4B1 Public Hearing 2016 0919 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR CITY OF SAN LEANDRO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-16 AUGUST 2016 TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX Comment # Date Comment Response liquefaction, and that "Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading" "would result in a significant impact" to people or structures with "potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death"; statements in the Draft EIR itself makes these bolded 'assessments egregious. I may only have a BS in Geology but I can tell you that non-geologists can make the potentially disastrous connections as well. I spoke briefly with a structural engineer who was immediately alarmed. stringent requirements of the California Building Code. Through requirements for soils reports with soils information and corrective action, the City has in place an extensive regulatory structure for managing potential liquefaction and other soils hazards. This potential risk is adequately addressed in the Draft EIR and no further analysis is required. Impact GEO-2 on page 4.5-9 of the Draft EIR acknowledges that erosion could be a concern during construction-related excavation and grading for development allowed by the proposed General Plan. Again, the EIR's analysis concludes that compliance with existing erosion control regulations in the City's Municipal Code together with proposed General Plan Policy EH-1.3 would ensure that impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less-than-significant. B04-03 I did a little checking and found pertinent facts that are ignored in this EIR and should be well-known and understood by the experts the City hired. Were they not included in the Draft EIR made available during the period of public comment on purpose?The next three paragraphs reference Special Publication 117 the State Mining and Geology Board GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING AND MITIGATING SEISMIC HAZARDS IN CALIFORNIA adopted March 13, 1997:The very definition of a project from Table 1: Definition of a Project on page 10 makes it clear to me that building even 21 units per acre on the golf course is a project that does not meet the exceptions noted for allowed "eventual construction of structures for human occupancy." Chapter 2: Relationship of these Guidelines to the CEQA Process and Other Site Investigation Requirements (pg 11) states "other mitigation measures ( e.g., draining of subsurface water, driving of piles, densification, extensive grading, or removal of liquefiable material) may have significant impacts." Chapter 6 Analysis and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards starting on page 40 should be required reading and is full of too many pertinent statements to quote here. Please note that the document referred to by the commenter has been revised and is now superceded by Special Publication 117A, which was adopted September 11, 2008 by the State Mining and Geology Board. The golf course development mentioned in the comment is part of the Shoreline Development Project, which was the subject of a project-level EIR that the City certified in July 2015 (SCH #2013072011). Although the proposed San Leandro 2035 General Plan reflects and incorporates the Shoreline Development Project land use change, the changes themselves are not proposed as part of and represent a separate project-level EIR. As described on page 4.5-10 of the Draft EIR, engineering techniques would effectively address construction on unstable geologic units or soils. Compliance with the California Building Code and preparation of detailed soils and/or geotechnical studies in areas of suspected geological hazards (such as liquefaction) would help to mitigate hazards. In addition to the building code safeguards, the proposed General Plan includes Action EH-1.1A, which requires the preparation and submittal of soils and/or geologic reports for development in areas where potentially serious geologic risks are known to be present. B04-04 2014 fault mapping studies on the Hayward fault make it clear enough for me that seismic shaking should be expected. In the past 2000 years there have been: 12 earthquakes at 161 year intervals+/- 65 years, 9 of which actually had 151 year intervals+/- 64 years and the LAST 5 had intervals of 138 years+/- 59 years. The last earthquake in 1868 took down the brick courthouse in downtown San Leandro which only has moderate liquefaction susceptibility. Recent seismology papers use 167 years as the expected earthquake interval on the Hayward fault; 2035 is 167 years from 1868. The City agrees that seismic shaking should be expected. In fact, the Draft General Plan states that earthquakes are the most pervasive safety hazard in San Leandro (Draft General Plan page 7-2). Figure 7-1 of the Draft General Plan shows faults affecting the city, including the Hayward Fault referenced in the comment. Figure 7- 2 maps the Hayward Fault and related liquefaction hazard, rated as “very high” in the shoreline areas and moderate for most of the rest of the city, The Draft General Plan text from pages 7-2 to 7-6 is equally frank about seismic risk in the city. At the State level, the California Building Code, which is implemented through local building permits, contains specific provisions designed “to reduce the potential for quake damage” (Draft General Plan page 7-4). Similarly, Special Studies Zones along earthquake faults require setbacks from the fault and special engineerring to address quake damage. The City’s local response to earthquake risks is reflected in the grading permit rquirements in Municipal Code Chapter 7.12. These