Laserfiche WebLink
SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR <br />CITY OF SAN LEANDRO <br />COMMENTS AND RESPONSES <br />PLACEWORKS 5-13 <br />TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX <br />Comment # Date Comment Response <br />B01-06 <br /> <br />New Commercial Uses:The zoning change of the Estudillo/Bancroft properties will allow <br />for new uses, many of which are inappropriate in a residential neighborhood area, and <br />near a school. Specifically, the City Planning Services Director’s 6/16/16 document <br />presented at the Planning Commission meeting of that date specifies that these areas on <br />Estudillo could now offer… bars, atm’s, home improvement & custom industry, fast food <br />establishments and other retail sales, including drugstores. While I understand that some <br />of these businesses would need separate approval in order to operate, overall, this is <br />unacceptable. The existing downtown area of San Leandro has plenty of drug stores and <br />an abundance of vacant retail space to accommodate other retail sales. That said, I <br />would love to have more fine dining opportunities in our fair City. <br />As described in Response B01-01, the City Council has removed the proposed DA-2 <br />rezoning referenced by the commmenter. The comment does not state a specific <br />concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis contained in the Draft <br />EIR, nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue. No further response is <br />required. <br />B01-07 <br /> <br />Market Rate Rents: <br />Conversation surrounding this re-zoning proposal, refers to the proposed new apartment <br />units in “DA-2 San Leandro”, specifically the development proposed for 1300 – 1380 <br />Bancroft, being rented at “market rate”. “Market Rate” in this instance is being identified <br />as $4,000 per month rent for a 2 bedroom/2 bath apartment. The reason folks are <br />looking to leave San Francisco is that they cannot afford the “market rates”. And those <br />who choose to stick it out, are living 4 to 6 people in a two bedroom apartment – which <br />is what it takes to pay that market rate rent bill. 4 to 6 individuals in one apartment have <br />4 to 6 cars, not the planned 1.5 vehicles per unit. <br />As described in Response B01-01, the City Council has removed the proposed DA-2 <br />rezoning referenced by the commmenter. The comment does not state a specific <br />concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis contained in the Draft <br />EIR, nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue. No further response is <br />required. <br />B01-08 <br /> <br />The issues I have identified above are legitimate concerns that San Leandro City Officials <br />must seriously consider. Reference has been made to the EIR and that traffic congestion <br />was not identified as a problem in the Estudillo and Bancroft areas currently targeted for <br />this re-zoning from P to DA-2. What the EIR did not address was how the increase of <br />traffic due to a denser population on those two streets, will impact the parallel side <br />streets, which, as I mention in my first topic, are already used as alternate routes. <br /> <br />Thank you very much for your consideration of my concerns. <br />As stated previously, at the July 25, 2016 City Council Meeting, the Council decided <br />to retain the current P zoning and elected to remove the DA-2 zoning proposal. This <br />action was taken, in part, to address neighborhood members' concerns regarding <br />higher densities and more traffic. While the City recognizes there is potential for <br />diversion to side streets, the traffic analysis for the Draft EIR evaulated a potentially <br />worst case scenario, in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, the Cumulative with <br />Proposed Plan condition assigned regional background traffic and traffic generated <br />by the proposed Plan to all major roadways within San Leandro using the Alameda <br />CTC Travel Demand model. Analysis of the Estudillo Avenue/Bancroft Avenue and <br />Estudillo Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard intersections found both intersections to <br />operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours. LOS C is characterized by <br />acceptable delays and would be unlikely to result in substantially more diversion to <br />side streets in Cumulative with Proposed Plan conditions than what occurs today. <br />B02 6/27/2016 Kathy Wolff <br />B02-01 <br /> <br />Regarding page 6 Impact Conclusions, significant and unavoidable: air quality, <br />greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation & traffic. With regards to downtown <br />east specifically Estudillo Ave. I was wondering if a specific study of the traffic was done <br />on Estudillo Ave/Bancroft Ave, during school drop off and during the commute hours, I.E <br />how many cars tracked etc.? If so could you tell me the pages in you EIR report <br />specifically. If not why not? <br />A specific study of traffic at the Estudillo Avenue/Bancroft Avenue intersection was <br />performed as part of the Draft EIR for the highest volume hour between 7 AM and 9 <br />AM and the highest volume hour between 4 PM and 6 PM. Intersection counts were <br />collected during the second week of September in 2014 when schools were in <br />session. The hours analyzed would represent the worst of the school traffic <br />conditions (AM peak hour) as well as the worst commute hours (AM and PM peak <br />hour). The findings of the traffic analysis at this intersection (Intersection #8) for <br />Existing Conditions can be found on page 4.13-28 of the Draft EIR, while the findings