Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Petrin stated that the methodology they used in the survey followed the National <br />Register standards and the California State Office of Historic Preservations Standards. <br />She indicated that in terms of the methodology for the survey, City staff gave them <br />general parameters with the boundaries of the survey determined by the boundaries of <br />the DTSP. She continued that they then looked at the specific buildings within that area <br />that were built before 1941, a City- specified condition of the survey. <br />Ms. Petrin stated that they walked the residential areas, photographed every building, <br />noted estimated date of construction and style of architecture, and made a preliminary <br />activity assessment, a visual determination that had to be backed up with research. <br />She noted that the most interesting pieces are the information that they gleaned from <br />census records, ownership records, and the City of Pleasanton's building permits. <br />Ms. Petrin stated that for a building to be historic or not historic, it has to have two <br />things: (1) historic significance - the building has to relate to some of the significance <br />that is outlined in Historic Context Statement; and (2) integrity — it does not have to do <br />with the building being dilapidated, but retention of original materials such as if it <br />exhibits original construction techniques and craftsmanship, design, materials, and so <br />on. <br />Ms. Petrin stated that each town and city, municipality and neighborhood, is really its <br />own thing, and one of the things that really struck them about Pleasanton was the <br />modest quality of the oldest buildings: the 1880's and early 1900's buildings and <br />cottages, which were homes for newly arrived people, for working people. She noted <br />that in their research they found that some of these hard - working people were illiterate <br />or that they arrived from Portugal and Spain and other places; there was a <br />concentration of Portuguese in the area. She added that it is kind of tricky that in the <br />year 2015, people are looking to inhabit these houses, and there is the question of how <br />to retain that special historic quality that is Pleasanton, a working town, a farm service <br />town to support all of the agriculture that was around, and make modest buildings work <br />for today's desires. She noted that this is a challenge that a lot of municipalities have <br />and something that Pleasanton has grappled with for some time. <br />Commissioner Ritter asked for a good example or most common non - integrity -based <br />example of a house and if it is more structurally related. <br />Ms. Petrin replied that one thing that is ubiquitous in Pleasanton, in California, and in <br />the nation is window replacements, a change that can have a significant impact on the <br />historic appearance of a building. She explained that a building then that has had its <br />windows changed out would not necessarily no longer retain its integrity because that is <br />such a common change, and windows can be changed back. She added that it might <br />not necessarily require a wood window, but profile, size, and operability are good things <br />to consider when thinking about window replacements. <br />Ms. Petrin stated that window replacements is ubiquitous but is not an integrity issue <br />and does not weigh so much. She indicated that what is more important has to do with <br />the scale and mass of a building; for example, enlarging a building over time such that it <br />no longer conveys either its original footprint or overall form would be an easy way to <br />lose integrity. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 5 of 35 <br />