AgdaPkt 2007-02-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

98 Page 4 Middlefield and Spring) is to respect the low-rise residential neighborhoods which flank these edges of the Downtown Precise Plan area. The Plan envisions that development along the Precise Plan edges will take the form of lower rise structures with deeper stepbacks and other buffering devices to ensure a sensitively designed transition from urban to suburban "fabric." Although not an expressed intent of the Precise Plan, the stepback in building heights along the residential edges of the Plan area will reduce shadowing effects of taller buildings on these neighborhoods. The proposed building height changes described in the previous paragraph would create a revised maximum building envelope on Fuller Street that could result in shading on 601 Brewster (the existing building at 601 Brewster is a 2-story office building). Although not mentioned in the appeal letter itself, the appellant has requested that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Draft Precise Plan to address potential shadows cast by new construction on Fuller Street onto the appellant's building at 601 Brewster3. The appellant's proposal is to allow an 8-story height limit on the northwest corner of Winslow and Brewster (including a portion of the appellant's parcel), leaving the rest of the block at 5 stories and eliminating the proposed 3-story streetwall at that corner. In effect, this proposal would eliminate the "3-story to 5-story to 8-story" stepback for this corner, as proposed in the Draft Precise Plan. The appellant's request to allow an 8-story building on the corner would result in less shadow on the appellant's property, but would cast somewhat more shadow on the north side of Brewster which, as indicated previously, is a low-rise residential neighborhood outside the Precise Plan boundary. The Planning Commission considered the appellant's proposed change at its hearing of February 6,2007 and concurred with the staff recommendation to not make this change to the Precise Plan. It should also be noted that the City has received many comments regarding heights within the Plan area, encouraging the City's careful attention to transitions from the Plan boundaries to adjacent neighborhoods. Argument #2: City policy recognizes that shadowing in commercial areas does constitute a significant environmental impact. Response: In this argument, the appellant cites the shadow analysis included in the Marina Shores Village EIR (February 2003) as an example of a prior City interpretation that shadow impacts constitute a significant environmental impact. The appellant claims that the City should be consistent in its approach to interpreting shadow impacts and identify them as significant for the Downtown Precise Plan. The shadow analysis in the Marina Shores Village EIR was prepared because of the uniqueness of that project and its environmental setting. The Marina Shores Village project proposed the tallest buildings, and the largest grouping of tall buildings, that had ever been proposed in Redwood City. The Marina Shores Village project included, among other uses, 17 high-rise residential towers at a maximum height of up to 240 feet (21 stories) in the Baytront area east of U.S. 101, where there were no similar developments. The 3 See end of Comment 19.02 in Comment Letter 19 of the FEIR, included in appeal letter (attached to this staff report) as Exhibit A. 4