AgdaPkt 2002-12-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_ _ q.��25� ��x��;�� _ Development of the revised project would be requind to confocm to all City development standards (Article XN, Scetion 18234� and procediaes, including (but not�d �u) watcr, sewa, and sWim draina8e sYstem �mp�ovements; culvert relocation; strat improvements (c�abs, gutters, sidewalks, PavinB� sstreedights, and street trees); aad undergro�md utilities. - _ __ - ... -- . Conditional Use Permit � The followinB proJect components, when located in the Central Business Retail zoning dist:ict, would require conditional use permits: ■ Movie theatets (consistent with the zoning text amendtnent that was praposed as a part of the origi- nal project proposal) ■ Retail spaces gteater than 5,000 square feet • Parldn8 Sarage - Specific businesses within the project — for example, restautants and cafes, restaiaants with outdoor seating, and new businesses with an area equal W or gnater than 5,000 square feet — would also require conditional use permits. These pecxnits would be covaed by the Conditional Use Permit for the entire project. Comparison to the Oriainal Proiect This configurarion of the revised project represcnts a modification of the original project, for which an EIIt was certified in January, 2001. The differences between the two projects are: • Zoning Text Amendment: the text of the amendmrnt as originally proposed read as follows: q. Theaters for the following uses: cinemas, premieres, live performances, concerts, private paz- ties, general assembly for educational purposes and non-profit activities, and other ancillary uses as appropriatc. The revised text (see p. 2 of this Addendum) simplifies the amendment (by eliminating `�remieres," "concerts," "for educariona] purposes" (following "general assembly"), and "and non-profit activi- ties." It also locates this provision later in the list of conditional uses permitted in the CBD zone than did the original proposal. • Culvert Relocation: the approved project did not include undergound uses on Block 1, and there- fore would not have required relocation of the existing culvert. • Development Characteristics: � Block 1 would have been occupied by a mixed-use building identical to the building proposed in the revised project, except the plara at the comer of Broadway and Middlefield Road would have been lazger and no pazldng would have been provided under the building. � Block 2 would have been occupied by a pazldng structure and office building. The pazldng structure would have contained 1,000 pazking spaces on five parking levels, including one level below ground, one level at grade, and three levels above grade. The office building would have contained 108,400 net square feet of space in a six-story (60-foot high) building at Z As noted in foomote 1, the gross building area of the revised project is slightly larger than the aree idrntified 'm the _ Draft EIR and Final EIR. 'Ihis change is considered to be a ttfinemrnt of the building measuremrnt rather than a sub- stantive change in the project, since the buiiding footprint has not cAenged except to accommodate the parking entry and exit area. 9