AgdaPkt 2017-05-22 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 10 of 27 As discussed in detail below, the Project is consistent with the DTPP and advances numerous DTPP policies, and the City has ample discretion to approve Project deviations from the DTPP guidelines. Under DTPP Section 2.0.1, applicants must comply with DTPP guidelines, unless the City agrees to a proposal of alternative design details that implement the overall DTPP objectives with respect to the desired character of the Downtown. For “Large Projects” such as the subject proposal, DTPP Section 2.0.3.A.2.a requires the Planning Commission to evaluate the recommendations of staff and the AAC in making a decision on the project, including whether the aspects of the project that do not conform to the guidelines nonetheless adequately promote the overall intent of the DTPP. As the Planning Commission staff report explains and the Planning Commission found, the Project satisfied all required City review and approval processes including the HRAC and AAC review, and Planning Commission approval. Further, the Project meets all applicable DTPP standards, and satisfies all but fifteen guidelines, for which permitted deviations may appropriately be approved, as they were reviewed by the AAC and approved by the Planning Commission. Details on the requested deviations were described earlier in the Background section of this report. Thus, staff recommends denial of the appeal and approval of the Project, as further discussed below. b. Staff Response to Points of Appeal re: DTPP. Despite the fact that the City has solid grounds for finding the Project consistent with the DTPP, Appellants contend that Council should find the Project to be inconsistent. The following discussion responds to Appellant’s contentions. i. The Project Is Consistent with All Historic Resource Preservation Regulations. Appellant’s Position: The Project is inconsistent with historic resource preservation provisions of the DTPP, asserting that it violates the “community preference” for structures that reflect historic architecture downtown; that it does not “actively encourage and promote the preservation of Redwood City’s historic resources,” and that the intent of the DTPP is to preserve all historic resources because they make Downtown “an attractive and unique place;” that “historic resources be placed first in consideration of any development;” that the project will detract from and impact a cluster of historic resources; that it is not “compatible with the area’s historic built environment;” that due consideration was not given to “the compatibility with neighboring structures to the extent feasible;” that height reductions were not considered to “preserve the character of historic streets” and to make appropriate “height transitions to historic neighborhoods;” that it is not compatible with “recognized boundaries of landmark districts and on the sites outside and immediately adjacent to those boundaries;” that it does not “preserve and enhance visible reminders of the city’s historic and architectural heritage and its fringes” nor integrate these landmarks into the downtown; and that the 8.A. - Page 10