My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Reso 1997-101 to 105
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
1997
>
Reso 1997-101 to 105
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2022 4:45:39 PM
Creation date
7/14/2022 4:32:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Resolution
Document Date (6)
12/31/1997
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
167
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. EIR <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 />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 />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 />G:ueshekorpamrp <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.