My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
4A Public Hearing 2015 0720
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2015
>
Packet 2015 0720
>
4A Public Hearing 2015 0720
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2019 8:57:43 AM
Creation date
7/30/2015 4:33:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
7/20/2015
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2015 0720 CS+RG
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2015\Packet 2015 0720
Reso 2015-125
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
814
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
File Number: 15-441 <br />Staff response: See Response B06-03 in the Final EIR regarding the Project effect on <br />Marina Inn views. <br />Draft EIR view analysis is skewed. <br />Staff response: The letter doesn't explain how the analysis is skewed and doesn't identify <br />other vantage points that should have been considered. The view analysis for Impact <br />AES -3 includes 16 pages of photos and photo simulations to support the analysis and <br />conclusions. See Response B06-03 in the Final EIR regarding the Project effect on <br />Marina Inn views. <br />• Urban decay analysis is false and doesn't include the economic deal between the City and <br />developer. <br />Staff response: CEQA and the EIR are concerned with environmental impacts, not project <br />economics, except if the project could cause urban decay through market oversaturation, <br />etc. The urban decay analysis in Appendix B thoroughly reviews market demand, with <br />particular attention to the Tourism and Hospitality sector. Its conclusions are <br />straightforward and well-documented. They are also realistic - the analysis notes that it is <br />reasonable for hotel owners to be nervous about new competition (Appendix B, p. 8). The <br />analysis also notes that the City as lessor to the Marina Inn is also concerned about <br />localized impacts (Appendix B, p. 13). Based on this analysis, the Draft EIR reasonably <br />concludes that the proposed new hotel would not overbuild the hotel market and the <br />project would not result in urban decay (DEIR p. 4.1-34). <br />• EIR does not analyze parking. <br />Staff response: Parking is not a CEQA impact and need not be addressed in an EIR. <br />• Inadequate information on phasing. <br />Staff response: The Draft EIR project description clearly sets forth the uses for each phase <br />(pp. 3-12 and -13). It is not clear what other information the letter thinks should be <br />provided or how the existing information is inadequate. <br />• Marina Inn is not considered a sensitive receptor in the air quality and noise analyses. <br />Staff response: The Marina Inn is specifically identified as noise sensitive in both the air <br />quality and noise analyses. For air quality, see Draft EIR p. 4.2-17 ("...guests of the ... <br />(Marina Inn) may also be considered sensitive receptors. ...the short term exposures to <br />TA Cs for hotel ... sensitive receptors would not result in significant health risks.') For <br />noise, see Draft EIR p. 4.10-28 ("Demolition and site preparation occurring in pro <br />City of San Leandro Page 11 Printed on 7114/2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.