My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
4_Exhibit A
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
11-13
>
4_Exhibit A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2019 4:16:50 PM
Creation date
11/6/2019 4:16:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/13/2019
Document Relationships
4
(Message)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2010-2019\2019\11-13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Resolution No. PC-2019-25 <br /> Page Two <br /> Section 3: The Planning Commission hereby recommends the approval of Case <br /> P19-0342, the application of the City of Pleasanton to add Section 18.140.030 Fines <br /> and Restrictions on Future Development for Illegal Historic Building Demolition, <br /> Attachment 1 , to the Pleasanton Municipal Code to promote the preservation of historic <br /> buildings and provide for restrictions on replacement buildings and monetary files for <br /> unpermitted alterations and demolitions. <br /> Section 4: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and <br /> adoption. <br /> PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of <br /> Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on November 13, 2019 by the following vote: <br /> Ayes: Commissioners <br /> Noes: Commissioners <br /> Absent: Commissioners <br /> Abstain: Commissioners <br /> ATTEST: <br /> Ellen Clark Nancy Allen <br /> Secretary, Planning Commission Chair <br /> APPROVED AS TO FORM: <br /> Julie Harryman <br /> Assistant City Attorney <br />- HP-P.2 and HP-P.3, support the adoption of <br /> the proposed new municipal code section; and <br /> WHEREAS, on November 13, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly- <br /> noticed public hearing and considered the agenda report, staff recommendations, and <br /> comments from the public. <br /> NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City <br /> of Pleasanton, based on the entire record of proceedings, including the oral and written <br /> staff reports and all public comment and testimony: <br /> Section 1: Finds that the proposed addition to the Municipal Code is exempt from the <br /> California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines <br /> §15061(b)(3) because the amendment has no possibility of having a significant <br /> environmental effect as it penalizes unpermitted alterations and demolitions of historic <br /> buildings. <br /> Section 2: Finds that the character of Pleasanton stems from its historic buildings that <br /> reflect events, important persons and key architectural or design expressions within the <br /> city dating from Native California, Spanish and Mexican settlement, El Rancho del Valle <br /> de San Jose, Mexican/American settlement, and early town development, as well as <br /> themes of transportation, agriculture, commercial and industrial, residential, and civic, <br /> religious and institutional development. <br /> Finds that historic buildings provide cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community, <br /> sustain the long-term potential increase in property values which encourages quality <br /> development, and helps create a community identity and foster civic pride, which <br /> enhances the attractiveness of the city to residents and visitors. Historic buildings <br /> cannot be replaced when demolished, resulting in a permanent loss for the entire <br /> community. <br /> of 5 <br />rhangs like that put up and we are worried it would look out of place. <br /> During the design review hearing process it became very clear that no matter what we said or <br /> how it affected us, this was going to get approved. During the hearing we suggested an II <br />at its closest point,a larger setback than the standards would require. The proposed addition would be built directly above the <br /> existing garage and would maintain the existing building setback. <br /> P19-0130 Planning Commission <br /> 11 of 15 <br />