AgdaPkt 2014-10-06 Closed and Joint with SA

Browse Search

7.3.B. - Page 60 According to the Arborist's Report, there are a total of 29 trees on -site, of which 10 are on -site and are classified as protected trees, which would require tree removal permits. An arborist report prepared for the project concludes: the applicant plans to demolish the existing buildings and replace them with high- density, multi family residential development. Sidewalks, utilities and the street light at Jefferson and Franklin will be replaced and new street parking added along Franklin Street. Because of the density of the proposed development, there are no opportunities for tree preservation. All 29 trees fall within the limits of construction and will need to be removed, including the 10 Protected trees. Removal of any Protected tree requires a removal permit issued by the Director of Public Works and /or the City Landscape Architect. The proposed project would require removal of all trees from the project site. The Landscape Streetscape Plan (Plan Sheet L -1.1) indicates 11 new street trees, a planting bed with seat wall, shrubs and ground cover, and various potted plants along the site perimeter. The private interior open spaces (e.g., courtyard, roof deck) also would include planted areas and potted plants (Plan Sheets L -2.1, L -3.1). The project landscape plans are subject to City review and approval under the DTPP standards and guidelines as well as under standard City review procedures, including Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code (regarding street trees). g. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an adverse effect on vegetation or wildlife; nor will it conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. No habitat conservation plan applies to the project site. Also see item (e) above. Summary of Impacts Potentially Less than Significant Less than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource X as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or X unique geologic feature? d) Eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or X prehistory? e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries? Documentation: a. The DTPP (Appendix 1) identifies 47 historic resources and one designated historic district within the DTPP area. The DTPP program EIR (Chapter 7, Cultural and Historic Resources) concluded that there were potential impacts to these resources only for project sites located on or directly adjacent to a historic resource, or within or directly adjacent to a historic district. Consistent with EIR Chapter 7, the DTPP specifies standards, guidelines, and mitigations for historic resources identified in the DTPP. A vacant house located on -site at 103 Wilson Street is listed in the DTPP (Historic Resource Preservation Regulations Map, p. 32) as a "historic resource which may be altered, relocated, or removed"; this house is proposed to be removed as part of the project. A report on the house (Mitigation Plan for 103 Wilson Street, Jefferson Street Project; Richard Brandi; May 20, 2014) has been prepared and reviewed by the City Historical Resources Advisory Committee (HRAC) on August 14, 2014. Consistent with the DTPP program EIR (Chapter 7), the report's author is listed as a qualified historian with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and meets the requirements of a Qualified Professional as set forth by the Secretary of the Interior. As such, on August 14, 2014, the HRAC adopted Resolution 14 -01, recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Downtown Planned Community Permit for the project, consistent with the DTPP, and subject to the standards as required in Section 2.1.4 -B of the plan. The project site is located in DTPP Non - Historic Mitigation Group 5 (Historic Character) (DTPP Section 2.1, Historic Resources Preservation Regulations) and the El Camino Corridor Architectural Character Zone (DTPP Section 2.9, Architectural Character Regulations); collectively, these regulations require that the project "echo the Spanish Colonial history of the El Camino Real Corridor" (DTPP p. 116). The project site is not adjacent to any 11