12 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT She indicated that in terms of the methodology for the survey, City staff gave them general parameters with the boundaries of the survey determined by the boundaries of the DTSP. She continued that they then looked at the specific buildings within that area that were built before 1941, a City-specified condition of the survey. Ms. Petrin stated that they walked the residential areas, photographed every building, noted estimated date of construction and style of architecture, and made a preliminary activity assessment, a visual determination that had to be backed up with research. She noted that the most interesting pieces are the information that they gleaned from census records, ownership records, and the City of Pleasanton's building permits. Ms. Petrin stated that for a building to be historic or not historic, it has to have two things: (1) historic significance -the building has to relate to some of the significance that is outlined in Historic Context Statement; and (2) integrity — it does not have to do with the building being dilapidated, but retention of original materials such as if it exhibits original construction techniques and craftsmanship, design, materials, and so on. Ms. Petrin stated that each town and city, municipality and neighborhood, is really its own thing, and one of the things that really struck them about Pleasanton was the modest quality of the oldest buildings: the 1880's and early 1900's buildings and cottages, which were homes for newly arrived people, for working people. She noted that in their research they found that some of these hard-working people were illiterate or that they arrived from Portugal and Spain and other places; there was a concentration of Portuguese in the area. She added that it is kind of tricky that in the year 2015, people are looking to inhabit these houses, and there is the question of how to retain that special historic quality that is Pleasanton, a working town, a farm service town to support all of the agriculture that was around, and make modest buildings work for today's desires. She noted that this is a challenge that a lot of municipalities have and something that Pleasanton has grappled with for some time. Commissioner Ritter asked for a good example or most common non-integrity-based example of a house and if it is more structurally related. Ms. Petrin replied that one thing that is ubiquitous in Pleasanton, in California, and in the nation is window replacements, a change that can have a significant impact on the historic appearance of a building. She explained that a building then that has had its windows changed out would not necessarily no longer retain its integrity because that is such a common change, and windows can be changed back. She added that it might not necessarily require a wood window, but profile, size, and operability are good things to consider when thinking about window replacements. Ms. Petrin stated that window replacements is ubiquitous but is not an integrity issue and does not weigh so much. She indicated that what is more important has to do with the scale and mass of a building; for example, enlarging a building over time such that it no longer conveys either its original footprint or overall form would be an easy way to lose integrity. DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 10/14/2015 Page 3 of 18