Reso24 16254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

within Mixed Use ‐ Corridor and Mixed Use ‐ Neighborhood”) As discussed in “c” above, the purpose of Municipal Code Article 54 is to provide “opportunities for moderate-scale developments that facilitate pedestrian-friendly environments” … and “to provide areas for a variety of activities, including commercial, office, and moderate-density residential uses, or a mixture thereof.” As part of this implementing ordinance, “Single-use residential and nonresidential buildings are permitted in the MUN district as well. Sensitivity to lower-intensity adjacent uses, a focus on pedestrian and street-oriented design, and uses that serve the immediate neighborhoods are key considerations.” Article 54 establishes development standards related to allowed land uses; new streets and pathways; open space regulations; sidewalk, setback, and landscaping; parking and storage; height, density, and intensity; and façade composition and architectural regulations. Because the project component is requesting a waiver of the daylight plane requirement, the City has determined that the project component would be required to prepare a shade and shadow study. General Plan Program BE-12 requires “a shade and shadow study … to address impacts as defined below, unless the City’s Zoning Administrator determines, based on the scale and scope of the proposed project and the criteria set…” The CEQA Guidelines do not provide thresholds with respect to shade and shadow impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An iron-clad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. Based on the foregoing, shade and shadow impacts normally considered significant include: (1) new landscaping that would now or in the future cast substantial shadows on existing solar collectors; (2) casting of shadows that substantially impair the beneficial use of shadow‐sensitive public open space; (3) casting of shadows from parcels within the major transportation corridor onto adjacent residential parcels that substantially impair the beneficial use of the residential parcels; (4) casting of shadows that materially impair the historic significance of an historic resource; and (5) casting of shadows from parcels within a major transportation corridor onto adjacent parcels designated Residential ‐ Low, ‐ Medium, ‐ Medium High, and/or ‐ High that substantially impair the beneficial use of the residential parcels. A shadow analysis was prepared for the project component to evaluate its impacts with reference to these thresholds. Regarding item (1), the shadow analysis concluded there are no existing solar collectors on the structures adjacent to the project component site or within the shadows indicated on the project shade/shadow analysis.5 Regarding item (2), the shadow analysis concluded there is no shadow‐sensitive public open space adjacent to the project component site. Regarding item (3), based on the shadow analysis prepared for the project component (see Plan Sheets PA1.3 through PA1.5, 2/2/24), some shadows resulting from the proposed project component structure would increase during some times of the year and could affect some areas of neighboring residential parcels (e.g., yards); however, most of the increased shadows would occur during that latter part of the afternoon (3:00 PM). There would be no increase in shadows during the morning (9:00 AM) compared to existing shadows, and the only increase in shadows during midday (Noon) would occur on a small area surrounded by existing structures and vegetation/trees. Given the increase in shadows would be in a limited space compared to the total surrounding area, for a short period of time, during certain times of year, and would not affect the ability to use or enjoy the outdoor space given it is already impacted, the project component shadows would not substantially impair the beneficial use of adjacent residential parcels. Regarding item (4), the shadow analysis concluded there are no historic resources adjacent to the project component site. Regarding item (5), as discussed in item (3), the shadow analysis concluded project component shadows would not substantially impair the beneficial use of adjacent residential parcels. Based on the shadow analysis conducted in compliance with General Plan Program BE-12 regarding shadows, and as a result, no additional shadow impacts are anticipated. Thus, the 847 Woodside project component would have a less than significant impact for the reasons noted. The 847 Woodside project component would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR and would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. CONCLUSION With regard to the issue of Aesthetics, the following findings can be made: (1) no peculiar impacts to the 847 Woodside project component or its site have been identified, (2) there are no potentially significant effects or off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the EIR/SEIR, (3) no substantial new information has been identified 5 Google Maps street view, accessed 5/2/24. ATTY/RESO.0070/CC RESO 1900 BROADWAY (CEQA) - EXHIBIT 1 - CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECK LIST REV: 10-23-24 VR Page 27 of 135