HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-2014 SS1 PinardCOUNCIL MEETING: 17-- 1 (e- 2-olLA
ITEM
Christian, Kevin
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:34 PM
To: Christian, Kevin DEC 1 6 2014
Subject: FW: proposed rental inspection program
f'" b —
From: Peg Pinard [mailto:pinardmat @aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:35 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Cc: newsroom @thetribunenews.com; Dave Congalton; news @ksby.com
Subject: proposed rental inspection program
Please distribute to the City Council
As a founding member and spokesperson for the Old Town Neighborhood Association, the city's first
neighborhood association and its largest R -2 neighborhood, I have to ask how you can justify making
laws that are generated by a need in R -1 zones and then just nonchalantly extend the ordinance to
thousands of us who will have to live with those laws - without ANY communication or input from us,
the residents and home owners in R -2? Recent events in R -1 zones, have demonstrated how
residents feel when others, outside particular neighborhoods, make decisions that will very much
affect that neighborhood. The R -1 Cal Poly neighborhood residents were very frustrated as they
realized that the 'powers that be' were simply 'shining them on' and their neighborhood input was
being ignored.
Now take that terrible example one step further —you, the city council are being asked to support an
ordinance that says "This will apply to R -1 and R -2 ". There were NO MEETINGS in Old Town, there
was NO NOTIFICATION to R -2 property owners that this was even under consideration for R -2
zones.
Our city's constitution, its General Plan, acknowledged that neighborhoods were different and would
have different issues. It clearly states that any issues affecting neighborhoods SHALL BEGIN with
meetings in the affected neighborhoods. THAT NEVER HAPPENED! I only recently heard about this
because I was on someone's email list. And I was only on that list because I wrote a letter of support
for those residents when they were trying to protect their neighborhood on the issues that were
important to them.
Imagine how shocked I was to find that a whole new set of laws was going to be applied to R -2 and
we knew NOTHING about it! You are being asked to approve an ordinance that says "This will apply
to R -1 and R -2. Well, support the changes that are appropriate for where the problem was identified
and where discussions have taken place but please remove including R -2.
Somehow our R -2 zone was just arbitrarily added -in while R -3's, R -4's zones were mysteriously left
out.
We do not have the same problems as R -1 neighborhoods though we do seem to have the same
problem when it comes to being heard by the council. You may recall that, not long ago dozens of
long -time, owner - occupied residents of Old Town tried to bring a list of the problems that we were
facing to the council. They all signed a petition, which I presented to the council, simply asking for
time on a future council agenda so that they could all come to city hall and let the council know about
the problems they wanted to discuss and address. The council had been receiving a number of
individual communications but we soon realized that we had lots of concerns in common and wanted
to speak to the council as a neighborhood. That's all the petition asked for... simply for time with the
council altogether in an open forum. We were totally shut down. The council majority said, and
quote: They were "not interested "! Our neighborhood was absolutely turned down.
And what were the issues that we had been bringing to the council that were problems in our
neighborhood? Let me remind you and include a letter that we finally sent to the National Trust and
Historic Preservation agencies: (and these were only a few of the issues we wanted to talk to the
council about)
From: Peg Pinard <pinardmat(aD_aol.com>
To: Lucinda Woodward <Iwoodward@parks.ca.gov >; National Trust <mernbers@_savingnlaces.gM >; Jahn Laird
<secretary(aresources.ca.Qov>
Cc: Jan Marx <irnarx@slocity.nrg >; Kathy Smith <ksmith@slocity.org >; Dan Carpenter <dancarP54 cDcharter.net >; John.
Ashbaugh <iashbau (@slociiy.orq>; Carlyn Christianson <carlyncc@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:11 PM
Subject: How San Luis Obispo treats it's first Historic District!
,A [I Open Letter to the State and National Preservation Agencies
From: Peg Pinard
Former Council Member and Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Former, Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
Co- founder, Old Town Neighborhood Association
Placed and restored the city's first home on the National Register of Historic Places
thus enabling the city's first Historic District
I am very discouraged by what I see happening in San Luis Obispo and, most particularly, with what I am
witnessing happening in Old Town, the City's first designated historical district. Recently, the city council
even refused to talk with our neighborhood when the council was presented with a petition signed by
over 30 historic home - owner /residents (from just one block) who requested a meeting with the council
to discuss the problems they were experiencing in our neighborhood. The council's collective
comment was, and I quote, we are "not interested!" After all the hassles we've had to endure, this
was the "straw that broke the camel's back ". Three of the families who signed the petition moved to
other parts of the county and several more are planning to leave. More and more, decisions are
being made TO residents, without any notice or involvement of the residents who are most affected
by those decisions.
There are numerous examples of how the city is using state and federal money to actually thwart the very goals
your agencies are entrusted with promoting. The most egregious violation is not involving residents. Our city's
Charter (it's Constitution) clearly states that any proposal affecting a neighborhood SHALL begin with
meetings in the neighborhood. This is not being done! Resident involvement is also a provision of the many
grants that your agencies award. This did not happen with the state - funded "Historical Ordinance ", it's not
happening with the state - funded General Plan Update - and it is not happening even when residents specifically
request it. We are almost done with updating the city's general plan, and, to date, NO meetings have been held
with the cicig borhoo s. Is this what the agencies are trying to accomplish? And, if not, why do you keep
funding it?
I am including some examples of issues our neighborhood wanted to talk with the city about:
We just woke up one morning to find that utility box painted right outside of our children's bedroom
windows. I haven't found anyone who lived in the area who thought this was appropriate, nor
anyone who would want to have this in front of THEIR home. But the city thought this was fine for
children
in its historic Old Town neighborhood.
Do you even notice the new "historic" sign? This is supposed to be the latest
"improvement "! After putting up the garish "gargoyle" to "improve" our historic district
homes, would anyone even notice the new `historic' sign? What a waste
of money! Even in the best of circumstances, when you are driving up the street
the historic sign is blocked by the pole .
Wouldn't it have made more sense to put the historic logo sign (possibly enlarging it)
ON the utility box? - keeping the box background color neutral so the sign
would stand out? Then it would be the first thing you see
when you are at the intersection and the utility pole would be behind it!
Of course, with our `top down' administration, the city knows best.
It didn't need (or want) any help from the people who live hereL.or
who created the historic district in the first place.
p.s. the signs are not even placed where the historical district is registered!
Driveways are constantly being blocked by the increased demand for parking. The city wants to increase
"density"
meaning cramming more and more people into areas where there already isn't enough parking. In addition,
downtown
employees park here for `free' all- day - long - parking and tourists are also looking for `free' parking. Of course,
it's not `free' -
that's a misnomer - Old Town residents pay the cost as we can't park in front of our own homes or get out of
our own
driveways. The city has turned down the ability of property owner's to have both sides of their
narrow driveways painted red for safe ingress and egress even though the curbs are in the city's easement
and under their jurisdiction. And, even though the neighborhood presented the city with a petition requesting a
residential parking district - signed by over 76% of residents when only 50 % +1 was legally required by our own
rules -
the city turned us down. ( *an addendum: years later the city decided it wanted to make sure its parking
garages were full and make more money so they finally initiated getting a parking district established for Old
Town. Trouble was... it was too late. The problems we had been trying to address when we requested
a residential parking district had finally deteriorated to the point where there were too few owner
residents left. The city said (again, this was many years later) their attempt to create the parking
district failed and made it sound like residents were the ones who didn't want one. The fact is that it was
needed years earlier, when the owner - residents were still here, to keep homes livable. Long -time home- owner-
occuppied residents simply responded with their feet and moved away. So, yes, the parking district didn't
pass ... it was simply too late)
Selective `enforcement. A case of the city's `equality' for all - except if you happen to be the ones who wrote
the ballot
argument against the city's new tax proposals or speak out on city issues ... then you get 'special treatment'.
This is an example of the latest `special treatment'. The house of the left got cited for having visible garbage
cans
(the owner was a co- author against Measure Y - the sales tax increase) while the one on the right was not cited?
Within a one block area there were approximately 20 other properties where garbage cans were very highly
visible
- and yet they were not cited either. Which means that city staff had to go right by them to get to this one!
The other co-author of the ballot argument is similarly constantly harassed.
r
Property Damage done by the City. The city cares so much for its historic `treasures' that it has
no problem storing its equipment for days on end in front of our historic homes
(no 72 hour rule applied here!) and see what that heavy equipment
does to our sidewalks! With the street `crown' being so high, almost the entire weight of
that equipment is loaded onto the narrow curb strip.
Want to guess how long it's going to take the city to tell historic property owners that they need to pay for
fixing the damage that the city itself caused?
Flooding. Since the city has continued to raise (pave) the middle of its streets without taking into account
proper drainage for the added height, we get this situation. Those dips in the intersections you feel
when you drive around Old Town were not put there to slow down traffic, they are rain water
drainage channels. The drainage channels at this intersection were negligently removed! When it rains heavily,
the run -off
water that converges here from two streets basically, `jumps the curb' and floods the city's
first home on the National Register of Historic Places.
The city needs to solve the drainage problem it created when it negligently removed the original (and very
effective) drainage
channels that were at this intersection just a few years ago.
And last, but not least, even when painted utility boxes are not inherently gross or objectionable, they DO
distract from the historic homes. When you have a historic `treasure' (as the city likes to claim), then why
would you put something so noticeable in front of it? And, while we're at it, San Luis Obispo is not by the
beach. The ocean scenes depicted would be very appropriate in Morro Bay but have nothing to do with the
historical context in which they have been - placed..... so much for `historical preservation ".
Again, residents had no notice or knowledge that painting utility boxes in t i•ont of our homes was even under
consideration.
(end of letter to the National
Trust)
************************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
** *continued email to the SLO City Council:
Like I said, this was not even a complete list. And, just so you know, not long after the city council said it
wasn't even interested in talking with residents from our neighborhood, three of the long time families
who had signed that petition, put their houses up for sale and moved. Other families also moved out
of the neighborhood including Mike Draze, the city's own former "long -range planner" and planning
commissioner.
We also had the issue of utility companies constantly knocking down owls' nests as they trimmed the
trees to keep the leaves away from the high tension power lines. Without the owls we are seeing a
huge increase in the number of rats. The city was supposed to have an under grounding of utility lines
that was supposed to start from downtown outward, and, while they have been installed in the
outlying areas, they have not been done in our neighborhood. Besides not having the owls to control
the rat population, this practice leave the trees looking very lopsided. We wanted to know the
progress of the under - grounding of utilities program.
Then there was /is the problem of cars blocking not only driveways but also sidewalks at intersections.
Simple red lining would have helped.
In addition, neighbors wanted to let the council know about the increase in the level of noise from
loudspeakers being used at Jack House events - the noise can be heard as far away as Nipomo and
Islay Sts. A simple city effort to tell the event planners to turn down their loudspeakers would have
solved the problem and been greatly appreciated by those residents who couldn't even enjoy their
own back yards. The city was also proposing to put noise beepers at the lighted intersections, some
of which are only a few feet from our bedrooms and living rooms. There was /is a desire for a `quiet
zone' as (mostly) downtown employees park their cars in front of our homes all day every day and
leave their car alarms on. Almost any heavy truck driving down the street sets those alarms off over
and over again. Other communities have quiet zones where they require vehicle owners to turn off
those alarms so that residents don't have to be startled by them all day long.
These are some of the problems we are having in R -2 that are identified by residents in Old Town
when you ask them what their neighborhood issues are. They are not the same ones residents are
having in R -1. Please do not presume that the city knows what is best for Old Town and start making
laws for us that have never seen the light of day here.
Old Town is the city's largest R -2 neighborhood and we have had many instances where "others"
thought they knew best what would preserve our historic neighborhood and quality of life— including
potential $10,000 fines for not following rules that staff would make up as they went along. "Others"
thought this was a great idea. We did not. "Others" thought that requiring "original materials" for
rebuilding a home if it should burn down was a good idea... until insurance companies started
canceling insurance policies because of that wording. And, it was "others" who thought that "art"
added to the value of our homes, represented the character of our historic neighborhood, and was
appropriate for us and our children to have to view right outside our living room and bedroom
windows.
Had the city, its many committees, and the hand - picked "stakeholders" who came up with all this
even bothered to contact the affected residents first, a lot of anguish, time and money could have
been avoided. In each of these instances where "others" thought THEY knew best, they were,, in. fact,
the very cause of blight and instability in our neighborhood.
As to the provisions of this (R -1 requested) proposed ordinance... the council should take a look at
one example of the city's past performance. When neighborhoods previously brought crowding and
other issues to the city, the city passed a new residential rental business tax. Along with other
promises, it was supposed to cover the cost of enforcement for newly enacted regulations such as
the requirement that 5 or more unrelated individuals in rental housing were required to have a use
permit. We got the tax but no enforcement. The residential rental business tax funds have been
collected all these years with no accountability.
It's also a point of fact that there are already strict disclosure laws in place for the sale of residential
property in California. Compliance with the city's building /zoning codes are among them. In addition, if
a realtor sells a house without disclosing that structures are illegally altered then he can face fines
and lose his license. Banks also require appraisals and physical inspections for code compliance
when they agree to make a loan. As noted by the California Department of Real Estate:
"When a California home is for sale, the law requires the seller to disclose certain information to
prospective buyers. The disclosures are designed to let buyers make informed decisions about
purchasing a property. If the seller or the seller's real estate agent fails to disclose the appropriate
information, they could face fines and penalties for breaking the law.... Disclosures are given during
several steps of the home - buying process, from sellers, real estate agents and lenders."
How is the city's proposed new ordinance not going to be a duplication of existing laws and banking
practices? How will the city keep complaints from not being a mechanism for harassment? And how
does the city propose to not be liable as the guarantor for whatever it assumes when it takes on the
responsibility for being the inspector? Currently, there are legal processes in place for rental property
issues; if the city collects a fee for inspecting something then it would certainly seem reasonable for a
renter to assume that the city is guaranteeing what it inspected.
10
"Due process is a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal... All legal procedures
set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial
or unequal treatment will result ... The universal guarantee of due process is in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which provides "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,"
There are many reasons to oppose this ordinance, but the first and foremost issue remains that R -2 residents were
never part of this discussion, R -2 residents were never notified that this issue was even under discussion. In
addition, our city's constitution, its general plan, requires that issues that affect a neighborhood SHALL begin with
early and meaningful meetings in that neighborhood. That never happened.
As the council is well poised to proceed with the request for this ordinance from the R -1
neighborhoods, please withdraw including R -2 as part of that proposal. There have
been NO MEETINGS, NO NOTICE and NO DISCUSSIONS or information in this R -2 neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo,
Chairperson, SLO County Board of Supervisors
and Founding Member of the
Old Town Neighborhood Association
11