CCMIN082013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio expressed concern that genuinely important details could be overlooked in what could become a complicated transaction. She asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that, if the property is to be sold, it is imperative to ensure that the parcel map is executed properly and legally. Dale Morris, representing the property owner, clarified that due to conflicting schedules, he and Ms. Hardy spoke for the first time yesterday regarding the potential sale. He explained that his client and Ponderosa entered into a new contract opting out of the lot one month ago, after which he was instructed to find a buyer for the existing residence subject to all that is before the Council tonight. He said he was fortunate enough to contact a property investor whose family actually owned the home when he was a child, and that they recently committed over $500,000 cash to the purchase and rehabilitation of the home. He noted that the current contract with Ponderosa already requires that the applicant landscape, fence and supply utilities to the home and therefore asked that Condition No. 25 be deleted. With regards previous improvements to the home, he explained that the second story addition was actually a finished preexisting attic, with no changes to the permitted roofline or stairwell. Councilmember Brown asked when the prospective buyer planned to begin work on the project. Mr. Morris explained that the contract stipulates he has a maximum of 5 days to close escrow following the official lot split. He noted that the buyer's preference is to retain some sort of commercial zoning for the site and that they were less concerned with rezoning to residential-commercial. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio requested clarification on what impact tonight's action, if taken, would have on the lot split. Mr. Dolan explained that a parcel map would be required, though as noted previously the applicant submitted the necessary application some time ago and it should only take several weeks. Councilmember Narum asked how quickly a commercial overlay could be accomplished. Mr. Dolan said several months, if it were staff's top priority. When asked whether this would keep pace with the applicant's project, Mr. Dolan said it could be completed well ahead of the larger project. Jan Batcheller said that Pleasanton is incredibly lucky to have Ponderosa, one of California's finest builders, propose such a beautiful solution to what has been an eyesore for the last 40 years. She asked that the Council let the existing home stand on its own merits, to be considered when its new owner makes application to the city, and to approve the 12 unit project. She also asked that the Council delete all of Condition No. 4 relative to Option 1 or that they indemnify Ponderosa for any issues or injuries that might occur during the course of their work on the home. She read from Peter MacDonald's letter to the Council: "The cumulative effects of imposing historical mandates on older buildings which lack historical and architectural merit would be to discourage anyone desiring to invest in and redevelop obsolete buildings in downtown. Recent erratic historic requirements have cast a cloud of uncertainty and delay on downtown investment." Jerry Hodnefield, Historical Preservation Task Force, said he agreed largely with the points in Mr. MacDonald's letter but would prefer that the Council entertain Option 2. He said he spent considerable time reviewing the proposed project and is impressed with the applicant's efforts to revitalize what has been an unmitigated eyesore for many years. He said he believed strongly in saving and preserving heritage homes as a historical asset, but that the also believes this home to be riddled with mold and rot, scabbed together with miscellaneous materials, and completely devoid of any value or historical merit. He suggested that any attempt to rehabilitate the home would result in the existing structure being taken down to the studs and replaced with something that resembles the original home in appearance only. He said the task force is currently working on a system that will remove some of the subjectivity from this process and divides homes into 2 categories — those built prior to and those built after 1941. The latter would be presumed to be of little or no architectural or historical significance City Council Minutes Page 7 of 10 August 20, 2013