AgdaPkt 2007-02-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

98 Page 6 to residential developments on Brewster Avenue when no such developments have been proposed. It is again important to emphasize that the City has not adopted any local thresholds regarding shadow impacts, and does not consider the shadow differences between building heights permitted under existing zoning (7 stories) and an 8-story building permitted under the Draft Precise Plan to be a significant impact. Further, even though a shadow study for the Precise Plan was not conducted, the administrative record contains substantial evidence of non-substantial shadowing that could be caused by a new 8-story building adjacent to the appellant's property. Based on a shadow study prepared by the property owner and presented to the Planning Commission for its consideration during public meetings on the Draft Precise Plan, if a new building is built per the Precise Plan behind the appellant's property, the appellant's own shadow study demonstrates the following: . In a worst case scenario, the appellant's building would be cast in shadow for only a portion of daylight hours. . In the best case scenario, only an insignificant portion of the appellant's building would be cast in shadow for only a portion of daylight hours. . As the sun traverses across the sky, the shadowing would intensify and then dissipate. Shadow would not be cast for all daylight hours. Summary The primary focus of the appeal is that the appellant claims that shadow effects to his property should be considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA, thus requiring the evaluation of alternatives. The appellant has suggested an alternative building height for his property that is different than what is proposed in the Draft Precise Plan. As indicated in this report, the City does not consider shadow effects on non- residential uses in general to be significant environmental impacts and did not conduct shadow studies for the Downtown Precise Plan. The administrative record contains substantial evidence that the Precise Plan would not cause substantial shadowing to the appellant's property; thus, shadowing effects are not considered a substantial adverse physical change to the property and alternatives to reducing such effects are not required to be evaluated in the EIR. Shadows are commonplace for a downtown. The EIR prepared for the Downtown Precise Plan and certified by the Planning Commission is in compliance with CEQA and the City's General Plan policies and development review practices. Alternative Uphold the appeal on the certification and remand the FEIR back to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impact Not applicable. 6