AgdaPkt 2015-09-28 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

But these regulations do not control development on 601 Marshall Street. For example, there are no architectural review standards or guidelines limiting the height of buildings adjacent to 620 Jefferson Avenue (other than the standard height limitations of buildings to 12 stories, as discussed elsewhere in this report). Thus, the Project is in compliance with all historic preservation provisions. Second, the Project is in compliance with all measures of the DTPP which apply to non- historic sites (such as the subject site) that are near historic resources. All non-historic parcels in downtown, including the Project site, are placed into non- historic mitigation groups ranging from 1 to 6, with group 1 having the most mitigation measures and group 6 having the least. (DTPP, p. 31 [Historic Resources Preservation Chart].) The groups have mitigation measures, or development restrictions, meant to minimize impacts to the nearby historic resource. A portion of the Project site adjacent to 611 Middlefield is within non-historic mitigation group 4, which includes height reductions along its frontage. The remaining portions of the Project site are within non- historic mitigation group 6, which requires review by an architectural historian and the HRAC. As a result, the City was required to review the Project for any potential “substantial adverse change” to the three adjacent resources—the historic courthouse, 611 Middlefield Road and 620 Jefferson Avenue. (DTPP, p. 43 [2.1.4(D)].) The Applicant hired Richard Brandi, a qualified architectural historian, to review the potential impacts to the significance of 611 Middlefield Road and 620 Jefferson Avenue. The City hired Page & Turnbull, qualified architectural historians, to peer review Mr. Brandi’s analysis and to analyze potential impacts to the significance of the historic courthouse. The reports explain that the Project, even at its original proposed height of 11 stories, would not cause a “substantial adverse change” to the significance of these three historical resources and that these resources would retain their continued eligibility for listing on the California Register. The HRAC and the Planning Commission relied on these reports to conclude that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of these three historical resources, as required by the DTPP (Section 2.1.4.D) and the certified EIR mitigation measures. Page & Turnbull prepared a subsequent memo, dated August 7, 2015, that analyzed the reduced 9-story Project, that again concluded that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of the three adjacent historic resources. Thus, the Project is in compliance with all required non-historic mitigation measures that apply to the Project site at 601 Marshall Street. 7.A. - Page 10