PC 11/01/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Edmands, 4762 Second Street, addressed the Commission stating that no one came to the property owners and discussed this matter. He asked, what, and why is this being done. Mr. Edmands stated that properties have been brought up well beyond any code and that the properties were upgraded not because of code but because of personal pride of the property owners. He stated the ordinance is vague and unenforceable. He further stated that he and other property owners want no part of any type of funding whether it is State or Federal to upgrade their properties. He said that when people purchase 'charming' old buildings they understand what they are really purchasing is an old-old building that requires a large investment for restoration and generally do this because they desire to do so and as a result; the buildings are brought up higher than code level. He stated that the proposed ordinance is an insult to the property owners and he is absolutely opposed to it. Mr. Petrock, 733 Division Street, spoke stating he was never contacted by the City regarding this proposal. He stated he did receive the report. He has restored his house and doesn't want anybody regulating him with this regard. Jack Bras, AIA, Pleasanton, spoke stating he owned no historic property in Pleasanton but would be effected in his business. He stated this proposed ordinance contains stringent controls and regulations to which he is opposed. Callie Heinbaugh, 4590 Mohr Avenue, who was Chairman of the Bicentennial Heritage Committee, spoke stating she did not want this ordinance to pass. She stated the purpose of her Committee was to appreciate the past and that was the only purpose of the Committee. She stated they never in- tended to support any ordinance for an Overlay District nor to infringe on any property owner rights. Joyce Getty addressed the Commission and audience stating she would with- draw from participation in this issue as she is the owner of a piece of property which would be effected by the Historic Overlay and there was a conflict of interest. Harvey Levine, City Attorney, concurred with her statement and abstention. Mr. Edmands spoke again stating that the buildings on Main Street have long since captured the early California mood. This was done by sug- gestion and not regulation. He stated Main Street wasn't a pretty site 50 years ago. Further, most buildings on Main Street followed guidelines and the results have been achieved at a $2,000,000 investment by pro- perty owners. He said no ordinance is needed for this as this has been done already. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Wilson stated he finds an EIR is necessary. He questioned the findings of the Initial Study. Further, Mr. Wilson stated that if a piece of property was shown on the General Plan as multiple and it had an -4-