HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDmurryph2council memoRanOu m
city of san lugs osispo,community acvetopment Oepaatment
email:
~~CDD D1R
o~ FIT DIR
D'PIRE CHIE F
O"PW D1R
dPOLICE CHIEF
of PARKS .! REC DIR(UTIL DIR
(HR DI R
o'COUNCILifCITY MGR
SUBJECT :November 9 th Council Item PH2 – Historic Preservation Ordinance ann.
Guideline s
The Council has received several emails with comments related to the Historic Preservatio n
Ordinance and Guidelines scheduled to be considered on November 9 th .Staff has reviewed th e
emails, summarized the input (shown in italics) and provided responses below .
1.Program LUE 2 .15 of the General Plan requires the City to start with the neighborhood s
when new regulations are proposed . No meetings were held in the neighborhoods . No inpu t
from neighborhood residents was obtained.
Land Use Element program 2 .15 indicates the City will work with the neighborhoods to develo p
neighborhood wellness action plans . While a City-wide ordinance for historic preservation is no t
a "neighborhood wellness plan", it does have relevance to the historic districts and to the liste d
properties located within and outside of historic districts . One workshop was held "in th e
neighborhood" outside of a public hearing . In addition to the required legal notices, additiona l
noticing and information was provided to property owners on the list of historic resources .
Recent input from residents in the neighborhoods – Old Town in particular - is reflected in th e
draft documents being considered by the Council . Some of the issues identified by the Old Tow n
neighborhood are not covered under the draft ordinance and guidelines : traffic, noise, parkin g
and other related issues are associated with the area's proximity to the downtown core activitie s
rather than the area's collection of historic structures . As such, these issues, while still o f
neighborhood concern, have not been addressed through the ordinance or guidelines .
2.Notification process was improper and inadequate .
A review of the project file indicates that the required legal notification was provided for al l
public hearings . The City has strived to provide the community with opportunities to participat e
in the process of adopting the proposed ordinance .
Input from community members was incorporated directly into the ordinance and guideline s
during the hearing process and recent input from community members has also resulted i n
DATE :
November 9, 201 0
TO :
Mayor & Counci l
VIA :
Katie Lichtig, City Manage
FROM :
John Mandeville, Communitt Development Directo r
BY :
Kim Murry, Long Range Planning
hard copy :
dCOUNCIL
(CITY MO R
d ASST CM
ATTORNEY
ed(CCLERIUORIO
d TRIBUN EdNEWTIMESdSLOcrrYNEWS
Page 1 of 5RECEIVED
NOV091O10
SLO CITY CLERK
.RED FIL E
MEETING AGENDA
DATE i(f f/io ITEM # /7g1
Council Memorandum (Historic Preservation Ordinance )
changes to both documents . Information regarding the outreach efforts has previously bee n
provided to Council and is summarized at the end of this memo .
3.The City added enforcement fines as a way to make money .
The enforcement fines initially proposed as part of the ordinance have been removed . Although
many jurisdictions in the State do include fines as part of their preservation ordinance, th e
Council did not support penalty fines and directed their removal from the draft ordinance .
4.The City does not have "clean hands" and therefore cannot exempt the ordinance an d
guidelines from environmental review . The City has not protected its adobes ; is responsible fo r
loss of historic structures in the Court Street, Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects ;
and is exempting itself from the ordinance .
The proposed ordinance and guidelines are categorically exempt from environmental review pe r
CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 because they are an action taken by the City to protect th e
environment ..
While the City has not completely restored its adobes, it has worked to protect and stabiliz e
them . The Rosa Butron adobe has had repairs done over the years to stabilize and secure th e
building . The Rodriguez adobe has been fully restored on the exterior . Interior improvements
are not scheduled until programming for that adobe has been determined . The Murray adobe i n
Mission Plaza is restored and the exposed adobe bricks on its exterior are an aesthetic an d
educational resource . Of all of the adobes, the La Loma adobe is in most need of repairs . CDB G
funds have been awarded for stabilization work on that adobe and construction is expected t o
begin after the first of the year . The ordinance would require environmental review for project s
that propose demolition of historic structures .
The City is not exempting itself from the ordinance and guidelines . The Council explicitly state d
that it wanted to ensure that the City would be subject to the adopted rules and regulations .
5.The City has stated that it would use 90% of any grants obtained for staff salaries .
City policy requires Council approval for grant applications . The City's grant application policie s
require identification of the associated work program and any resources needed to administer th e
grant before the application is made . Normally, grants are specific to the amount of funding (i f
any) allowed to be used to cover administrative costs . Staff is not aware of any grant that woul d
permit over 20% to be used for administrative costs .
6.The City has withheld information through poor minutes of the CHC hearings and lack of a
legislative draft .
Page 2 of 5
Council Memorandum (Historic Preservation Ordinance )
The preparation of action minutes are standard practice for all City advisory bodies and the Cit y
Council . A legislative draft of the ordinance and updated guidelines has been provided . Since
most of the guidelines sections were being relocated to the draft ordinance, nearly all of th e
existing guidelines is proposed for deletion and replacement with new sections . A chart o f
changes proposed was provided to Council during previous hearings and is included in the
current agenda report .
7.Changes are being proposed to zoning regulations without evaluation .
Public input regarding Chapter 4 of the draft Guidelines pointed out that several uses listed wer e
not in the table of allowed uses in the Zoning Code . Staff has recommended clarifying languag e
in Chapter 4 to indicate only those uses allowed by the Zoning Code (or Zoning Code a s
amended) and consistent with the General Plan would be allowed . No changes to the Zonin g
Code are proposed at this time .
8.New regulations should be set aside until better days . Ordinance makes it more difficult t o
replace historic buildings . Demolition threshold should be set case by case . Histori c
preservation report is too expensive .
Current Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) already require th e
City to address demolition of historic buildings in its decision-making process . While the
Zoning Ordinance defines demolition as alteration of more than 50% of a structure, the histori c
preservation documents define this as alteration of 25% or more of a historic structure i n
recognition of how much historic integrity is related to the fabric of the building . There is no
evidence that the proposed changes will exacerbate the effects of the current recession . Th e
design review process to evaluate changes to historic buildings is already in place and th e
proposed ordinance and guidelines will not change how that review occurs . The draft ordinanc e
allows the Director to waive the requirement for a historic preservation report if the informatio n
is available for the decision-making process .
9.Why must our distinctive character be fixed in the late 1800-early 1900 architecture an d
character ?
The City's character is based on many things but the physical manifestation of the City's history
is characterized by periods of Indian, Spanish, Mexican and American influence with the most
robust physical development occurring after settlement associated with the Mission era . The
ordinance and guidelines haven't arbitrarily chosen a specific architectural style to preserve bu t
rather look to find ways for development to reuse or be compatible with some of the olde r
buildings that reflect the City's history regardless of architectural style .
10.Must I request a re-zone to be removed from the historic resources list and how did I get o n
the list in the first place?
Page 3 of 5
Council Memorandum (Historic Preservation Ordinance )
Many properties were added to the list of historic resources in the mid-1980's after the Cit y
performed a survey to identify historic resources . Those recommendations were reviewed an d
approved by Council and zoning on properties within historic districts was updated to reflect th e
"H" overlay . In order to be removed from the list of historic resources, an application similar t o
one requesting to be placed on the list would be required . In order to request removal of the "H "
overlay, an owner would need to file a rezone request to adjust the boundaries of the histori c
district to exclude their property .
11 . How will the CHC determine economic hardship ?
The Council will make the determination regarding economic hardship for historic resourc e
demolition requests that do not meet the identified criteria . The applicant will provide
information that will be held in confidence by the City to support the request .
Notification (continuation of question #2):
Legal Ads for ARC and CHC hearing s
Postcards sent to owners of properties on historic resources list in advance of fou r
hearings/workshop s
Email updates to over 50 people on interest lis t
February 1 9
March 3
April 2 1
May 7
July 1 5
August 1 1
August 2 7
September 1 5
September 2 1
September 2 2
October 6
October 1 9
November 8
Display ad for March CHC worksho p
Sampling of local media coverage :
http ://www . sanl uisobispo .com/2010/09/22/ 1298280/san-luis-obispo-historic-homes . htm l
http ://www . sanluisobi spo . com/2010/09/21 / 1296864/cultural-heritage-committee-wants .htm l
Page 4 of 5
Council Memorandum (Historic Preservation Ordinance )
http ://www .sanluisobispo .com/2010/09/ 18/ 1294201 /viewpoint-whats-written-is-what .html
http://www.sanluisobispo . com/2010/09/ 18/ 1294200/viewpoint-support-proposal-support .htm l
http ://www .sanluisobispo .com/2010/09/08/ 1280927/is-proposed-law-for-slos-historical .htm l
http ://www.sanluisobispo .com/2010/08/26/1265102/property-preservationplan-causes .htm l
http : //www. sanluisobispo.com/20 I 0/04/29/ 1122676/viewpoint-historic-sites-key-to . htm l
http ://www. sanluisobispo .com/20 1 0/04/24/ 1 1 1 65 1 1/letters-to-the-editor-425 .html
http : //www.sanluisobispo .com/2010/03/ 19/ 1073745/watchful-eye-over-s los-historic .htm l
http ://www .newtimesslo . com/news/4920/historic-preservation-ordinance-hits-home /
Informational brochure mailed to owners of properties on historic resources list - Summer 201 0
Staff responded to invitations to speak to AIA, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association ,
SLO Board of Realtors, Save our Downtown, & Chamber Subcommitte e
Workshop August 2010 with display a d
Staff responded to numerous phone calls and emails from interested property owners and me t
with several interested property owners to discuss and incorporate change s
Display ad in Tribune on October 19 th indicating availability of documents and of Counci l
meeting on November 9th
Informational brochure mailed to owners of properties on historic resources list - October 201 0
Large postcards (shown in Attachment 3 of November 9 staff report) mailed to owners o f
properties on historic resources list with wording suggested by property owner in Old Tow n
Channel 20 slides (Attachment 3 of November 9 th staff report)
Display ad placed by SLO Board of Realtors in November 8 th Tribun e
Page 5 of 5