DOCSLIB.ORG

San Leandro General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Leandro General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report Draft Environmental Impact Report San Leandro General Plan Update Prepared by: City of San Leandro Barry Miller, AICP Planning Consultant SCH# 2001092001 November, 2001 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ...................................................................... S-1 I. INTRODUCTION Background .......................................................................................................................I-1 General Plans and CEQA..................................................................................................I-2 Program EIR Scope and Format .......................................................................................I-2 Organization of the EIR ....................................................................................................I-3 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Definition of the Project ................................................................................................. II-1 Location and Setting ....................................................................................................... II-1 Project Context ............................................................................................................... II-3 Summary of Project ........................................................................................................ II-8 Major Departures from the 1989 General Plan ............................................................. II-20 Required Legislative Approvals ................................................................................... II-33 Intended Uses of the EIR .............................................................................................. II-33 III. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION A. LAND USE Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.A-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. III.A-7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. III.A-8 B. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.B-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. III.B-5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. III.B-5 C. TRANSPORTATION Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.C-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................... III.C- Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ III.C- D. VISUAL RESOURCES Setting ....................................................................................................................... IIII.D-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. III.D-9 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. III.D-9 E. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.E-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. III.E-8 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. III.E-9 iii DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS F. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Setting ......................................................................................................................... III.F-1 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................... III.F-4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... III.F-8 G. INFRASTRUCTURE Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.G-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. III.G-9 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. III.G-9 H. COMMUNITY SERVICES Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.H-1 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................ III.H-16 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ III.H-18 I. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY Setting .......................................................................................................................... III.I-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................... III.I-9 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. III.I-10 J. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Setting ......................................................................................................................... III.J-1 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................. III.J-11 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. III.J-12 K. AIR QUALITY Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.K-1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. III.K-7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. III.K-8 L. NOISE Setting ........................................................................................................................ III.L-1 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................ III.L-12 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ III.L-12 M. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Setting ....................................................................................................................... III.M-1 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................... III.M-11 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... III.M-12 IV. CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND PROGRAMS Federal Plans and Programs ........................................................................................... IV-1 State Plans and Programs ............................................................................................... IV-2 Regional Plans and Programs ........................................................................................ IV-4 County and Adjoining City Plans and Programs ........................................................... IV-8 Local Plans and Programs ............................................................................................ IV-12 V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Introduction ..................................................................................................................... V-1 Approach ......................................................................................................................... V-1 Alternatives for EIR Consideration ................................................................................ V-4 iv DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS VI. CEQA-REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented .................................................................................................................. VI-1 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ..................................................................... VI-1 Significant Irreversible Changes that Would Be Involved if the Proposed Action is Implemented .................................................................................................................. VI-2 Growth Inducing Impacts .............................................................................................. VI-3 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... VI-4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant .............................................................................. VI-8 APPENDICES A Report Preparers and List of Persons Contacted B Initial Study Checklist C Land Use Inputs D Traffic Analysis Data E Hazardous Materials Data F 2000 and 2015
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AC Transit Director Elsa Ortiz Planning Committee
    Meeting Notice Commission Chair Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan, City of Oakland Commission Vice Chair Paratransit Advisory and Mayor Bill Harrison, City of Fremont AC Transit Director Elsa Ortiz Planning Committee Alameda County Monday, September 26, 2016, 1:30 p.m. Supervisor Scott Haggerty, District 1 Supervisor Richard Valle, District 2 Supervisor Wilma Chan, District 3 1111 Broadway, Suite 800 Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4 Supervisor Keith Carson, District 5 Oakland, CA 94607 BART Director Rebecca Saltzman City of Alameda Note that the Monday, September 26, 2016 PAPCO Mayor Trish Spencer City of Albany meeting is from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. The meeting will now Mayor Peter Maass start 30 minutes later than usual. Please plan your City of Berkeley Councilmember Laurie Capitelli transportation accordingly. City of Dublin Mayor David Haubert City of Emeryville Mission Statement Councilmember Ruth Atkin The mission of the Alameda County Transportation Commission City of Hayward Mayor Barbara Halliday (Alameda CTC) is to plan, fund and deliver transportation programs and City of Livermore projects that expand access and improve mobility to foster a vibrant Mayor John Marchand and livable Alameda County. City of Newark Councilmember Luis Freitas City of Oakland Public Comments Councilmember Dan Kalb City of Piedmont Public comments are limited to 3 minutes. Items not on the agenda are Acting Mayor Jeff Wieler covered during the Public Comment section of the meeting, and items City of Pleasanton specific to an agenda item are covered during that agenda item Mayor Jerry Thorne discussion. If you wish to make a comment, fill out a speaker card, hand City of San Leandro Mayor Pauline Cutter it to the clerk of the Commission, and wait until the chair calls your City of Union City name.
    [Show full text]
  • ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7
    Services Transit Outreach Materials Distribution Light Rail Station Maintenance and Inspection Photography—Capture Metadata and GPS Marketing Follow-Up Programs Service Locations Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/Saint Paul San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area Our Customer Service Pledge Our pledge is to organize and act with precision to provide you with excellent customer service. We will do all this with all the joy that comes with the morning sun! “I slept and dreamed that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. “Tagore Email: [email protected] Website: URBANMARKETINGCHANNELS.COM Urban Marketing Channel’s services to businesses and organizations in Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland and the Twin Cities metro areas since 1981 have allowed us to develop a specialty client base providing marketing outreach with a focus on transit systems. Some examples of our services include: • Neighborhood demographic analysis • Tailored response and mailing lists • Community event monitoring • Transit site management of information display cases and kiosks • Transit center rider alerts • Community notification of construction and route changes • On-Site Surveys • Enhance photo and list data with geocoding • Photographic services Visit our website (www.urbanmarketingchannels.com) Contact us at [email protected] 612-239-5391 Bay Area Transit Sites (includes BART and AC Transit.) Prepared by Urban Marketing Channels ACT BART S ites by Region.csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7 UnSANtit
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 03-485
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Proceedings of the Hayward Fault Workshop, Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, California, September 19-20, 2003 Edited By David A. Ponce1, Roland Bürgmann2, Russell W. Graymer1, James J. Lienkaemper1, Diane E. Moore1, and David P. Schwartz1 Open-File Report 03-485 Rodgers Cr Fault Petaluma Novato San Pablo Bay Pinole Pt Pittsburg San Rafael Concord Richmond Pleasant Hill El Cerrito Mill Valley Walnut Creek Berkeley Hayward Fault Danville OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco Bay Daly City San Leandro Dublin Livermore Hayward San Mateo FREMONT Calaveras Fault Half Moon Bay Menlo Park Sunnyvale SAN JOSE 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2U.C. Berkeley, Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 389 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Proceedings of the Hayward Fault Workshop, Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, California, September 19-20, 2003 Edited By David A. Ponce1, Roland Bürgmann2, Russell W. Graymer1, James J. Lienkaemper1, Diane E. Moore1, and David P. Schwartz1 Open-File Report 03-485 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2U.C. Berkeley, Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 389 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Hazards Incorporates the State-Mandated “Safety” and “Noise” Elements of the General Plan
    7 HAZARDS ENVIRONMENTAL A. OVERVIEW Environmental Hazards incorporates the state-mandated “Safety” and “Noise” elements of the General Plan. The Chapter addresses natural and man-made hazards in the City, including earthquakes, landslides, floods, sea level rise, wildfire, air and water pollution, hazardous materials, and aviation accidents. It includes a summary of emergency preparedness in San Leandro, with policies that provide the foundation for disaster planning in the City. The Element also addresses noise issues, with the dual objective of mitigating existing noise problems and avoiding future disturbances and conflicts. The overall purpose of this Element is to minimize the potential for damage and injury resulting from environmental hazards. The State Government Code requires that the Element identify and evaluate the hazards that are present and establish appropriate goals, policies, and action programs to reduce those hazards to acceptable levels. Environmental hazards define basic constraints to land use that must be reflected in how and where development takes place. Public education is critical to the successful implementation of this Element. Although San Leandrans are generally aware that the City is located in “earthquake country,” there is still much that can be done to improve readiness and response when disaster strikes. The Environmental Hazards Element takes a pro-active approach to emergency preparedness, emphasizing mitigation and reduced exposure to hazards as well as response and recovery. This Element is closely coordinated with the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), a federally mandated plan to reduce exposure to hazards and ensure eligibility for federal disaster preparedness and relief funds. 7-1 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S The Element also sets forth a pro-active strategy for addressing noise issues in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Station Profiles
    2015 BART Station Profile Study Station Profiles – Non-Home Origins STATION PROFILES – NON-HOME ORIGINS This section contains a summary sheet for selected BART stations, based on data from customers who travel to the station from non-home origins, like work, school, etc. The selected stations listed below have a sample size of at least 200 non-home origin trips: • 12th St. / Oakland City Center • Glen Park • 16th St. Mission • Hayward • 19th St. / Oakland • Lake Merritt • 24th St. Mission • MacArthur • Ashby • Millbrae • Balboa Park • Montgomery St. • Civic Center / UN Plaza • North Berkeley • Coliseum • Oakland International Airport (OAK) • Concord • Powell St. • Daly City • Rockridge • Downtown Berkeley • San Bruno • Dublin / Pleasanton • San Francisco International Airport (SFO) • Embarcadero • San Leandro • Fremont • Walnut Creek • Fruitvale • West Dublin / Pleasanton Maps for these stations are contained in separate PDF files at www.bart.gov/stationprofile. The maps depict non-home origin points of customers who use each station, and the points are color coded by mode of access. The points are weighted to reflect average weekday ridership at the station. For example, an origin point with a weight of seven will appear on the map as seven points, scattered around the actual point of origin. Note that the number of trips may appear underrepresented in cases where multiple trips originate at the same location. The following summary sheets contain basic information about each station’s weekday non-home origin trips, such as: • absolute number of entries and estimated non-home origin entries • access mode share • trip origin types • customer demographics. Additionally, the total number of car and bicycle parking spaces at each station are included for context.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Report
    TABLE OF CONTENTS OAKLAND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page SUMMARY S-1 I. INTRODUCTION I-1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION II-1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS III-A-1 AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Land Use III.A-1 B. Transportation and Circulation III.B-1 C. Population, Housing, and Employment III.C-1 D. Public Services III.D-1 E. Air Quality III.E-1 F. Visual and Aesthetic Conditions III.F-1 G. Cultural and Historic Resources III.G-1 H. Vegetation and Wildlife III.H-1 I. Hydrology and Water Quality III.I-1 J. Energy III.J-1 K. Geology and Seismicity III.K-1 L. Noise III.L-1 M. Hazardous Materials III.M-1 N. Wind III.N-1 O. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies III.O-1 IV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IV-1 V. IMPACT OVERVIEW V-1 VI. REPORT PREPARERS VI-1 APPENDICES 1. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study 1-1 2. Hazardous Materials Supporting Documentation 2-1 Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element EIR ii Environmental Science Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures S-2 II-1 Households, Population, and Employment, 1995 and 2015 II-7 II-2 Household and Job Growth in the City’s Twelve Planning Areas, 1995-2015 II-8 II-3 General Plan Goals II-10 II-4 Correlation Between Proposed and Existing Land Use Categories II-16 II-5 Projects Within the Downtown Showcase District II-20 II-6 Projects Within the Coliseum Showcase District II-21 II-7 Major Land Use Diagram Change Areas II-24 II-8 Acreage in Proposed Land
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Update
    City Manager’s 3 Weekly Update March 9, 2016 U P C O M I N G To: City Council M EETINGS From: Chris Zapata, City Manager 2016 Mark Your Calendar 3/14 City Council Work Session, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers “Big Read” Guest Speaker Featuring Julie M. Rivett (Attached) th 3/21 City Council Meeting Sat., Mar. 12 , 2:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m., Main Library, 300 Estudillo 7:00 p.m., Council Ave. Chambers Join Julie M. Rivett, a Dashiell Hammett Scholar and 3/28 State of the City, 6:30 granddaughter to Samuel Dashiell Hammett, for a lively discussion that p.m., Senior Community Center explores the links between her grandfather and his most famous fictional creation. The event is free and open to the public and no prior registration 4/4 City Council Meeting 7:00p.m., Council is required. Chambers 4/11 Water Pollution Control Plant Open House, 4:00 Color Up San Leandro: A Run for Fun (Attached) p.m.- 6:00 p.m. Sat., Mar. 12th, 10:00 a.m., San Leandro Marina, 14001 Monarch 4/18 City Council Meeting Bay Dr. 7:00 p.m., Council The Youth Advisory Commission (YAC) will host its annual Chambers “Color Up San Leandro: A Run for Fun” at the San Leandro Marina. 4/25 Informal Gathering 6:15 Participants will be showered in non-toxic, vibrant colored powder as p.m. they complete a lap around the marina. People of all ages and fitness City/SLUSD/SLUZD Joint Work Session, levels are encouraged to attend.
    [Show full text]
  • Bart at Twenty: Land Use and Development Impacts
    ffional Development BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with research assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich July 1995 University of California at Berkeley - 1 BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with Research Assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich This paper was produced with support provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University of California Transportation Center. University of California at Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development Table of Contents ONE: BART at 20: An Analysis of Land Use Impacts 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 TWO: Research Approach and Data Sources 3 THREE: Employment and Population Changes in BART and Non-BART Areas 6 3.1. Population Changes 6 3.2. Employment Changes 3.3. Population Densities 15 3.4. Employment Densities 15 3.5. Summary 20 FOUR: Land Use Changes Over Time and by Corridor 21 4.1. General Land-Use Trends 23 4.2. Pre-BART versus Post-BART 25 4.3. Early versus Later BART 30 4.4. Trends in Non-Residential Densities 33 4.4. Summary 37 FIVE: Land-Use Changes by Station Classes 38 5.1. Grouping Variables 38 5.2. Classification 38 5.3. Station Classes 41 5.4. Trends in Residential and Non-Residential Growth Among Station Classes 44 5.5. Percent Growth in Early- versus Later-BART Years Among Station Classes 46 5.6. Trends in Non-Residential Densities Among Station Classes 46 SLX: Matched-Pair Comparisons of Land-Use Changes near BART Stations Versus Freeway Interchanges 51 6.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Measure RR Small Business Outreach
    Measure RR Small Business Outreach VTA River Oaks Campus Thursday, November 9, 2017 Agenda DBE Program - Small Business Elements • Measure RR Background • Measure RR Upcoming Projects • How to do business with BART • Economic Opportunity Programs • Resources • Q&A 2 Measure RR Background • $3.5B Measure RR Bond passed in 2016 to improve BART’s aging transit infrastructure: . Repair and replace critical safety infrastructure . Relieve passenger crowding, reduce traffic congestion, expand opportunities to safely access stations 3 Measure RR Upcoming Projects Program FY18* FY19* Total* Renew Track $45.9 $47.3 $93.2 Renew Power Infrastructure $85.2 $117.2 $202.4 Repair Tunnels & Structures $19.1 $25.6 $44.7 Renew Mechanical $7.0 $5.5 $12.5 Replace Train Control/Increase Capacity $5.2 $3.0 $8.2 Renew Stations $4.6 $13.6 $18.2 Expand Safe Access to Stations $14.0 $23.0 $37.0 Design/Engineer to Relieve Crowding $9.1 $14.9 $24.0 Total $190.1 $250.1 $440.2 * In millions. Represents a portion of the total project cost (RR funds only) 4 Upcoming Procurement/Construction Contract Awards Advertisement Substantial Est. Contract Project Date Completion Value ($ millions) RENEW TRACK Rail Procurement*** - 15CQ-200 FY18 – Qtr 1 FY23 – Qtr 3 $18 M03 Track Construction – 15CQ-100 FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 1 $4.1 M03 Track Material FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 2 $1 Rail Procurement (Frogs) – 6M3378A FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 2 $0.2 A15 Portal Grout Project (DFS) FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 3 $0.8 C55 Material Procurement FY18 – Qtr 2 FY19 – Qtr 3 $1.1 Wheel Rail Interface Optimize FY18 – Qtr 2 FY20 – Qtr 3 $4.9 System Joint Elimination FY18 – Qtr 2 TBD $5 C35 Interlocking Track Construction FY18 – Qtr 2 FY20 – Qtr 3 $13 Yard Track Replacement Construction FY19 – Qtr 2 TBD $200 Renew Track Sub-Total $248.1 *** Project funded by RR and other funding sources 5 UpcomingUpcoming Procurement/Construction Procurement/Construction ContractContract Awards Awards Advertisement Substantial Est.
    [Show full text]
  • 903 Manor Boulevard Residential Project
    903 Manor Boulevard Residential Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by City of San Leandro Community Development Department 835 East 14th Street San Leandro, California 94577 Contact: Andrew Mogensen, AICP, Planning Manager prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 March 2020 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 903 MANOR BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 903 MANOR BOULEVARD, SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94579 Notice is Hereby Given that the City of San Leandro is considering a recommendation that the project herein identified will have no significant environmental impacts in compliance with Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. A copy of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are on file in the San Leandro Community Development Department, 835 East 14th Street, San Leandro, California 95477. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, hard copies will be mailed upon request rather than accessible to the public at a physical location. If you need a hardcopy please send a self-addressed 10”x12” envelope with pre-paid postage to City of San Leandro, Planning Division, Attn: Andrew Mogensen, Planning Manager, 835 E. 14th Street, San Leandro, CA 94577. It is also available on the City’s Website at City of San Leandro, Community Development Department, Planning Services, Plans & CEQA Documents: https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/plan/polplanstudiesceqa/default.asp. REVIEW PERIOD: The 20-day review period is from May 15, 2020 to June 4, 2020. Comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration should be provided in writing to the San Leandro Community Development Department, 835 East 14th Street, San Leandro, California 94577 by June 4, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 96-252, Geologic Explanation Pamphlet
    Preliminary geologic map emphasizing bedrock formations in Alameda County, California: A digital database by R.W. Graymer, D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-252 Geologic Explanation Introduction This map database represents the integration of previously published and unpublished maps by several workers (see Sources of Data) and thousands of man-hours of new geologic mapping and field checking by the authors. The data are released in a preliminary digital form to provide an opportunity for regional planners, local, state, and federal agencies, teachers, consultants, and others interested in geologic data to have the new data long before a traditional paper map is published. The authors currently plan to produce a second version of the geologic map of Alameda County that would include subdivided Quaternary units and enhanced stratigraphic description and nomenclature, both as a digital product and as a traditional paper map. The timing of release of these products, and indeed whether they will be produced at all, depends on a variety of factors, including funding, outside author control. Stratigraphy Lithologic associations in Alameda County are divided into nine assemblages; I, II, and V - XI (Assemblages III and IV occur only in Contra Costa County). As defined in Graymer, Jones, and Brabb (1994), assemblages are large, fault - bounded blocks that contain a unique stratigraphic sequence. The stratigraphic sequence differs from that of neighboring assemblages by containing different rock units (e.g. the freshwater limestone (Tlp) in Assemblage VIII is missing from the other Assemblages), or by different stratigraphic relationship among similar rock units (e.g.
    [Show full text]