13 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT 4. What is a Historic Resource? Policy 1 says historic resource is a residential building built before 1942 ... determined using the Pleasanton Downtown Historic Context Statement to be eligible for listing in the California Register. Mr. MacDonald stated that Mr. Dolan told the Chamber this morning that the reference to the Context Statement does not change the requirement that each property designated a historic resource must meet the full criteria for California Register listing. He noted that that is a helpful clarification and that he is ready to take Mr. Dolan's word so the word change is not warranted. He added that he comes from the trust-but-verify school of thought when it comes to new government regulations. He stated that he thinks the Planning Commission should request that the Comprehensive Historic Resource Survey to be performed based on those criteria be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council. He pointed out that each property recommended for designation as a historic resource, and the factual basis for that designation should be vetted by the people whose property is being designated. He emphasized that the final determination of a property as a historic resource should be made by the City Council and not by some consultant. He indicated that that is a needed safeguard to assure that the standards are reasonably applied. 5. Converts Guidelines into Mandates. Mr. Dolan stated earlier that Policy 10 is not intended to make the guidelines mandatory to the extent that they are mandatory or voluntary now, and that they will stay that way. Mr. MacDonald stated that Mr. Dolan gave the clarification that he was hoping for. Mike Peel stated that he attended Task Force Meetings #1 through #7 and that at the last Task Force meeting, he was told that items decided by the previous six Task Force meetings were not going to be changed or discussed. He called attention to the paragraph on height and mass on page 35 of the Downtown Design Guidelines: "In the immediate area, homes on the lots within 200 feet of the subject lot." He indicated that this was decided in Task Force Meeting #6 and that he could not bring up any discussion on it in Task Force Meeting #7. Mr. Peel stated that on October 4, 2013, he got an email from Steve Otto stating that paragraph 8 on page 9 of 12 of the changes, the "200 feet" is now changed to "150 feet of the subject property." He noted that this was not discussed in the last Task Force Meeting, and, therefore, he does not know if it got changed by staff or by the Task Force itself. He questioned who is going to determine the square footage of the surrounding 18 to 25 homes. He stated that, as a real estate broker, he knows that on the tax records, the square footages of these older homes are misleading, and some do not even exist. He questioned what if one of the surrounding neighbors does not want the applicant to come onto their property to measure their house, and how can the applicant then get the accurate measurements of the houses surrounding the subject property. DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/13/2013 Page 12 of 28