regional Project Location
Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 3 Figure 2 Project Site Location
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
4 7. Zoning
The project site is zoned South Area-2 (SA-2). According to San Leandro Zoning Code (SLZC) Section 2.08.264, permitted uses within the SA-2 zone include multi-family residential, two-family residential, and mixed-use residential uses. The project would require a zoning change to apply the Planned Development (PD) Overlay to the site to accommodate proposed small-lot development, or townhomes, which do not meet the base SA-2 District standards.

8. Description of Project
The project would consist of construction of Hillcrest Village, a 9-unit townhome subdivision comprising 9 simple-fee lots and one common lot, featuring two three-story buildings. Building A would have a footprint of 3,075 square feet, would be situated at the intersection of East 14th Street and 135th Avenue, and would contain four 2-bedroom units and one 3-bedroom unit.

Building B would have a footprint of 2,784 square feet, would be parallel to Building A, and would contain one 2-bedroom unit and three 3-bedroom units. Buildings A and B would be sited on either side of a planned, 20-foot-wide drive aisle constructed with permeable concrete pavers that would enter from 135th Avenue and linearly extend through the project site.

Both proposed buildings would have three stories and a maximum height of 30 feet. Building rooftops would contain photovoltaic panels, mechanical equipment, and roof drains. The proposed buildings would have a modern design with dark grey trim, stone veneer, metal railings, white stucco, and wooden garage doors. Table 1 provides further project details.

Figure 3 depicts the locations of both buildings on the project site, and Figure 4 provides visual renderings of the proposed buildings.

Table 1 Project Summary
Project Characteristic Building A Building B
Building Footprint 3,075 2,784
Ground Floor Area 989 1,087
Second Floor Area 2,925 2,555
Third Floor Area 2,940 2,779
Total Residential Floor Area 6,854 6,421
Garage/Carport Area 2,087 1,698
Balcony Area 280 282
Trash Enclosure N/A 253
Total Floor Area 9,221 8,654
All values are shown in square feet.

Each residential unit would contain a balcony or patio that meets or exceeds the required amount of private open space, as mandated by the SLZC. Proposed residential units in Building A would each contain a front yard and pedestrian gate that provides access from East 14th Street, as well as a balcony or patio. Proposed residential units in Building B would each contain a balcony. The project would include a tenant activity area in the western corner of the project site, adjacent to Building B, that would provide a space for outdoor sitting and gathering.

Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 5 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
6 Figure 4 Proposed Building Renderings
Rendering 1. This rending depicts a front view of the proposed buildings from the intersection of East 14th Street and 135th Avenue.

Rendering 2. This rendering depicts a view of the proposed buildings from 135th Avenue.

Project Description
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 7 The project would also include sidewalk repairs along East 14th Street and replacement of the existing driveway on 135th Avenue with a sidewalk, curb, and gutter. The project would remove the perimeter chain-link fencing that currently secures the project site.

Unit 1, within Building A, would be marketed for sale to moderate-income households. The other eight units would be sold at market rate.

Site Access and Parking
East 14th Street and 135th Avenue would provide pedestrian access to the project site. 135th Avenue would provide vehicular access to the project site. The proposed 20-foot-wide driveway from 135th Avenue would linearly extend through the project site before ending at the western boundary of the site. The driveway would provide access to all proposed garages and would enable internal circulation of vehicles and bicycles on-site.

The project would include the provision of 17 parking spaces. Seven of the proposed residential units would contain a ground-level garage with two spaces each (for a total of 14 spaces). The remaining three resident and guest parking spaces would be provided via outdoor carports. Each residential unit would also contain a designated, exclusive, enclosed space for bicycle storage.

The project would provide ten electric vehicle charging stations. Each garage would contain a charging station, with the remaining three charging stations located at the unenclosed carports.

Utilities
The proposed residential structures would be served by existing utilities and would not necessitate new construction of utility infrastructure. Potable water would be provided for both domestic use and fire protection by East Bay Municipal Utility District. Wastewater services would be provided by Oro Loma Sanitary District. The City of San Leandro contracts with Alameda County Industries and Waste Management of Alameda County to provide solid waste and recycling services to City residents. The building would be all electric; no natural gas connection are proposed. Electric power would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).

Landscaping
The project would add 1,319 square feet of landscaping to the project site. Project landscaping would include trees, shrubs, succulents, ornamental grass plantings, groundcover vegetation, and vines. The two existing London plane trees (Platanus × acerifolia) on the frontage of East 14th Street would be preserved-in-place and protected by tree fencing during project construction activities.

Project construction would remove one bottlebrush tree (Callistemon viminalis) on the frontage of 135th Avenue for installation of the proposed driveway. The project would include an 8-foot tall concrete fence on the project site’s western and southern boundaries, and a 3-foot fence (18 inches of stone veneer below 18 inches of wrought iron) around each front yard along East 14th Street.

The project would add 8,338 square feet of impervious surfaces to the project site (6,621 square feet of roofs and 1,717 square feet of concrete landscaping). Project walkways and the proposed driveway would be constructed with permeable pavers, and roof runoff would be directed towards landscaping areas, where feasible.

Project lighting would consist of light-emitting diode (LED) landscape path lights and outdoor wall sconces. Project lighting would be installed on exterior surfaces, including the new fences to the west and south, at garage entrances, within the front yards of units in Building A, at the entries to City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
8 Building B units, and along the buildings’ walls that face 135th Avenue. New lighting fixtures would be downward facing, recessed, and shielded. Project lighting would match the existing light levels along the street frontage of East 14th Street.

Green Building Features
The project would include nine total photovoltaic systems on the roofs across both proposed buildings, with the wattage and orientation in accordance with California Building Code Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The building would be all electric; no natural gas connection are proposed. Project landscaping would consist of drought-tolerant plants, use of compost within landscaping areas, and the installation of a water-efficient irrigation system.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of San Leandro. The project site is bounded by East 14th Street to the northeast, residences to the northwest and southwest, and 135th Avenue to the southeast. Land uses surrounding the project site are primarily residential, with commercial uses across East 14th Street and 135th Avenue.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The City of San Leandro is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with responsibility for approving the project. The project applicant has obtained letters of service from both East Bay Municipal Utility District and Oro Loma Sanitary District for water and wastewater services, respectively. No additional approvals from public agencies, other than the lead agency, would be required.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 9 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one potentially significant impact that is peculiar to the project or site and cannot be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan and is EXEMPT from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15182. ■ I find that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Proposed Project is a Project consistent with a General Plan or Zoning Action, that there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project that would result in new specific effects. However, these effects would be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. NO FURTHER REVIEW required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
10 □ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. A STREAMLINED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is recommended. □ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

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

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

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

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

Environmental Checklist
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 11 Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified may not require additional review unless there may be project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or site that were not adequately addressed in the EIR for the general plan. In approving a project meeting the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency must limit its examination of environmental effects to those the agency determines in an Initial Study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent;

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action;

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

The purpose of this checklist is to assess consistency between the proposed project and the City of San Leandro General Plan, and to compare the environmental effects of the proposed project against those identified in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element and General Plan Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), herein referred to as the General Plan Update SEIR, to determine if additional environmental review is required under CEQA, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR
Analysis
The City of San Leandro adopted the 2035 General Plan on September 19, 2016. The 2035 General Plan includes goals and policies that convey the City’s long-term vision and guide local decision making to reach that vision. In 2023, the City of San Leandro updated its General Plan Housing Element to include a series of Zoning Amendments to reduce barriers to housing development, comply with State law, and address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. The 2023 General Plan Update also included the adoption of an Environmental Justice Element. To fulfill the requirements of the Housing Element, the City also amended the General Plan Land Use Element, land use designations, and Zoning Code. The General Plan Update SEIR assessed impacts from the implementation of the General Plan Update and was certified in 2023.

The project site is designated as Corridor Mixed Use in the General Plan, is in the East 14th Street Priority Development Area, and is in the SA-2 Zoning District. The City of San Leandro has indicated that the proposed use and density are consistent with these designations and therefore within the overall buildout assumptions of the General Plan Update SEIR.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
12 Consistency of the Project with Adopted City Plans and Ordinances City of San Leandro 2035 General Plan
The project would be located entirely in the City of San Leandro. The General Plan is the fundamental document that governs land use development. It includes goals and policies relating to economic vitality, land use, growth management, transportation, parks, open space, conservation, safety, noise, public facilities, and utilities. The project would be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies in the adopted General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Corridor Mixed Use, which allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses oriented in a linear development pattern along major transit-served arterials, such as East 14th Street. Maximum residential density in the Corridor Mixed Use designation is dictated by an allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5, rather than limits on housing units per acre. The proposed project would have a FAR of

1.11 , which does not exceed the maximum allowable FAR for the Corridor Mixed Use designation.

Consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies LU-1.13, LU-2.17, and LU-3.4, the project would add residential density at an underutilized site.

City of San Leandro Zoning Code
The project site is zoned SA-2, and would require a zoning change to apply the PD Overlay District to the site to accommodate the proposed small lot townhome development, which does not meet SA2 District standards. The requested application of the PD Overlay District would allow for a deviation from development standards with the provision of community benefits and amenities. The proposed project would offer benefits and amenities in the form of a common, outdoor, open space area, LED street lighting, electric vehicle charging stations, and photovoltaic panels. Therefore, the proposed project would be allowed to request application of the PD Overlay District and deviate from applicable development standards. With approval of the PD Overlay District, the proposed project and use would be consistent with the provisions of the San Leandro Zoning Code. Pending approval of the requested zoning change, the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or Zoning Code.
1 The proposed project’s FAR is calculated by adding the total residential floor area (13,275 square feet), before dividing by the total buildable land area (12,588 square feet). 13,275/12,588 = 1.05, or approximately 1.1.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 13 1 Aesthetics
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway? □ □ □ ■ □
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality? □ □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in
the area? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
Impacts related to aesthetics were analyzed on Page 4.10-1 of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Impacts to aesthetics from implementation of the General Plan Update were determined to be less than significant.

The following summarizes the applicable analysis from the General Plan Update SEIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
14 impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project site is in an urbanized area and consists of a vacant lot. The existing visual quality at the project site is characterized by grass and low vegetation, and the site does not contain mature trees or topographic features of visual interest. The proposed project would include two residential buildings with modern design, featuring dark grey trim, stone veneer, wooden accents, metal railings, white stucco, and wooden garage doors. Project lighting would consist of LED landscape path lights and outdoor wall sconces, which would be installed on exterior surfaces. New lighting fixtures would be downward facing, recessed, and shielded.

Based on the Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects CEQA Statute Section 21099(d), the aesthetic impacts of residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a transit priority area are not considered a significant impact on the environment. The project site is an infill site located within the East 14th Street Priority Development Area, as identified by the City of San Leandro (2018a), and thus meets the criteria in CEQA Statute Section 21099(d). Pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21099(d), the project would result in no impact to aesthetics. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section
12220(g)); timberland (as
defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))? □ □ □ ■ □
d. Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ □
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ □
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
16 Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR discusses agricultural and forestry impacts on pages 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 and identifies no impact to agricultural and forestry resources.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan Update SEIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project site is in an urbanized area in San Leandro. The project site is currently zoned SA-2.

According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the project site and surroundings are categorized as urban and built-up land and is not zoned or used for agricultural or forest uses.

Furthermore, there are no active Williamson Act contracts for the project site or adjacent properties (DOC 2022). According to the General Plan Update SEIR, no lands in San Leandro are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (City of San Leandro 2023). The project consists of infill development in an urban area and would not convert existing farmland or change agricultural resources to a non-agricultural use. As the proposed project is an infill development, it would not encroach on existing or potential grazing land or forest land. There would be no impact on agricultural or forestry resources, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 17 3 Air Quality
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR discusses air quality impacts on pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-24. The General Plan Update SEIR identifies a significant and unavoidable impact involving exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and proposes Mitigation Measure AQ-2B-2 from the 2035 General Plan EIR; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the General Plan Update SEIR finds that impacts involving increases in criteria pollutants would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2A and AQ-2B-1. The General Plan Update SEIR finds that impacts involving conflict with an applicable air quality plan and generation of odors would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
18 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan) provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate, which would apply to the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. A project that supports the goals within the 2017 Plan would be consistent with the 2017 Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support with the 2017 Plan’s goals. As discussed under criterion b, the project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants and thus would not conflict with the 2017 Plan’s goal to attain air quality standards.

The 2017 Plan includes goals and measures to increase the use of electric vehicles, promote the use of on-site renewable energy, and encourage energy efficiency. The project includes features that are consistent with these goals and measures, including full electrification of the residences, provision of photovoltaic panels with wattage and orientation in accordance with California Building Code Title 24 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards), provision of ten electric vehicle charging stations, and water-efficient irrigation. Additionally, the project site is located within the East 14th Street Priority Development area, which is well-served by transit options, and the site is adjacent to an existing Class III bicycle route on East 14th Street.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan Update SEIR assesses air quality impacts on a programmatic level and recognizes that site-specific impacts are assessed during project review.

The proposed project would result in temporary construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. Construction activities such as the operation of construction vehicles and equipment over unpaved areas, grading, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM10) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction equipment would potentially degrade regional air quality. Long-term emissions associated with operational impacts would include emissions from vehicle trips (mobile sources), electricity use (energy sources), and landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with on-site development (area sources).

Construction Emissions
Table 2 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during construction on the project site. As shown in the table, the BAAQMD construction thresholds would not be exceeded. Therefore, impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 19 Table 2 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollution Emissions Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Maximum Daily Emissions 51 11 11 2.7 1.5 <0.1
BAAQMD Thresholds
(average daily emissions)
54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets; emission data presented is the highest of winter or summer outputs.

N/A = not applicable; lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; SOx = oxides of sulfur.

No BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX
Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 3, operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD operational thresholds for criteria pollutants. Operational impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Air Pollution Emissions Sources
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Mobile <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Area <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Emissions 1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets; emission data presented is the highest of winter or summer outputs.

No BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX,
Note: numbers may not add up due to rounding
Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary
Construction and operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants and would comply with BAAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds. The proposed project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts to air quality. Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR. This impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan Update SEIR indicates that implementation of development projects consistent with the General Plan could involve placing sensitive receptors near major roadways, railroads, or other sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions (City of San Leandro 2023). Certain population groups City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
20 such as children, the elderly, and people with health issues are particularly sensitive to air pollution.

The majority of sensitive receptor locations are residences, locations where children are present (such as childcare centers, preschools, or kindergarten to Grade 12th schools), and hospitals. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located to the northwest and southwest of the project site. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are discussed in the following subsections.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at areas with high vehicle density, such as intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. A project’s localized air quality impact is considered significant if CO concentrations exceed the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm and state one-hour standard of 20 ppm, or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2021). As noted in the General Plan Update SEIR, development under the General Plan Update 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 San Leandro, everimproving 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 General Plan Update, the General Plan Update would not create new hotspots or contribute substantially to existing hotspots (City of San Leandro 2023). The project would include two new three-story residential buildings with a total of nine units. Due to the project’s size, it would not generate a substantial number of trips such that it would affect localized CO concentrations. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the project would have less than significant VMT and congestion impacts, and the project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program. Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR.

Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to localized CO emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

CONSTRUCTION
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998 (CARB 2021).

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

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 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 21 exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 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 project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (14 months) is approximately four percent of the total exposure period used for 30-year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (BAAQMD 2023).

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities.

PM 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 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 less than one percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation. Given the aforementioned discussion, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Furthermore, the General Plan Update SEIR finds that the General Plan Update would not exceed the TAC and PM2.5 emissions thresholds as identified by BAAQMD (City of San Leandro 2023). The project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and this impact would be less than significant.

OPERATION
Sources of operational 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. The project does not include construction of new gas stations, dry cleaners, highways, roadways, or other sources that could be considered new permitted or non-permitted source of TAC or PM2.5 in proximity to receivers. In addition, the project would not introduce a new stationary source of emissions and the mobile emissions generated from the project would be minimal due to the project size and spread over a broad geographical area. Therefore, project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. The project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR, and this impact would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
22 d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As addressed in the General Plan Update SEIR, implementation of residential development projects, such as the proposed project, would not create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people (City of San Leandro 2023). 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 be temporary and transitory and would cease upon completion.

According to the BAAQMD, odor-generating projects include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants, none of which are proposed (BAAQMD 2023). The project involves residential uses, which would not create objectionable odors. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
Based on the project-specific comparison to BAAQMD emissions thresholds included above, no significant impacts or peculiar circumstances associated with the proposed project would occur that require additional review. The project would be required to comply with applicable City and BAAQMD regulations, and, thus, would not result in new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to air quality. In addition, there would not be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Furthermore, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 23 4 Biological Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □ □
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ ■ □ □
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
24 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ ■ □ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR discusses biological resources impacts on pages 4.10-2 and 4.10-3 and finds impacts to be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is located in an urbanized area of San Leandro. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities (United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2024a). A search on the Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species database showed no federal- or state-listed endangered, threatened, rare, or otherwise sensitive flora or fauna on the project site (USFWS 2024a). The project site is not located within known regional wildlife movement corridors or other sensitive biological areas as indicated by the USFWS Critical Habitat portal or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Biogeographic Information Observation System (CDFW 2024). Potential impacts to special-status species from development on the project site were already analyzed in the General Plan Update SEIR and determined to be less than significant. The project would not require greater ground disturbance or excessive construction that would exceed Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 25 the parameters of the General Plan Update SEIR’s analysis, and the project site does not contain either special-status species or their habitats. There would be no impact to special-status species, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  NO IMPACT
The project site is located in an urbanized area of San Leandro and consists of a vacant, grassy lot with low vegetation. The proposed project would involve the construction of two new, three-story residential buildings. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities are present on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
 NO IMPACT
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was reviewed to determine if any wetland and/or nonwetland waters had been previously documented and mapped on or in the vicinity of the project site (USFWS 2024b). The closest mapped resource is a riverine (the San Leandro Creek), approximately 0.9 mile north of the project site. The proposed project would not involve the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means to the riverine. Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?  NO IMPACT
The project site is located in an urbanized area of San Leandro, with residential and commercial structures surrounding the site. The project site is not adjacent or within the vicinity of natural lands or open space, and contains no known or potential wildlife movement corridors. Therefore, no impacts to wildlife movement corridors would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
 NO IMPACT
The proposed project would include the removal of the existing bottlebrush tree along 135th Avenue. San Leandro Municipal Code Section 5-1-520 requires that whenever a tree is removed, the Public Works Director must be notified at least 48 hours prior, the removal must be conducted by City staff, and the applicant must pay any and all costs or expenses for the removal to the City of San Leandro. The project applicant would be required to comply with San Leandro Municipal Code City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
26 Section 5-1-520, and thus the project would not conflict with a local tree preservation ordinance.

The proposed project would not result in impacts to biological resources that would conflict with local policies or ordinances, and would adhere to 2035 General Plan policies that seek to avoid and mitigate development impacts to biological resources. The project would have no impact involving conflict with local biological resource policies or ordinances, and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
 NO IMPACT
No habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other similar plans are in place that govern activities on the project site or in the city of San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2023). Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding conflict with a habitat conservation plan, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to biological resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 27 5 Cultural Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
as defined in Section
15064.5? □ □ □ □ ■
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes cultural resources on pages 4.10-3 and 4.10-4 and finds that impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is currently vacant and contains no built environment features. Therefore, the project would result in no impact to historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
28 b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The project site is not known to contain archaeological resources or human remains. Nonetheless, the discovery of archaeological resources or human remains is always a possibility during grounddisturbing activities. In the event that archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during development facilitated by the project, existing State and local regulations and procedures would guide the protection of discovered resources. State regulations include Public Resources Code 5097, which details required mitigation if unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place, and Assembly Bill 52, which establishes procedures for notifying and consulting with California Native American tribes who are affiliated with the area of a proposed project. Further, Chapter 4-26 of San Leandro Municipal Code establishes procedures for identifying, designating, and protecting potential archaeological resources. The 2035 General Plan Historic Preservation and Community Design Element contains policies regarding the discovery of archaeological deposits, including:
 Policy CD-1.12: Archaeological Resources. Recognize the potential for paleontological, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and ensure that future development takes the measures necessary to identify and preserve such resources.  Action CD-1.12.A: Archaeological Site Inventory. Maintain standard conditions of approval for new development which require consultation with a professional archaeologist in the event that any subsurface paleontological, prehistoric, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource remains are discovered during any construction or preconstruction activities on a development site. This includes consultation with Native American organizations prior to continued site work in the event such remains are discovered.

Policy CD-1.12 requires the City to ensure that future development identifies and preserves archaeological resources and is implemented through Action CD-1.12.A. The project would constitute new development subject to Action CD-1.12.A. Therefore, in the event that subsurface archaeological resources, including human remains, are discovered during construction on the project site, the City would require consultation with a professional archaeologist and Native American organizations to determine the significance of the resource prior to the continuation of construction activities. Through adherence to this applicable development policy, potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological resources and human remains would be minimized. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to cultural resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Energy
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 29 6 Energy
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes impacts on energy on pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-16. This discussion addresses the issues of inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The General Plan EIR identifies impacts related to energy consumption as less than significant.

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

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
San Leandro is served by East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), which supplies electricity to all accounts (residential, business, and municipal) and is delivered through PG&E. The proposed project would involve the use of energy during construction and operation. Energy use during construction would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary. Construction City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
30 equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region. CALGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

Operation of the proposed project would generate energy demand in the form of transportation fuel from vehicle trips with the additional population anticipated at the project site. In addition to this transportation energy use, operation of the project would require permanent grid connections for electricity. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with the San Leandro Municipal Code, which incorporates the latest iterations of CALGreen. This code requires the provision of electric vehicle charging stations, water efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling services, and other energy-efficient measures. The proposed project would provide ten electric vehicle charging stations and would include nine photovoltaic systems, with the wattage and orientation in accordance with California Building Code Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Overall, operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of fuels from vehicle trips and electricity from the proposed residential buildings. The General Plan Update SEIR notes that population growth in the city is a key driver for increasing energy demands (City of San Leandro 2023). The proposed project would increase population density incrementally in the City of San Leandro. However, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units would be within General Plan population growth forecasts and consistent with the use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR analysis. According to the General Plan Update SEIR, PG&E has sufficient energy supply to meet the needs of projected growth (City of San Leandro 2023). Overall, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption and this impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
In July 2021, the City of San Leandro adopted an update to its Climate Action Plan (CAP), a citywide strategy to reduce GHG emissions. While targeted toward reducing citywide GHG emissions, the CAP includes energy efficiency measures to reach emissions reduction targets. 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).

The General Plan Update SEIR analyzed the measures contained within the CAP to identify goals, policies, implementation programs, and potential outcomes that address the significance criteria for impacts related to energy consumption. The General Plan Update SEIR determined that development would be consistent with the strategies contained in the CAP. Specifically, the proposed project would be consistent with the following measures:

Environmental Checklist
Energy
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 31  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.  Measure RE-3: Prioritize increasing and installing renewable energy generation systems and energy storage systems on rental homes, multi-family buildings, and affordable housing.  Measure BE-1: Incentivize significant building retrofits with fewer or no natural gas appliances to reduce pollution and increase cost savings.

The project site is located within a Priority Development Area along a major transit corridor, and consists of a new housing development within a vacant infill site. Furthermore, the proposed project would be all-electric and would include renewable energy generation systems (photovoltaic panels) on the rooftops of the proposed residential buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the above strategies from the City’s CAP.

Several policies in the 2035 General Plan aim to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Goal OSC-8, Policy OSC-8.2, and Policy T-1.10 include actions designed to reduce electricity and natural gas use or to reduce fuel consumption (e.g., less driving), and implementation of these policies and actions would therefore reduce energy consumption.

Several 2035 General Plan policies, including LU-1.13, LU-2.17, and LU-3.4, promote local growth patterns and sustainable development practices to reduce resource and energy consumption overall. This is consistent with the type of infill development planned for the proposed project. As the proposed project would comply with the San Leandro Municipal Code, which incorporates the latest iterations of CALGreen requirements, it would be consistent with these energy-efficiency policies. The proposed project would not interfere with the 2035 General Plan’s energy-efficiency policies.

The proposed project would be consistent with energy-efficient policies in both the City’s CAP and the 2035 General Plan, and therefore would not conflict with or obstruct the state plan for renewable energy. Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts with regard to energy consumption, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
32 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 33 7 Geology and Soils
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

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

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

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

4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is made unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse? □ □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property? □ □ ■ □ □
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
34 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal
of wastewater? □ □ ■ □ □
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR discusses geology and soils impacts on pages 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 and concludes that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan Update SEIR and provides a review to determine project-specific would occur impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?  NO IMPACT
The project site is not within an earthquake fault zone (DOC 2024). The Hayward Fault, located approximately 1.2 miles to the northeast, is the closest fault line to the project site. The project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects due to fault rupture. No impact would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
a.2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 35 The project site is in an area subject to seismic ground shaking. As noted in the General Plan Update SEIR, development is subject to regulations included in the California Building Code and San Leandro Municipal Code. These codes generally require any proposed development to prepare a projectspecific geotechnical study, which would include recommendations for foundation design and soil improvement, and which would mitigate seismic hazards.

A Geotechnical Investigation for the project site was prepared by Wayne Ting and Associates, Inc. on July 15, 2022 (Appendix B). The Geotechnical Investigation included recommendations for foundation, concrete slab, and pavement design and construction. These recommendations are anticipated to become Conditions of Approval for the proposed project to ensure consistency with Action EH-1.1.A in the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. Action EH-1.1.A requires a geologic report for new development that addresses the degree of hazard, design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and appropriate measures. Compliance with the California Building Code and San Leandro Municipal Code and implementation of the geotechnical design recommendations (provided in Appendix B) would minimize impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

The project site is located within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2024). According to the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is underlain by firm to hard silty sand to clay, followed by silty sand to sand. Expected total and differential settlements due to liquefaction are 3.6 inches and

2.4 inches, respectively (Appendix B). Through implementation of the site-specific site preparation and grading, foundation, concrete slab, pavement, and trench backfill recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation and anticipated to become Conditions of Approval for the project, impacts involving liquefaction would be less than significant. Compliance with the California Building Code and San Leandro Municipal Code and implementation of the geotechnical design recommendations (provided in Appendix B) would minimize impacts related to liquefaction. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. a.4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?  NO IMPACT
The project site is located in a generally flat area and is not surrounded by substantial slopes (DOC 2024). There is no risk of landslide affecting the project site. No impact would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site and surroundings are generally flat. In addition, construction of the project would be required to adhere to applicable regulations including California Building Code Section 1804 Excavation, Grading, and Fill, along with San Leandro Municipal Code Chapter 7-12 (Grading, Excavations, and Fills). San Leandro Municipal Code Chapter 7-12 includes a grading ordinance that seeks to mitigate hazards associated with erosion and land stability. The ordinance establishes requirements for grading permits, including submittal and construction requirements. An erosion and sedimentation control plan, which include erosion control measures such as silt fencing, erosion control blankets, and planting of graded areas, must be submitted with a grading permit application, along with a drainage plan and pollution control plan. Compliance with these requirements would City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
36 ensure that substantial erosion during construction would not occur. Following construction, the majority of the project site would be developed with structures and landscaping, and areas of exposed soils would be minimal. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES As noted in the General Plan Update SEIR, most of San Leandro, including the project site, is not located atop unstable geologic materials that are prone to subsidence, lateral spreading, or collapse (City of San Leandro 2023). As discussed under Criterion a.4., the project site is not at risk of landslides. According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project site, the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed residential buildings, and the recommendations within the Geotechnical Investigation are anticipated to become Conditions of Approval for the project and would be integrated into project plans and specifications. Compliance with the California Building Code and San Leandro Municipal Code and implementation of the geotechnical design recommendations (provided in Appendix B) would minimize impacts related to unstable soils. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?  NO IMPACT
According to the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, project site soils have low plasticity, and therefore, a low expansion potential (Appendix B). The project would not create substantial risks to life or property from expansive soils. No impact would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
 NO IMPACT
The Oro Loma Sanitary District would provide wastewater services to the project site.

Implementation of the project would not involve the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impact would occur. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 37 The EIR for the 2035 General Plan found no known or recorded fossil localities within San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2016b). The project would involve minimal grading and excavation, as the project site is generally flat, and project construction is unlikely to reach the depths at which paleontological resources could occur. Nonetheless, the discovery of paleontological resources is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. In the event that paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, existing State and local regulations and procedures would guide the protection of discovered resources. The 2035 General Plan Historic Preservation and Community Design Element includes policies and actions that would provide for the identification of paleontological deposits prior to actions that may disturb such deposits; the preservation and protection of such deposits; and the evaluation of unanticipated finds made during construction. Policy CD-1.12 requires the City to ensure that future development identifies and preserves paleontological resources and is implemented through Action CD-1.12.A. The project would constitute new development subject to Action CD-1.12.A. Therefore, in the event that any paleontological resources are discovered during construction on the project site, the City would require consultation to determine the significance of the resource prior to the continuation of construction activities. Through adherence to this applicable development policy, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be minimized. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to geology and soils, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
38 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 39 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purposes of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes GHG emissions on pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-23 and concludes that impacts would be less than significant.

Methodology
Since the certification of the General Plan Update SEIR, the City of San Leandro’s CAP now constitutes a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. According to BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions if the project is consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the proposed project’s consistency with the GHG Reduction Strategy in the City’s CAP.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
40 The General Plan Update SEIR includes a discussion of consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan, CARB’s Clean Air Plan, the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s 2035 General Plan, and the City’s 2021 CAP (City of San Leandro 2023). As analyzed in the General Plan Update SEIR, development would be consistent with these applicable plans and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

As discussed in Section 6, Energy, the proposed project would be consistent with measures within the City’s 2021 CAP. The project site is located within a Priority Development Area along a major transit corridor, and consists of a new housing development within a vacant infill site. Furthermore, the proposed project would include renewable energy generation systems (photovoltaic panels) on the rooftops of the proposed residential buildings. In addition, the proposed project would not use natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Measures AD-2, AD-3, RE-3, and BE-1 from the City’s 2021 CAP. As the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP (a local GHG reduction strategy), the project would result in less than significant impacts involving greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 41 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Be located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment? □ ■ □ □ □
e. For a project located in an airport
land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in
the project area? □ □ ■ □ □
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
42 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR discusses hazardous materials impacts on pages 4.10-6 through 4.10- 8 and finds that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials use in the city would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Residential uses, such as those proposed by the project, typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials other than minor amounts needed for cleaning or landscaping maintenance.

During grading and construction activities, limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, or paints, may be transported to the site, used on site, and disposed of after use. However, the project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that address the handling, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. This would eliminate potential significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and State environmental and Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 43 workplace safety laws. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The nearest school to the project site is San Leandro High School, approximately 0.13 mile to the east. However, as a residential project, the proposed project would not emit substantial quantities of hazardous materials or hazardous waste. As discussed above under criteria a and b, the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with construction activities would be required to adhere to numerous regulatory requirements which would prevent emissions of hazardous substances. As discussed below under criterion d, there is no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination on-site, and therefore release of contaminated soil or groundwater during construction is not anticipated. This impact would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by AEI Consultants on May 9, 2018 (AEI Consultants 2018; Appendix C). As part of the 2018 Phase I ESA, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. was contracted to provide a database search of public lists of sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials or sites for which a release or incident has occurred for the project site and surrounding area. Federal, State, and county lists were reviewed as part of the research effort conducted for the Phase I ESA (AEI Consultants 2018; Appendix C). The project site was not listed on any of the environmental regulatory databases. Therefore, the project site is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The 2018 Phase I ESA identified that two former 500-gallon waste oil underground storage tanks and associated piping were removed from the project site on May 1, 1990. Following the removal of the tanks, soil samples were collected near the former tanks and piping, and all soil samples were nondetect for contaminants of concern. Overall, the 2018 Phase I ESA concluded that the project site contains no evidence of illegal or improper use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, contains no evidence of recognized environmental considerations for hazardous materials, and requires no further investigation for hazardous materials (Appendix C). Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public environment and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
44 e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?  NO IMPACT
The nearest airport, Oakland International Airport, is approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the Oakland International Airport (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2010). Therefore, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan, and would result in no impact involving safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing in the project area. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The San Leandro Emergency Operations Center is responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or large-scale emergencies in the city. As stated in the General Plan Update SEIR, the addition of development accommodated under the General Plan Update would not result in substantial impacts to the San Leandro Emergency Operations Center or adopted emergency response or evacuation plans (City of San Leandro 2023). The project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR. Additionally, the project would not block access or permanently constrain evacuation routes adopted in an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is in an urbanized area of San Leandro, surrounded primarily by paved surfaces and structures. The project site is not intermixed with or adjacent to wildlands. Figure 7-3 of the 2035 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element indicates the project site is in an area of low fire hazard risk (City of San Leandro 2016a). No impact involving wildland fires would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 45 10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
(ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding onor off-site;
(iii) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff;
or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows? □ ■ □ □ □
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
46 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ ■ □ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR discusses hydrology and water quality impacts on pages 4.10-8 through 4.10-9. The SEIR found that potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan Update SEIR concluded that with compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies, impacts related to water quality associated with development under the General Plan Update would be less than significant (City of San Leandro 2023). The proposed project would modify site conditions, which could affect water quality during construction and operation.

However, as explained in the following discussions, there are no project-specific impacts peculiar to the project and since the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR, impacts related to the project would be less than significant.

Construction Impacts
During grading activities, the site’s soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion that could transport sediments into local stormwater drainages. Furthermore, accidental spills of fluids or fuels from construction vehicles and equipment, or miscellaneous construction materials and debris, Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 47 could be mobilized and transported off-site in overland flow. These contaminant sources could degrade the water quality of receiving water bodies (i.e., San Francisco Bay), potentially resulting in a violation of water quality standards.

As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control both construction and operation (occupancy) stormwater discharges.

The Clean Water Act was first adopted in 1972 and is intended to protect and preserve water supply and quality in the “waters of the nation.” In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing permitting requirements. The project would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), NPDES Permit Order No. R2-2022-0018, and the provisions set forth in Section C.3 New Development and Redevelopment.

The proposed project would also be subject to Chapter 7-12 of the San Leandro Municipal Code, which requires all construction projects in the city to conduct grading activities in a manner that will minimize the potential for erosion from the site. Furthermore, Chapter 7-12 states that if requested by the City Engineer, the project applicant would be required to prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that specifies control techniques, such as silt fencing, erosion control blankets, and planting of graded areas, which would prevent erosion during construction. Therefore, with compliance with City construction-related water quality and erosion control requirements, construction of the project would not violate water quality standards, substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur and would not degrade water quality. Impacts during construction would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Operational Impacts
The project site is currently undeveloped. The project would add 8,338 square feet of impervious surfaces to the project site (6,621 square feet of roofs and 1,717 square feet of concrete landscaping). Urban runoff could carry a variety of pollutants, including oil and grease, metals, sediment, and pesticide residues from roadways, parking lots, rooftops, and landscaped areas and deposit them into adjacent waterways via the storm drain system. However, project walkways and the proposed driveway would be constructed with permeable pavers, and roof runoff would be directed towards landscaping areas, where feasible, rather than the existing storm drain system.

Through the inclusion of permeable pavers and landscaped areas, pollutants contained in stormwater runoff that could enter the storm drain system would be reduced. Impacts during operation would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan Update SEIR concluded that General Plan policies would ensure that future development would not deplete groundwater supplies substantially (City of San Leandro 2023).

Future development envisioned under the 2035 General Plan would not use or deplete groundwater resources, as water supplied to the City of San Leandro from the East Bay Municipal Utility District is currently 100 percent from surface water supplies. East Bay Municipal Utility District would provide City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
48 water to the project site. Development under the project would not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing wells. Although the project may increase impervious surfaces on the site, development of the project site was anticipated under the General Plan Update and the project would not use water or prevent recharge at a rate beyond that anticipated in the General Plan Update. Therefore, the project would have no impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior environmental document, and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The closest water resource is the San Leandro Creek, approximately 0.9 mile north of the project site. Project construction would not alter the course of this watercourse or any other stream or river since no other surface water features are identified in the project vicinity. The project would add 8,338 square feet of impervious surfaces to the project site (6,621 square feet of roofs and 1,717 square feet of concrete landscaping).

As the project would increase the site’s impervious surface area, the project would subsequently increase the potential for offsite runoff. This increased runoff could result in on- or offsite erosion or siltation. However, pursuant to the Alameda County Municipal Regional Stormwater Discharge Permit, the project would be required to implement Low Impact Development techniques to reduce the potential for on or offsite erosion or siltation. Increased runoff on the project site would be directed to landscaped areas, where feasible, rather than the city’s stormwater drainage system.

The project would also include permeable pavers, allowing runoff to infiltrate the ground and decreasing the risk of flooding. As the project would involve residential uses, which typically do not use or store large amounts of hazardous materials, the project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff that would result in substantial erosion or siltation; result in flooding; exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system; or serve as an additional source of pollution beyond what is envisioned in the General Plan and was studied in the SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 49 c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As discussed in criteria c.(i) through c.(iii), the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, but would add impervious surfaces to the site. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer, the project site is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2009). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is not located in a tsunami inundation area (California Geologic Survey 2024), nor is there a water body near the project site capable of seiche. The nearest large body of water to the project site is the San Francisco Bay, approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the project site. As discussed under criterion c.(iv), the project site is not located in a flood hazard area. The project would involve residential uses, which typically do not use or store large amounts of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project site is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and the project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. The project would result in no impact, which would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City of San Leandro is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB requires permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan for achieving water quality objectives. The proposed project would not interfere with the objectives and goals in the Basin Plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to hydrology and water quality, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
50 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 51 11 Land Use and Planning
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR addresses land use and planning on pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-13.

Impacts on land use and planning were determined to be less than significant in the document.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?  NO IMPACT
The project would be an infill development and would not result in new obstructions or divisions between established communities. The project would be limited to the project site and would not include linear or other features that could impede access between or within neighborhoods.

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
52 The project site is designated Corridor Mixed Use by the City of San Leandro’s General Plan. The Corridor Mixed Use designation allows a mix of commercial and residential uses oriented in a linear development pattern along major transit-served arterials, such as East 14th Street. Within the Corridor Mixed Use designation, residential uses may be either free-standing or integrated into the upper floors of mixed use projects (City of San Leandro 2016a). Maximum residential density in the Corridor Mixed Use designation is dictated by an allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5, rather than limits on housing units per acre. The proposed project would have a FAR of 1.1, which does not exceed the maximum allowable FAR for the Corridor Mixed Use designation. The project would be consistent with the Corridor Mixed Use designation, and would be within the type of use and density analyzed in the General Plan Update SEIR.

The project site is zoned SA-2. According to SLZC Section 2.08.264, permitted uses within the SA-2 zone include multi-family residential, two-family residential, and mixed-use residential uses. The project would require a zoning change to apply the PD Overlay District to the site to accommodate the proposed small lot development, which does not meet SA-2 District standards. The requested application of the PD Overlay District would allow for a deviation from development standards while providing a high-quality residential development offering benefits and amenities in the form of a common, outdoor, open space area, LED street lighting, electric vehicle charging stations, and photovoltaic panels. Therefore, the proposed project would utilize the flexibility of the PD Overlay District and deviate from applicable development standards to create a higher-quality development.

With approval of the PD Overlay District, the proposed project and use would be consistent with the zoning provisions of the San Leandro Zoning Code.

The project would be consistent with 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 2016a). As with the General Plan Update, the project would remain consistent and would not conflict with the goals and policies of land use plans discussed in the General Plan Update SEIR, including the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Plan Bay Area 2050, the Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the City of San Leandro’s Climate Action Plan, the City of San Leandro’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the City of San Leandro’s East 14th South Area Development Strategy.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact involving conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to land use and planning, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 53 12 Mineral Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes mineral resources on pages 4.10-9 and 4.10-10 and finds that future development envisioned under the 2035 General Plan would have no impact to mineral resources.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?  NO IMPACT
The General Plan Update SEIR concluded that development under the General Plan Update would not impact mineral resources, as there are no actively used mineral resources within San Leandro (City of San Leandro 2023). There are no mining operations within the City of San Leandro, and the city is not known to contain mineral resources. The project site is not zoned or designated for mining uses, is not classified as a Mineral Resource Zone, and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the residents of the state and the City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
54 region, nor would it result in loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site (United States Geological Survey 2024).The project site is an infill site and does not involve developing currently undeveloped land with the potential to contain valuable mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to mineral resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 55 13 Noise
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? □ □ □ □ ■
b. Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? □ ■ □ □ □
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes noise on pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-23. Impacts regarding noise generated by temporary construction are found to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-4 from the 2035 General Plan EIR. Permanent impacts to ambient noise levels are found to be significant and unavoidable. Impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise, and airport noise, are found to be less than significant.

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

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
56 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Construction Impacts
Project construction activities on-site and traffic noise from construction vehicles would increase noise levels in the project vicinity. Nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including the single-family residences adjacent to the project site, would be exposed to temporary construction noise during development of the project. Noise impacts are a function of the type of activity being undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Table 4 estimates construction noise at a reference distance of 50 feet from the source equipment. Although there are residences adjacent to the northwestern and southwestern project site boundaries, over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would move around the site and therefore a 50 foot distance is a conservative average to estimate noise levels.

Table 4 Estimated Construction Noise
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Leq) 50 feet from Source Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane Derrick 88
Crane Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Rail Saw 90
Roller 74
Saw 76
Scarifier 83
Scraper 89
Shovel 82
Truck 88
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2018, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Table 9.9 Environmental Checklist
Noise
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 57 As shown in Table 4, construction noise could reach as high as an estimated 90 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors during construction. Such levels would exceed ambient noise and would be audible on adjacent properties, including residences adjacent to the boundaries of the project site. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 from the 2035 General Plan EIR 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 General Plan Update SEIR revised Mitigation Measure NOI-4 to include installation of 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). Other measures listed within Mitigation Measure NOI-4 (and included as part of the City’s Standard Condition of Approval, below), such as maintenance of proposed equipment, fitting equipment with mufflers and silencers, limiting unnecessary idling, using smart back-up alarms, and placement of equipment as far from residences as practicable, would also lead to reductions in noise such that the project would not exceed the 80 dBA Leq standard.

Construction noise would be typical of normal construction in urbanized areas, and of the type of use and location considered in the General Plan Update SEIR for development citywide, and would not use techniques or equipment that generate unusually high levels of noise or vibration such as pile driving. Adherence to the revised Mitigation Measure NOI-4 (included as a Standard Condition of Approval), as included in the General Plan Update SEIR, would further reduce construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors and compliance with this uniformly applicable development policy would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project would have no impacts beyond those identified in previous environmental documents.

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
 Construction activities shall be restricted to the daytime hours of between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, or between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday and Saturday.  Prior to the start of construction activities, the construction contractor shall:
 Maintain and tune all proposed equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emission.
 Inspect all proposed equipment and fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds that are no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
 Post a sign, clearly visible at the site, with a contact name and telephone number of the City of San Leandro’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint.  Place stationary construction equipment and material delivery in loading and unloading areas as far as practicable from the residences.
 Limit unnecessary engine idling to the extent feasible.  Use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters.  Use low-noise emission equipment.
 Limit use of public address systems.
 Minimize grade surface irregularities on construction sites City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
58  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.

Operational Impacts
Operation of the project would generate noise typical of residential development and would be consistent with nearby residential and commercial land uses and of the type of use and location considered in the General Plan Update SEIR for development citywide. Mechanical equipment on the project site and noise associated with the common open space (such as conversations) as well as vehicle trips associated with the new residences could increase the ambient noise levels.

However, the project involves residential development on a site designated for residential uses and noise levels would be typical of residential uses with outdoor yards and consistent with surrounding development. Noise associated with project operation would primarily result from new motor vehicle trips to and from the project site. As analyzed in Section 16, Transportation, the proposed project would not generate traffic volumes in excess of that assumed for the project site in the General Plan Update SEIR. Therefore, the project would not have an impact beyond that analyzed previously.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Construction of the project would intermittently generate vibration on and adjacent to the project site. The project would be a typical urban construction project as analyzed in the General Plan Update SEIR. Heavy vibration-generating construction equipment could include bulldozers and loaded trucks. The distance to the nearest sensitive receptors from the project’s construction equipment when accounting for setbacks is estimated at 25 feet.

Table 5 identifies vibration velocity levels at a distance of 25 feet from the source.

Table 5 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment Estimated VdB at 25 feet PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Large bulldozer 87 0.089
Loaded trucks 86 0.076
Jack hammer 79 0.035
Small bulldozer 58 0.003
Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 59 As shown in Table 5, noise-sensitive receptors would experience the strongest vibration of up to 87 VdB or 0.089 in/sec PPV with the use of large bulldozers, which would not exceed the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV for damage to nearby sensitive structures. Furthermore, a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV would not exceed the Caltrans distinctly perceptible vibration threshold of 0.24 in/sec PPV (Caltrans 2020).

In addition, construction activities generating loud noises and vibration would also be limited to 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 pursuant to San Leandro Municipal Code Title 4, Section 4-1-1115(b), which would prevent the exposure of sensitive receivers to vibration during evening and nighttime hours. Moreover, project construction would be typical of urban projects in San Leandro as envisioned in the General Plan Update SEIR analysis. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?  NO IMPACT
The nearest airport, Oakland International Airport, is approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area or noise contours of the Oakland International Airport (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2010). Therefore, the project would not subject construction workers or residents at the site to excessive noise. The proposed project would have no impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
With Standard Conditions of Approval incorporated, the project would not have peculiar or substantial noise impacts, nor would there be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
60 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 61 14 Population and Housing
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial amounts of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR discusses population and housing on pages 4.6-1 through 4.6-8. The General Plan Update SEIR accounts for a population of 113,650 people at full buildout of the San Leandro Planning Area and finds that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project induce substantial 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)?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project would involve the construction of nine residences on an infill site, consistent with the goals of the General Plan regarding efficient urban growth. The project would directly generate population growth. Based on the City of San Leandro’s average household size of 2.85 persons per household (California Department of Finance 2024), the project would add an estimated 26 new residents to the city (9 units x 2.85 persons per unit). The project would increase the population of City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
62 San Leandro from 87,840 to 87,866 people, an increase that falls within the residential buildout analyzed in the General Plan Update SEIR of 113,650. Accordingly, the project would not induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly because the project would be part of planned growth in the region and within the growth projection analyzed in the General Plan Update SEIR.

Population growth related to the project would be less than significant and would not be more than that analyzed in previous environmental documents.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
 NO IMPACT
“Substantial” displacement would occur if the proposed project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth facilitated by the project. The project site is currently vacant and contains no existing residences. Therefore, construction and development of the site would not displace people or residences. The project would have no impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would not involve development in areas not analyzed previously in the General Plan Update SEIR, nor would it result in impacts to population and housing not covered in the General Plan Update SEIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts concerning population and housing, nor would there be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 63 15 Public Services
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
or the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any
of the public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ ■ □ □ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes public services on pages 4.7-1 through 4.7-22 and concludes that impacts regarding public services would be less than significant.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
64 Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan Update SEIR evaluates fire and police protection demand impacts and finds them to be less than significant with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, including required enforcement of fire and building codes, and implementation of defensible space and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles. The project involves infill residential development as envisioned in the General Plan, in an area currently served by police and fire protection services. The proposed project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire or police protection facilities. The project would have a less than significant impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
While new development, including the proposed project, would increase the demand for new school facilities, the General Plan Update SEIR analyzes this issue and finds impacts to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies. San Leandro Unified School District and San Lorenzo Unified School District provide public school services in San Leandro. The project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees that would be used by these districts to mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities.

Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of these fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of 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 government organization or reorganization.” The project would therefore have a less than significant impact, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 65 a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Please refer to Section 16, Recreation.
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The proposed project does not include and would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities. Population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units included in the project would generate additional demand for library and other public services, but this growth would be consistent with and accounted for in the General Plan. Impacts of the project would not be greater than those analyzed previously. The project would have a less than significant impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to public services, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
66 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 67 16 Recreation
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
a. Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated? □ ■ □ □ □
b. Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment? □ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes recreation on pages 4.7-19 and 4.7-20 in the Public Services and Recreation section, and identifies a less than significant impact to recreation.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project includes residential development that would increase population within San Leandro.

The additional population would increase the use of existing parks and other recreational facilities.

There are two existing parks in the project vicinity: Toyon Park, located approximately 0.6 mile southeast; and Halcyon Park, located approximately 0.7 mile southwest. Additionally, the project includes on-site private open space and a shared outdoor open space area. Moreover, as described above under Section 14, Population and Housing, the estimated number of new residents would be City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
68 consistent with General Plan estimates. Pursuant to Section 7-13-100 of the San Leandro Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to pay a development-related park impact fee that would be used to cover the cost of new facilities and maintenance of existing facilities. This in lieu fee would ensure adequate parks and recreational facilities would be maintained with the proposed increase in population. Therefore, the increased use resulting from the project would not lead to a substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. The project would have a less than significant impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project would include the provision of a shared outdoor open space area for use by future residents only. The impacts associated with provision of this recreational space for on-site residents are analyzed throughout this report as part of overall project construction and operation. As determined in this document, the provision of these amenities would not result in an adverse effect on the environment. The project would have a less than significant impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to recreation, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 69 17 Transportation
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ ■ □ □ □
c. Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)? □ ■ □ □ □
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR evaluates transportation impacts on pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-20 and identifies a less than significant impact to transportation.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
As stated in the General Plan Update SEIR, new development would increase bicycle and pedestrian trips on existing streets, trails, paths, and sidewalks, including during peak commute hours. General City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
70 Plan policies and programs encourage and support alternative modes and the development of facilities to accommodate alternative modes of transportation. The project would involve infill development and would not directly impact transit or bicycle facilities. As the project would include sidewalk repairs along East 14th Street and replacement of the existing driveway on 135th Avenue with a sidewalk, curb, and gutter, the project would improve existing pedestrian facilities. The project site is located within 0.5 mile of AC Transit bus routes 1 and 801 on East 14th Street (City of San Leandro 2016b). A Class III bicycle route is present on East 14th Street, adjacent to the project site (City of San Leandro 2018b). As the project would not result in site-specific issues with the performance and safety of transit, bicycle, or pedestrian infrastructure, the project would not introduce new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with public transit and active transportation modes or their safety than were analyzed previously. The project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Under SB 743, it is assumed that some types of development can be exempt from a transportation impact analysis due to their inherent less than significant impact on VMT. A less than significant impact on VMT may result from a project’s location, size, or the land use of the development. A project only needs to meet one of four screening criteria to “screen out” of the requirement to complete a transportation impact analysis.

The project’s VMT was compared against the established threshold of 15 percent below the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Central Planning Area average VMT. The project’s VMT was calculated via CalEEMod (Appendix A) and determined to be approximately 12.4 VMT per capita. The Alameda CTC Central Planning Area average, as identified in the General Plan Update SEIR, is 17.51 VMT per capita. Therefore, the project’s VMT per capita of 12.4 would be lower than the threshold of 14.88 The project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT. The project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The only new roadway planned for the project would be a private driveway within the project site boundaries in order to provide internal circulation for the site. The private driveway would not create new hazards due to a design feature, as the driveway would be linear, would provide access to each proposed garage as well as ingress/egress for the project site, and would be generally level with existing topography. The project would not involve uses that generate use of incompatible vehicles such as farm equipment. The City’s Traffic Engineer would review project driveways and internal circulation to ensure design for safe operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and the project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
As stated in the General Plan Update SEIR, ongoing implementation of General Plan policies and the City’s engineering standards would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in San Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 71 Leandro (City of San Leandro 2023). The proposed private driveway would accommodate fire access and waste trucks and would not obstruct emergency access. The project would not impair implementation of an emergency plan or physically interfere with an emergency access, nor would it result in the blockage of access routes or evacuation routes adopted within an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impacts beyond those previously analyzed and identified in the prior environmental document. The project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to transportation, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
72 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 73 18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or □ □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Cod Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe. □ □ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR evaluates impacts on tribal cultural resources on pages 4.10-10 and

4.10-11 and identifies a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
74 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES As described in the General Plan Update SEIR, development facilitated by the General Plan Update would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations that protect tribal cultural resources (City of San Leandro 2023).

The project site is not known to contain tribal cultural resources. Nonetheless, the discovery of tribal cultural resources is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. In the event that tribal cultural resources are uncovered during development facilitated by the project, existing State and local regulations and procedures would guide the protection of discovered resources. State regulations include Public Resources Code 5097, which details required mitigation if unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place, and Assembly Bill 52, which establishes procedures for notifying and consulting with California Native American tribes who are affiliated with the area of a proposed project. The proposed project would also be required to comply with Chapter 4-26 of San Leandro Municipal Code, which regulates the recording, designation, and alteration of archaeological resources in the city. The 2035 General Plan Historic Preservation and Community Design Element includes policies and actions regarding the discovery of tribal cultural resources. Policy CD-1.12 requires the City to ensure that future development identifies and preserves tribal cultural resources and is implemented through Action CD-1.12.A. The project would constitute new development subject to Action CD-1.12.A. Therefore, in the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction on the project site, the City would require consultation with a professional archaeologist and Native American Organizations to determine the significance of the resource prior to the continuation of construction activities. Through adherence to this applicable development policy, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be minimized.

The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to tribal cultural resources, nor are there potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 75 19 Utilities and Service Systems
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments? □ □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals? □ □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste? □ □ □ ■ □
City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
76 Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes impacts on utilities and service systems on pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-24. This discussion addresses the issues of water supply and delivery, wastewater collection and treatment, and solid waste disposal, recycling, and composting. The General Plan Update SEIR identifies impacts to all utilities and service systems as less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Water
Water service to the City of San Leandro is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), a public utility. The EBMUD identifies a total 2035 water demand forecast of 264 million gallons per day (mgd) that can be reduced to 194 mgd with the successful implementation of water recycling and conservation programs (EBMUD 2020). The General Plan Update SEIR finds that development under the General Plan Update would require 1.5 mgd, or 0.8 percent of the 194 mgd projected water demand for the EBMUD service area. Therefore, the population increase associated with the General Plan Update would comprise less than 0.8 percent of the total projected water demand for the EBMUD service area and sufficient water supply would be available under normal year conditions, single-dry year, and second-dry year conditions (City of San Leandro 2023).

The 2035 General Plan contains policies and programs to ensure water demand projections and development facilitated under the 2035 General Plan would be accommodated. Additional population facilitated by new residential units constructed under the project are included in and consistent with the population growth forecasts of the General Plan Update. Therefore, water demand resulting from implementation of the proposed project was evaluated in the prior environmental review documents and it is not anticipated that EBMUD would need new or expanded entitlements or facilities to serve the project. With implementation of 2035 General Plan policies, sufficient water supplies would be available for the project demand, and the project would Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 77 not result in impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Wastewater
Wastewater services for the project would be provided by Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD). The OLSD and Castro Valley Sanitary District jointly own the OLSD’s treatment plant, which has a permitted capacity of 20 mgd and treats an average dry weather flow of 12.4 mgd. OLSD treats wastewater using primary and secondary treatment, where trash and settleable solids are first removed through bar screens, grit chambers and settling tanks, then bacteria converts dissolved organic matter into suspended matter that can be settled out as sludge. The remaining wastewater is disinfected, discharged, then dewatered and hauled away (OLSD 2024). OLSD owns, operates, and maintains a collection system with 273 miles of sewer pipes and 13 sewage lift stations. The OLSD has had an active sewer system management program since 1988 and has experienced very few overflows and line stoppages.

The proposed project would increase population density incrementally in the City of San Leandro.

However, population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units would be consistent with General Plan Update population growth forecasts. The project would not generate growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update SEIR found that there would be adequate capacity at the OLSD treatment plant to serve development under the General Plan Update (City of San Leandro 2023). Therefore, there is adequate capacity at the OLSD treatment plant to service the project and no expansion of the OLSD treatment plant would be required.

The General Plan Update SEIR states that General Plan Update buildout is not anticipated to require significant upgrades to water supply infrastructure. Additionally, the General Plan Update SEIR states that implementation of the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities whose construction would cause significant environmental effects. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan Update SEIR would occur because of the project. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Stormwater
As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would involve development and grading activities and the addition of impervious surface areas to the project site. However, project walkways and the proposed driveway would be constructed with permeable pavers, and roof runoff would be directed towards landscaping areas, where feasible, rather than the existing storm drain system. The General Plan Update SEIR concludes that new development would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities of expansion of existing facilities whose construction would cause significant environmental effects. As the project involves development of a site with residential uses consistent with the development envisioned for the site under the General Plan Update, and the project would include stormwater control measures through site design, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Gas/Electricity/Telecommunications
San Leandro is served by EBCE, which supplies electricity to all accounts (residential, business, and municipal) and is delivered through PG&E. As discussed in Section 6, Energy, and Section 14, City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
78 Population and Housing, population growth facilitated by the proposed project would be within General Plan Update population growth forecasts and the project is consistent with type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan Update SEIR. According to the General Plan Update SEIR, PG&E has sufficient energy supply to meet the needs of projected growth (City of San Leandro 2023). Therefore, the project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
San Leandro’s solid waste goes to the Altamont Landfill Resource Recovery Facility. According to the General Plan Update SEIR, the solid waste capacity of this landfill is sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth (City of San Leandro 2023). The General Plan Update also finds that impacts would be less than significant, as projected population growth under the General Plan Update is not anticipated to generate significant additional solid waste demand. Furthermore, continued compliance with applicable regulations and the 2035 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, including the City’s General Plan policies OSC-7.1, OSC-7.5, OSC-7.6, OSC-7.8, the City’s Green Building Checklist, and the City’s Green Building Ordinance, San Leandro Municipal Code Chapter 3- 19, would ensure the project complies with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would lead to increased recycling and waste diversion. The project would have no impacts beyond those analyzed previously. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to utilities and service systems, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 79 20 Wildfire
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks and thereby
expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire? □ □ ■ □ □
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ ■ □ □
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Document
The General Plan Update SEIR analyzes impacts related to wildfire on pages 4.10-11 and 4.10-12.

The General Plan Update SEIR identifies impacts related to wildfire as less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan Update SEIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
80 now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is not within or near State Responsibility Areas (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ). Figure 7-3 of the 2035 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element indicates the project site is in an area of low fire hazard risk (City of San Leandro 2016a).

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps, the nearest SRA to the project site is 1.2 miles to the east, and the nearest VHFHSZ is 1.8 miles to the east (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2024). The project site is generally flat and surrounded by numerous firebreaks such as roads and urban development.

Therefore, the risk of wildfire on the project site would be low. No impact would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts with regard to wildfire risks, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 81 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, eliminate a
plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)? □ □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? □ □ □ □ ■
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update SEIR and as discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
82 species; cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, including archaeological or paleontological resources. As such, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project beyond those identified in the General Plan Update SEIR. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Required conformance with 2035 General Plan policies and standard conditions of approval specified in this document would ensure that potential impacts are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending and planned development projects. As part of the General Plan Update SEIR, cumulative impacts associated with buildout of infill projects were analyzed. The project involves residential development on a site designated for residential development under the General Plan Update and other existing and allowable land uses near the project are not significantly different than those studied in the cumulative analysis of the General Plan Update SEIR. The General Plan is a document that establishes a land use scenario and goals, policies, and objectives for development and growth throughout the city, through the year 2035. Thus, the impact analyses in the General Plan Update SEIR effectively constitute cumulative analyses of the approved land uses in the planning boundaries. The project would not result in significant impacts peculiar to the project site, as indicated in Sections 1 through 20 of this environmental document. Nearby development would be required to be consistent with the local planning documents or mitigation would be required to assess the impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan Update SEIR. Therefore, the project’s consistency with the General Plan Update and subsequent analysis in Sections 1 through 20 indicate that the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan Update SEIR.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, noise, traffic safety, and wildfire. As detailed in the preceding sections, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse impacts related to these issue areas. The project’s effects on regional air quality and transportation/traffic would be less than significant or were analyzed under prior environmental review. As discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, the project would not result in a significant impact involving geologic hazards. As discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on-site construction and operations would not expose residents or customers to known hazardous materials. The generation of noise and vibration from construction activity, as discussed in Section 13, Noise, would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with adherence to the City’s Standard Condition of Approval for construction noise. As discussed in Section 20, Wildfire, the project would not result in a significant Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 83 impact involving exposure of people to wildfires. Therefore, the project would not have substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.

Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with the development density established by the site’s General Plan land use designation and General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified.

Accordingly, based on the assessments presented in the environmental checklist, the project does not require additional environmental review as the impacts:

1. Are not peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,

2. Were analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, and specific plan, with which the project is consistent where applicable,

3. Are not potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan and specific plan,

4. Are not previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

The majority of impacts would be less than significant or were analyzed previously in the General Plan Update SEIR. Additional impacts would be reduced or mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. Accordingly, implementation of the project complies with Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is required.

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
84 This page intentionally left blank.

References
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 85 References
Bibliography
AEI Consultants. 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared May 9, 2018.

Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2010. Oakland International Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted December 2010.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/OAK_ALUCP_122010_FULL. pdf (accessed May 2024).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2023. 2022 CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-actceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines (accessed May 2024).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed May 2024).

California Department of Conservation. 2022. Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed May 2024). ______. 2024. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/ (accessed May 2024).

California Department of Finance. 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed May 2024).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Biogeographic Information Observation System. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/ (accessed May 2024).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones (accessed May 2024).

California Geologic Survey. 2024. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Hazard Area Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/ (accessed May 2024).

East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2020. Water Shortage Contingency Plan. https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/urban-watermanagement-plan (accessed May 2024).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette No. 06001C0259G. Effective August 3, 2009.
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/agolprintb_gpserver/j4b 8f516133294b2eabc96b2c16fd7a61/scratch/FIRMETTE_2fec206f-dda7-4a2f-88b1- fa5e312f29e7.pdf (accessed May 2024).

City of San Leandro
Hillcrest Village Residential Project
86 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed May 2024).

Oro Loma Sanitary District. 2024. “Oro Loma Sanitary District Flow”. https://oroloma.org/sewagetreatment/ (accessed May 2024).

San Leandro, City of. 2016a. 2035 General Plan. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed May 2024).
______. 2016b. 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. https://www.sanleandro.org/332/General-Plan (accessed May 2024). ______. 2018a. City of San Leandro Housing Opportunity Sites. July 2018. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/4759/Housing-Opportunity-Sites-July2018- PDF#:~:text=San%20Leandro%20has%20two%20PDAs,length%20of%20East%2014th%20Str eet. (accessed May 2024).
______. 2018b. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/810/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-MasterPlan-PDF?bidId= (accessed May 2024). ______. 2021. San Leandro 2021 Climate Action Plan. July 2021. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/6490/San-Leandro-CAPADOPTED2021-08-06. (accessed May 2024). ______. 2023. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/7616/San-Leandro-Housing-ElementUpdate-Draft-SEIR-Sep-13-2022 (accessed May 2024).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024a. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989 3cf75b8dbfb77 (accessed May 2024).
______. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory.
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed May 2024).

United States Geological Survey. 2024. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ (accessed May 2024).

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Environmental Consistency Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 under contract to the City of San Leandro. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal
Nicholas Carter, Project Manager
Michael Stewart, Air Quality Specialist
References
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 87 Bryan Valladares, GIS Specialist
Yaritza Ramirez, Publishing Specialist
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations

Appendix B
2022 Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix C
2018 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

San Leandro City CouncilNovember 18, 2024

San Leandro City Council
November 18, 2024