HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/10/2020 Item 3, Pinard
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Peg Pinard <
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:Dave Congalton; Allan Cooper
Subject:Agenda Item #3 Housing Lelement Update Proposed Policies and
Programs
RE: Housing Element Update Proposed Policies and Programs
June 10, 2020
Planning Commission Members:
it’s almost impossible to know where to begin in giving feedback on this item before you. Since I have
not had the opportunity to meet you let me introduce myself. My name is Peg Pinard and I was a
primary initiator for the city’s first neighborhood organization (The Old Town Neighborhood
Association), and also for the establishment of the city’s first Historic District. I served on the city’s ARC,
and, was Council Member, Mayor and then as County Supervisor. I want you to know that the hypocrisy
in this document is disgraceful!
Item 7.9 under “Goal 7: Neighborhood Quality” is perhaps the most egregious and hypocritical entry.
“Continue to utilize a diverse range of outreach methods implement varied strategies, including early
notification….and neighborhood outreach meetings, etc. to ensure residents are aware of and able to
participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods early in the planning process.”
Those words were put into the General Plan a long time ago and have yet to be followed by this city. It
stated the city “SHALL” do these things, not just “encourage” them to be done. The city didn’t even
follow that process with this document that is before you tonight! The city’s pattern has been no
outreach or meetings in the neighborhoods! Instead, the city has been hiding behind pseudo,
generalized meetings usually across town from any affected neighborhoods.
I want to be clear about some of the specifics that i am referring to. Besides the lack of involvement with
this very document and discussion before you, there has been major harm done to our neighborhood
that has resulted in many families just ‘voting’ with their feet and moving elsewhere. Residents are very
angry with this city - and I hope that is not news to you. There has been no respect on the city’s part for
adherence to the process that residents thought they had voted for and set in motion through the
General Plan which is supposed to be the constitution of our city.
For instance, the city wrote a Historical Ordinance that would have resulted in huge fines if residents did
not “obey” the staff for rules that were not even being defined. And not once did the city contact the
residents of Old Town, the city’s first and largest historical district! We only learned about all those new
rules and fines via an article in the Tribune commenting on the draconian nature of the fines. That
article appeared at the end of the ‘process’ and just when the council was going to take its final vote! To
add insult to injury, the city council refused to grant a delay in the final approval of the ordinance even
1
when residents packed city hall asking for one since residents were left out of any discussion of the very
onerous rules they would be required to live by.
The city wrote a Housing inspection Ordinance and again didn’t even bother to include the largest R-2
zone in the city that would be affected by it. We received no notice from the city of what was being
proposed. there were no meetings here. Time and time again, we’ve been TOLD what was going to
happen to us and not given the courtesy of inclusion even when we have specifically asked. I could go
on and on about so many instances but what city hall calls a “robust public process” is anything but. At
one point, when asked to rubber stamp the process and call it “robust” even the city’s land use and
circulation element committee (LUCE) refused. The main participants had been real estate, contractors,
developers, speculators, and monied interests - as well as lots of staff.
If you’re with me this far, then I am presuming that you care and want to make a difference. These top-
down directives affect us all the time. Let me give you another recent example. As sidewalks needed to
be fixed in our historic district, a number of us tried, at our own expense, to replicate the type of
pavement that reflected the fact that these were historic homes. This was money out of our own
pockets for the benefit of the city and the historic district we were very proud of. The city
absolutely refused to follow suit. I will include the pictures below to show you what I mean.
This entire section was done at the exact same time and with the exact same contractor. Look at the
difference! When I asked the city staff why they were refusing to match what residents had done along
that street, his reply was that these were "just a bunch of old houses" and he didn’t feel like he needed
to! The additional charge for adding the texture and colorant was minimal. In fact, the city actually
added to its cost since the contractor couldn’t just do the entire section with the same process. It was an
expense that we homeowner’s generously paid out of our own pockets to keep the area looking nice.
But the city, and with OUR taxpayer money, couldn’t be bothered to even do that little segment and, at
least, follow through with the continuity and basic community pride in the city's first historic district. So,
pardon me if I don’t believe the part in this document about caring about the city’s historic homes and
district!
This is in front of the city’s first home placed on the "National Register of Historic Places”, It was the
work we did on restoring this home that enabled the creation of the city’s first Historic District. This is
our neighborhood’s reality and we all get to see it every day!
2
The message was clear, the city didn’t give a damn.
The constant disregard for neighborhoods is a very long list indeed - and still goes on. For instance,
we’ve been under-grounding our own utility lines (again, at our own expense) to help make the area
safer from deteriorating overhead electric wires (one line had already caught fire on Broad St.). But,
when there was new construction, which already has the provision for the city to require under-
grounding the new utilities, the city didn’t require it. Now, there is a visual mess to those new units!
There are many other areas of this report before you that are disingenuous to say the least. The city’s
“plans", etc. all just “b-shit” words. There is no commitment to anything except money and tourism -
and the residents be damned.
Decades ago and in trying to protect the family-friendly ambience in downtown and out of concerns for
people’s safety after dark, residents said no more bars in downtown…yeah, well, how has that worked
out?! Residents get to clean up all the garbage, urination, broken tree limbs, etc. that drunk patrons
leave along their way.
And, while I just glanced at the consultant’s report (having just heard about this discussion before you
today) there are serious flaws in it too. For one, the chart listing the number of “occupants” is seriously
misleading and out-of-date.
Here’s the highly paid, out-of-town, consultant’s chart:
“ b. Occupancy Standards…
Studio One person
One Bedroom Two persons
Two Bedrooms Three persons
Three Bedrooms Four to five persons (4.5 persons is used)
Four Bedrooms Six Persons"
Here’s the reality as reported in the LA Times:
3
"the Department of Fair Housing and Employment has determined that two per bedroom, plus one, is
not an unreasonable standard. For example, three people in a one-bedroom apartment and five in a
two-bedroom is reasonable.”
The California Code of Regulations, which includes the 1991 Uniform Housing Code, contains residential
occupancy standards. A home must have at least one room of 120 square feet. Additional rooms must
have at least 70 square feet. Two people can occupy each room and for each additional 50 square feet,
an additional person can occupy the room. The Code does not distinguish between a bedroom, living
room, dining room, and kitchen. All rooms can be used for sleeping except bathrooms, hallways,
closets, and stairwells.
Residents are already painfully aware of this reality since one house in our neighborhood had over 10
people living in the three bedroom home (even with the city’s existing restrictive 5+ occupancy limit).
One of the neighbors called the city (no, it wasn’t me) for ‘enforcement’ and what happened next was a
sham. As neighbors witnessed that nothing changed, I asked one of the people living at that house what
happened. She said, “Oh, the owner showed the inspector the lease which 5 people signed and the rest
of us pay her under the table.” There were ways to verify the true occupancy numbers but the city
staff person just didn’t bother. He did the minimal amount he ‘had’ to and walked away.
So, in conclusion, this item before you is a sham and the city has already constantly violated nearly every
one of these goals, programs, etc. If you really care, then do something. Be honest with people for
starters. The true value of this community lies with its residents. If you don’t start there then you will
continue to create Isla Vista North - and I don’t see Isla Vista as a tourist destination, do you?
In my opinion, the city has already done that. The core attributes of our city have already been lost due
to the constant eroding of what residents had long held to be important. SLO does not have a beach, it
does not have the wineries…what it did have was a downtown that was a pleasure for everyone to be in
and walk around in. Eat in. Patronize. It was intimate, you could see the mountains and enjoy a ‘people-
scale’ downtown feeling. That was what made SLO so special! There was a lot of effort to include a
design program that could accommodate new development without losing the assets of what made
downtown so special. Allan Cooper and the “Save Our Downtown” folks remind the commissions and
the council of this all the time and they are regularly pretty much ignored.
While violating the city’s open-bidding policy and making exceptions to the plan for monied interests,
we don’t have that ‘special place’ anymore. Our downtown looks like a lot of other downtowns, family
owned businesses disappeared and chain stores took over along with the predominance of many, many
bars. At one count I think we had the most bars per square block than anywhere else in the state. How
come all those bars aren’t the "picture on the cover” of all that advertising the city pays for?
The city is no longer replicating the casual ambience, walkability and attractiveness of the Copeland
Center and instead there are now very imposing, often dark, buildings blocking any of the pedestrian’s
relationship to our beautiful mountains, nature and each other.
When the city wanted more money it hired outside consultants to see what was important to city
residents, including what they would tax themselves for. Right at the top of the list, and no surprise to
anyone, was “protection of our natural open space.” That core value hasn’t changed, It’s been one of
4
the city’s main stated goals for over half century. For the first time ever it isn’t even a city goal
anymore!
Take your assets for granted and it’s only a matter of time before you lose them!
Now, as the sales tax increase comes up for renewal, the council wants to figure out how to manipulate
the voters and get them to "buy” into the council's reality, their priorities. Instead of being listened to,
residents are now commodities to be manipulate - and the city will spend our own taxpayer monies to
figure out how to do it! The city is already well over 70% rental - that means that one’s neighbors
change pretty much based on Poly’s/Cuesta's school systems.
That’s not a definition of stability.
You are there. You can change that. My question to you is “Will you?”
Respectfully submitted,
Peg Pinard
* Restorer, Myron Angel Home, and placed it on the National Register of Historical Places thus
enabling of the city’s first Historical District which we also established
* Founder, Old Town Neighborhood Association
* City Council Member and Mayor of San Luis Obispo
* County Supervisor and Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
* Recipient, the American Planning Assoc. Award for design of small town jurisdictions
5