HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2012 AC Pinard SS2RE: Study Session 2/7/12
"Historic Preservation Program"
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
There were major problems in the historic ordinance process due to lack of
communication with the residents of the historic neighborhoods that were being
affected. The council directed that communication should be improved. It is therefore
very surprising that most of us who have been involved with historic preservation and
the recent problems with communication did not receive any notice of this study
session.
The historic preservation incentives and benefits mentioned in the staff report: the Mills
Act, the Historic Building Code, Modified Development Standards, historic plaques
program, etc. etc. were all done prior to the council's recent historic preservation
hearings and ordinance. They have been in place for decades. Staff made the
statement that: "No fiscal impacts are associated with this report..." There definitely are
fiscal impacts for spending expensive staff time to simply repeat information that is
easily and readily available. And there are fiscal impacts to SLO taxpayers for the CEO,
the City Attorney, the Council and all the other support staff to be present at this
meeting.
Perhaps before you embark on a campaign to add to the list of "historic resources" you
might want to take a hard look at how your current processes are working. While staff is
busy writing these reports, they are not doing any outreach into the neighborhoods to
work to solve the real problems owners of historic homes are facing. The adverse
publicity that resulted from the lack of meaningful notifications, and the failure of the city
to follow its own General Plan and involve affected residents early in the process by
holding meetings in the neighborhoods, has had a pretty chilling affect on not only
existing historic home owners but also others in the city. There were comments from
other city residents that they were really glad they weren't in a city-designated historic
home or district. There were even questions about how current designations could be
undone. The city still has made no attempt to have meaningful meetings with historic
home-owner residents.
The city's lack of knowledge as to the real problems residents in historic homes
face sends a pretty clear message to residents in prospective historic districts or historic
homes. Improving the city's relationship with historic home-owner residents would
certainly be the best recommendation as to why others might agree to have their home
be subjected to more bureaucratic restrictions and special government oversight.
The original "Historic Guidelines" were formulated in direct response to the
needs of the residents of historic homes. For instance, the Historic Building Code
and Modified Development Standards were adopted because people who wanted to
purchase these older, historic homes and restore them were having difficulty getting
insurance. Without insurance, one could not get a bank loan.
Many lots in Old Town were considered 'substandard' and did not meet the current
city requirements. Insurance companies argued that, if the house burnt down, they
would not be able to be rebuilt. That was a reason behind the loss of many of the city's
historic homes. Developers could get the property for a reduced price, tear down the
existing home and rebuild what many saw as some very incompatible structures.
The Old Town Neighborhood Association worked with city staff to redefine what was a
'standard' lot in Old Town and what would be allowed to be rebuilt if something
disastrous happened. Basically, any existing lot was deemed to be 'legal' and any
home would be allowed to be rebuilt as it was. Prospective buyers could now get
insurance. Without this very important change, the resurgence of what the city is saying
it prides itself in could not have happened.
I bring this to your attention because, if there is to be continued historic preservation
efforts, and you want to have "heritage tourism" then the main component for success is
going to be this relationship between the residents and the city. The previous issue was
an example of how this relationship worked in the past and why the city has enjoyed the
fruits of that labor for these many years. Right now, home-owner occupancy is on the
decline in this city, especially in the historic areas surrounding downtown. Lose the
home-owner occupied residences and you are left with an Isla Vista where the lack of
stability and the transient nature of the area will have a negative affect on 'tourism'. It is
a well-proven axiom that, when downtowns lose their stable residential areas, that the
downtowns themselves cease to be perceived as 'safe'. History has proven this time
and time again as a reason for the deterioration of many historic downtowns.
It is much more difficult to rebuild a damaged reputation than it is to take care of the
assets you already have.
As a result of the city's experience during the ordinance hearings, the city council
decided that there needed to be improved communication with residents in historic
districts. And yet, nothing has changed. Resident input is not part of this study session.
In the neighborhood, there were many comments on how the new "Historian" simply
repeated what was already in effect and did so in a very expensive manner. While the
city is asking others to take pay cuts or freezing wages, this expensive brochure is
another example of how residents are seeing how the city spends "our" money.
Many residents have brought issues to the city and the main comp laint is that the city
has been unresponsive. The list of problems is long, ranging from excessive sound
amplification at downtown events such that they can be clearly heard many blocks
away, to drunks throwing garbage, beer cans, urinating, vomiting, dam aging
property, yelling, fighting, and even darting in front of moving cars on the city streets
after the bars close. Residents of Old Town and other adjacent historic districts bear a
disproportionate share of the costs while others make the profits. The city has
determined that there will be constant, noisy traffic beepers to be installed in residential
areas, many within feet of resident's bedrooms. How is this encouraging and
"protecting" the quality of life for residents in these historic districts? And, in just these
past couple of weeks, there have been three accidents on three blocks of Broad St.
There are many other issues which the city needs to address.
You don't need to hire a consultant, and you don't need slick, glossy, expensive
mailers. Residents simply need to be heard...and the city needs to be responsive. Why
isn't that issue part of this "historic preservation study session"?
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Co-Founder, Old Town Neighborhood Association