Laserfiche WebLink
8.0 <br /> Page 7 <br /> based on Alternative 4. Aiternative 4 would reduce the M.A.D. caps for new retail from <br /> 221,000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft., but increase the cap for net new office floor area from <br /> 275,000 sq. ft. to 500,000 sq. ft. This latter change is intended to respond to economic <br /> conditions indicating an increased demand for office space and a reduced demand for <br /> retail, which is reflected by the prevailing retail vacancy rates, and to provide for the <br /> maximum allowable development to support the plan's economic objectives. In <br /> addition, the decrease in retail space and increase in office space would be expected to <br /> reduce various types of environmental impacts from the DTPP due to the lower per- <br /> square-foot vehicle trip generation and water consumption rates for office than for retail <br /> space. The M.A.D. limitations for Alternative 4 are compared to the M.A.D. project in <br /> the following table: <br /> M.A.D. Comparison to Alternative 4 <br /> Residential Office Retail Lodging Industrial <br /> (units (sq. ft. (s . ft. rooms) sq. ft. <br /> Project <br /> Maximum <br /> Allowable 2,500 275,000 221,000 200 -95,000 <br /> Development <br /> (MAD <br /> Alternative 4 2,500 500,000 100,000 200 -95,000 <br /> Net Change 0 225,000 (121,000) 0 0 <br /> Historic Resources <br /> Alternative 5(Revised Historic Resources Preservation Regulations) would provide <br /> additional, specific guidance to City staff and the HRAC regarding effective application <br /> of the Secretary of Interior's Standards and other preservation regulations to individual, <br /> site-specific development proposals involving historic resources. This alternative <br /> incorporates a revised set of principles that will be used to create a more conservative <br /> set of regulations for additions or modifications to historic resources, and is based on a <br /> recommendation from the Historic Resources Advisory Committee developed over an <br /> extended series of ineetings. Atternative 5 includes development guidelines regarding <br /> height, setbacks, historic features, and other provisions. Alternative 5 would also <br /> establish a thorough project review process for consideration of special exceptions to <br /> the DTPP historic resources regulations. Staff recommended that the Planning <br /> Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of a modified DTPP reflecting the <br /> changes described as Alternatives 5(in combination with Alternative 4 as described <br /> above) in the EIR, and reject the other alternatives as infeasible based on the analysis <br /> outlined in the EIR. The Planning Commission agreed with staff and is now <br /> recommending that the City Council include Alternative 4 and 5 in the Downtown <br /> Precise Plan (while disregarding the other alternatives). <br /> Shadow Thresholds <br /> The new DTPP and the DTPP E!R also consider the shadowing effects of development <br /> permitted under the DTPP. Metropolitan Planning Group was hired by the City to <br /> independently identify the potential shadowing effects and establish criteria for <br /> 7 <br />