SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

a. Homes built prior to 1900 should be considered historical assets unless proven otherwise by analysis by an approved historical consultant. b. Homes built between the years 1901 and 1942 should be in the questionable area to be ruled upon by City staff unless contested by the property owner, in which case, the expertise of an approved historical consultant should be called upon to decide the matter. c. Homes built after 1942, whether or not these homes are in an historical district, would be subject only the rules of the Uniform Building Code, as are the homes outside the historical districts, but "demos" would be subject to the Downtown Specific Plan and the Context Statement governing styles and themes. I believe that post 1942 "demos" should be allowed, subject to reasonable review by the Planning Department as to what will replace the removed building(s). d. One of the significant problems encountered with respect to remodeling these older homes is the fact that once the remodel begins, invariably it is discovered that there is extensive rot and termite damage, the homes were not constructed with current UBC codes and safety measures, there are no vapor barriers, the studs are not on 16" centers, headers are substandard, and the concrete foundations (if any) are constructed with 2 bag cement and fall apart when drilled or modified. As in the case of the home at 225 Spring Street, the remodel becomes a demolition because there is nothing to save. I have talked to several owners who have had exactly the same experience and I will give you the names and addresses should you wish to talk to those people. It's a very frustrating issue with which to deal, particularly if you are inexperienced in dealing with older homes. 6) I have real heartburn trying to support the move to change the rule that allows alterations made in the lower part of the homes located in the historical districts, primarily because it adversely affects the rights of property owners to make necessary repairs and reasonable alterations without going through the burdensome process of dealing with the Planning Department for such things as replacing old and inefficient windows with newer vinyl or vinyl -clad wood windows, or such things as replacing old rotten or termite ridden fascia boards, shutters, etc. 7) While the creation of an incentive program to encourage homeowners to upgrade their older homes is a great and admirable cause, I have yet to be made aware of anyone in the City of Pleasanton, (or, for that matter, in the Town of Los Gatos), who has taken advantage of any of these programs. There is just not enough incentive to justify the red tape, paperwork, rules, and restrictions that must follow these programs. It appears to be someone's dream world. Great theory but seldom, if ever, used by property owners. 8) The review and approval process, through which one must go to get a modification of a home in the historical districts is burdensome, time consuming, expensive, confusing, and entirely too subjective for the normal person and should be greatly simplified and streamlined. There are ways to do this without re- inventing the wheel. The suggestion of a flow chart would be a significant help in this area for someone trying to navigate the system for the first time. 9) The subject of "demolition" needs a lot of work and thought. When my family went through the crazy process of trying to remove (demo if you will) the house on Spring Street, the process became so silly that my kids were ready to give up before four reasonable people stepped in to help. My kids and I will always be thankful to Jennifer Pearce, Kathy Narum, Art Dunkley, and Linda Garbarino, for taking time out of their busy days to meet with us and for helping us to navigate the process to get the necessary approvals. Without the help of these people, that old run -down home /office would still be an empty blight and eyesore to the neighborhood. As you may know, we 2