Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDpinardph2RECEIVE D NOV 0 9 201 0 From :pinardmat@aol .com [mailto :pinardmat@aol .com ] Sent :Thursday, November 04, 2010 9 :24 P M To :Romero, Dave ; Marx, Jan ; acarter@slorcity.org ; Settle, Allen ; Ashbaugh, John ; Murry, Ki m Cc: Iwoodward@parks .ca .gov; rmcdonald@newtimes ; bmorem@thetribunenews .com ; dcongalton@charter .net ; sierraclub8@gmail .com ; jtrompeter@ksby .com Subject :Challenge to the City's Claim for an Exemption--Part 1 hard copy :email: November 4, 2010 RED FILESubmitted by Peg Pinar d714 Buchon St .AGEND A.San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DATE///9//0 ITEM #P4 .dCDD DI R a'F1T DIR 1IRE CHIEF tiff DIR OLICBCHIEF a PARKS &REC DI R I(TRIBUNE tjJIlL DIR tfNEW TIMES cd HR DIR A' SLO CITY NEWS CITY MGR CLERK ."COUNCI L tYCITY MOR .'ASST CM o'ATTORNEY dCLERKIORI G 'PIB Brief Background : My husband and I :-restored the historic Myron Angel Home in San Luis Obispo an d-submitted it for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places .-We then helped to organize the city's first Historic Distric t-thereby making many other homes eligible for the Mills Act . We-co-founded the city's first neighborhood group, the Old Town Neighborhoo dAssociation.-This resulted in the city's first Historic Preservation Guidelines an dthe establishment of the City's Cultural Heritage Committee ;-former Mayor of San Luis Obisp o-former Supervisor, San Luis Obispo County For the Recor d RE : Proposed Historical Ordinance and Guideline sRefute: San Luis Obis po Citv's claim for an exemption fro menvironmental revie w City's Claim :"The proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review unde rSection 15308 because it consists of an action by a regulatory agenc yto assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection o fthe environment ."This categorical exemption is not supported by the evidence . Introduction : The City of San Luis Obispo has a General Plan that was evaluate dthrough anEIR which was approved by the City Council . This propose dordinance was not done in compliance with the General Plan therefor ethe city is not entitled to categorically exempt itself from CEQA review . It is a false assumption to claim that, because the topic is histori c preservation that anything proposed is "good". There are man y negative impacts to this ordinance and guidelines that have not bee n identified . There are significant environmental consequences that hav e been ignored and are not mitigate d During the last General Plan update the city did extensive outreac h into the neighborhoods andreceived phenomenal public involvement i n return . So much so, that, at times, the meetings had to be moved t o the Veteran's Hall in order to accommodate everyone . The publi c involvement was so effective that the city decided to incorporate an d codify the process into its General Plan . The key elements were : earl y and meaningful involvement with residents and meetings held in th e neighborhoods . This was specifically meant to make it convenient fo r residents to attend, to make sure that residents were informed abou t the issues, and to facilitate discussion . That process, along with th e environmental analysis, was codified as section 2 .15 of the Genera l Plan . The city did not follow the General Plan withthis proposed ordinanc e and guidelines . Instead, the city did a top-down approach and unveile d an essentially finished document for the public to comment on . Ther e was no input from the neighborhoods into the formation of th e document, prompting most residents to inquire ; "What problem wa s the city trying to solve?" There was no survey, no input solicited fro m the owners of historical resources as to what difficulties they migh t have been experiencing in restoring their historic homes or how th e city might help to make restorations, rehabilitations o r maintenance easier . When asked if the city didn't already have the laws it needed t o enforce building safety and structural integrity, the city responde d that, yesit did, but that they wanted more money . This effort by th e city to see historical resources simply as a way to make more mone y has a number of very significant negative environmental impacts . For the past 30 years, the existing Guidelines have been working ver y well with families returning to the historical downtown neighborhood s and the resurgence of restoration projects throughout the historica l neighborhoods . Young families, especially, are able to exchangethei r 'sweat-equity" and everyone benefits . The existing Guidelines wer e formulated to 'help', basically, the carrot approach . There were a number of assisting programs to encourage preservation, one of whic h was a short term, low interest loan program that helped residents do the repairs required in order to get a long-term bank loan . Most ofte n this involved money for a foundation . The existing Guidelines hav e been very effective . In contrast,the word 'help' doesn't even appear in this propose d ordinance . It is designed as a legislative hammer . This 180 degre e shift from what had been successful, in how to approach the goal o f historic preservation, has a significant environmental impact an d should be subject to CEQA review . Another important component for achieving the goal of histori c preservation has been the quality of life for residents living in histori c districts . That people like living here is the number one reason the y take care of their homes .That is another reason that Section 2 .15 o f the General Plan was written the way it was . Too many decisions ha d been made at the staff level and without the council receiving inpu t from the residents who lived in these historic neighborhoods . Programs were incorporated into the existing Guidelines based on th e input from those residents . The existing Guidelines were veryeffective and, as a result, we hav e one of the most successful, historical downtown residential areas i n the state . However, recently, the city has been ignoring its own laws and has been allowing cit y actions to degrade the quality of life for its residents . The city did not follow the General Plan . There were no meetings in th e neighborhoods, residents of the historical neighborhoods were not par t of the process, real problems aren't being addressed, therefore 'qualit y of life' will be significantly affected . According to CEQA,information, involvement and an open process ar e the key components to effective stewardship of our environment an d historic preservation . At each step, this did not happen with the city's process and will be enumerated below . As the court determined in Valley Adv . v . City of Fresn o (2/15/08) "A categorical exemption cannot be applied to a project that may result in an adverse impact on a historica l resource ." Points in Evidence . A .The City of San Luis Obispo failed to follow Section 2 .15 .E of th e General Plan which states that : "To help residents preserve an d enhance their neighborhoods, the city WILL :Involve residents early i n reviewing proposed public and private project that could hav e neighborhood impacts, by notifying residents and property owners an d holding meetings at convenient times and places within th e neighborhoods ." This did not happen . There were no meetings in the neighborhoods . The city's process was inconsistent with the General Plan and their clai m for an exemption should be denied . B .1 .Notification :There was improper, deficient and misleadin g "notification". On the main body of the postcard, which is what i s intended to be read, and carries the main message, the city used a preprinted form that had nothing to do with the ordinance . It was th e same postcard that the city used for notifying residents of a buildin g project in their area, such as a garage addition . The only reference t o hearings for the proposed new laws was on the front side of th e postcard in tiny print to the left of the address along with the retur n address and postmark . 2.The city also claimed that, since every successive meetin g was a continuance of the first one, that they did not need to re-notif y residents of subsequent meetings . For the one public informational meeting the city finally agreed t o (very late in the process), the city sent a postcard with the wrong dat e and meeting place . By the time the city sent a correction, people wer e very confused as to which postcard was the correct one . 3.The city did not meet its notification requirement o n another count . This ordinance affects everyone in a historical distric t yet the city only sent postcards to Master List and Contributing liste d property owners . Everyone else who will be directly impacted with thi s new law received no notification . C . The city does not come to the CEQA determination with "clea n hands". The city's own actions do not ensure "maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment ." as the city claims . 1.For the record, we submit pictures of the city's own histori c adobes and the negligence the city has demonstrated (Transmitta l Part 2). Even in good economic times, the city did not protect thes e very unique, historic assets . The city is not a responsible regulator y agency for the protection of historic structures . 2.Also, as evidence of its lack of "clean hands", the city i s responsible for the greatest number of demolitions of histori c structures . In order to accommodate new development the cit y approved the demolitions of (then) existing historical resources fo r the Copeland's Downtown Center Development, Copeland's Cour t Street Development, Copeland's Chinatown Development and, mos t recently, a significant portion of a downtown block is to b e demolished for the Garden Street Development . 3.Additional evidence for lack of being a responsibl e regulatory agency,and therefore not entitled to an exemptio n from environmental review, is the city's immediate response, i n writing,of its intention to exempt itself from being covered by thi s ordinance . 4.Additional lack of 'clean hands' actions : This ordinance i s really about the city discovering a new revenue source - its not about historic preservation . In describing why they wante d to become a Certified Local Government (CLG), the city stated tha t it would be using 90% of any grant money for staff salaries . Ther e is no disclosure of the actual costs that this ordinance is going t o require from the residents of the city . The city did not disclose tha t city residents would need to provide a 40% Grant match, th e city did not disclose that participation in a CLG would include th e registration, transportation, lodging and meal costs for the 7 - member Cultural Heritage Commission and staff to attend a mandatory annual conference, nor were there calculations disclose d to the public for the hours of staff time required for providin g reports to the state as well as any grant proposals . Yet, on th e radio, staff claimed that participation in the CLG was 'revenu e neutral'. Honesty, openness and transparency is expected . D .The city cannot exempt itself from environmental review and CEQ A because the city has been the main cause of destruction and deterioration to other historic properties in the historic districts . Through improper filling-in of drainage swales and lack o f maintenance in its creeks, the city has caused flood damage t o historic homes . The city has caused damage to sidewalks i n historic districts, demolition of historical features in the histori c districts, and even thwarted residents' efforts to improve thei r historic properties through the building inspector's lac k of knowledge and intimidating threats . E .The city cannot exempt itself from environmental review an d CEQA due to its deliberate actions to withhold information fro m the public about this ordinance . Besides insufficien t notification ...: 1.When making changes to a document, the city ha s traditionally prepared a "legislative draft" which means that th e adopted text of the documents are provided and text revisions ar e marked as follows : new additions are underlined and deletion s are indicated by strikeouts .This way, any member of the publi c can pick up the document and easily identify an d understand the proposed changes . This did not occur . 2.In fact, when this omission was pointed out to the city, th e city said they would go back and prepare the "legislative draft" fo r the public . It wasn't until late August, after boasting that they ha d a legislative draft ready, that what the city posted on its websit e was a sham . The city posted the existing Historic Preservatio n Guidelines with one line drawn through the entire document . Th e new proposed ordinance was simply added in its entirety . There was no way anyone could have figured out what had changed . I t was not a legislative draft, even though the city posted an d identified it as one on its website . This was deceptive an d manipulative . It was not an action to support an exemption fro m CEQA . 3.In addition, the manner of taking minutes of the Cultura l Heritage Committee changed and left the public without the usua l access to be informed about any action or discussion taking plac e with the Commission . This is unlike any other CLG community's minutes that we have read . Other cities' minutes demonstrate th e usual (albeit brief) descriptions of discussions along with motion s made and who made them, and comments from the public . Ther e was no information about the discussion, votes or even any reporting of the points made in SLO's CHC minutes . This bring s into question the legal sufficiency of the recording of actions by a city advisory committee . At the very least, it had the effect o f keeping information from being available to the public . CEQA court decisions and comments indicate tha t information and disclosure are very important . In Sectio n 21005, CEQA's addresses those concerns when it says tha t "Information disclosure provisions which precludes relevan t information from being presented to the public ...ma y constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion ..." F .1 . There was no analysis of the historical, social and economi c impacts of the new ordinance . There are groundless presumption s that, because the topic is "historic preservation", that anythin g proposed is good .This is a false assumption .There are ver y significant environmental impacts to what the city is proposing . The city has been operating under Historic Preservation Guideline s for the past 30+ years and these have been proven to be ver y effective in the preservation of historic neighborhoods . Thos e Guidelines were based on the concept of 'help'- of using what we'v e learned, sharing that information with others and trying to make i t easier for others to take care of their historic homes . As such , people have been willing and even encouraged to participate i n restoring and maintaining these older structures . The word `help ' doesn't even appear in the new ordinance . It had been replace d with words like "failure to obey orders" and other verbiage meant t o convey coercion . These changes in method and directio n have environmental impacts and consequences that need to b e evaluated . 2 . History has demonstrated that the most effective method fo r the preservation of historical structures has come when people want t o do the work, not when they are forced to do it . This about-face in th e manner in which the city deals with homeowners will, most definitely , have a significant effect . That effect needs to be evaluated . 3 . Socially and demographically, this city has already lost a significant number of its home-owner-occupied residences . Wher e cities experience very high transience and where effectiv e safety methods such as "neighborhood watch" are not able to operate , then people leave and neighborhoods decline . We have seen thi s happen when residents experience a substantially diminished quality of life . Ironically, because the city is not looking at the factors tha t encourage and support residents living in historic structures, it will b e the cause of, and bring about, the very actions it claims it wants t o avoid . The city has taken the fact that, so far, residents have enjoye d living here for granted . It has ignored the fact that more and mor e people are moving out again . This ordinance, along with the city's willful disregard of the General Plan, has already had a negative effec t and will continue to have a significant negative impact . Homeowners, especially families, will leave areas where they don't fee l safe and are unable to determine who belongs in the neighborhoo d and who doesn't . The loss of a stable residential population, peopl e who take pride in their work and their homes, has had a profound effect on many historic downtown neighborhoods throughou t the state . In preparing this document, the city has stated that it wants to us e these neighborhoods for tourism, mentioning the economic benefit t o the city many times . No assessment was done of the impacts that thi s increase in traffic,noise, garbage, damage to vehicles, homes , property, and the effect on the quality of life that residents will b e subjected to . The emphasis on bringing more strangers int o neighborhoods in this day and age is a safety concern for man y residents . The city does not enforce its noise ordinances,Residents 5 and 6 block s away in the historic districts are impacted by the noise generated fro m city-sponsored events . The city wants to have more concerts and part y venues without any analysis of what affect existing ones are alread y having on historic neighborhoods . For the record, this issue doesn't just affect residents in historic neighborhoods, children standing i n front of those loudspeakers are being subjected to decibel levels man y times any acceptable or safe levels . 4 . This ordinance did not start with asking residents in th e historical neighborhoods what problems they were having and ho w those issues could be addressed . There is no relationship betwee n what is working for people with the existing Historic Guidelines an d what is being proposed in the new Historic Ordinance . Instead, because no surveys were conducted and there were n o meetings in the neighborhoods, the proposed new ordinance left ou t any concern or remedy for the impediments towards actua l renovations that residents may be experiencing . The change fro m 'help' to 'you shall' is not inconsequential, it is already having a very dramatic negative impact . People are not likely to want to be on an y city historical 'list' after seeing the city's actions of threats, fines an d fees . These impacts cannot be ignored and should be subject to CEQ A review . G .As part of this document, a wholesale change in zonin g regulations is to occur that absolutely cannot be exempt from CEQ A review .There is the provision that the planning director is be give n the discretionary authority to grant exemptions from the city's adopte d zoning ordinances . As part of this ordinance and guidelines, the city intends to grant itself the powe r to :(Ch .4 .1 .3 .b) "Re-establishment of the property's histori c use ...provided the Director determines such uses are compatible wit h adjacent uses ." an d (c) "Any other uses which is determined to be compatible with it s surroundings and ..." This is to be an "incentive", meaning that the city sees this as a goo d thing . This policy is against the General Plan which explicitly state s what is allowed in each zoning category . This proposed change has no t been subjected to any environmental review . The ordinance and guidelines state that the planning director can gran t "original uses" and "any other uses ..." in what are now legall y designated R-2, R-3 . R-4, (etc .) neighborhoods . "Original uses " include hospitals, sanitariums, machine shops, doctors offices , upholstery shops, hair salons, and even a brothel ...uses not allowe d under the current residential zoning ordinance . Past history in the city of San Luis Obispo has shown that this is th e single most destructive policy change that the city could have eve r introduced . People move here with the expectation that this wil l remain a residential area . They rely on the zoning laws as the mos t basic level of protection for their home . That now, different uses ca n be permitted, effectively undoing the current General Plan zoning laws , and that applications for these permits could become a constan t challenge to residents to have to fight against, is more than a neighborhood can withstand . It's what almost brought down th e largest historical neighborhood, the Old Town area, 30 years ago . Residents fought the constant threat of developers wanting to tur n housing into offices or other speculative uses . Those changes woul d have had buildings vacant after 5 p .m ., on weekends and holiday s thereby isolating families . "Neighborhood Watch", a community's best safety net, would be rendered ineffective . That alone is a ver y significant environmental impact . This discretionary method of determining allowable uses in any zone i s not according to the City's adopted General Plan - which ha d undergone a full E .I .R . review approved by the council . This chang e cannot be exempt from CEQA since it is in opposition to the city's adopted General Plan . These zoning variances are discretionary actions, and have a significant environmental impact, as such, they require a CEQ A review . This ordinance should be subjected to a full EIR and CEQ A review .