Laserfiche WebLink
May 19, 2021 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />5005-004acp <br /> <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />Development Standards laid out in the 2006 General Plan EIR.4 Additionally, at <br />the May 6, 2021 hearing, Board members raised issues related to the Project’s <br />compliance with current Zoning Code requirements for inclusionary housing. These <br />issues were not fully resolved by the Board prior to its approval of the Project. <br /> <br />The City’s CEQA Infill Checklist purports to evaluate the Project’s potential <br />environmental impacts and consistency with these prior EIRs, and erroneously <br />asserts that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to the <br />Qualified In-fill Exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21094.5 and <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3. However, as explained in our Comments and <br />more fully below, the CEQA Infill Checklist fails to disclose, analyze, and mitigate <br />the Project’s specific significant impacts, and new information shows that the effects <br />will be more significant than described in the prior EIRs.5 <br /> <br />The CEQA Infill Checklist failed to adequately disclose and mitigate the <br />impacts of the Project, in violation of CEQA. The Board failed to resolve these <br />deficiencies, and failed to remand the Project to Staff to prepare an Infill EIR, prior <br />to approving the Project. The Board of Zoning Adjustments lacked substantial <br />evidence to support its decision to approve the Project. As explained herein, the <br />City Council should vacate the Board’s approvals and remand the Project to Staff to <br />prepare a legally adequate EIR before the Project can be presented to City <br />decisionmakers for approval.6 <br /> <br />This Appeal letter and its attachments raise the issues that are contested on <br />appeal, and address issues and evidence that was previously presented to the Board <br />of Zoning Adjustments prior to its approval of the Project. We previously filed <br />comments on the Project on May 6, 2021 with the assistance of technical experts <br />Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. of Soil Water Air Protection <br />Enterprises (“SWAPE”), Daniel T. Smith, Jr., P.E., principal at Smith Engineering <br />& Management and Deborah Jue, acoustics, noise and vibration expert of Wilson <br />Ihrig.7 Our members submitted oral comments at the May 6, 2021 Board meeting <br />regarding the hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater on the Project site, <br /> <br />4 Environmental Impact Report San Leandro General Plan Update, SCH# 2001092001, November, <br />2001, p. III.K-8. <br />5 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15183.3. <br />6 PRC § 21094.5(a); 14 CCR § 15164(e); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los <br />Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515. <br />7 East Bay Residents’ May 6, 2021 written comments to the Board of Zoning Adjustments are <br />attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporate by reference. <br />62