Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDpinardph1From :pinardmat@aol .com [mailto :pinardmat@aol .com] Sent :Mon 10/4/2010 2 :52 P M To:Romero, Dave ;acarter(a slorcity.orq ;asettle@calpoly .edu ;Ashbaugh, John ; Marx, Ja n Cc :bmoremAthetribunenews .com ;sierraclub8agmail .com ;rmcdonaldenewtimesslo .com ; jtrompeter©ksby .com ;dcongaltonacharter .net ;rgn .board@)yahoo .com ; azuniga@newtimesslo .com ;dmasonOkprl .corn Subject :Request for Continuanc e RE :Request that the Oct. 19 Council meeting be rescheduled to allow sufficien t timeformeaningful input from the historic residential neighborhood s The mandates under which the California Office of Historic Preservation operate s repeatedly refer to making every effort to meet with homeowners and , interestingly, the largest of this year's grants went to Los Angeles specificall y for neighborhood outreach ! In contrast, there has been a lot of controversy over the lack of input fro m owners of historic homes - the ones who will be most affected by San Lui s Obispo's proposed ordinance . Some homeowners have pointed out that the cit y failed to get early and meaningful input from the residents before writin g the document, and that the city failed to follow its own General Plan requiring th e city to hold meetings in the neighborhoods . Others have pointed out that even the post card notification was flawed in that , even though the staff identified that 2 postcard mailings were sent out about CH C meetings, the information on the card itself was inadequate . In fact, the mai n body of the postcard said : "The Cultural Heritage Committee will conduct a hearing to consider an application near your property or residence ." This i s exactly the kind of postcard notice sent when someone is building a garage or other improvement in the neighborhood . Many homeowners did not understan d that new laws were being formulated and that there would be fines and penaltie s associated with them . Also, according to staff, "postcards were not mailed for every meeting becaus e public hearing items are typically continued from one meeting to a subsequen t meeting . .." In other words, if you thought the initial postcard referred to a neighbor's project, you would never know that there were more meetings bein g held . No information about the details of the proposed ordinance was availabl e in the CHC minutes either .+012 )er r ,_'COUNCI L O'GA.8-CA1 C3 'AS A'C1 ATTORNEY CLERK/ORI 3 r 0 DEPT HEAD S -t7Zi Ba/o& RECEIVE D SLO CITY CLER K OCT 0 5 2010 -CDD DI R :T-FIN DI R 21-FIRE CHIE F d"PW DI R 2-POLICE CH F !/Rc DI R tTUTIL DI R l3'HR DI R rS~Oc NL ~~z c RED FIL E October 4, 2010 -MEETING AGEND A DAT io i_ITEM #PI Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members, In August, when the city finally held a community workshop, the city sent ou t multiple notices with incorrect and conflicting information . In contrast, the city did an excellent job reaching out to the commercia l interests . Staffs slide presentation, attendance at Chamber meetings an d communication with Chamber members was very effective . The Chamber i s supported by 16 paid professional staff members who have a very efficien t machine for communicating with their membership : website, e-Flyers, e-Insider, and e-Newsletters . "Influencing legislation" is a stated Chamber goal and to reach that goal they have paid, former newspaper and television experts to lobb y for them . As the paid lobbyist of the Chamber said, they had organized a committee of architects, lawyers and other professionals and were very much a part of the early evolution of the ordinance . On the other hand, as the city has acknowledged many times, it is much mor e difficult to communicate with hundreds of disparate and disorganize d homeowners who do not have paid staff to help them . Since the city did not g o into the neighborhoods, the city created a real disparity between the commercia l interests and individual homeowners . The problem is that there is not enoug h time for homeowners to review these documents line-by-line as the commercia l interests have been able to do . The fact that the City Council meeting was televised last week was a significan t factor in making homeowners aware of what was actually being proposed in th e ordinance . On Oct . 3 the first organizational meeting was held in the neighborhood to coordinate and set up a structure for homeowners to give inpu t to the City Council .The reality is that the homeowners are lust now becomin g aware of the specifics of what is being proposed in the new historical ordinanc e and guidelines .This reality cannot be ignored . The Council's proposed hearing schedule will not accomplish that goal and will , effectively, shut out the effort of homeowners to have meaningful input into law s that will affect us so greatly for years to come . We are asking that the council take this reality into account and, when yo u discuss the guidelines on Oct . 5, that you reschedule the Oct . 19 meeting to allow sufficient time for the documents to be brought to each of th e neighborhoods for review and input . Give the neighborhoods more time . Th e documents themselves, both the ordinance and the guidelines are legall y complicated and take time for the many individual home owners to understan d the provisions and changes that are now being proposed . We are asking for time for review and analyze in order to give meaningful inpu t on these documents .It's the homeowners, not the city, who have been th e conscientious stewards of historic homes .The fact that these homes still exist and are presently such an asset to the city is due to our individua l efforts ! Since the city did not go into the neighborhoods, the city created, whethe r intentional or not, a real disparity between the commercial interests an d individual homeowners . For whatever reason, early and meaningful input fro m the neighborhoods did not occur . Please do not ignore the constituents you have sworn to serve by pushing these laws that will greatly affect us . There is n o reason to ignore homeowners' requests . There is no emergency . There's no 'life or death' situation . We strongly request that the Oct . 19 Council meeting be rescheduled to allo w sufficient time for meaningful input from the historic residential neighborhoods . Sincerely , Peg Pinard Susan Cowar d Mark Coward Shelly Johnso n Richard Dicke y Carolyn Dicke y Brad Huggin s Craig Lindama n Trudy Lindama n Leo Pinard Paul Ry s (Committee for "Saving San Luis Obispo Homes") +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Page 2 - Attachment : At the first neighborhood meeting of homeowners the following specifi c comments came up . We are attaching them because we feel they may b e helpful to you during your discussion on Oct . 5 . Fines : The mandates under which the California Office of Historic Preservatio n operates clearly differentiate between residential and commercial properties an d offer substantial tax incentives only for commercial properties . San Luis Obispo's proposed historic preservation ordinance must also do this . "One size fits all" does not work for both commercial and residential histori c properties . For example, fines of $10,0000 plus $5,000 a day may be appropriat e or even inadequate for commercial properties but they are totally inappropriat e for residential properties . Substantial and Significant : Issues need to be substantial and significant and enforcement will be reserve d for conditions that are deemed unsafe and dangerous . The City of Davi s emphasized this is their historic preservation ordinance . Davis also clarifies that : ". ..Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenanc e and repair of any exterior feature of any structure or property . .." No one's home is perfect and San Luis Obispo's proposed ordinance does no t even recognize that older homes are exactly that ...older homes . The definition of "Alterations" (covered by the ordinance) in Pasadena states tha t the ordinance "shall ...include new construction of additions,but does not includ e ordinary maintenance and repairs ." Third Party Complaints Create Problems : In other ordinances there are no provisions for getting the city involved in mino r repairs or for third-party complaints that could require a homeowner to pay fo r very expensive expert reports and be required to appear before multiple cit y commissions . For example, in the City of San Luis Obispo, a young family recently applied fo r a permit to finish-off their attic space in their small house . They hired a ver y reputable local architect to do the drawings and submitted the plans to the CHC . In order to get ready for the construction, they emptied their attic and garage an d were sorting things out in their backyard - behind a 6 foot fence . Unbeknownst t o the family, a neighbor took a picture of the sorting . She showed up at the CHC hearing protesting the permit and presented the picture of the piles being sorte d as "proof' that this family shouldn't have a permit . The CHC did not know what to do with this 'evidence' and referred the issue to the ARC . That process of waiting to be scheduled on the ARC's agenda took months . The husband in this family i s a teacher and he had planned to work with the contractor during his time off i n the summer as a way of saving money . The ARC unanimously decided in th e family's favor and this family thought that was finally the end of it . However, this woman appealed the ARC's decision to the Council and, on th e day this issue was to be heard by the Council, she withdrew her appeal . Meanwhile, the family lost their contractor and the husband had to return to wor k so was unable to work on his own house . This woman cost that young famil y over $30,000 . Property Riqhts : Desirable modeled communities such as Davis, Santa Cruz and even Pasaden a have provisions much more in keeping with representing the interests o f homeowners . For instance, one of Pasadena's defined goals is : "Ensure tha t the rights of the owners of historic resources and owners of properties adjacen t to historic resources are safeguarded ." Reduced Fees for Historic Residential Properties : Santa Cruz specifies in its ordinance that there are reduced permit fees fo r historical residential properties . SLO's proposed ordinance simply speculate s that a provision for reduced fees could happen sometime in the future . These are only a sample of differences and provisions that are important from a homeowner's point of view and that have obviously been effective in othe r communities . These are just a few of the comments that came out of Sunday's first neighborhood meeting . We believe that given sufficient time the histori c residential neighborhoods will help create a much improved ordinance an d guidelines . The city just recently approved the demolition of many historical buildings o n Garden St . for a project the city wanted . And, as Mayor Romero commented a t the last meeting, even when the City had lots of money the city didn't take care o f its own historic adobes . It hardly seems fair that the city council would no w refuse the request of the homeowner's who actually worked to preserve thei r homes and push this law through just as homeowners are becoming aware of th e specifics of the ordinance . Only 42 of the 700 homes the city contacted are under the Mills Act . Those properties receive substantial compensation, in the form of tax forgiveness .The rest of us do not receive any such assistance .That means that,what you se e today, is the result of individual homeowner's hard work and at their ow n expense .It seems only fair that you continue the Oct . 19 meeting to allo w sufficient time for the historic residential neighborhoods to give meaningful inpu t on this ordinance which will specifically affect us . Sincerely , Peg Pinard Susan Cowar d Mark Coward Shelly Johnso n Richard Dickey Carolyn Dickey Brad Huggin s Craig Lindama n Trudy Lindama n Leo Pinard Paul Rys (Committee for "Saving San Luis Obispo Homes")