01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice-Mayor Pentin asked how stringently staff anticipates adhering to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards with regards to demolition, should the Council adopt the proposed amendment. Mr. Dolan said staff has a good track record of exercising reason and practicality in these situations. He explained that as the standards are adopted by the state, it is largely irrelevant whether the Council chooses to adopt them. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that changes to a historic structure be consistent with those policies regardless of what the city should decide. Vice-Mayor Pentin asked how the DiDonato house would have been viewed under the proposed amendments. Mr. Dolan said he did not believe the conclusion would have been any different. Vice-Mayor Pentin asked the same with regards to the Ponderosa property across the street. Mr. Dolan said he did not think that would have been any different either, noting that the studies for each determined that they did not meet the standards for integrity. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she believed this came down to a question of what the community values. She said one reason clarity is needed here is because Pleasanton is no longer a small town of 4,500 people and the continuity of understanding that exists in that sort of environment is gone. She said it is her desire to see guidelines that are reasonable, allow for common sense, and take into account the various features that contribute to the value of downtown Pleasanton. Councilmember Brown said it was the job of the task force to streamline and improve fairness and consistency in the city's current guidelines. She referred to Ms. Desin's comments and asked whether staff was aware of anything that would prohibit a property owner from adding a ground level porch with a roof to the front of their historic home, assuming setbacks were met. Mr. Dolan explained that a porch would have to be evaluated for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. If the porch were to be constructed of plywood and bore no resemblance to the reset of the home, it is unlikely staff would make a finding of consistency. If it were a traditional porch that matched the era of construction, he did not see that it would be denied. Councilmember Narum said she was serving on the Planning Commission was this matter came about as a result of the many difficulties they were having with applications in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. She said it is important that they continue to strive for clarity, consistency and certainty within these planning documents. She agreed with comments made regarding the heart of Pleasanton in that these historic homes add to the charm of the downtown and speak to the small town feel. The Council discussed and provided direction on the following task force recommendations, as outlined in the staff report: Adopt 1942 as the cutoff year for historical significance Mayor Thorne said he feared this date was too recent. He pointed out that the Downtown Specific Plan area includes those homes between Peter Street and the fairgrounds, many of which would likely be priced out of the starter home market with a historic designation. He confirmed with staff that the DiDonato/Molinaro and Ponderosa/mobile home park examples would likely not have been considered historic under these guidelines, despite their pre-1942 construction. Given the rigorous quality standards required to achieve historical designation, he said he could support the proposed date. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 14 January 21, 2014