Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />27 <br />more intensive and higher density uses because these views are already affected by the existing built environment and <br />compliance with the General Plan would minimize impacts. <br />The Housing Component is located in an urbanized area with a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial uses and <br />is not located in a designated scenic resource or view corridor. The Housing Component would not occur in an area <br />designated as “Parkland” nor would it occur in the southern and western hillside areas where viewpoints of important <br />scenic resources exist. The 920 Shasta Street project site does not contain any designated scenic resources. This <br />Component is consistent with residential land uses surrounding the site and is within the maximum allowable height. <br />Additionally, any scenic vistas visible from or near the project site are already impacted by Woodside Road to the east <br />and the Woodside Road off-ramp to the south which is at a higher elevation compared to the subject site and includes <br />landscaping that currently surrounds the subject site. As such, the Housing Component does not adversely affect any <br />designated scenic resources or view corridors, public open space, or historic resources. <br />As explained in the Focused GPU program EIR (pp. 4.1-8 and 4.1-9), many views in the city are already affected by <br />the existing built environment (e.g., the city is already largely built out) so even with the anticipated increase in <br />intensive and higher density uses, such as the proposed residential building, visual impacts on scenic vistas would not <br />be substantial. The Housing Component’s aesthetic impacts related to scenic vistas would therefore be less-than- <br />significant because the proposed development would be consistent with and not detract from existing views. For these <br />reasons, the Housing Component would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR and would not create <br />new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. <br />b. The Focused GPU program EIR (p. 4.1-9) concluded that because there are no officially designated scenic highways, <br />or highway segments eligible for designation as scenic highways, within the city, there would be no direct impact on <br />scenic highways. The project component site is located in the western part of the city; the closest scenic highway is I- <br />280, located approximately 2.25 miles southwest of the Housing Component site. In addition, impacts to scenic <br />resources would not occur because development of this component would not be inconsistent with State and local <br />regulations covering architecturally distinctive/historic buildings or historic points of interest. The impact of the <br />Housing Component, including but not limited to impacts on trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a <br />state scenic highway, would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required because it is consistent with <br />the existing land uses surrounding the subject site, is within the maximum allowable height, and would not <br />substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from an existing scenic resource. For these reasons, the Housing Component <br />would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR and would not create new impacts, increase impacts, <br />and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. <br />c. As discussed in the Focused GPU program EIR (p. 4.1-10), the Housing Component site is located in an urbanized <br />area, and based on the infill nature of the development and adopted architectural standards, visual change from new <br />development would be limited and the characteristics of surrounding neighborhoods would be substantially preserved. <br />For this reason, the Focused GPU EIR concluded the impacts of new development would be less than significant. <br />The Housing Component would be required to comply with adopted General Plan goals, policies, and implementation <br />programs intended to preserve scenic beauty and maintain community aesthetics, as discussed in Impact AES-1 and <br />Impact AES-3 of the Focused GPU program EIR; the Regulatory Framework section of the Focused GPU EIR (“4.1.2 <br />Regulatory Framework”); and other policies and programs identified in the Redwood City General Plan, especially <br />those related to Goal BE-13 “Enhance the Woodside Road Corridor.” In particular, Policy BE‐13.4 provides: “Support <br />new higher‐density residential development on Woodside Road, while ensuring that new development is sensitive to <br />adjacent single‐unit residential neighborhoods.” All of these adopted policies and programs help protect views along <br />major corridors, such as Woodside Road. This component would be consistent with General Plan Policy BE-13.4 as <br />it would result in higher-density residential development adjacent to Woodside Road. <br /> The Mixed-Use Transitional (MUT) Zoning District is intended to provide opportunities for moderate-scale <br />developments that reflect the transitional nature of the area from lower density residential or light industrial to higher <br />density and that facilitate pedestrian-friendly environments with the goal of providing areas for a variety of activities <br />such as light industrial, commercial, and moderate-density residential uses, or a mix thereof. The Housing Component <br />is consistent with the vast majority of the more than50 development regulations, including building height, site design, <br />and landscaping requirements. The development standards that the applicant requested modifications to result from <br />the State Density Bonus law in order to provide the proposed 100 units of 100 percent affordable housing at the site, <br />as also described in the project description (item #8 above). <br />The five concessions and one waiver to development standards that more specifically relate to architectural design <br />include the waiver of setback requirements, which would result portions of the building to encroach into the setback <br />requirements of 6’-0” side setback, a 5’-0” side setback, and a 15’-0” rear setback but would maintain at minimum a <br />ATTY/RESO.0028/CC RESO CEQA GUIDLINES (920 SHASTA) - EXHIBIT A <br />REV: 04-22-25 VR <br /> <br />Page 27 of 148