HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDcooperph2hard copy :
email:
6 COUNCIL
0-COD DIR
0 CITY MOR
%FIT DIR
a'ASST CM
Io 'PIRE CHIEF
d ATTORNEY
m~PW DI R
CLERIUORIG
%POLICECHIEF
Id PIS
rPARKS&RECDI R
If TRIBUNE
a' UTILDIR
d NEW TIMES
v'HR DI R
e SLoCITY NEWS a- COUNCI L
%CITY MGR
a CLERIC
As Chairman of Save Our Downtown and as a long-time resident (24 years) of a circ a
1880 folk Victorian residence located in the heart of San Luis Obispo, I am endeavorin g
to refute the contents of a rather lengthy letter you received from Peg Pinard date d
November 4, 2010 regarding the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and
Guidelines . I would like to do so on a point-by-point basis . Of course Peg and I bot h
share a common concern for the preservation of the historic fabric of our community .
However, most of the points that Peg raises are insupportable and somewhat unfair wit h
regards to the City's jurisprudence and due diligence while deliberating on th e
formulation of a proposed Historical Ordinance and Guidelines . PLEASE, do not b e
intimidated by her accusations that due process was not followed or that you, the City,
has failed utterly as a responsible regulatory agency .
Permit me to begin :
1)Concern :Regarding inadequate notification : "To help residents preserve and enhanc e
their neighborhoods, the City will involve residents early in reviewing proposed publi c
and private projects that could have neighborhood impacts, by notifying residents an d
property owners and holding meetings at convenient times and places within th e
neighborhoods"(these are Peg's caps).
Rebuttal :It becomes increasingly apparent that Peg's concerns do not overlap onto th e
Downtown Core historical district (which is, of course, our primary concern) and that he r
primary focus is on the so-called Old Town Neighborhood . Assuming this, let me sugges t
that most of the Old Town Neighborhood is located approximately FOUR BLOCK S
away from the City Council Chambers where all of these deliberations took place . Th e
other historical districts are located even closer to City Hall than this .
2)Concern :Regarding inadequate notification : "It was the same postcard that the Cit y
used for notifying residents of a building project in their area ..."
Rebuttal :It has been my observation over the sixteen years that I have served on both th e
SLO Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission that public turnou t
is far greater when the proposed change occurs within the resident's proverbial "bac k
yard" as opposed to the public turnout one would expect in response to city-wide polic y
changes .
3)Concern :Regarding inadequate notification : "This ordinance affects everyone in a
historical district yet the City only sent postcards to Master List and Contributing Lis t
property owners".
Rebuttal_Am I mistaken, or are the Master and Contributing List property owners th e
only ones affected by this change?
RECEIVE D
NOV 0 8 201 0
SLO CITY CLER K
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
November 7, 2010
DATE,///f//oITEM #_'Ha
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members —
4)Concern :That the City does not have "clean hands": "The City is not a responsibl e
regulatory agency for the protection of historic structures "
Rebuttal :This is an apparent "catch 22". The City would LIKE to become a mor e
responsible agency in this regard through accessing the revenue streams that a C .L .G will
provide .
5)Concern :That the City does not have "clean hands": "The City is responsible for th e
greatest number of demolitions of historic structures ."
Rebuttal :It is patently UNFAIR to assume that without an Historical Preservatio n
Ordinance, the City had any other option besides demolition as soon as the City Buildin g
Department deemed the structures unsafe or uninhabitable . AND, the City seldo m
initiated these demolitions ...rather they were initiated by property owners . This past track
record could have been avoided had the City already had in place an Histori c
Preservation Ordinance ...another "catch 22".
6)Concern :That the City does not have "clean hands": "This ordinance is really abou t
the City discovering a new revenue source – it's not about historic preservation".
Rebuttal :How could Peg have served as Council Member, Mayor and County Superviso r
without understanding the fiduciary implications of responsible enforcement of publi c
policy? YES, proper administration of an Historic Preservation Ordinance will requir e
adequately-funded staff time and an on-going investment in the education of ne w
Cultural Heritage Committee members . Discretionary decision-making bodies need t o
keep current on legislative and regulatory changes being made regularly at both the City
and State level .
7)Concern :That the City does not have "clean hands": "The City cannot exempt itsel f
from environmental review and CEQA because the City has been the MAIN CAUSE o f
destruction and deterioration to other historic properties in the historic districts ."
Rebuttal :Can the City be held responsible – without an Historic Preservation Ordinanc e
in place – for the several property owners' benign neglect of the following historicall y
listed buildings that resulted in demolition : the Lubliner Building, the Sauer Grocery an d
Bakery Building, the Swiss-Italian Building and the Quintana Block otherwise known a s
the Blackstone Hotel, to name a few ?
8)Concern :That the City does not have "clean hands": "The City cannot exempt itsel f
from environmental review and CEQA due to its DELIBERATE actions to WITHHOLD
information from the public about this ordinance ... (for example) the manner of takin g
minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee changed and left the public without the usua l
access to be informed about any action or discussion taking place with the Commissio n
(Peg should have inserted "Committee" here). This is unlike any other CLG community's
minutes that we have read".
Rebuttal :But we are NOT a CLG (yet) and that is why we DON'T have the funded staf f
time to keep proper minutes for this committee . Perhaps if this "committee" were
elevated to the status of a "commission" where it might have a final `say' on certai n
decisions, the "minutes" might become more of an issue .
9)Concern :That there should be analysis of the historical, social and economic impact s
of the new ordinance (presumably proving that an ordinance is not required): "The City
has been operating under Historic Preservation Guidelines for the past 30+ years an d
these have been proven to be VERY EFFECTIVE in the preservation of histori c
neighborhoods".
Rebuttal :Here, Peg is clearly speaking out of "both sides of her mouth". On the on e
hand, the City doesn't have "clean hands" because it has recklessly presided ove r
numerous unnecessary demolitions of historically-listed properties ...and yet the
antiquated and (in many instances unenforceable) guidelines have been "VER Y
EFFECTIVE".
10)Concern :That there should be analysis of the historical, social and economic impact s
of the new ordinance (presumably proving that an ordinance should not be required):
"The City has taken the fact that, so far, residents have enjoyed living here for granted . I t
has ignored the fact that more and more people are MOVING OUT AGAIN ."
Rebuttal :Ask any realtor and property appraiser and (s)he will tell you that propert y
values for in-town residences have gone up or held their own (I recently refinanced m y
mortgage and was informed that my appraised value was directly linked to it's desirabl e
proximity to the Downtown Core). If people in the Old Town Neighborhood are movin g
out (which I haven't heard documented anywhere) it's because they are cashing out o n
their respective "gold-mines" and new residents are eagerly moving in .
11)Concern :That there should be analysis of the historical, social and economic impact s
of the new ordinance (presumably proving that an ordinance should not be required): "I n
preparing this document, the City has stated that it wants to use these neighborhoods fo r
tourism, mentioning the economic benefit to the City many times . No assessment wa s
done of the impacts that this INCREASE in traffic, noise, garbage, damage to vehicles ,
home, property, and the effect on the quality of life that residents will be subjected to ."
Rebuttal :It is problematic to assume that through traffic will increase . As it is, tourists
have to circulate through these neighborhoods (mine as well) to get INTO the Downtown
Core. Nothing will change in this regard .
12)Concern :That there should be analysis of the historical, social and economic impact s
of the new ordinance (presumably proving that an ordinance should not be required):
"The change from `help' to `you shall' is not inconsequential, it is already having a ver y
dramatic negative impract . People are not likely to want to be on any City historical `list '
after seeing the City's action of THREATS, FINES, and FEES".
Rebuttal :Peg should know that most outlying neighborhoods throughout this City an d
other cities (that have homeowner's associations) have C .C .&R.s governing such thing s
as property maintenance, color choices, etc . She chooses to construe that these types o f
restrictions (which she likens to THREATS, FINES, and FEES) do not serve to protec t
property values but rather jeopardize property values . This conception is simpl y
insupportable! On another level, we as CUSTODIANS of historically listed o r
contributing properties should have special entitlements (i .e ., funding) and obligation s
(backed up with fines or fees) to insure that these properties can survive for th e
enjoyment of succeeding generations .
13)Concern :That there should be analysis of the historical, social and economic impact s
of the new ordinance (presumably proving that an ordinance should not be required):
"The ordinance and guidelines state that the Planning Director can grant "original uses "
and "any other uses ..." in what are now legally designated R-2, R-3, R-4, etc .
neighborhoods . `Original uses' include hospitals, sanitariums, machine shops, doctor s
offices, upholstery shops, hair salons, and even a brothel ..."
Rebuttal :This appears to be a "red herring" issue . With the exception of the so-calle d
brothels (which we can hardly substantiate, even if we wanted to!), these were seldo m
ORIGINAL USES within the Old Town Neighborhood .
I know you have many other important issues on which to deliberate in the next severa l
days and so I therefore thank you for your time consideration in this matter .
Respectfully Submitted ,
Allan Cooper, Chai r
Save Our Downtown
756 Broad Stree t
San Luis Obispo, C A
acooper@calpoly .edu