CCMIN121713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Christine Bourg said she renovated and modernized her own Victorian home while still following nearly everything discussed in the proposed amendments. Conversely, she has seen many heritage homes lost to inappropriate remodeling. She said she attended most of the task force meetings and supports all recommendations, particularly with respect to the bulk and mass issue. The recommended action helps increase compatibility and safeguards surrounding property owners and should also minimize disputes at the neighborhood, Planning Commission and City Council levels. She asked the Council to consider revisiting the Mills Act at some point in order to further encourage appropriate restoration. David Stark, Public Affairs Director for Bay East Association of Realtors, said he appreciated the task force's effort and delayed action by the Council tonight. He said he supported the intent of the recommendations but that there is still room for improvement. Given the input provided thus far, the issue really comes down to certainty for both the public and real estate professionals. He said that while the task force has devised a clever and unique way of addressing FAR, it only adds more uncertainty to the process. He encouraged the Council to review the minutes of the last Commission meeting and to take that discussion to heart. Charles Huff agreed that the proposed method of calculating FAR is too complicated to provide the average person with any certainty. He said that as an architect, he has worked with several very restrictive communities and even they have decided not to adopt all standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior. He agreed that a cutoff date of 1929 or 1930 might be more appropriate than 1942, which would affect many homes in the area that don't necessarily have historic value. Dorothy Nesbitt said she was a historic preservationist by trade and explained that historic looking buildings are not the same as historic buildings. She cautioned against creating so many exceptions to historic preservation that the homes really end up not being historic at all. Rob Dondero said the proposed amendments do not represent progress, clarity or certainty. He suggested that downtown Pleasanton is more of a "restomod" district than historic district and encouraged the Council to keep in mind that many wonderfully creative features of the town are not historic but are nonetheless of great value. Mayor Thorne continued the public hearing to January 21, 2014. 14. Public Hearing: P13-2449, City of Pleasanton —Waived first reading and introduced Ordinance No. 2086 to amend Title 18 (Zoning) of the Pleasanton Municipal Code to modify Chapter 18.110 (Personal Wireless Service Facilities); and Sections 18.28.040 (Agricultural District), 18.32.050 (R-1 One-Family Residential Districts); 18.36.030 (RM Multi-Family Residential Districts); 18.36.040 (RM Multi-Family Residential Districts); 18.40.030 (0 Office District); 18.40.040 (0 Office District); 18.44.090 (C Commercial Districts); and 18.56.040 (P Public and Institutional District). These amendments modify the existing code for cellular antennas and equipment including the locational, design, and processing standards. The amendments also remove the locational restrictions currently imposed on other uses seeking to locate within 300 feet of an existing facility, e.g., nursing homes, assisted living facilities, private schools, and childcare centers. Assistant City Attorney Julie Harryman presented the staff report, stating that in 2012 the City initiated a business survey which revealed that local businesses felt broadband and cellular infrastructure was deficient. Earlier this year the City Council directed staff to perform an Infrastructure Development Assessment to address poor coverage. As noted in emails received after this meeting was noticed, residents are requesting improved cellular service to meet work, quality of life and public safety needs. When asked about the need for better services, carriers said they are having difficulty meeting the growing needs of the community because the City's current Wireless Ordinance is overly restrictive and makes it difficult to locate necessary new facilities. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 20 December 17, 2013