01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan reviewed the concepts presented to the Council in June and summarized the Council's position at that time. • Creation of a local historic district— Council did not support • Creation of local standards— Council majority did not support • Creation of a new definition of"demolition" — Council supported • Application of Design Review to the first floor— Council did not support • Clarification of policies and guidelines— Council supported • Creation of process flow charts to guide applicants through the process— Council supported • Completion of a comprehensive survey to determine which buildings are considered to be historically significant— Council supported • Implementation of the Mills Act, which allows for an agreement between the City and property owner to provide property tax relief in exchange for certain historic preservation related improvements— Council did not support The Council had also raised several points at the June meeting that ultimately resulted in recommendations from the task force. These include the issue of demolition by neglect and the use of story poles in the Design Review process. The task force recommendations affect a number of the City's current policy documents and regulations and would require amendments to the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and related Downtown Design Guidelines, and Municipal Code. All changes are proposed to be limited to the Downtown Specific Plan area. The task force is also recommending that the Council accept the Pleasanton Downtown Historic Context Statement, a research document which provides a history of Pleasanton and describes the connection between historical events and the type of built environment that resulted from those events. While the task force made no specific recommendations regarding first floor Design Review and the Mills Act program, it is requesting that the Council authorize staff to revisit these two issues in the future as time allows. Mr. Dolan reviewed the proposed Specific Plan amendments. The first is a proposed modification for the existing criteria used to determine that a residential structure is considered a historic resource and protected from demolition. The current policy relies entirely on the state's criteria, which includes a rolling 50 year period and eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources. The task force was hesitant to use the rolling 50 year period, which meant that a home constructed in 1963 could be considered protected, and after considerable discussion selected 1942 as a cutoff date for consideration of historical significance. As currently recommended, a home would have to be constructed before 1942 and be eligible for the California Register, as determined using the Historic Context Statement, in order to be considered a protected resource. The second proposed Specific Plan amendment deals with the issue of demolition. The City has been operating for some time without any codified definition of demolition. Staff first introduced the definition recommended by the state, which is quite broad and essentially refers to the removal or destruction of those character defining features that make something historically significant. The Council considered this to be overly broad and directed staff to consider other options. Staff, recognizing that historic homes often aren't suited for modern living and that preserving them exactly as they were constructed does not necessarily further the interests of the homeowner or the community, constructed a definition that allows for some demolition provided the front façade is preserved and maintains the historical character of the property. Staff also recognized that in some circumstances the front façade is not fully salvageable and allowed the flexibility to use reconstructed materials for the purpose of stabilizing the structure, provided the exterior construction materials and composition match the original look and feel. There were some concerns expressed that this would prohibit all changes to the front façade, which is not the case. Staff believes the definition allows for proposed changes to the front façade to be evaluated as they are now, which is that changes consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are allowed. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 20 December 17,2013