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

Browse Search

Page 25 of 27 Appellant’s Contentions: The DTPP EIR envisioned a four story maximum height zone for the block on which the Project is proposed; the EIR envisioned “tower wall step backs” and “relational height” provisions for street frontages that would promote visually appropriate setbacks to diminish relational height discrepancies; that the Project violates the EIR because it does not enhance or preserve the “architectural character, historic character and human scale of the district” to which it is immediately adjacent; that it is not compatible with “recognized boundaries of landmark districts and on the sites outside and immediately adjacent to those boundaries;” and that it does not “preserve and enhance visible reminders of the city’s historic and architectural heritage and its fringes” nor does it integrate these landmarks into the urban design of the downtown. (See Appeal, pp. 7) City Response: As discussed earlier in this report, the Project site is located fully within a 12-story building height zone. The DTPP EIR studied building heights for their potential to create shadow impacts, impacts to historic streets, aesthetic impacts on historic resources (especially where resources are clustered), and impacts to low-rise historic neighborhoods adjacent to the DTPP area. As a result, it was determined that building heights needed to be reduced in some areas below the typical eight to 12-story maximum. These specific areas are indicated on the DTPP Height Regulations map on page 14 of this staff report, and page 82 of the DTPP. No building height reductions or building wall step backs are required on the Project site. As for the Appellant’s claims that the Project is incompatible with and does not enhance or preserve the character and scale of the district to which it is adjacent, as also previously noted in this report, the Project site is not located adjacent to any district(s), historic or otherwise. Finally, with respect to the Appellant’s statement that the Project does not “preserve and enhance visible reminders of the city’s historic and architectural heritage and its fringes” and it does not integrate these landmarks into the urban design of the downtown, the DTPP EIR placed a high degree of focus on analyzing potential impacts to the historic structures and character of downtown. The DTPP’s mandatory front setback, building height regulations, historic parcelization, and historic architectural character regulations were purposely crafted to keep new development on non-historic properties compatible with adjacent historic resources and/or districts. The Project is in conformance with all of these related DTPP regulations, and the required architectural historian’s review found that the Project would not have an impact on the significance of the historic resources at 620 Jefferson Ave., 605 Middlefield Rd., or 611 Middlefield Rd.; nor would the Project create a “substantial adverse change” that would affect the eligibility of the resource to be listed on the California Register of Historic Resources. This analysis complies with DTPP EIR Mitigation Measure 7-4, and the DTPP Historic Resources Mitigation Measure for the Project site, which call for the Project to be reviewed by a qualified architectural historian, and by the HRAC, for its potential impacts on the adjacent historic resource(s). As such, no further CEQA analysis for historic resource impacts is required. 8.A. - Page 25