Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> • <br /> POTENTIALLY <br /> POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN <br /> NO <br /> ISSUES SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SOURCES <br /> ISSUES MITIGATION IMPACT <br /> INCORPORATED <br /> ti Ou d,t r F pr i7 � 4,, n Ia ,t!> <br /> �14�A ESTHETICSSWould, the: protect . 7 �• ��' i ; , r; ,,+��;�; , r;�- r�?,�.�Ss . yi?�`, <br /> • a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 1,2,3 <br /> b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X 1,2 <br /> not limited to. trees, rock outcroppings, and historic <br /> buildings within a state scenic highway? <br /> c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X 1,2,4 <br /> quality of the site and its surroundings? <br /> d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare X 1,2 <br /> which would adversely affect day or nighttime views <br /> in the area? <br /> e. Create significant shadow effects on adjacent X 1,2.4 <br /> buildings? <br /> EXPLANATION: <br /> a) Adoption of the General Plan consistency amendments would have no impact on scenic vistas. Impacts on scenic vistas <br /> were previously evaluated and determined to be less than significant in the TOD Strategy EIR, which was certified in <br /> 2007. There would be no additional impact associated with amending the General Plan to reflect the land use <br /> designations in the already adopted and analyzed TOD Strategy. <br /> b) The consistency amendments will have no impact on scenic resources or alter state scenic highway view corridors. <br /> Impacts on scenic resources and scenic highways were previously evaluated in the TOD Strategy EIR in 2007 and were <br /> determined to be less than significant. General Plan policies have been developed to reduce the potential for damage to <br /> scenic resources and these policies would not be altered by the consistency amendments. <br /> c) The consistency amendments would not adversely affect the visual character of the City and its surroundings. The <br /> visual effect of higher density development around the BART stations and in Downtown San Leandro was analyzed in <br /> the TOD Strategy EIR. The document concluded that impacts would be less than significant because of Plan policies <br /> and other measures addressing urban design. No further impacts would occur as a result of amending the General Plan <br /> to reflect the already adopted TOD Strategy. <br /> d) Because the General Plan is a policy plan rather than a physical development, its adoption would not result in new <br /> sources of light and glare. Impacts on light and glare were previously evaluated in the TOD Strategy EIR and were <br /> determined to be less than significant. No additional impacts would occur as a result of amending the General Plan to <br /> reflect the already adopted TOD Strategy. <br /> e) Impacts of future growth on shadow effects were analyzed in the TOD Strategy EIR. The proposed consistency <br /> amendments would not increase the quantity or alter the location of development beyond what was projected in that <br /> document. In general, the amendments support denser construction and higher density housing, including taller <br /> structures. However, the new General Plan land use category (TOD Mixed Use) would have no effect on the densities <br /> and intensities of development that are already allowed. No additional impacts would result from amending the Land <br /> Use Map other than those that were previously analyzed. Specific development projects will continue to be evaluated on <br /> a case -by -case basis through the development review process, at which time shading impacts will be further assessed. <br /> TOD and Housing Element Genera! Plan Consistency Amendments January 2011 • Page 23 <br />