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 22 <br /> <br /> <br />5005-003acp <br /> <br /> printed on recycled paper <br />Our traffic expert determined that the Project will have significant adverse <br />impacts on traffic and create demands exceeding the capacity of public services and <br />facilities94, these cannot be mitigated by the proposed Uniformly Applicable <br />Development Standards laid out in the General Plan.95 Our expert determined that <br />the Checklist failed to disclose potentially significant cumulative effects that are <br />specific to the Project, but were not analyzed, and are more severe than, the traffic <br />issues raised in the General Plan EIR.96 An Infill EIR must be prepared to <br />adequately address and mitigate impacts from traffic prior to Project approval by <br />the Board. <br /> <br />C. The Uniformly Applicable Development Standards Would Not <br />Substantially Mitigate Project Impacts <br /> <br />Our experts determined that the uniformly applicable development policies <br />would not substantially mitigate the impacts from air quality, energy usage, GHG <br />emissions, noise, traffic, and water quality. <br /> <br />i. Air Quality <br /> <br />The Project is not consistent with the General Plan because General Plan <br />Policy 31.04 provides that the City must “Require new development to be designed <br />and constructed in a way that reduces the potential for future air quality problems, <br />such as odors and the emission of any and all air pollutants.”97 The Board therefore <br />cannot approve the Conditional Use Permit due to the inconsistency with the <br />General Plan policy. Further, the mitigation measures presented in the General <br />Plan and Checklist would not substantially mitigate the impacts of the Project. <br /> <br />a. Tier 4 Interim Measures <br /> <br />The Checklist does not ensure that best available control technologies are <br />used for operations that could generate air pollutants as required by General Plan <br />Policy EH-3.4.98 Further, the use of Tier-4 Interim mitigation measures does not <br />constitute sufficient mitigation. As SWAPE describes in their comments, Tier 4 <br />Interim measures do not constitute adequate mitigation because they do not go <br /> <br />94 Smith Comments p. 6. <br />95 General Plan Appendix A, p. 6-7. <br />96 Smith Comments p. 6. <br />97 General Plan p. 7-49. <br />98 General Plan p. 7-49. <br />112
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.