HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDlichtigph2'council memoRanOu m
city of san Luis oaispo, aammistuatton OEpautmen t
DATE :
November 9, 201 0
TO :
City Counci l
FROM :
Katie Lichtig, City Manag e
SUBJECT :
Historic Preservation Ordinance C
of the community . Council Member Ashbaugh forwarded this communication to City staff with
three questions (also included in the attachment). Staff will be prepared to respond to thes e
questions during tonight's meeting .
RECEIVE D
NOV09201 0
SLO CITY CLER K
. -RED FILE
-MEETING AGENDA
DATE i l l4Ile,ITEM
# The attached e-mail dated November 3rd was sent to the City Council along with other member s
hard copy :
an
I COUNCIL (COD DI RdCITY MOR FXT DIR
ASST CM 121 IRE CHIEF
IS ATTORNEY PW DIR
C"CLERKJORIO (POLICE CHIEF
W PIB (PARKS &RECDI R
a- TRIBUNE (UTILDIR
(NEW TIMES t 'HRDIR
Q' SLO CITY NEWS (COUNCI L
(CITY MOR
p CLERK
G :\Council\cm memos\Council Memo - HPO questions .doc
Page 1 of 4
Codron, Michae l
From :Ashbaugh, Joh n
Sent:Thursday, November 04, 2010 9 :05 A M
To :Mandeville, John ; Murry, Ki m
Cc :Lichtig, Katie ; Dietrick, Christine ; Codron, Michae l
Subject :FW : Historic Neighborhoods At Risk
It does not appear that any City staff were copied on this e-mail, so I would as k
that John (and Kim, if and when she is available) provide the Council with som e
perspective on these assertions - particularly the ones that are highlighted with m y
own queries . Thank you .
Original Message
From : Peg Pinard [mailto :pinardmat@aol .coin ]
Sent : Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3 :13 P M
To : Susan Coward ; Shelly Johnson ; Saro Rizzo ; Babak Nafic y
Cc : Cheryl Burcheri ; Larry Hoyt ; Sandra Rowley ; Steve Rebuck ; Lynn
Neal ; Mary Maloney ; Roy Parsons ; Jo Ann Arnold Switzer ; Lisa Smith ;A
Riley ; Kendra Miller ; Andrea Weinstein ; Marsha G . Forrest ; jacobse n
jennings ; Celeste Wilson ; Carrow, Cathy ; Jeanne Newell ; Gayle Mills ;
gardenbuff45@aol .com ; Romero, Dave ; Marx, Jan ; Carter, Andrew ; Allen
Settle ; Ashbaugh, John ; Ryan Miller; Annmarie Cornejo SLO Cornejo ;
David Congalton ; Julie Lynem ; Bill Morem ; McDonald Rober t
Subject : Historic Neighborhoods At Ris k
Susan ,
Please post this on our website .
Thanks ,
Pe g
When the onerous ($10,000 per infraction and up to $5,000 a day for 3 0
days) fines were removed from the proposed historic ordinance, it may have
been tempting to think that was the end of the horrendous impact thi s
ordinance would have on historic neighborhoods . Not so . As part of thi s
ordinance and guidelines, the city intends to grant itself the power to :
(Ch .4 .1 .3 .b) "Re-establishment of the property's historic use ...provided th e
Director determines such uses are compatible with adjacent uses ." and
(c) "Any other uses which is determined to be compatible with it s
surroundings and ..."
Basically, this new power for the Planning Director and the Cultura l
Heritage Committee will undo the protections that our current zoning law s
provide . Right now, people who have moved into what they thought was a
11/9/2010
Page 2 of 4
residential neighborhood have the reasonable expectation that it will remain so .
This new provision will undo that .
Query: Would the new ordinance, in fact, enable a change in use for a historic property
with the Director 's approval (and subject to CHC review), to a "historic use" that woul d
not otherwise be permissible under the Zoning Ordinance ?
(f so, I agree with Peg that this provision deserves another look )
As background for this issue let me briefly explain why the Old Tow n
Neighborhood Association was created and why some of these issues were s o
controversial then ...and are now being resurrected in the guise of "incentives" b y
those who seem to have no idea what it takes to maintain a 'neighborhood', muc h
less really care about historic preservation . About 30 years ago, the Old Town are a
was being subjected to a number of requests to turn homes in the residentia l
neighborhoods into offices . Many of us were young and knew very little about th e
effects of zoning . We liked our homes, could exchange our energy as labor to fi x
them up, liked being near downtown, and thought this would be a good place t o
raise our children . The idea that 'the house next door' could become a vacan t
building after 5, at night, weekends and holidays was not something we had eve n
considered when we moved into this neighborhood . We began to realize that th e
security of our neighborhood would be compromised if we had the turnovers o f
strangers, and the traffic and parking impact of their cars, constantly throughout th e
day . Faced with applications for the conversion of what were currently lived-i n
homes, we had a big wake-up call .
After having to speak against multiple requests for these 'office conversions' w e
finally organized and confronted the city with being honest with residents abou t
what did the city want for this area . The city said it liked having the historic home s
but then was doing everything to make it difficult to live here . For instance, ther e
was a huge 'right-of-way' on Broad St . that was never disclosed to residents wh o
bought on that street, residents couldn't plant trees in front of their own homes, an d
there were pressures on the city council from those who said this area would be
better off as offices .
Many of us had put everything we had into purchasing our homes and this was a
complete shock to us . Besides the ability to live in our own homes, there was a n
even greater community benefit to having this area remain residential . The history
of "downtowns" in California gave a very clear picture that, where downtowns los t
their surrounding residential areas, those downtowns eventually deteriorated . It wa s
just a matter of time before the absence of neighbors walking around, the absence o f
people who could hear if there was a cry for help, and just the high transiency of th e
area made it feel unsafe . People didn't go through a 'no man's land' for dinner ,
theater and other downtown uses - especially at night . This pattern was documente d
over and over again .
11/9/2010
Page 3 of 4
In bringing this to the attention of downtown business leaders, we were able to
work together to come up with an effective and reasonable plan that met both of ou r
needs . A few blocks were designated for office expansion, and the rest were to b e
kept sacrosanct! No more intrusions! No more constant threats to change wha t
could happen next door . Residents could buy homes in Old Town, fix them up, an d
feel secure that this would remain a nice residential area in which to live . The y
would not have to feel in constant jeopardy that, if they missed a city 'notice' or
couldn't drop what they were doing to go down and protest, that they would end u p
without neighbors .
Question :I remember well the Old Town Neighborhood Association campaign from th e
time it was launched in 1978 by Peg, along with Penny Rappa and many others – and I
remember that her efforts were effective at the time as she describes here . It is my
understanding, too, that the zoning protection that was established then for downtow n
residential neighborhoods has been maintained in the 1994 General Plan and in
subsequent actions by the Planning Commission and Council . Is there anything in th e
ordinance that is before us on Tuesday that would compromise the residential integrity of
the neighborhoods surrounding downtown ?
Now that you know the background, perhaps you can appreciate the absolut e
irresponsibility of the city proposing to leave "allowable uses" in the hands of a
planning director . This undoes everything we worked for, thought we ha d
accomplished, both for the security of the residents of this city and for th e
betterment of the town as a whole . Every 'exception' that is made (no matter ho w
many justifications are made to allow it) becomes the basis for the next exception .
It is beyond comprehension how any planner could think that introducing suc h
'exceptions' to the zoning laws of a neighborhood would add to the quality of lif e
for residents . In an area that is already fragile due to a very high number of non -
owner occupied homes, anything that would take away the remaining sense of
stability, will be what finally turns the tide of 'livability'. Families will just kee p
moving out, as many (over approx . 60%) already have .
Some of the 'old uses' that have been in our neighborhood include : fraternities,a
sanitarium, a maternity hospital, a general hospital, doctor's offices, machine shops ,
hair salons, and even a house of ill-repute ...and that's just in a couple of blocks . I'm
sure other blocks have even more uses that they can add .
Query:Would the new ordinance enable an owner of a historic property to obtai n
Director's approval – or even Council approval - for any of the uses she notes here? (Yo u
may pass on the reference to "houses of ill repute" – I believe I know the answer to tha t
one already).
11/9/2010
Page 4 of 4
It's a 'life lesson' that many of us have learned ... if you take things for granted, an d
don't protect them, that, eventually you will lose them . We've done well with the
existing zoning protections and have even flourished . But these city provisions to ,
basically, put residents and homeowners under constant threat again, will undo al l
that . And, if that happens, no ordinance will be able to buy back the good will an d
pride that the city currently experiences from historic (district) homeowners .
Sincerely ,
Peg Pinar d
11/9/2010