CCMIN012114 - Laserfiche WebLink

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