Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> <br />Despite the fact that the City has solid grounds for finding the Project consistent with the <br />DTPP, Appellants contend that Council should find the Project to be inconsistent. The <br />following discussion responds to Appellants’ contentions. <br /> <br />i. The Project Is Consistent with All Historic Resource Preservation <br />Regulations. <br /> <br />Appellants’ Position: The Project is inconsistent with historic resource preservation <br />provisions of the DTPP, asserting that it violates the “community preference” for <br />structures that reflect historic architecture downtown; that it does not “actively <br />encourage and promote the preservation of Redwood City’s historic resources,” and <br />that the intent of the DTPP is to preserve all historic resources because they make <br />Downtown “an attractive and unique place;” that “historic resources be placed first in <br />consideration of any development;” that the project will detract from and impact a cluster <br />of historic resources; that it is not “compatible with the area’s historic built environment;” <br />that due consideration was not given to “the compatibility with neighboring structures to <br />the extent feasible;” that height reductions were not considered to “preserve the <br />character of historic streets” and to make appropriate “height transitions to historic <br />neighborhoods;” that it is not compatible with “recognized boundaries of landmark <br />districts and on the sites outside and immediately adjacent to those boundaries;” that it <br />does not “preserve and enhance visible reminders of the city’s historic and architectural <br />heritage and its fringes” nor integrate these landmarks into the downtown; and that the <br />HRAC did not properly analyze the Project’s effects on the property at 605 Middlefield <br />Road. (See Carr, Yeley and Associates Appeal, pp. 1-7, 9-10) <br /> <br />City Response: The City properly considered historic resources, community <br />preferences for structures that reflect the character of the area’s historic architecture, <br />and whether the Project will detract from adjacent historic resources. To specifically <br />address these issues, this report outlines how the Project complies with all historic <br />preservation provisions as well as all mitigation measures of the DTPP which apply to <br />non-historic sites (such as the subject site) that are adjacent to historic resources. <br /> <br />First, as described in the Planning Commission report, the Project is in compliance with <br />all historic preservation measures. The historic resources regulations are placed first in <br />order in Book 2 of the DTPP because they are of particular interest. However, they do <br />not trump any other regulations and are interrelated to and complementary with the <br />other regulations of Book 2. <br /> <br />In preparing the DTPP, every property in the larger downtown area (approximately 183 <br />acres) was studied and all historic resources were identified. (DTPP, p. 157.) A total of <br />8.C. - Page 8