Laserfiche WebLink
PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM &WALDRON <br />Members of the San Leandro Planning <br />Commission <br />June 18, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />• The EIR does not provide an analysis of the parking impacts caused by the <br />project. The scant information provided in the EIR demonstrates that the <br />parking impacts have not been analyzed or considered. <br />• The information on the project phasing is inadequate. The EIR proposes <br />that the bulk of the project is proposed to be "phased" in Phase 1. The <br />"phasing" information in the EIR does not provide any information to the <br />public. <br />• The EIR's "analysis" of the air quality impacts is incomplete and is based <br />on an incorrect assumption that The Marina Inn is not a sensitive receptor. <br />• The EIR's "analysis" of the noise impacts incorrectly assumes that The <br />Marina Inn is not a sensitive receptor. <br />• The Water Quality section of the EIR is deficient. It does not analyze or <br />consider the removal of riprap and the potential impacts that removal will <br />have on the water quality. It does not provide any analysis of the quality of <br />the water after implementation of the project. <br />• The EIR should have considered an alternative of continuing marina <br />operations. The elimination of the marina operations is a gaping hole in the <br />EIR. It has not been properly analyzed or considered. Further, the failure <br />to consider a no -hotel alternative is further compromised by the sham <br />analysis in Appendix B. The "analysis" of the relocated hotel alternative is <br />inadequate. The conclusion that the alternative would "have generally the <br />same impacts as the project" is driven by the already improper conclusion <br />that the proposed hotel location will not cause view impacts. <br />There are better project alternatives that have been considered by the EIR. These <br />include the reduced density and the relocated hotel alternative. The June 18, 2015 Staff <br />Report's discussion of the Project Alternatives cites to supposed "City concerns" as to the <br />economic viability of such alternatives. That assertion is unfounded and no "deal" terms <br />have been reported. There has been no analysis in support. <br />The Planning Commission should not recommend certification of the EIR to the <br />City Council. <br />1557190.2 <br />