My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2015 12:58:41 PM
Creation date
10/28/2015 3:27:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
Document Relationships
12 ATTACHMENT 5 EXHIBIT B
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2015\110315
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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).
View images
View plain text
EXHIBIT F <br /> Steve Otto <br /> Subject FW: Follow up Concerns <br /> From: Linda Garbarino <br /> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:42 AM <br /> To: Steve Otto <br /> Subject: Re: Follow up Concerns <br /> Thanks, Steve, for that clarification. Can you direct me to the language defining "historic resource"?Not sure I <br /> saw that. Is it referring to notable resources outside the DSP boundaries?Bottom line here is the need to provide <br /> language that protects those DSP homes built before 1942 that qualified for formal historic survey review, but <br /> failed due to some degree of integrity loss. So we now know that over 100 homes still need a design review <br /> "umbrella" to fully protect our historic neighborhoods from what appears to be unmonitored remodels. <br /> We're concerned that without design review oversight, anything can and does happen. <br /> Best, <br /> Linda <br /> On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Steve Otto <SOttona,cityofpleasantonca.gov> wrote: <br /> Hi Linda, <br /> The Council had directed us to initiate a code amendment that only applied to single-family homes <br /> which qualify as historic resources and not any others. In the staff report, I will certainly convey your <br /> comment that the code amendment should also apply to those structures built before 1942 that are not <br /> determined to be historic resources as defined by the City. <br /> Steve <br /> From: Linda Garbarino <br /> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 9:25 AM <br /> To: Steve Otto <br /> Subject: Re: Question about Proposed Municipal Code <br /> Good morning, Steve, and thank you for your feedback. I'm inferring that those homes not found <br /> to be historic per the survey would be considered "historic resources" thus afforded some <br /> protection based on the language options selected by the Planning Commission. <br /> I look forward to reviewing the language options staff is providing. <br /> I also look forward to feedback regarding our request to increase or redistribute historic signage <br /> to the St. Mary, Pleasanton Ave, Division St. Historic corridor entering off Main St. <br /> Thank you for your diligence. <br /> These are among the key decisions which will distinguish our city from those cities that allowed <br /> the deterioration of their historic neighborhoods. <br /> Linda <br /> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Steve Otto <SOtto@cityofpleasantonca.gov> wrote: <br /> Hi Linda, <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.