Reso25 16295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

115 project site and would be exposed to lower vibration levels.” This would be a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation would be required. Illingworth & Rodkin (pp. 32-33) did note that while damage to nearby buildings due to groundborne vibration from Housing Component construction equipment would not be anticipated, “vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any type of construction, this would be anticipated and would not be considered significant, given the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (use of jackhammers and other high-power tools).” Illingworth & Rodkin recommended that to minimize perceptible vibration, the City could ensure controls such as notifying neighbor of scheduled construction activities and restricting hours of construction activities with high potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with the least potential to affect businesses and people. As a condition of project approval, the City shall require this component to incorporate the administrative control measures for construction vibration recommended by Illingworth & Rodkin, and shall require the applicant to submit a sample neighborhood notification prior to the start of construction activities likely to result in perceptible construction vibration. Compliance with conditions of approval and the existing State and local regulatory framework would ensure the groundborne vibration impacts of the Housing Component will be less than significant, and no additional mitigation would be required. The Focused GPU program EIR evaluated construction and operational noise under similar distances and conditions presented by the Housing Component. For the reasons discussed here, the Housing Component would not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. c. The subject site is located (on the fly) two and one-half miles from San Carlos Airport. According to the Focused GPU program EIR (p. 4.13-44), the Focused GPU area “…is not located in any noise contour zone associated with this airport [San Carlos Airport] and would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area [Focused GPU area] to excessive airport-related noise levels.” Illingworth & Rodkin (p. 33) noted that “the subject site lies outside the noise contours for the San Carlos Airport, the Palo Alto Airport, and Moffett Federal Airfield.” Because the subject site is outside the projected 55dB CNEL contour shown in the Redwood City General Plan (Figure PS-9: San Carlos Airport Noise Contours, June 2002) and the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4-2: Future Conditions [2035] Aircraft Noise Contours), no significant impacts related to airport operations have been identified related to the Housing Component and no noise mitigation would be required. Therefore, the Housing Component would not result in new or more severe impacts with respect to airport noise than those identified in the Focused GPU EIR, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. This impact would be less than significant. CONCLUSION: With regards to the issue area of Noise and Vibration, the following findings can be made: (1) no peculiar impacts to the Housing Component or its site have been identified, (2) there are no potentially significant effect or off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the Focused GPU EIR, (3) no substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the Focused GPU EIR, and (4) the mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure Noise-1, pertaining to railroad tracks) contained within the Focused GPU EIR is not applicable to the project component and therefore would not be required of the project component. Housing Component noise impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons, the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed Housing Component would be consistent with the impacts identified in the Focused GPU EIR and this component does not require additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. ATTY/RESO.0028/CC RESO CEQA GUIDLINES (920 SHASTA) - EXHIBIT A REV: 04-22-25 VR Page 115 of 148