My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
121713
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2013 1:21:52 PM
Creation date
12/9/2013 12:47:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/17/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DRAFT <br /> Commissioner Posson inquired what the rationale was for going beyond the State <br /> guidelines. He stated that the way he read this, there are two areas that go beyond the <br /> Stage guidelines: (1) the 1942 date versus the 50-year rolling time line; and (2) the Historic <br /> Context Statement. He requested a little background on what that genesis is and what type <br /> of public review that document has gone through. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that the change in date was basically the feeling of the Task Force and <br /> almost everyone the Task Force talked to, especially those who are a little bit older, felt that <br /> something that was built in 1963 was not really historic. He indicated that there are certain <br /> periods that the Context Statement actually describes, about when the boom's were and <br /> what they were related to. He continued that there is a certain kind of architecture that was <br /> associated with each of those, and it is spelled out pretty clearly in the Context Statement. <br /> He stated that the City would generally like to protect the homes that are older than 1942, <br /> but there are exceptions as not every home that is built before 1942 is going to qualify <br /> under the State criteria, and that actually releases a set of homes. He noted that this is not <br /> going beyond, but is actually more liberal than the State standard. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that he does not necessarily consider using the Context Statement as <br /> going beyond the State standard either. He explained that it is just saying that a common <br /> denominator will be used for the analysis: the pattern of development, the property types, <br /> and the components that make them important; and this is what is referred to when <br /> responding to the California Registry eligibility criteria. He stated, for example, that if <br /> George Washington slept there, that is a criterion that is more obvious; however, getting <br /> down to the components that make them important is where the professional judgment of <br /> the consultant will be necessary to determine if the property embodies the distinctive <br /> characteristics of a type, period or region, or method of construction, or represents the work <br /> of a master, or possesses high artistic values. He reiterated that making that distinction <br /> would be based on a common document. <br /> Commissioner Posson requested verification that by using 1942, more residents are <br /> excluded from this Ordinance than if the 50-year figure is used. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that is correct. He noted that there are not very many. He explained that <br /> if a house that was built in 1956 meets the State criteria, but the City is not considering it <br /> historically significant and the additional regulations that are part of the City's local criteria <br /> will not be applied to the house. <br /> Commissioner Posson asked what kind of peer review the Historic Context Statement went <br /> through. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that there was no peer review, but it was reviewed by the Task Force and <br /> staff, it was provided to the City Council, and it has been widely distributed at Task Force <br /> workshops and has been available on the website for over a year. <br /> Commissioner Posson inquired if there were any comments that came back. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/13/2013 Page 9 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.