My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Ord 1997-025
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Ordinances
>
1997
>
Ord 1997-025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2010 2:26:42 PM
Creation date
8/31/2010 2:26:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Ordinance
Document Date (6)
9/2/1997
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
8 FIR <br /> An EIR was not required for the proposed plan amendments. A mitigated negative <br /> declaration has been prepared for the plan amendment and the proposal to develop an <br /> 80,500 square foot upscale neighborhood shopping center. An Initial Study of <br /> Environmental Impacts and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared in April 1997, <br /> and circulated for public review from May 9, 1997 to June 9, 1997. <br /> The two areas of focus were traffic and noise, and consultants were hired to analyze any <br /> potential impacts. The traffic study concluded that the proposed Creekside Center would <br /> not have any significant traffic impacts on intersection levels of service. The report <br /> included recommendations for project access and internal circulation. <br /> • <br /> The noise study identified two areas of potential impacts that would need to be addressed <br /> with mitigation measures in order to ensure no significant noise impacts on adjacent <br /> residential uses. These include limits on construction hours; and special requirements for <br /> on -site mechanical equipment, trash compactors, the pharmacy drive- through, and the <br /> loading dock area. All of the requirements have been incorporated into the proposed plans, <br /> including a screen wall adjacent to the drive - through lane, and a sound wall along the entire <br /> length of the loading dock area. <br /> Two comments were received during the thirty day comment period. Caltrans had several <br /> questions regarding the traffic study, which were addressed in a letter response by the <br /> consultant. EBMUD noted that there is a water main which traverses the site which must <br /> be preserved or relocated within an easement, and noted other standard EBMUD <br /> requirements. The City will work with EBMUD and the Developer to ensure that an <br /> easement is granted for the existing water main. <br /> 9. Report from the County Fiscal Officer and Analysis <br /> This section is not required for this redevelopment plan amendment which has no fiscal <br /> impact on the redevelopment plan. <br /> 10. Neighborhood Impact Report <br /> This section is required for project areas containing low and moderate income housing. <br /> The redevelopment plan amendment does not affect any low- and moderate - income <br /> housing and this element is therefore not applicable. <br /> • <br /> G:Ueslie\corpaavp <br /> -4- <br /> 146 • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.