Laserfiche WebLink
Jeff Pohl shared his support for the proposed cutoff year of 1942. He stressed that any Council action <br /> should strive to maintain Pleasanton's presence as a community of character, both tangibly and <br /> intangibly. He also shared his support for the Mills Act, which would entice residents to invest in <br /> maintaining the historical characteristics of their homes, and said he wished he had been able to benefit <br /> from such a program when renovating his own historic home. <br /> Jan Batcheller stated that the homes on Saint Mary and Saint John Streets are more than 100 years <br /> old, with a huge variation in lot and home sizes and styles. The majority of these homes were <br /> constructed prior to the inception of regulations such as floor area ratio (FAR) and setbacks, yet this is <br /> one of the most desirable neighborhoods in town because of the care invested by those who live there. <br /> She questioned the need for the city to invest many months and many dollars in an attempt to fix <br /> something that is not broken. She said the proposed definition of "demolition" is more convoluted than <br /> necessary. She supported Mayor Thorne's previous comments that a cutoff year of 1900 might be more <br /> appropriate, noting that many homes built during the depression are of poor construction and not <br /> architecturally significant. She suggested that increased regulations often carry unintended <br /> consequences and offered her own home as an example of a project that was well supported by <br /> neighbors but not by staff because of FAR limitations. She asked whether the task force explored the <br /> idea of incentives for historical restoration rather than restrictions and questioned the historic <br /> preservation credentials of City staff empowered with making determinations on such projects going <br /> forward. She encouraged the Council to redirect staff's attention to more pressing issues such as the <br /> unfunded PERS liability, economic development, jobs and city infrastructure. <br /> Sylvia Desin shared her support for the home addition the Batcheller's were not allowed to complete. <br /> She said she has invested over $200,000 in her own Division Street home, much of that being on <br /> improvements that would likely not be allowed under the proposed guidelines. She expressed concern <br /> that the guidelines are onerous to property owners in requiring significantly more monetary investment <br /> while eliminating virtually all control and cautioned that they could ultimately result in a lesser level of <br /> maintenance and improvements. <br /> Dorothy Nesbitt reminded the Council of her professional experience with historic preservation. She <br /> recommended that the Council adopt a rolling cutoff year to account for those that will become heritage <br /> homes in the future. She expressed concern over protecting existing architectural features with <br /> accurate replacements using the appropriate technical procedures, such that any repairs match the <br /> original in appearance and function as closely as possible. She admitted to not having read the <br /> proposed guidelines, which may in fact have addressed these points. <br /> Lou Rivara said he continues to stand by all comments he shared at the last meeting. He stated that in <br /> recent conversations with planning staff, it seems there are so many overlapping rules and regulations <br /> that no one can provide an informed opinion without considerable investment by both staff and the <br /> property owner. He cautioned that the unintended consequences of the proposed guidelines are as yet <br /> unknown, and will likely further complicate an already difficult process. He said that Pleasanton evolved <br /> through the common sense and respect of its residents and, by and large, they can be trusted to make <br /> certain decisions without the imposition of overregulation. <br /> Peter MacDonald stated that after the last meeting, he looked deeper into the Secretary of the Interior's <br /> Standards for Rehabilitation and archival preservation. He reported meeting with a Pleasanton property <br /> owner who recently completed a project meeting these standards, as required and interpreted by City <br /> staff, and learned that following such standards resulted in a $225,000 project on a roughly 1,000 <br /> square foot home. He stressed that archival preservation affects even the smallest detail and cautioned <br /> that it may ultimately discourage the kind of historic preservation they are looking to achieve. He <br /> encouraged the Council to allow property owners to continue to care for their homes responsibly and <br /> respectfully, without unnecessary regulation. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 3 of 14 January 21,2014 <br />