My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
5A Public Hearings 2021 0706
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2021
>
Packet 2021 0706
>
5A Public Hearings 2021 0706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2021 8:02:46 PM
Creation date
7/1/2021 7:50:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
7/6/2021
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
Reso 2021-105 Callan & East 14th Project CUP, Parking and Site Plan
(Approved by)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2021
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.
/
1234
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
May 6, 2021 <br />Page 13 <br /> <br /> <br />5005-003acp <br /> <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />mitigation and was analyzed in the prior EIR, and would substantially be mitigated <br />by uniformly applicable development policies.53 But these determinations are not <br />supported by substantial evidence. The impacts of an emergency generator <br />emitting DPM was not analyzed in the Checklist nor the General Plan EIR. The <br />Uniformly Applicable Development Policies would therefore not substantially <br />mitigate the impact of TACs on sensitive receptors. <br /> <br />d. Diesel Particulate Matter from Traffic <br /> <br />The Checklist states “The approximately 23,000-sf grocery store would <br />generate 8 to 10 truck trips of various size per day. This amount of heavy-duty <br />truck trips would not be a significant source of diesel particulate matter (DPM).” <br />This statement is not supported by substantial evidence. As shown in SWAPE’s <br />comments, the increase in DPM from this Project would be significant and remains <br />unmitigated. An Infill EIR is required to adequately analyze and mitigate air <br />quality impacts from traffic to satisfy CEQA. <br /> <br />ii. Noise Impacts <br /> <br />The Checklist concludes that noise impacts from construction, traffic, parking <br />and truck loading, building mechanical equipment and rooftop deck would all be <br />less than significant and no more significant than the impacts that were evaluated <br />in the prior EIR.54 This statement is not supported by substantial evidence because <br />the Checklist and the General Plan EIR failed to provide a threshold of significance <br />for noise impacts.55 <br /> <br />Wilson Ihrig determined that the noise level from the building mechanical <br />equipment on the rooftop deck would actually exceed the City’s “normally <br />acceptable” land use standard.56 This runs counter to the conclusion of the CEQA <br />Checklist. An Infill EIR is required to adequately analyze these new specific <br />impacts. <br /> <br />The Checklist seeks to rely on California Building Industry Association v. <br />Bay Area Air Quality Management District57, (hereinafter “CBIA”) stating “it is <br /> <br />53 Checklist p. 4-3. <br />54 Checklist p. 4-90 - 92. <br />55 Wilson Ihrig Comments, p. 2. <br />56 Wilson Ihrig Comments, p. 2. <br />57 62 Cal. 4th 369. <br />103
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.