Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6 of 9 <br />information about each ODS standard inconsistency. <br /> <br />Table 1: Site Development Standards Conformance <br /> <br /> 1 One dwelling unit permitted per 1,000 square-feet <br /> <br />The proposed project presents multiple inconsistencies with ODS related to site layout and <br />circulation. While vehicle access is provided from Augustine Street and some units have <br />street-facing entries, the plans are inconsistent with respect to access to the studio units and <br />do not provide clear pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way to unit entrances <br />(ODS B1). The project also includes nonconforming setbacks, including a reduced front <br />setback and a west-side setback that does not meet required standards for building height and <br />sloping plane requirements. <br /> <br />The proposed building’s height, massing, and architectural design are also inconsistent with <br />ODS requirements: B2, B2.4, B7.6, C1, C1.5, C2, C3.b, C4.1, C4.2, C5.1, C5.2, C5.a, C7.1, <br />C7.2, C7.5, C7.7, C7.6, and C7.9, as detailed in the May 27, 2026, agenda report. The <br />proposed three-story, 34-foot structure exceeds the allowable two-story, 30-foot residential <br />height limit and does not provide sufficient step-backs or articulation to reduce building mass. <br />Additionally, the building orientation does not establish an active street frontage, and entries <br />are not clearly visible or directly connected to the public sidewalk, resulting in a lack of <br />pedestrian-oriented design. Staff and the Planning Commission found the design to be overly <br />driven by building mass rather than neighborhood integration, with insufficient façade <br />modulation and entry prominence. <br /> <br />Parking, open space, and landscaping elements also raise compliance concerns. Bicycle <br />parking details are incomplete, and required private usable open space is not provided for all <br />units, particularly the studio units (ODS B6.5, B6.6). While landscaping is substantial, tree <br />removal is proposed without clear identification of which trees would be retained, and some <br />existing specimen redwoods may be impacted due to traffic safety and visibility requirements <br />at the driveway (although this condition exists to some degree today). Proposed fencing and <br />gates also do not comply with height and design standards, and key details for vehicle gates <br />Page 242 of 373