HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDashbaughph5RED FIL E RECEIVED L COUNCIL -~R CDD DI RMEETING AGENDA
SEP 2 0 2010
FIN DI R
„IZI
DATE ITEM #,ATTORNEY
fZ FIR
E PW D R~
HIE F
From :Ashbaugh, John SLO CITY CLERK CLERK'ORIG d POLICE CH FD P HEADS P~ REC DI RSent:Monday, September 20, 2010 12 :18 AM
To :Mandeville, John ; Murry, Kim HRID R
I R
Cc :Lichtig, Katie ; Dietrick, Christine 9~~JTi C1~L~Subject:Council comments on Historic Resources Ordinance SLoCrrl CuER-IL
I am very concerned about some of the recommended changes to the Historic Resource s
ordinance by Councilmembers Marx and Carter . Although some of their recommendations appea r
to be reasonable, there are some key areas where I differ strongly . Some of
the recommendations, if enacted as proposed, could result in seriously weakening the ordinance .
I'm also•concerned that some members of the public have shown a disregard for the extensiv e
process of public review conducted by the CHC and the staff to date . The comprehensive updat e
of our historic resources program is a major objective of this City Council, and I recommend tha t
my colleagues pay close attention to Attachment 1, which documents the record of of publi c
participation conducted by the CHC, ARC and City staff over the past 18 months .
I would raise the following specific concerns with respect to the memos issued by my colleagues ,
and ask that staff respond to this set of concerns as well, where appropriate :
1.Councilmember Marx states several concerns with the process in the body of he r
memo . Please clarify whether it is indeed a "tradition" for a process such as this to begi n
essentially with a "blank slate," inviting open-ended "page by page" comment from th e
residents or from any particular interest group on our existing ordinances and plannin g
documents, prior to the onset of staff work . In my experience, this process may hav e
occurred for some general plan elements, but not for others (e .g ., the Housing Element).
Even then, some suitable amount of staff or consultant work must be conducted in orde r
to prepare for any meaningful public participation . As I recall, the Council chose
to update our Historic Resources Program in the 2009-11 Financial Plan - however w e
also specifically chose not to undertake a "historic resources element of the general plan,"
which would have been much more expensive . Am I mistaken about this recollection ?
Or, was the Council as a whole, including myself, mistaken in not conceiving of thi s
effort as functionally equivalent to adding an element to our general plan? In either case ,
it's too late to go back and start all over again, nor would I suggest that any of us conside r
that option at this point .
2.Councilmember Marx has recommended in item #9 in her memo that this ordinanc e
should apply to "publicly owned resources". She implies that the City has neglected ou r
own responsibility to avoid "demolition by neglect" for our adobes - the La Loma Adob e
and the Dana Adobes, in particular . Would the adoption of this ordinance help or hinde r
our ability to qualify for grants that could enable us to stabilize and rehabilitate thes e
structures? As to the broad question of "publicly owned historical resources," doesn't thi s
ordinance in fact apply to the City's own actions and agencies (e .g ., Public Works an d
Parks/Recreation)? Are we not required under its terms to observe the requirements of th e
ordinance with respect to CHC review? Finally, does the City have the power to impos e
this ordinance on the County, school districts, the State of California, or other publi c
agencies with historic resources lying within our jurisdiction? How about Union Pacifi c
RR, PG&E, or other State-regulated utility companies?
2.Councilmember Marx has recommended that violations of this ordinance should not b e
subject to criminal sanctions, and that admnistrative citation is sufficient . Without
criminal sanction - i .e ., if we are limited to administrative citation alone - what is th e
maximum fine or penalty that can be assessed by the City? If the ordinance does no t
contain the possibility of significant fines based upon a misdemeanor filing, wha t
remedies would be available to the City in the case of a property owner who demolishes a
historic resource? Finally, if the ordinance is passed as it has been recommended to us ,
and a misdemeanor complaint is filed to remedy a serious violation of th e
ordinance, please outline the steps that are required under Section 1 .24 of the Municipal
Code (as referenced in 2 .68 .073(D), including the role of the City Council (if any).
3.Councilmember Marx has suggested that the ordinance "drastically an d
inappropriately" changes the role of the CHC, and I agree that there are som e
ambiguities . Please provide specific changes to the wording, if any, that would clarify th e
advisory role of the CHC ; there may be some room for improvement in this regard . As
one example, in the definition of "Neglect" (2 .68 .100 #38), I suggest that we revise tha t
to read : "...deterioration, as determined by the Director or the City Council, after
appropriate review by the CHC"(or similar wording). A similar modification could b e
made to 2 .68 .073(D), pertaining to "Demolition by neglect ."
4.Councilmember Marx has objected to the CHC having representation in the propose d
ERC . That body would also, however, include a "citizen architect or engineer" appointe d
by the Council - albeit, with certain qualifications . Personally, I believe that thi s
committee could just as easily include a member of our Board of Construction Permi t
Appeals as well as a member of the CHC . On the other hand, I am open to the possibilit y
of removing the CHC representative . Since a majority vote is required for action by the
ERC, it should have an odd number of members ; as proposed, it would be six . Either we
should remove the CHC rep, or add a Council-appointed member of our Board o f
Appeals .
5.Councilmember Marx suggests that the Historical Fund should not be utilized t o
acquire real property ; however, it would seem that such a restriction would preclude th e
City from achieving one possible way of resolving serious cases of property owne r
neglect - one that may be satisfactory to all concerned, especially those who ar e
concerned about property rights . We may, for example, need to acquire real property i n
order to obtain full legal rights to stabilize and rehabilitate the La Loma Adobe . Pleas e
comment .
6.With respect to item #8 on Councilmember Marx's memo, is there any circumstanc e
where the Community Development Director's decision with respect to historica l
resources could overrule a determination of the Council, Planning Commission, or ARC ?
If so, I do not see it in this version of the ordinance . I believe that it would be advisable
to require some public notice, if it is not otherwise required, of a decision by th e
Community Development Director under this section (14 .01 .045). Given such notice, i t
might also be appropriate to provide an opportunity for a member of the public to appea l
such a determination to the CHC, and ultimately to the Council . Please comment .
7 . Finally, Councilmember Carter has recommended a series of changes to the ordinanc e
that would enable a property owner to claim that it is economically infeasible to protec t
or restore historic resources . Please explain how the "economic hardship" provision in th e
ordinance already addresses these concerns . Please comment, as well, about th e
experience of this city, or other communities, where overly-broad consideration of a
claim of "economic infeasibility" has led to the loss or impairment of significant histori c
resources.
I am quite certain that this Council will be able to work through all of the provisions o f
this ordinance in an atmosphere of reason, with candor, and with full appreciation for th e
many hours of hard work by volunteers and experts in this community . I await your
response to the questions and comments provided herein, and those of my colleagues .
Thanks .
John B . Ashbaugh
San Luis Obispo City Counci l
BCC :CC