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

Browse Search

Page 13 of 27 As a result, the City was required to review the Project for any potential “substantial adverse change” to the adjacent resources at 620 Jefferson Ave., 605 Middlefield Rd., and 611 Middlefield Rd. (DTPP, p. 43 [2.1.4(D)]), and the Applicant hired Richard Brandi, a qualified architectural historian, to review the potential impacts to the significance of these three historic resources. Mr. Brandi’s report explains that the Project would not have any adverse effects on the three historic resources, and that they would still be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources since the project does not physically touch or alter the resources, and because the historical feeling and setting of the downtown area has changed greatly since the construction of the three historic resources. The HRAC and the Planning Commission relied on this report to conclude that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of the three historic resources, as required by the DTPP (Section 2.1.4.D) and the certified EIR mitigation measures. Thus, the Project complies with all required non-historic mitigation measures that apply to the Project site at 612 Jefferson Avenue. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with all historic resource provisions of the DTPP, including those applicable to (1) historic resources and (2) non-historic sites adjacent to historic resources. ii. The Project Complies with the Architectural Character Regulations Appellant’s Contention: That while contemporary architecture is allowed for the Project site, it is not appropriate given the proximity of the three historic resources discussed earlier in this report (620 Jefferson, and 605 and 611 Middlefield); that the DTPP’s prohibition of Victorian architecture in the North of Marshall District is flawed given that the resource at 620 Jefferson is of a Victorian architectural style; that the Project architecture is not consistent with any of the photographs in the DTPP depicting “contemporary” architecture; and that the architectural character of the Project is not compatible with “the established patterns in the various parts of downtown.” (See Appeal, pp. 3-6) City’s Response: As noted earlier in this report, the North of Marshall Architectural Character District in which the Project site is located has an architectural character incorporating materials and imagery of contemporary design, and that no particular style is dominant. Historic, pre-World War II styles have very little representation in the North of Marshall District, and as such, the DTPP allows greater flexibility here than it does in other places because compatibility isn’t as significant of an issue as it is elsewhere in the Downtown. For the North of Marshall district, in which the Project site is located, Neoclassical, Craftsman, Mediterranean, Art Deco and Contemporary architectural styles are permitted. In fact, as noted by the Appellant (see Appeal, p. 5), the only architectural style not permitted in this area is Victorian. In other words, the North of Marshall District is the least restrictive of all downtown districts in terms of architectural style and character. The DTPP expressly states that the architectural character regulations “will 8.A. - Page 13