SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

highly at risk for a year while the City tried to impose a Secretary of the Interior (archival) style preservation, before the City finally understood that was infeasible to the point of being impossible. Expanding that archival restoration standard to all of downtown will squelch historic rehabilitations, 'nd enrage owners of historic properties. Alternatives: If Council wants to implement a rule consistent with City Manager's description above, that quoted section above could be revised to read: "It shall not be considered a "demolition"if the proposed modifications retain the same look, style, and character as the existing facade". Or, if you wanted to be more formal about it, the quoted demolition section could be modified to read: "It shall not be considered a "demolition" when portions of the façade are modified, expanded, removed or reconstructed with the exterior construction substantially matching the original in material, composition, design, color, texture, and shape." Or, ask your staff to suggest wording that allows you to honestly tell owners who are having their properties designated "Historic Resource", that designation will not become a regulatory nightmare every time they seek to maintain and improve their homes. Instead of discouraging and complicating restoration and improvement of historic resources, a less -estrictive definition of demolition will encourage and increase historic rehabilitation in downtown Pleasanton. 2. Rules for non-historic properties. The rules for non-histor c properties substantially increase the regulatory mandates for all properties downtown, including: a. a fake history mandate — all new building must look like it was built before 1942. b. a mandatory backyard garage mandate. c. a lot specific floor area ratio (FAR) for every lot based on the average density of lots around it. (Compatibility standard). Compatibility Standard: The compatibility standard is by far the most troubling and counterproductive of those mandates, and is totally unrelated to historic preservation. The baseline FAR for most lots is already 40%, which is sufficient to prevent overbuilding already. The compatibility standard should be simply rejected. Staff understandably wants an objective standard, but 40% FAR is an objective standard. The "objective" compatibility standard supported by Staff is arbitrary in its outcomes, and ridiculously complicated for ordinary homeowners to deal with. Moreover, the chosen compatibility standard violates both the spirit and the letter of Government Code Section 65852 regulating zoning: 2