Reso 2010-035 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

h) See response "g" above. Adoption of the Housing Element by itself would not directly cause structures to be placed in locations that would impede or redirect flood flows. Issues relating to flooding were comprehensively addressed in the General Plan EIR and the TOD Strategy EIR. General Plan policies address mitigation of flood hazards and reduce the potential for future impacts. i) Many of the housing sites would be impacted in the event of dam failure at Lake Chabot. However, these sites already have General Plan designations that permit housing and adoption of the updated Housing Element by itself would not place a greater number of people in harm's way. Moreover, the impacts of dam failure were analyzed in the San Leandro General Plan EIR and the TOD Strategy EIR and were determined to be less than significant. Consistent with state law, policies in the General Plan address a complete range of flooding and seismic hazards, including dam failure. j) Tsunami hazards in San Leandro are minimal due to the City's distance from the ocean. There are seiche hazards associated with Lake Chabot and mudflow hazards in the San Leandro Hills, which have very limited housing capacity. The General Plan EIR included policies to mitigate these hazards to less than significant levels. The Housing Element does not propose any increases in density in areas where tsunami, seiche, or mudflow hazards are present. Therefore, there would no direct impact on hazard levels associated with adoption of the element. k) Adoption of the Housing Element would not expose additional people or property to tidal waves. POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN O ISSUES SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPA CT SOliRCES ISSUES MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X 1, 2, 9 a licable air uali lan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute X 1, 2 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of X 1,2 any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone recursors ? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X 1, 2 concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X 1, 2 number of eo le? EXPLANATION: a) Adoption of the Housing Element would not conflict with Air Quality Plans for the San Francisco Bay Area. The level of development accommodated by the Element is consistent with the 2009 projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments, which in turn guide the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's air quality planning programs. The BAAQMD guidelines state that sources of air pollution that comply with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally are not considered to have significant air quality impacts. In general, the Housing Element strongly supports and reinforces air quality plans by promoting more compact, transit oriented development, and by accommodating housing close to the region's major job centers. b) The 2002 General Plan EIR identified a significant, unavoidable impact associated with continued development in an air basin that does not meet state and federal ozone standards. When that EIR was certified, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for project-related air quality emissions. The EIR identified a set of mitigation measures, includin olicies to reduce drivin , re ulate construction in a wa that minimizes air pollution sources, romote ublic Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration 13 February 2010