Laserfiche WebLink
May 19, 2021 <br />Page 23 <br /> <br /> <br />5005-004acp <br /> <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />Wilson Ihrig determined that the Checklist lacks sufficient discussion of noise <br />impacts and the corresponding necessary mitigation measures to assure the <br />community that all rooftop and mechanical equipment will be designed to meet <br />applicable land use standards.99 Further, Wilson Ihrig determined that the noise <br />impacts from refrigeration noise and other noise sources from the Project are <br />missing from the analysis, and are therefore unmitigated. An Infill EIR is required <br />to adequately analyze and mitigate noise impacts prior to Project approval by the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />G. The Project Will Cause New Significant and Unmitigated Traffic <br />Impacts <br /> <br />The Zoning Code provides that the Board may only approve a project if it <br />determine “[t]hat the proposed use will not create adverse impacts on traffic or <br />create demands exceeding the capacity of public services and facilities...”100 The <br />Project was approved by the Board in violation of the Zoning Code because the <br />Project would create adverse impacts on traffic that are not adequately mitigated. <br /> <br />The Project will have significant new impacts from traffic. Our traffic expert <br />Mr. Smith determined that the Project’s non-residential component would create a <br />significant transportation impact. The increased transportation impact would be an <br />exacerbation of existing environmental conditions in San Leandro and requires <br />adequate analysis under an Infill EIR. <br /> <br />The Project will generate significant levels of vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”). <br />The statement that the Project would generate less VMT than the average in the <br />area is not supported by substantial evidence.101 Mr. Smith determined that the <br />Checklist miscalculated the Project trip generation.102 Absent this correct <br />calculation, the City’s traffic calculations are not supported by substantial evidence. <br />Mr. Smith found that the “extra discounting on the residential trips in the PM peak <br />eliminates 45 of the 71 (over 63 percent) of residential trips… the discount of <br />residential trips amounts to almost 29 percent of the 156 net new PM peak hour <br />trips that are ultimately assigned to the street system. So, this one error alone is <br />sufficient to result in substantial understatement of the Project’s impacts on PM <br /> <br />99 Wilson Ihrig Comments, p. 4. <br />100 San Leandro Zoning Code Section 5.08.124. <br />101 Smith Comments p. 2. <br />102 Smith Comments p. 2. <br />82