AgdaPkt 2013-11-18 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 140 backs" and"relational heighY'provisions for street frontages that would promote visually appropriate set backs to diminish relational height discrepancies. The Development violates these provisions of the EIR. E. Similar to the provisions of the DPP, the Development violates section 8.2.1 of the EIR because it does not enhance or preserve the "architectural character, histaric character and human scale of the district"to which it is immediately adjacent. F. The Development is not compatible with "recognized boundaries of landmark districts and on the sites outside and immediately adjacent to those boundaries". G. The Development does not "preserve and enhance visible reminders of the city's historic and architectural heritage and its fringes" nar does it integrate these landmarks into the urban design of the downtown . IIL The Planning Commission waived three substantial "adverse changes" brought on by the Development without regard to their impact on the cluster of historic buildings in the block affected. A. No contact was attempted with the owners of these parcels to discuss specifically their concerns about any of Yhe concepts embodied in the DPP or the EIR. B. Waivers of the potential adverse changes did not comply with the "complete streets" model described in detail in the DPP Plan. C. No consideration of height differential between a ten story development and one story buildings immediately adjacent to and across Bradford Street were considered in determining to waive the substantial changes. D. The Historic Resources Advisory Committee undertook an abbreviated analysis of the Development's effects on 605 Middlefield without any consideration of potential effects to other buildings in the cluster of historic buildings on the block affected. They also dismissed the historical significance of 605 Middlefield in a 10