AgdaPkt 2007-12-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7C Page 25 3. on-site retail commercial pravisions sufficient to serve the convenience retail needs of project residences and businesses; 4. a substantial affordable housing component; and 5. implementation of all mitigations identified in chapte�s 8 {Biological Resources) and 12 (Public Health and Safety) of the EIR as necessary to reduce projec�-related ecologica! impacts and enviranmental hazards to less-than-significant Eevels. Findings: Implementation of this measure is feasible and would reduce this potential project policy inconsistency ta a less-than-significant level. Il. VISUAL QUALITY A. Proiect Inconsistencv with Ci#v Heiqht-Rela#ed Policies and Requ[ations Potential impact 5-1: The proposed project woufd inciude ten residential multi- story buiidings ranging from 100 to 120 fest in height, with all other projec# buildings (86 buildings) at or below the 75-foot height limit. The talles# proposed residen#ial buildings, would exceed the current 75-foot height limit by approximately 45 feet. Unless the City approves the applicant-requested Precise Plan for the project site which permits these heights, the heights wauld be inconsistent with City policies and regulations. These heights would also result in a building scafe that is not consistent with the existing surraunding community. These building heights would therefore represent a srgnifrcant adverse visual impacf. Mitigatian 5-1: Implement one of the following two aEternative mitigations: 1. Mifigation Alternaiive 5-9-1: Reduce the maximum project buiiding heights on both praperties tfl 75 feet, which would reduce this policy and regulatory consistency impact to a less-than-significant level. 2. Mitigatron Alternative 5-1-2: Adopt a Precise Plan for the projec#si#e tha# permits a building height in excess of 75 feet, and desigrt the project accordingly. In conjunction with the new height allowance, formulate a set of Precise Plan Devefopment Standards and Urban Design Guidelines for the project si#e for adoption by the City's Architecturai Review Commitfee, Planning Commission, and City Councif that supersede current applicable City policies, standards, and guidelines pertaining to building form, height, separation, shadow, conformity, setbacks, facades, etc., and permit current height limitations to be exceeded on the project site, provided that ather specific provisions included in these Development Standards and Urban Design GuideEines are incorporated into the project design to City (Architecturai Review Committee Planning Commission, and City Council} satisfaction. These measures would eliminate the projecYs policy and regulatory inconsistencies with respect to bui(ding height, and thus would result in a less-than-significant visual impact. Findings: A Draft Peninsula Park Precise Plan (October 2007) has been formulated by City staff and an urban design consuftant under contract with fihe City. The Pian includes feasible performance standards--in the form af Development Standards and Urban Design Guidelines--that the proposed project must adequately address in order to receive Atty/Reso/Reso.1772 4 121307