75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Application No. 2020-02, ER No. 2018-13 & AA No. 2020-04 — 4th and Mortimer Mixed -Use Development December 1, 2020 Page 12 should be approved unless proper CEQA analysis was conducted. Their findings were consistent with the information provided in their appeal letter and attached to this report. The Planning Commission considered Mr. Drury's public comment and received input from the City Attorney and the City's environmental consultant regarding the whether the addendum prepared for the project was the appropriate document. Both the City Attorney and the consultant stated that no subsequent CEQA analysis was required for the project other than the addendum which was prepared. Again, this was based on the fact that the technical studies evidenced that an EIR Addendum to the previously -certified 2010 EIR was the appropriate CEQA document to evaluate and disclose the project's impacts. Analysis of the Issues Section 41-664 of the SAMC requires a public hearing for the proposed amendment application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, with the Planning Commission as a recommending body and the City Council as the approving body. Since the project is seeking approval of an amendment application for a zone change on Site B to change the subzone from UN- 2 to the Urban Center (UC), review and approval of an amendment application is required by the City Council. Amendment Application The proposed project includes construction of two new Lined Block buildings, one of which would be a maximum of seven stories in height with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.4 (Site A) and one that would be five stories in height with an FAR of 1.8 (Site B). However, the UN-2 subzone does not include Lined Block buildings as a permitted building type. Therefore, the project would require an amendment application for a zone change on Site B from the UN-2 subzone to the Urban Center (UC) subzone. The UC subzone was selected in order to maintain aesthetic consistency with the proposed building on Site A. In addition, under the current UN-2 subzone, residential buildings with densities of up to 50 dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) are permitted. The proposed project on Site B involves development of a residential building with a density of approximately 54 DU/acre, which represents a slightly higher intensity use than the UN-2 subzone recommended density range of up to 50 DU/acre. However, Site B is surrounded by properties with higher intensity developments that are zoned DT and UC to the west and south. In addition, a review of the existing TZC map seen in Exhibit 8 demonstrates that it is was the original intent of the TZC to place UC subzones as both a buffer and a transition between the uses permitted in the high density Downtown (DT) subzone and the less intense UN-2 neighborhoods surrounding it. While the adopted TZC allowed for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods, reuse of existing buildings, and creation of new mixed use and transit -oriented development, it intended to transition the subzones with higher allowable densities to those that permitted lower density ranges. With the exception of Site B, all of the adjacent DT subzone parcels are surrounded by UC subzone parcels. The proposed change to the UC designation would be consistent with the existing adjacent parcels that surround the DT subzone (see Figure 1 below). 75C-12