My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2A Work Session 2015 0126
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2015
>
Packet 2015 0126
>
2A Work Session 2015 0126
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2015 9:59:45 AM
Creation date
1/21/2015 4:33:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
1/26/2015
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2015 0126 CSAmended+WS
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2015\Packet 2015 0126
PowerPoint 2A Work Session 2015 0126 Shoreline DEIR
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2015\Packet 2015 0126
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.
/
2022
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
SAN LEANDRO SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT DRAFT EIR <br />CITY OF SAN LEANDRO <br />AESTHETICS <br />Applicable Regulations: <br />• San Leandro General Plan <br />■ San Leandro Zoning Code <br />• San Leandro Municipal Code <br />Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. <br />4.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT DISCUSSION <br />AES -5 The Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably <br />foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative <br />impacts with respect to aesthetics. <br />A cumulative impact would be considered significant if, taken together with past, present and reasonably <br />foreseeable projects in the area, it would result in a substantial contribution to an adverse effect with <br />respect to any of the standards of significance discussed above. The nature of the visual influence of <br />physical development is such that multiple projects would contribute to a cumulative aesthetic impact <br />only when located proximate to one another. In order to significantly impact visual quality, projects must <br />be contained in the same view shed and visually associated within similar perspectives. For this reason, <br />the following analysis accounts for the general vicinity of the Project site. Given that there are no vacant, <br />developable lots in the direct vicinity nor are there any reasonably foreseeable projects proposed to be <br />built in the direct vicinity of the Project site, the cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics would be <br />less than significant. <br />The Project site is bounded to the west by the San Francisco Bay, to the north by residential development, <br />to the south by open space and recreation uses, and to the east by recreation and residential uses. This <br />results in the Project site being relatively visually isolated. There are no vacant, developable lots in the <br />direct vicinity nor are there any reasonably foreseeable projects proposed to be built in the direct vicinity <br />of the Project site; therefore, the Project would not contribute to significant cumulative impact related to <br />aesthetics. As a result, a less -than -significant cumulative impact would occur. <br />Applicable Regulations: <br />■ None <br />Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant. <br />4.1-36 DECEMBER 2014 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.