CCMIN110315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Olson said last November this issue came up at the City Council. He was not yet elected but attended every meeting and he was meeting regularly with staff because he was in an election campaign with other candidates. Option 4 came up at that meeting when the survey was approved. A majority of the Council that night voted not to establish a historic district and there was discussion about the word "district". The majority of the Council voted not to establish a district and had he had been on the Council that night, he would have voted with that majority. Therefore, he said he cannot support Option 4 and did not think the Council should discuss it. He thinks it is mission creep and the 88 homes have been defined that are subject to additional overview and he thinks that is where the Council needs to stop. He therefore would support Councilmember Pentin's suggestion to adopt only the first three items. Councilmember Narum said she found the historic resource survey fascinating, as well and was pleasantly surprised there were 88 homes that qualified. She supported it, thinks it cuts down time with homeowners who want to do something. It saves them money and gives them some certainty in knowing that their house qualifies and what they would have to do to make changes, which goes in line with some of the permit streamlining discussions. She voiced support for Option 2, the code amendment and said it is not onerous. She is interested in design changes that are tough to put back once done versus paint, the mailbox, versus the door knob which are not difficult to put back. What she suggested the Council do instead of asking staff to move forward with a discussion of the homes that are not historic is to place an item on the Work Plan and ask staff to return and review how the code amendment is working. Possibly at that time, staff might have a better sense of what to do with the homes that are not pre-1942. Mayor Thorne said it sounds like there is good consensus on Options 1 through 3 and he made a motion to adopt staff recommendations 1, 2 and 3; find that the proposed amendment to the code is statutorily exempt from CEQA; adopt a resolution accepting the historic resources survey; and introduce the draft ordinance approving the amendment to the Municipal Code as shown in Attachment 1 which is Option 2. MOTION: It was m/s by Thorne/Narum finding that the proposed amendment to the code is statutorily exempt from CEQA; adopt and waive full reading of Resolution No. 15-801 accepting the Historic Resource Survey; and introduced and waived first reading of Ordinance No. 2130 amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code to expand design review authority to include the exterior of historic homes in residential zoning districts within the Downtown Specific Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Brown, Olson, Narum, Pentin, Mayor Thorne Noes: None Absent: None • Mayor Thorne referred to item 4 and made a motion to not support going back and treating all homes that are not historic like historic homes and not to provide direction to staff whether to pursue a separate Municipal Code Amendment to expand design review authority to include the exterior single family homes in residential zoning districts in the DSP area that were not determined to be historic resources. He said he might be willing to review this sometime in the future but is not willing to entertain a discussion on it because he thinks it is over-regulation. Councilmember Pentin seconded the motion. MOTION: It was m/s by Thorne/Pentin to not accept Item 4; and not support going back and treating all homes that are not historic like historic homes and not to provide direction to staff whether to pursue a separate Municipal Code Amendment to expand design review authority to include the exterior single family homes in residential zoning districts in the DSP area that were not determined to be historic resources. Motion carried by the following vote: City Council Minutes Page 13 of 16 November 3,2015