My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Reso 2003-007
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
2003
>
Reso 2003-007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2009 1:58:59 PM
Creation date
8/13/2009 2:24:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Resolution
Document Date (6)
1/21/2003
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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).
View images
View plain text
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the <br />information sources a lead agency cites in the column following each question. All answers must take account of the <br />whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as <br />direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. <br /> IMPACT <br />WILL THE PROJECT: Less Than <br /> Potentially Significant Less Than <br /> Cumulative Significant With Significant No Source <br /> Impact Mitigation Impact Impact <br /> Incorporation <br />I. AESTHETICS: <br />a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ~ ~ ~ ~ ® 3,4 <br />scenic vista? <br />b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ~ ~ ~ ~ ® 3,4 <br />including, but not limited to trees, rock <br />outcroppings, and historic buildings within <br />a state scenic highway? <br />c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ ~ ~ ~ ® 3,4 <br />character or quality of the site and its <br />surroundings? <br />d) Create a new source of substantial light or ~ ~ ~ ~ ® 3,4 <br />glare which would adversely affect day or <br />nighttime views in the areas? <br />Discussion: <br />I(a,b,c,d): The Element identifies the ability to construct up to 1,400 new housing units, which exceeds the City's fair share <br />allocation, and is consistent with the adopted General Plan and related EIR. No significant impacts are anticipated. As noted <br />elsewhere in this Initial Study individual development proposals would undergo separate CEQA review and be required to <br />implement any project-specific mitigations, if appropriate. San Leandro is largely abuilt-out city that features scenic vistas <br />from the East Bay Hills in the eastern portion of the City, to the San Leandro Shoreline area. Sites that have been identified as <br />possible housing sites are considered in-fill development sites that contain existing urban development around the sites. <br />The City's zoning code typically allows new residential structures to be 30 feet in height in residentially-zoned areas. <br />Commercial zoning districts allow between 55-foot high (Community Commercial zones) to 75-foot high structures (Downtown <br />zones). To ensure protection of views from the foothills in the east, the City adopted new zoning provisions (RSVP -Single <br />Family Residential, View Preservation) that require Site Plan Review for any new addition. New provisions were adopted that <br />affect all two-story additions in the flatlands. Larger projects would typically be required to prepare photo-simulations that <br />depict how new structures might appear. Additionally, a shadow analysis would be required to assess the possible affects of <br />new structures on neighboring properties. These new provisions are intended to address possible impacts on views and assess <br />new problems stemming from new sources of light and glare. Collectively, they are implemented on aproject-by-project basis <br />in order to maintain scenic vistas and resources. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.