Laserfiche WebLink
b) Adoption of the General Plan consistency amendments would not increase exposure of persons to groundbome vibration <br /> or groundbome noise. As noted in response "a" above, site specific noise analyses will be required for individual <br /> developments, consistent with the San Leandro General Plan and the TOD Strategy EIR's mitigation measures. The <br /> City's Site Plan Review process ensures consistency with noise thresholds and other standards. No new or increased <br /> levels of noise or vibration would occur as a result of the proposed amendments. <br /> c) Amendment of the General Plan to establish internal consistency with the already- adopted TOD Strategy would not <br /> cause an increase in ambient noise levels. The amount and location of development accommodated by the amendment <br /> is consistent with the amount and location already approved through the TOD Strategy and 2010 Housing Element. In <br /> both instances, the permanent impacts of housing development on ambient noise levels was determined to be less than <br /> significant. <br /> d) The General Plan EIR and the TOD Strategy EIR both evaluated the impacts of temporary increases in noise related to <br /> construction. This is a short-term impact that is regulated through permit conditions and the noise limitations specified <br /> by the San Leandro Municipal Code. The proposed consistency amendments would not increase development levels <br /> above what was cumulatively anticipated by the General Plan and TOD Strategy. Temporary noise impacts have <br /> already been evaluated and no impact beyond those previously considered in the General Plan EIR and TOD Strategy <br /> EIR is expected. <br /> • <br /> e) Impacts associated with aviation noise were previously evaluated in the TOD EIR and General Plan EIR and were <br /> determined to be less than significant. Adoption of the consistency amendments would have no impact on noise <br /> conditions beyond those already evaluated by these two EIRs. <br /> f) Because there are no private airstrips within the city limits, there would be no impacts. <br /> POTENTIALLY <br /> POTENTIALLY SIG SIFICA NT LESS THAN <br /> NO <br /> ISSUES SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT SOURCES <br /> IMPACT <br /> ISSUES MITI CATION IMPACT <br /> INCORPORATED <br /> �,_ .- .._. k t! - '°'e "L• � - r aR as y . '- n . 3,° C♦ <br /> 110, tTR. 1r8PORTATIOWCIRCULATION .�Nolild; the protect ^ <br /> _, _ �...�. ����r�i_ -�.. <br /> a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X 1,2 <br /> relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of <br /> the street system; that is, results in a substantial <br /> increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the <br /> volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at <br /> intersections? <br /> b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level X 1,2 <br /> of service standard established by the county <br /> congestion management agency for designated <br /> roads or highways? <br /> c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including X 1,2 <br /> either an increase in traffic levels or a change in <br /> location that results in substantial safety risks? <br /> d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design X 1 . 2 <br /> feature, for example, sharp curves or dangerous <br /> intersections or incompatible uses? <br /> e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X 1,2 <br /> f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X 1.2.4 <br /> g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X 1,2,3 <br /> supporting alternative transportation, for example, <br /> bus turnouts, bicycle racks? <br /> h. Trigger CMA Review? (GPA involving more than X 1,2 <br /> 100 PM peak hour trips generated over existing GP) <br /> • <br /> TOD and Housing Element General Plan Consistency Amendments January 2011 • Page 18 <br />