3B Public Hearing 2011 0321 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO ISSUES SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT SOURCES IMPACT ISSUES MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X 1,2,3,6 injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 1.2 k Exposure of people property to water related hazards X 1,2 such as tidal waves? EXPLANATION: a) The water quality impacts of development associated with the TOD Strategy were previously evaluated in the EIR for that project, which was certified in September 2007. Water quality impacts were further evaluated by the 2002 General Plan EIR and the 2010 Initial Study for the Housing Element. These impacts were found to be less than significant, given the mitigation measures that were proposed. b) The consistency amendments would not impact groundwater recharge areas or have an impact on the water table. All of its proposals are consistent with the 2002 General Plan and 2007 TOD Strategy measures relating to resource conservation. The impacts of these two plans on groundwater were analyzed in previous EIRs and mitigation measures have already been prescribed in the form of policies and action programs. c) The impacts of urban development on drainage patterns, stream courses. impervious surface coverage, and erosion were previously evaluated in the 2007 TOD Strategy EIR, the 2002 General Plan EIR, and the Initial Study for the 2010 Housing Element. There would be no further impacts associated with amending the General Plan to establish internal consistency with these previously adopted documents. • d) There would be no alteration of drainage patterns and no increased risk of flooding as a result of the General Plan consistency amendments. Drainage and flooding impacts were previously analyzed in the EIRs for the General Plan and TOD Strategy and the amendments do not propose development beyond the levels analyzed by those documents. e) The consistency amendments will not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems. Future development may have impacts on runoff, but these impacts were previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the TOD Strategy EIR. f) No increase in development above and beyond what was anticipated by the TOD Strategy would occur as a result of the proposed Amendments. Consistent with the San Leandro General Plan, the Alameda County Clean Water Program, and the City's engineering design standards, all future development will be required to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to reduce water quality impacts. g) The project would not amend or alter any of the General Plan policies relating to flood hazards, flood protection, or development in the flood plain, and would not increase the likelihood of development in flood -prone areas. Flood hazards along San Leandro Creek were previously evaluated in the TOD Strategy EIR and in the General Plan EIR. h) The General Plan consistency amendments would not result in the placement of any structure in a creek, waterway, or flood plain and would not impede or redirect flood flows. i) The TOD Strategy and General Plan EIR previously evaluated the impacts of dam failure at Lake Chabot and determined that these impacts were less than significant. There would no change to hazard levels as a result of the consistency amendments. TOD and Housing Element General Plan Consistency Amendments January 2011 • Page 12