PC 111313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Posson inquired what the rationale was for going beyond the State guidelines. He stated that the way he read this, there are two areas that go beyond the State guidelines: (1) the 1942 date versus the 50 -year rolling time line; and (2) the Historic Context Statement. He requested a little background on what that genesis is and what type of public review that document has gone through. Mr. Dolan replied that the change in date was basically the feeling of the Task Force and almost everyone the Task Force talked to, especially those who are a little bit older, felt that something that was built in 1963 was not really historic. He indicated that there are certain periods that the Context Statement actually describes, about when the boom's were and what they were related to. He continued that there is a certain kind of architecture that was associated with each of those, and it is spelled out pretty clearly in the Context Statement. He stated that the City would generally like to protect the homes that are older than 1942, but there are exceptions as not every home that is built before 1942 is going to qualify under the State criteria, and that actually releases a set of homes. He noted that this is not going beyond, but is actually more liberal than the State standard. Mr. Dolan stated that he does not necessarily consider using the Context Statement as going beyond the State standard either. He explained that it is just saying that a common denominator will be used for the analysis: the pattern of development, the property types, and the components that make them important; and this is what is referred to when responding to the California Registry eligibility criteria. He stated, for example, that if George Washington slept there, that is a criterion that is more obvious; however, getting down to the components that make them important is where the professional judgment of the consultant will be necessary to determine if the property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. He reiterated that making that distinction would be based on a common document. Commissioner Posson requested verification that by using 1942, more residents are excluded from this Ordinance than if the 50 -year figure is used. Mr. Dolan replied that is correct. He noted that there are not very many. He explained that if a house that was built in 1956 meets the State criteria, but the City is not considering it historically significant and the additional regulations that are part of the City's local criteria will not be applied to the house. Commissioner Posson asked what kind of peer review the Historic Context Statement went through. Mr. Dolan replied that there was no peer review, but it was reviewed by the Task Force and staff, it was provided to the City Council, and it has been widely distributed at Task Force workshops and has been available on the website for over a year. Commissioner Posson inquired if there were any comments that came back. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 13, 2013 Page 23 of 50