5A Public Hearings 2021 0706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

File Number: 21-398 Staff concurs with the analysis and the findings. Hazardous Materials Impacts Site investigation and the Project’s initial study did not establish that there would be a significant impact from hazardous materials. The Applicant is proactively engaged in the investigation and remediation of the Project site. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) to provide oversight during site investigation and remediation activities (ACDEH Site Cleanup Program Case No. RO0003472). The applicant prepared a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the Project site that was publicly noticed by ACDEH and posted online for public review on the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker website (“Cortese-listed”), as referenced by the current status “Open - Site Assessment.” The site investigation and subsequent clean-up measures are in accord with established uniformly applicable development standards and are in compliance with existing policy as part of the necessary steps to clean up residual hazardous materials on a site proposed for redevelopment. An EIR is not required for every project proposed on a Cortese-listed site. These steps would be required and taken prior to redevelopment of the site regardless of a discretionary approval. With these efforts and other measures in place, the potential for impacts from hazardous waste and hazardous materials will be less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Impacts The Appellant claims that excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Project would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of San Leandro residents and the general welfare of the City based on the premise that the Project would generate GHGs in excess of the levels previously analyzed. The Applicant counters this claim in its letter and attached report dated June 21, 2021, pointing out why and how the statements and methodology presented in the Appeal were incorrect, explaining the reasons behind its position and supporting the position with further data in the appendices. There is substantial evidence in the record that GHG emissions from the Project were adequately analyzed and considered and that there is no new information which meets the substantial evidence test to require additional analysis through an EIR. It should be noted that, in its approval of the Project, the Board of Zoning Adjustments further reduced the Project’s GHG impacts by imposing conditions of approval requiring the use of solar panels and electric heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Noise Impacts The Appellant claims that the Project will result in noise impacts that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the City and assumes the City’s uniformly applicable development standards to address noise impacts are inadequate. The General Plan provides clear thresholds of significance when it comes to evaluating noise impacts from projects and thoroughly addresses the topic in the Environmental Hazards element. Both the Zoning Code and Municipal Code contain specific provisions for addressing noise issues. These include Zoning Code Sections 2.12.324, 2.12.328, and 4.04.360 which contain provisions for noise attenuation during periods of construction, and Article 11 of the Municipal Code, which consists of the City’s Noise Ordinance. The California Building Code further contains noise threshold requirements for indoor ambient Page 4 City of San Leandro Printed on 7/1/2021 54