SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Karen Diaz From: Sent: To: Subject: Karen Diaz Monday, June 03, 2013 11:35 AM Mayor and City Council FW: Item No 19 - Dissenting Opinion Members of the City Council, cuvWmrtiaL ENAL Provided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet Date 1 do not agree with some of the recommendations being made on the Task Force report to the City Council and therefore, I would like to state my concerns about the matters at hand, relating to the efforts of the Historical Task Force and its mission. 1 worry a lot about where we are going with the task force effort and that we are not solving the basic problems with the system. Here is my take on this subject: 1) First of all, I don't think that we need a historical ordinance. 1 spent yesterday afternoon re- reading for the third time, the Downtown Specific Plan and 1 believe it to be a well written, well thought out document giving the City of Pleasanton all the authority it needs to carry out its mission. None of us as residents and property owners of historical Pleasanton, wants to sacrifice or significantly alter the historical value of homes in downtown Pleasanton without some oversight-- (particularly the truly historic homes); it's a major reason why we live here. Having said that, there needs to be some common sense applied to how we preserve the charm, beauty, historical significance and the vitality of the community and the historical assets contained therein, without the sacrifice of significant property owner rights. 2) Having read the Downtown Specific Plan and the Context Statement several times, it occurs to me that the work done on these documents represents an outstanding level of expertise and effort on the parts of the participants and that, with a little "tweaking ", modifying, and updating, they will serve the city well for the foreseeable future. 3) I think that we should adopt and embrace the Context Statement as an additional aid to the planning department and used as a research document and history lesson for all to read and enjoy. I think that the document lends clarity and more definition to the various styles of architecture prevalent during the historical periods of Pleasanton. 4) If the city can find the $100,000 necessary to make a current inventory and evaluation of the truly historic or architecturally significant assets in the historical areas of Pleasanton, 1 believe that resulting document would be very helpful in determining which homes reflect the historical styles noted in the Context Statement and in assessing which homes either qualify for some level of protection, or whether the owner needs to commission further studies in an effort to keep his home out of this category. This study and its resulting findings have the potential of making unnecessary, the requirement to spend $5,000 by a homeowner who finds his property in a historical area but not included in the category of a historical or architecturally significant asset even though his property may be located in a historical district. 5) I think that we need to differentiate between truly historical assets and the "run of the mill" houses built during the various periods of Pleasanton development. One way of doing this is to get rid of the "50 year" rule and replace it with something more logical. I think that rnost of us are in general agreement with this suggestion. My recommendation is the following: i