Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDmurry2ph1RECEIVED RED FIL E OCT 0 5 2010 MEETING AGEND A DATE /0f/io .ITEM #P/lSLOCITYCLERKcouncil mEmoaandu m DATE : TO : VIA : FROM : BY : SUBJECT : v copy PI- .7 I-OUNCIL C'1 -CDD DI R i CAO MACAO El--FIRE CHIE F (ATTORNEY Efi W DI R ©,ftcLERK/ORIG ©POLICE CH F r DEPT HEADS EC DI R TIL DI R HR DI R itCva/hE_vl`~1 /h a/a October 5, 201 0 City Counci l Katie Lichtig, City Manage r John Mandeville, Community Development Direc t Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development Historic Preservation Guidelines — email request for continuance 21--FIN DI R This morning, staff received a copy of an email provided to the Council from several citizen s requesting a continuance of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines fro m October 19th to a future date to accommodate additional input and to address specific concerns . The Council directed staff to make certain changes to the draft ordinance in response to simila r concerns expressed on September 21, 2010 and the summary below indicates how the revision s in process respond to the issues identified in the email delivered today . Staff is prepared t o proceed on October 19 th , however if Council directs a continuance of the item, staff can return a t a future date as defined by Council . Fines : Council directed staff to come forward with options for their review concerning the penaltie s proposed in the ordinance . While the Cultural Heritage Committee's intent was to assign fines t o unapproved demolition, this intent was not clear in the language . The draft language revisions staff is preparing for Council consideration make it clear that only unauthorized demolition of a historic structure is subject to penalties and includes a recommendation to eliminate the monetary penalty (fine). Tax incentives on the local level are available for both residential and commercial Master Lis t properties through the Mills Act . At the state level, tax credits are available for commercia l properties in addition to any local incentive programs . The proposed elimination of penalty fines may address the concern of differentiating betwee n residential and commercial properties . Again, the intent is to address unauthorized demolition o f historic resources and CEQA does not distinguish ownership or use of historic properties whe n defining adverse impact . Substantial and Significant : Council directed that changes to the ordinance language describing property conditions for whic h enforcement action may be taken needed to be described more clearly and distinguished fro m normal wear and tear or maintenance issues . Additional language has been added to clarify the types of conditions that could lead to serious structural problems . Additionally, language has been included in several sections of the ordinance that reinforces the City's approach t o enforcement which is always from a voluntary, collaborative approach rather than a punitive one . Alterations : The draft Guidelines contain an exemption from Cultural Heritage Committee review for mino r repairs and alterations that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards . Staff recommends that this provision also be reflected in the definition of alteration contained in bot h the Ordinance and Guidelines . Property Right s The draft Ordinance and Guidelines do not propose changes to infringe on private propert y owner rights . The documents are intended to provide specificity regarding the existing proces s already in place for review of nominations to the historic resources list, or alterations t o properties with listed historic resources or within historic districts . Edits requested by Counci l will more clearly reflect the existing practices and procedures regarding historic preservatio n efforts . Third Party Complaint s Any complaints received by the City are not acted on unless the issue is verified as one needin g response . If a complaint is verified as valid, the City works with the property owner t o encourage voluntary compliance . This reflects current City practice and changes are no t proposed to the current enforcement process . The example cited in the email was a reference to a project from 2003 (Coward ARCMI 52-03 ) and involved an application for changes to a Contributing property . The CHC unanimousl y approved the project on May 27, 2003 but requested the ARC review the issue due to testimon y provided at the hearing. The ARC reviewed the project on June 16, 2003 and also approved th e project . That decision was appealed to the City Council and subsequently the appeal wa s withdrawn on July 6, 2003 . The ability of any citizen to provide public input at a hearing an d subsequently to appeal a decision of an advisory body or the Director of Communit y Development is protected by the City . This example was not related to an enforcement actio n and no changes to the appeal process are proposed . Public Input/Neighborhood Outreac h The City went above its legal obligation to notice but Council has received input from resident s who do not believe the City adequately noticed the proceedings . The noticing and outreac h conducted by the City in this effort were uniform in approach . The participants who responde d to the noticing and outreach were varied – the Chamber was very active in its involvement an d included members who own historic resources, both residential and commercial . Members o f the public who attended CHC hearings also provided input and comments – this included owner s of historic resources, both commercial and residential . San Luis Obispo is a community o f active citizens who wear a variety of "hats". Input from owners of historic resources was no t discounted because of their affiliation with other groups . Input from all sources was considere d and responded to as shown in Attachment 1 of the staff report from September 19 th . Staff attempted to reach owners with several postcards and a brochure in addition to the articles in th e newspaper, two display ads and the traditional legal ads . The additional effort was made becaus e even though this ordinance applies City-wide, it has particular relevance to those owners o f 2 properties with historic structures and within historic districts . Contact information is alway s provided so that citizens with questions or concerns have a resource in the event they would lik e more information or are not comfortable asking questions during hearings or workshops . Council has directed changes to be made in response to comments and concerns expressed at th e September 21, 2010 hearing . Public input from all meetings and submittals help shape th e documents that are returned to Council . 3