Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDvariousph1RED FILE MEETING AGENDA From : nuttyshtuff@gmail .com on behalf of Mark DATE /O//io ITEM #R if/ Coward[SMTP :MCOWARD@MRCOWARD .COM ] Sent : Monday, October 04, 2010 5 :58 :05 PM To : Council, SloCit y Subject : Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guideline s Auto forwarded by a Rul e Esteemed Council Members , I am writing to voice my opposition to the draft Historic Preservatio n Ordinance and Guidelines . I am opposed to the ordinance itself, which amounts to an unfunded mandate, unfairly aimed at the very people wh o are the ones keeping up our historic downtown . I am also unhappy wit h the process, which seems rushed and dismissive of the publi c L ~COUNCIL 'CDD DIR m LT-C,46-CM E -FIN DI REr"AC-A6-A-col El-FIRE CHIE FErATTORNEY3'PW DI RFrom: nuttyshtuff@gmail .com on behalf of Mark 12'CLERK/ORIG CfiPOLICECH FCoward[SMTP :MCOWARD@MRCOWARD .COM]q DEPT HEADS Q.-AEC DI RSent: Monday, October 04, 2010 7 :12 :58 PM [^'DTILDI RTo: Council, SloCity r8u,r ~~ Subject : Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines (again),----- Auto DI R Auto forwarded by a Rule i UL-Wr7m&5- C~E7uIlciL s S'Zo er(y AJe$'L «j A!6/L Please ignore my previous e-mail . Send and Save are so close together . —L`e.e Here is a more complete version of my thoughts . I am a local teacher who owns a home on the contributing list in Ol d Town . The Historic Preservation Ordinance is unfair and punitive . Th e process was rushed and the city has not sought nearly enough inpu t from the homeowners involved . Unfair . There is no upside for being on the contributing list . We already have to pay to go through the CHC if we want to modify ou r home in any way, and that process can be easily abused . (I am th e homeowner referred to in Peg Pinard's letter .) The new ordinanc e calls for financial aid, and extended timelines for those homes on th e master list, but nothing for the contributing list . The city i s issuing an another unfunded mandate, similar to those we teacher s complain about from NCLB . The homeowners have always been the ones wh o have kept up SLO's historic homes, not the city . In fact, what has the city been doing about the historic residences it owns that ar e becoming more dilapidated by the day ? Unfair . Why are only 700 homes singled out? Have you seen some of th e places being called "historic"? Why doesn't the city enforce the law s we already have about dilapidation? Why do we need another set o f fines, targeted at a small portion of homeowners ? Unfair and punitive . Liens on people's houses? $10,000 fines, plu s $5000 per day? What? How will that encourage cooperation? I'd like t o see the city give tax refunds of $5000 per day for every day those ol d adobes aren't repaired . Other cities with historic areas, like Pasadena and Santa Cruz, have ordinances that do not single ou t homeowners and subject them to special fines . People who can't afford to fix their l tmETI h y can't afford to pay $160,000 a month i n OCT 0 5 2010 SLO CITY CLERK fines . Unfair and rushed through . Most of the people affected have neve r heard of the ordinance . Some postcards were sent, but they wer e misleading (on the front they were the same as the cards you get whe n a neighbor applies to put up a carport), and meetings that wer e continued were not publicized at all . My wife and I canvassed th e neighborhood for two hours on Sunday, and found 3 people who had hear d of the ordinance . That's not community outreach . What's the rush ? Where's the deadline ? I'll keep this brief . I have several suggestions : Vote down the ordinance completely . As far as I'm concerned, thi s would be best . Enforce existing laws . Don't single us out . Sever the residential from the commercial element . The busines s owners, it seems, had plenty of input and are happy with th e ordinance . The homeowners don't have the luxury of a pai d organization, but we are not happy . Send the whole thing back TO THE COMMUNITY before acting . Table it fo r public input, and reach out to those homeowners affected . Thank you for doing the right thing . Mark Cowar d From :Susan Coward[SMTP :SUSAN@MRCOWARD .COM] Sent :Monday, October 04, 2010 7 :36 :36 P M To :Council, SloCity Subject :Notification of Property Owners regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance & Guideline s Auto forwarded by a Rul e Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members , I would like to share with you the e-mail conversation (below) I had with Kim Murry .I think you'll find the exchange interesting . I'm very disappointed with the public notification and input process related to th e proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines . I'd like to ask you to delay an y decision on this matter until the public has had the opportunity to truly be activel y involved in the process . I know we've heard repeatedly that there were 8 hearings and 2 workshops and tha t property owners were notified by postcards . That would lead one to think that there wer e 10 postcards sent . But the 8 hearings were addressing a single continuing item, thu s separate notifications were not deemed necessary . So if you weren't available for the firs t meeting, you wouldn't have known about the others . I don't consider this an appropriat e or effective way to meet the city's stated goal to "generate questions, input, attendance and response" from property owners . Is it fair to say there were 8 hearings, yet at the same time say notice wasn't require d because it was really just a single continued hearing? Also, the wording on the cards wa s inaccurate, as I explain in my exchange with Kim . I think you'll see that the followin g discussion expresses both my concerns and my willingness to pitch in to improve thi s process for all of us . Fond regards , Susan Cowar d P .S . I have yet to hear back from the office manager regarding the actual number of card s sent or the complete wording on each. From :Susan Coward [mailto :susan©bigearsmarketing .com] Sent :Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3 :13 P M To :Murry, Ki m Subject:Inquiry regarding property owner notice of Historic Preservation hearings/workshop s Hi, Kim I'm hoping you can clarify something for me . My neighbors and I are confused about th e property owner notification process for the hearings and workshops for the Histori c Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines . You said there were 8 hearings and 2 workshops and postcard notifications were sent t o the property owners in an attempt to generate questions, input, attendance and response . I have two questions : If there were 10 meetings, does that mean 10 postcards were sent to property owners? I f not, how many were actually sent ? How can I get copies of the actual postcards that went out, since it appears that I an d several of my neighbors somehow didn't receive all the notices (and some of the one s received had incorrect/confusing information)? We'd like to see what we missed ! I stopped in today, but staff was unable to assist me . Thank you for your help ! Susan On 9/29/2010 3 :46 PM, Murry, Kim wrote : Susan - The quick answer is that postcards were not mailed for every meeting because publi c hearing items are typically continued from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if th e date of the subsequent meeting is known. I will check with our office manager as to how many postcards were sent out and we can get you the exact wording that was used fo r both the hearings and the workshop . The postcards were sent to owners of all propertie s on the historic resources list - both Master List and Contributing List properties based o n the ownership information we get from the County Assessor's office every six months .I know that in instances where an owner owned multiple properties on the list, an effor t was made to avoid duplicate mailings of the same hearing to the same address (i .e . on e owner receiving four postcards for a single meeting). The postcards that were mailed to notify owners of the workshop in August (after th e CHC had made their recommendation) were inadvertently printed on standard Cultura l Heritage Committee postcards which created some confusion since the worksho p started slightly later and was being held in the Ludwick center rather than the standar d CHC meeting room . This was corrected with a subsequent postcard containing th e corrected time and location prior to that workshop . I will check to see if we received any returned postcards - otherwise the City does no t keep copies of the original postcards sent out . We have a spreadsheet of the propertie s on the list that were notified of the meetings if you would find that helpful . Please let m e know if you would like a copy of the mailing list . I am happy to answer any questions for you or to meet and discuss any issues for whic h you have concerns . The Council will be considering the draft Guidelines on October 5 `h (next Tuesday) and the draft Ordinance with Council-recommended changes will b e considered on October 19 `h I will follow up with the information regarding the postcards . Thank you . Kim Murry From :Susan Coward [mailto :susan@ bigearsmarketing .com ] Sent :Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4 :22 P M To :Murry, Ki m Subject :Re : Inquiry regarding property owner notice of Historic Preservatio n hearings/workshop s Thank you for the prompt response, Kim . We're interested not only in the portion of the postcards that stated the specific meetin g date/time, but also the wording on the rest of the card . In speaking with neighbors, I se e there has apparently been some confusion. For instance, the notice for the Sept . 21st Cit y Council Public Hearing was on a postcard that said "The City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to consider an application near your property or residence ." Several of m y neighbors tell me they read that part and thought it didn't affect them, since they don't have strong opinions of how others use their property . I wish I had known that being unable to attend an early meeting meant that there could be further meetings I wouldn't be notified of . A further complication is that when I went to the CHC section of the advisory bodie s page and followed the "Past Meeting Updates" link (from this web page : http ://www .ci .san-luis-obispo .ca .us/advisorybodies .asp#Cultural ) to this page : http : //www . ci . san-luis - obispo . ca .us/communitydevelopment/culturalherit/chcmeetin gupdates .as p I received this : "The page cannot be found . The page you are looking for might have bee n removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable ." Only today did I find a correct link elsewhere on the City's site . Unfortunately, the "meeting updates" I foun d provide little information about what occurred at the meetings . I feel that I missed many important opportunities to participate in and provide inpu t regarding a very important issue . I'm concerned that I'm not alone . As a marketing professional specializing in Public Relations, I'm always interested i n promoting effective communication . I'd love to provide input on the notification and outreach process . Although the notices sent may have met legal requirements fo r notification to property owners, I'm not sure they were the best way to reach your state d goal to "generate questions, input, attendance and response" among property owners . I'm not just complaining, I honestly would like to volunteer to help . My work in Public Relations has won top honors from the Public Relations Society of America (Centra l California Region) and my copywriting has received industry awards from the America n Advertising Federation . If you'd like to learn more about what I do, please let me know . Thank you again for getting back to me . I look forward to receiving the additiona l information you have requested on my behalf . Susan On 9/29/2010 5 :36 PM, Murry, Kim wrote : Susan - I will get you a copy of our blank cards so that you can see what they look like and th e verbiage that was used to describe the hearing item . Our office manager is collectin g the information for the remainder of the response . I appreciate your willingness to volunteer your expertise in how to encourage publi c participation and would love to meet to discuss your ideas . I am not a marketin g professional and it's often difficult to convey how important these longer term plannin g efforts are and to communicate what they mean . Admittedly, reading ordinances is no t very exciting and the CHC was very appreciative of those who provided input - either i n person, in writing, or via phone conversations . The City has many long term projects that will benefit from robust community input and I would value learning how you would approach these efforts . While it's disheartening to hear that the outreach efforts that were made did not achieve the desired results,I thoroughly appreciate your offer of help . Again, thank you for your email and let m e know if/when you would be willing to meet . I have passed on the information regarding the broken link to our City Clerk's office to ge t it fixed ! Kim Murr y On 10/4/2010 7:03PM, Susan Coward wrote : Hi, Kim So sorry for the delayed response. I've been working on couple of big projects . Yes,I would love to help . I am deeply concerned about the notification process . My husband , son and I walked Buchon and Islay Streets (until our son got bored, LOL) Saturday , speaking with residents. Only a few had even heard of the proposed ordinance and o f them, only one actually had read the documents . He was opposed . Unfortunately, he i s also bedridden, so hasn't been able to participate. He spoke to my husband from a hospital bed in his living room . Another homeowner and his wife didn't even know thei r home was on the Contributing List . I think they've owned their home over ten years ! We asked people to come talk with us the next day at the park . I estimate we spent abou t an hour on this . We went up and down only portions of two streets and a couple of blocks worth of cross streets . Very few people were even home. We left flyers at some of the homes on the Contributing List, but skipped Master List properties and obvious rentals. Even so, eleven people showed up at the park to discuss the issue . It is my understandin g that none of the public meetings had even 30 attendees, after sending 700 postcards .I think that speaks to the inadequacy of the notification methods used . So, I'm going to pursue this issue with the City Council to make sure they understand that more work is needed to reach the goal to "generate questions, input, attendance an d response" among property owners . I want to assure you that although I will be sharing my disappointment with the Council, it won't affect my ability to work willingly an d cheerfully with you . It might even be fun ! My personal code of ethics includes this : "Never complain about something unless you are willing to help fix it." I am very interested in volunteering to work with you on this .I think we'd both enjoy the process and, most importantly, we could do something tha t benefits our city and its residents. Would you like to call me to compare schedules an d select a date and time? I can be reached at (805) 541-8566 . Thank you again , Susan