AgdaPkt 2000-11-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

&-4 3. In addition, "Financial institutions and office fronts" was deleted as a use permitted with a use permit and "Ground-floor dependent office"1 was included as a use permitted with a use permit. The Ordinance does not prohibit office development in the CBR District. To the contrary, the CBR district is one of the districts, which allows offices as acknowledged by the Ordinance. Moreover, the Ordinance does not change housing uses in the CBR district. Therefore, for purposes of the environmental review, the adoption of the Ordinance does not constitute new information of significance that would warrant further environmental analysis of this project. Furthermore, the FEIR does address housing as part of a possible alternative to the project. Alternative 2, which is analyzed in the DEIR, provides for residential buildings on both project blocks: a 36-unit residential building on Block 1 and an 81-unit residential building on Block 2. The DEIR states, on p. 230, that the introduction of two residential buildings into the downtown could "help add vitality to the area after working hours and on weekends." Alternative 2 analyzes the benefits and potential adverse impacts of housing being included in the project. The discussion of this alternative included the observation that the addition of housing downtown would potentially add life to the downtown area after normal working hours and would complement the balance of the project in helping to extend downtown's hours of activities. It would also help support restaurants and convenience retailers in the downtown area. It would also cause significant impacts for which there is no mitigation. All of the potential impacts of the residential component of the Project alternative are analyzed in Alternative 2. The ultimate decision whether or not this alternative will be selected by the City will come at the time the project land use entitlements are considered. The appellant further claims that the FEIR improperly excludes any analysis of the effect the preferred project would have on the City's possible housing inventory. However, for reasons stated in the FEIR, the project site is not considered a potential housing site. The property is not designated as residential in the City's general plan, zoning ordinances or the City's redevelopment plan. Therefore, an analysis of the proposed project's effect on housing inventory is not required. . Contention of Inadequate Parking The appellant refers to testimony at the Planning Commission hearing of Vera Goldsmith for the contention that the FEIR fails to consider that the plan to "lure" retail customers and restaurant patrons in the downtown area for extended visits beyond theater shows will , In Section 4 of the Interim Urgency Ordinance the following definition is provided: "Ground Floor Dependent Offices. Offices used for on-site property management, for professional or consulting services including, but not limited to, travel agencies, insurance agencies, income tax preparers, real estate agencies, and notary publics. In determining whether a particular use is ground floor dependent, consideration shall be given to the requirement of such use for ground floor visibility in commercial districts to serve patrons on an unannounced or drop-in basis, and to rely upon a product or service display in the store frontage." 3