Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 4 <br />entitled, they are subtracted from this cap; likewise, if existing units are demolished, <br />they are added back into the cap. <br />As a result of the reduction of units in the Revised Project, the total number of remaining <br />and proposed market -rate units has changed from when the previous project was <br />approved. At present there are 521 market rate dwelling units remaining under the MAD <br />cap, and there are 491 units proposed (including the revised 603 Jefferson project). <br />DTPP Standards <br />Staff has determined that the Revised Project would not alter Staff's conclusions <br />regarding consistency with the required DTPP Standards, including height, setbacks, <br />parking, sidewalk widths, and architectural character style. <br />Historic Resources Review <br />As described in the May 17, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report, the Project is <br />located adjacent to a historic resource located at 620 Jefferson Avenue (Hanson <br />Lumber Company Employee Housing building). The Applicant hired Richard Brandi <br />(qualified architectural historian) to review the Project and analyze any potential adverse <br />impacts to the adjacent historic resource. Mr. Brandi's concluded that the Project would <br />not have an impact on the significance of the historic resource, nor would the Project <br />create a substantial adverse change that would affect the eligibility of the historic <br />resource to be listed on the California Register of Historic Resources. At their regular <br />meeting of February 11, 2016, the HRAC voted 4-1 (Committee Member Roche <br />dissenting) that, upon reviewing the historian's report and other associated materials, <br />the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the <br />historic resource, and that it would remain eligible for listing in the California Register. <br />Staff concludes that the Revised Project, which would be approximately 15 -feet shorter <br />than the Project, would not affect the HRAC's determination. <br />The Project was also reviewed for shadow impacts on nearby properties and evaluated <br />against the DTPP Architectural Character regulations. Staff concludes that the Revised <br />Project would reduce shadow impacts and would maintain consistency with the DTPP's <br />Architectural Character regulations. <br />The effect of new development near historic resources was thoroughly studied in the <br />DTPP EIR, and regulations were incorporated into the adopted DTPP to ensure the <br />compatibility of new development with nearby historic resources. Since the certified EIR <br />adequately analyzed potential impacts as they relate to historic resources in the <br />downtown setting, staff has determined that there would be no new impacts associated <br />with the Revised Project that were not already fully addressed in the EIR. <br />Architectural Guideline Review <br />Pursuant to DTPP Section 2.0.3, projects that conform to the DTPP standards, but not <br />the guidelines, shall be reviewed by the AAC to determine the acceptability of the <br />aspects of the project that do not conform to the guidelines. At their February 9, 2016 <br />meeting, the AAC reviewed the Project and voted 4-0 to recommend that the Planning <br />