Laserfiche WebLink
SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR <br />CITY OF SAN LEANDRO <br />COMMENTS AND RESPONSES <br />PLACEWORKS 5-19 <br />TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX <br />Comment # Date Comment Response <br />business and rentals. There are still a few blocks of family residences but they are hard to <br />find. In my entire life in the Bay Area I have never met anybody who said they were from <br />Emeryville. The entire Emeryville school district is a single building housing K through 12 <br />with about 700 students. Is that the future you envision for San Leandro? San Leandro <br />may look shabby in a lot of places but people are still from here and proud of it. Planning <br />really needs to honor the home town that San Leandro is to so many, whether 3rd <br />generation residents, homeowners or long time tenants. Development does not have to <br />be synonymous with displacement and destruction. It should not ignore the input of <br />people who call it home. <br />C. Comments Received after the Close of Public Review Period <br />C01 7/21/2016 Elizabeth Felter, Coastal Program Analyst, San Francisco Bay Conservation & <br />Development Commission <br />C01-01 <br /> <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report <br />(DEIR) for the San Leandro General Plan Update (General Plan), received June 2016. The <br />following staff comments are based on the McAteer-Petris Act, the provisions of the San <br />Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan), and staff review of the DEIR. In particular, these comments <br />are related to BCDC jurisdiction within the project area, climate change and sea level <br />rise, safety of fills, shoreline protection, recreation, and public access. <br />This comment is an introductory remark and does not state a specific concern or <br />question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, nor <br />does the comment raise a new environmental issue. No further response is <br />required. <br />C01-02 Jurisdiction. The Commission has jurisdiction over all areas of the San Francisco Bay <br />subject to tidal action, which is defined as shoreline that extends up to mean high water, <br />except in marsh areas, where the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction extends to five feet <br />above mean sea level. The Commission also has jurisdiction over managed wetlands, salt <br />ponds, and the tidal portions of certain waterways, as identified in the McAteer-Petris <br />Act, as well as “shoreline band” jurisdiction extending 100 feet landward of and parallel <br />to the shoreline. In regards to the San Leandro General Plan Update, the Commission has <br />jurisdiction over the Bay waters, including from the Bay edge to the portion of San <br />Lorenzo Creek subject to tidal action and the tide control structure on Alameda County <br />Flood Control District Line A Zone 2 (Estudillo Canal), as well as over the 100-foot <br />shoreline band. For BCDC’s Bay jurisdiction, an essential part of the regulatory <br />framework is the Commission’s Bay Plan. Projects approved by BCDC must be consistent <br />with the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. The Bay Plan includes priority land use <br />designations for certain areas around the Bay to ensure that sufficient areas are reserved <br />for important water-oriented uses such as ports, water-related industry, parks, and <br />wildlife areas. In the vicinity of the City of San Leandro, the Commission has designated <br />Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline and the South San Leandro shoreline as areas that should <br />be reserved for waterfront park/beach priority land uses. The Commission has authority <br />to issue or deny permit applications for placing fill, extracting material, or changing use <br />of any land, water or structure within the Commission’s jurisdiction in conformity with <br />the provisions and policies of the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. <br /> <br />Comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the DEIR for the San Leandro General <br />The comment provides background information on BCDC jurisdiction and its <br />adopted Bay Plan, including the Plan’s relation to city bayfront areas, and references <br />related portions of the EIR. The comment does not state a specific concern or <br />question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, nor <br />does the comment raise a new environmental issue. No further response is <br />required.