My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75B - PH - EIR 1584 SANTA CLARA
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
09/02/2014
>
75B - PH - EIR 1584 SANTA CLARA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2014 4:18:57 PM
Creation date
8/28/2014 3:54:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
75B
Date
9/2/2014
Destruction Year
2019
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.
/
604
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
Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard <br />Residential Development Project <br />CEQA Findings <br />Analysis: According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element, the project site is not <br />within a 100 -year flood zone, Therefore the project would also not place structures <br />within the 100 -year floodplain. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) <br />2. Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury <br />or death involving inundation by seiehe, tsunami, or mudflow? <br />Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) <br />Analysis: There are no large bodies of open water on or near the project site that could <br />result in these hazards. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) <br />F. LAND USE AND PLANNING <br />1. Impact: Would the project divide an established community? <br />Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) <br />Analysis: The project is located within an area of residential uses, and the project <br />proposes additional residential uses similar to the surrounding area. The project will <br />provide a street connection to the existing neighborhood. In addition, the existing vacant <br />residential structure located on the northern portion of the project would remain in place, <br />further providing continuity between the existing, established community, and the new <br />structures proposed. Therefore, the project would not divide an established community. <br />(EIR, p. 4 -4; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 7.) <br />2. Impact: Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or <br />natural community conservation plan? <br />Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) <br />Analysis: The project is located in an urbanized area, not within the boundaries of any <br />applicable habitat plan. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) <br />G. MINERAL RESOURCES <br />Impacts: <br />Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that <br />would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? <br />Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource <br />recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? <br />Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) <br />Analysis: Pursuant to the Land Use Element of the City General Plan, there are no areas <br />in the City designated as Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas or existent oil <br />75B2555 "Exhibit A" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.