Reso25 16298 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

26 exceptions to height stepdown requirements or side setback requirements could be granted that might result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (p. 6-14) included Mitigation Measure AE-5 (“Shadow Study for Exceptions to Building Placement and/or Building Height and Disposition Regulations”), which requires projects seeking exceptions to DTPP regulations pertaining to building placement and/or building height and disposition to demonstrate to City Staff that the exceptions would be consistent with the DTPP (section 2.7.5) and would not result in shadow exceeding 50 percent on the shadow-sensitive uses and spaces at noon on the Spring Equinox. The SEIR concluded that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impacts related to shadow to a less-than-significant level. Given the Commercial Component is seeking DTPP exceptions, the applicant provided a shadow study (“solar study”) in compliance with Mitigation Measure AE-5 that simulated component-generated shadows for noon on the Spring Equinox (see Plan Sheet G3.02, 8/5/2024). The component shadow study showed that shadows would not cause any shadow-sensitive uses to be more than 50 percent in shadow at noon on the Spring Equinox. Shadows would generally extend northward (with northeastern, northwestern, and western parts) at noon on the Spring Equinox, casting shadow on most of Winklebleck Street, the westernmost portion of the proposed Franklin Street extension, and California Street just beyond the intersection of California Street, Winklebleck Street, and the proposed Franklin Street extension. Shadows would extend partially onto properties along Winklebleck Street and the proposed Franklin Street extension opposite the project component site; however, the land uses on the adjacent properties include parking lots, a fully enclosed commercial building on a site in the Planned Community (P) zoning district with a Mixed Use - Downtown General Plan land use designation, and a parcel in the P zoning district with the Mixed Use - Downtown General Plan land use designation that appears to contain a single-story commercial building (as of September 2023). No shadows would be cast on any shadow- sensitive uses identified in the DTPP or DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments. Because the shadow study showed that shadows from the proposed project component would not cause any shadow-sensitive uses to be more than 50 percent in shadow at noon on the Spring Equinox, and the proposed project component would be in compliance with all applicable DTPP Standards regarding shadows, no additional shadow impacts would be anticipated. The Commercial Component would have a less than significant impact for the reasons noted. Therefore, this component would be consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR and would not create new impacts or 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 of the Commercial 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 which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the EIR/SEIR, and (4) one feasible mitigation measure contained within the EIR/SEIR (Mitigation Measure AE-5) applied and the shadow study confirmed the Commercial Component’s shadow impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons, the aesthetic impacts of the proposed component would be consistent with the impacts identified in the EIR/SEIR and this project component does not require additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Housing Component: a. Views in the city range from views of adjacent development to views of surrounding cities, San Francisco Bay, and the hills in the distance, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains. As stated in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Focused GPU program EIR, the four most notable viewpoints for scenic vistas are in the elevated western hillsides – Easter Cross, Easter Bowl, Canada College, and Edgewood County Park. As with other viewpoints typical of an urban environment, views can often be partially obscured by buildings, trees, telephone and power lines, cell towers, or other structures. New development facilitated by the Focused GPU would result in taller and more dense development than currently exists at some locations, but this development would be consistent with the urban character of the City. As determined by the Focused GPU program EIR (pp. 4.1-8 and 4.1-9), General Plan Policy BE-8.1 requires development within the sensitive hillside areas of the City to minimize visual and environmental impacts. General Plan Policy BE-44.1 requires the City to collaborate with PG&E to maximize utility line undergrounding to reduce the visual impact of aboveground and overhead utilities, including electric lines. These and other General Plan goals and policies help protect views along major corridors like El Camino Real, Woodside Road, and Middlefield Road, to name a few, and would reduce impacts with respect to scenic vistas associated with future Focused GPU. The Focused GPU EIR therefore concluded that no scenic vistas or view corridors would be substantially obstructed or degraded by future ATTY/RESO.0031/CC RESO CEQA GUIDELINES (901 EL CAMINO REAL) REV: 04-22-25 VR Page 26 of 148