Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/2010, PH1 - CONTINUED HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO UPDATE THE HISTORIC council Mfi, •p l acEnaa Report omn i CITY O F SAN L U I S O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning flA SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO UPDATE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CREATE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (GPI 72-09) RECOMMENDATION Consider the updated Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and provide direction to staff for any desired edits. DISCUSSION The Council considered the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommended drafts of a new Historic Preservation Ordinance and updated Historic Preservation Program Guidelines on September 21, 2010. Due to the large amount of public testimony; the desired edits and recommendations for reformatting of the draft Ordinance; and the late hour, Council continued discussion of the updated Guidelines to October 5, 2010. No additional staff report will be provided for the meeting on October 5`h. Staff will provide a presentation of the updated Guidelines. After receiving direction on October 5th, staff will return on October 19`h with Council-directed changes to both the Guidelines and the Ordinance for final action. A link to the staff report and attachments from the September 21, 2010 Council agenda report is provided below: http://www.slocity.org/cityclerk/agendas/2010/0921 10/oh5chchistorigpreservationordpdf T:\Council Agenda Reports\Community Development CAR\2010\Historic Preservation\CAR10-5-10.doc T)4 I - 1 RE"FIVE® RED FILE OCT 0 5 2010 Vr-ETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK DATEA,- ITEM #—E#-J _ i council mcmoizan6um DATE: October 5, 2010 flzo copy kffl#-X- y G'rCOUNCIL CyCDD DIR TO: City Council L CAO CrFIN DIR CACAO p'FIRE CHIEF AToRNEY W DIR VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager ERK/ORIG p POLICE CHF PT HEADSEC DIR FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct r E5TIL DIR El HR DIR BY: Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Guidelines—email request for continuance This morning, staff received a copy of an email provided to the Council from several citizens requesting a continuance of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines from October 19`h to a future date to accommodate additional input and to address specific concerns. The Council directed staff to make certain changes to the draft ordinance in response to similar concerns expressed on September 21, 2010 and the summary below indicates how the revisions in process respond to the issues identified in the email delivered today. Staff is prepared to proceed on October 19`x, however if Council directs a continuance of the item, staff can return at a future date as defined by Council. Fines: Council directed staff to come forward with options for their review concerning the penalties proposed in the.ordinance. While the Cultural Heritage Committee's intent was to assign fines to unapproved demolition, this intent was not clear in the language. The draft language revisions staff is preparing for Council consideration make it clear that only unauthorized demolition of a historic structure is subject. to penalties and includes a recommendation to eliminate the monetary penalty(fine). Tax incentives on the local level are available for both residential and commercial Master List properties through the Mills Act. At the state level, tax credits are available for commercial properties in addition to any local incentive programs. The proposed elimination of penalty fines may address the concern of differentiating between residential and commercial properties. Again, the intent is to address unauthorized demolition of historic resources and CEQA does not distinguish ownership or use of historic properties when defining adverse impact. Substantial and Significant: Council directed that changes to the ordinance language describing property conditions for which enforcement action may be taken needed to be described more clearly and distinguished from normal wear and tear or maintenance issues. Additional language has been added to clarify the types of conditions that could lead to serious structural problems. Additionally, language has been included in several sections of the ordinance that reinforces the City's approach to enforcement which is always from a voluntary, collaborative approach rather than a punitive one. Alterations: The draft Guidelines contain an exemption from Cultural Heritage Committee review for minor repairs and alterations that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Staff recommends that this provision also be reflected in the definition of alteration contained in both the Ordinance and Guidelines. Property Rights The draft Ordinance and Guidelines do not propose changes to infringe on private property owner rights. The documents are intended to provide specificity regarding the existing process already in place for review of nominations to the historic resources list, or alterations to properties with listed historic resources or within historic districts. Edits requested by Council will more clearly reflect the existing practices and procedures regarding historic preservation efforts. Third Party Complaints Any complaints received by the City are not acted on unless the issue is verified as one needing response. If a complaint is verified as valid, the City works with the property owner to encourage voluntary compliance. This reflects current City practice and changes are not proposed to the current enforcement process. The example cited in the email was a reference to a project from 2003 (Coward ARCMI 52-03) and involved an application for changes to a Contributing property. The CHC unanimously approved the project on May 27, 2003 but requested the ARC review the issue due to testimony provided at the hearing. The ARC reviewed the project on June 16, 2003 and also approved the project. That decision was appealed to the City Council and subsequently the appeal was withdrawn on July 6, 2003. The ability of any citizen to provide public input at a hearing and subsequently to appeal a decision of an advisory body or the Director of Community Development is protected by the City. This example was not related to an enforcement action and no changes to the appeal process are proposed. Public Input/Neighborhood Outreach The City went above its legal obligation to notice but Council has received input from residents who do not believe the City adequately noticed the proceedings. The noticing and outreach conducted by the City in this effort were uniform in approach. The participants who responded to the noticing and outreach were vaned — the Chamber was very active in its involvement and included members who own historic resources, both residential and commercial. Members of the public who attended CHC hearings also provided input and comments—this included owners of historic resources, both commercial and residential. San Luis Obispo is a community of active citizens who wear a variety of"hats". Input from owners of historic resources was not discounted because of their affiliation with other groups. Input from all sources was considered and responded to as shown in Attachment 1 of the staff report from September 19`x. Staff attempted to reach owners with several postcards and a brochure in addition to the articles in the newspaper,two display ads and the traditional legal ads. The additional effort was made because even though this ordinance applies City-wide, it has particular relevance to those owners of -2- properties with historic structures and within historic districts. Contact information is always provided so that citizens with questions or concerns have a resource in the event they would like more information or are not comfortable asking questions during hearings or workshops. Council has directed changes to be made in response to comments and concerns expressed at the September 21, 2010 hearing. Public input from all meetings and submittals help shape the documents that are returned to Council.. -3 - i October 4, 2010 Copb Em 1-, 7CCUNCIL 2GCDD DIR RED FILE E-,6el 1 Z-FIN DIR Z-AeAeRCM 2-FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA Q"ATTORNEY 2?W DIR Mayor oaue Romero DAT %� ITEM # T' C DEPT HEADS IrREC DE CHF �— ❑ DEPT HEADS C�7'REC DIR Cit of San Luis Obispo Pi6 [rUTILDIR City 990 Palm St. [�'1HR Din San Luis Obispo, CR 93481 �n�� cvmi tea` 514 cmVaJ5 — eLe4r— Dear Mr. Mayor. Rs a general rule, I am not a letter writer to gouernment officials, but the latest rumors regarding $1080.00 fines, etc. for homeowner@ in Old Town are uery upsetting to this old lady., I can hardly belieue that our beloued city would do this to the mostly old people who Hue here. On our block of four houses, three are occupied by retirees. We all try to do our best to keep up our properties, but huge fines would certainly preclude our doing anything. It all seems so draconian to me. When one is a long time widow on a fixed income, it is always daunting to keep up with repairs. Many things happen to 188 year old houses and gardens during the year ; and one must prioritize. My biggest problems , for example are aging water pipes and uery old trees. It is uery expensiue to haue a tree cut down and the same for repairing leaks. My french doors need to be repainted , and 1 will get to it, hopefully before the rains come but the tree leaning on the wires is the first priority this fall. I am giuing you my personal problems and opinions so you can see that not euergone is in fauor of this; and for , what I think, are good reasons. Surely there must be a kinder, gentler way to protect our heritage without sacrificing senior citizens for senior properties. Maybe there is a compromise somewhere. Sorry I cannot come to the council meetings to uoice my concerns, but I not longer driue at night. RECEIVED " OCT 0 5 2910 SLO CITY CLERK Respectfully /� 6 47� Lynn Mahoney Ekegren P.S. There are some problems I cannot control-students throwing rocks through my front windows and beer cans in my hedge. LME Copies to: John Rshbaugh Rndrew Carter Jan Marx Rllan Settle n ,J From: Angela Carpenter[SMTP:ANGELAGCARPENT@SBCGLOBAL.NET] RECEIVED Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:02:29 PM To: Council, SloCity Subject: SLO historic preservation ordinance OCT 0 5 7010 Auto forwarded by a Rule SLO CITY CLERK Dear San Luis Obispo City Council, I'm requesting that you postpone a decision regarding the SLO historic preservation ordinance. In talking with fellow residents of this community, it is my understanding that many residents do not think they were clearly notified of the proposed changes nor do they understand the changes. Please give the pubic an opportunity to review the ordinance by granting a time extension. One comment, the fines seem very high! Angela Carpenter RED FILE MEETING AGENDA ---- Forwarded Message ---- �0 0 ITEM #� From: Shelly Johnson <shelry j@earthlink.net> DA To: LaurieCS@aol.com; angelagcarpent@sbcglobal.net Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 4:10:13 AM Subject: SLO historic preservation ordinance This is the website my neighbor put up for info about the proposed historic preservation ordinance and guidelines. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. hftp://savingslohomes.org/ Shelly H�-1i�7 COP �/yjRrG� 'COUNCIL C`rD DIR GAO-" M'11N DIR 2AeAeA" B"FiRE CHIEF ATTORNEY �'W DIR 13tLERK/0RIG. P"OL-ICE GHP DEPTT HEADS v!tiEc DIR �7IL DIR �TYL� u DIR i �1FtJ Tl/YIESir..���tl.. . ,crry Mee — ct.uce °/5//D �� %��6 p17(170A)tL CD�Zi2�S�Drv�c�/!/C� From: Susan Coward[SMTP:SUSAN@MRCOWARD.COM] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 5:42:28 PM Lr Ty /L�e To: Ashbaugh, John ACr1�r16 Cc: Dietrick, Christine; Council, S1oCity �irlE/ Subject: Postcard notification AV-011-d&/ Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Mr. Ashbaugh, /v( U n 2 7 Thank you for the call today. Thank you also for offering to ask the City Attorney about the accuracy and appropriateness of the wording on the postcards sent to property owners regarding meetings about the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines. Attached as a .jpg is a photo of one of the notices I'm talking about. This card announced the. 9/21/2010 City Council meeting. The information on it is incorrect. You'll note it says: "The City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to consider an application near your property or residence. " This meeting was not about an application near our property. It was about a new ordinance that will subject OUR OWN PROPERTY to new regulations and us as property owners to potential fines and criminal charges.. Many people who don't have strong feelings about what their neighbors do with their properties disregard such notices without turning them over. Even if they HAD turned it over, nowhere does the card say the recipient is receiving this notice because it affects THEM OR THEIR PROPERTY. Similar wording was used on other postcards. If you believe the wording on this postcard is accurate and correct, please direct me to the application and neighboring property referenced! Thank you,. Susan Susan Coward 1535 Nipomo St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 541-8566 RECEIVED OCT 0 6 1010 SLO CITY CLERK O p a U -4:3Sr •.y U N O CL 0 con C'n Cd cla Qcd O0 Cd H V p � 'b O W U .� Q Q � ' .•� - cts C4 a� U43-15 a W CdQ Q +-+ cn Q b ° � cVc -o •-� 3 r c O `I v� d -a U to >•, x Cd cd 0 H 0 4-4 Omni o � tzko es U 0 cz s c. dti o U � Cd LL a� Q o on a04 0 4 a� tu Cd tD E5 C4 U al 75 cn Ccs .�t { � _ •;. 7t .��}} �.�1 p Cis Cop) (6� t i .v .,�1 :1•t ��•y rpv �1 1 l rte,,, '� � �� rC,�.'' i.e-a • r,.q .7 .!.y; LI�v �4�{.�I � ►n r...) � au :9 i i �t 0 �. RECEIVED OCT 0 5 2010 From: Craig and Trudy[SMTP:TLINDAMAN@GMAIL.COMI Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:31:06 AM SLO CITY CLERK To: Council, SloCity; Jan Marx Subject: SLO Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Council Members: We are asking that you postpone adopting the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines. We are just becoming aware of what is happening with the ordinance and its guidelines and feel that we, along with other affected homeowners, need a greater opportunity to understand it and to help shape it. We are in favor of preservation, but we feel that this ordinance and these guidelines are unfair. It should be acknowledged that some landlords charge high rents and don't take care of their properties throughout the city. The existing laws which deal with homes in disrepair should be enforced by the city before we add another layer of governmental control. These regulations are unfair in targeting only owners of historic properties. We understand that the city hopes to win grant monies that are available to cities with these types of ordinances. Our concern is that these grants are not large enough to justify making 700 homeowners unhappy with the city. Are you familiar with the size of grants that are being awarded? The ordinance seems to leave homeowners vulnerable to nuisance complaints. The city should hold the person complaining liable for the expense of investigating the complaint if it turns out that there were no grounds for the complaint in the first place. While we are very much in favor of having good government and having government do good, we feel this ordinance is not an example of good government. Thank you for considering our request to delay enacting this new layer of government so that the people most affected have time to be made aware of its ramifications. Sincerely, Craig and Trudy Lindaman 1057 Buchon St. 1►n, �� � t� COUNCIL ;21 CDD DIR J�CAO CM FIN DIR ETACAO 4" FIRE CHIEF Z ATTORNEY PW DIR Z CLERK/ORIG m POLICE CHF I O DEPT HEADS 0 REC DIR RED FILE -DAJZUTIL DIR MEETING AGENDA - 7 HR DIR DA n ITEM # _ s cros C�u�c i RECEIVED RED FILE OCl U 5 2010 MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLE K DA 20 ITEM #��L u pcounc� o UM DATE: October 5 2010qh" &PY 95-WA04- G'�COUNCIL - E--CDD DIR Pf�sOGnl t-FIN DIP TO: City Council C�AC>AO LM.n1 p FIRE CHIEF, L'rATTORNEY L?'-PW DIP Pf LERK/ORfG- L'POLICE CHF. VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager 9EP THE40g F-REC DIP B r LrUTIL DIP FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo — ._ 131FR DSR N6wrJp�ES' — .dgCeL��. Sto cr/fii t�/v3 C[�j/19� BY: Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development ec�rc� SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Guidelines At the hearing on September 21, 2010, the City Council continued discussion of the updated Historic Preservation Program Guidelines to October 5`h due to the lateness of the hour. Staff reviewed Council direction from that evening in addition to City Attorney recommendations and is recommending that the sections of the proposed Guidelines that address Demolition(3.6) and Relocation (3.7)be moved to the Ordinance. Staff recommends that Council review the draft Guidelines on October 5 1 and provide direction regarding any desired wording changes with the understanding that the two sections in question (3.6 and 3.7) are being recommended for inclusion in the Ordinance instead of the Guidelines. Both Guidelines and Ordinance will be returned for final review, after incorporating direction from Council, on October 19, 2010. A "Red file" provided by Councilmember Carter from the September 21, 2010 Council meeting follows this discussion and contains suggested wording changes for Sections 3.6 and 3.7 as summarized in bolded numbers below. Staff response to those recommendations in italics follows: 1. Edit findings required for demolition of historic resources in 3.6.4a to eliminate structural infeasibility as a required criterion. Eliminate the word all prior to the words "economically viable use of the property" under 3.6.4c (PH5-151). a. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) discussed demolition findings at length. The conclusion was that the feasibility definition under Public Resources Code section 21061.,1 as applied through the environmental review process, means "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors. " The findings proposed are intended to indicate that the preference is to retain historic resources unless there is some reason the structure is compromised in a way that prevents its reuse. The intent is that the CHC make the preliminary recommendation regarding a demolition request based on whether a historic resource could be saved. The ARC or Council would still retain the ability to make the determination of whether the historic resource should be saved based on the other findings and in compliance with the larger context of all.general plan goals and policies and the environmental review process (including PRC 21061.1). This intent may be accomplished by changing the "and" to an "or" after 3.6.4(a). b. The proposed finding was developed prior to inclusion of an economic hardship provision in the ordinance and can be reworded to refer to that provision rather than re- stating the intent of the provision. Staff recommends rewording subsections (a) and (c) to read as follows: 3.6.4 Required fundings for demolition of a historic resource. The decision-making body shall approve an application for demolition of a structure listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources only if it determines that: (a) The historic resource is a hazard to public health or safety, and repairs or stabilization is not structurally feasible. Deterioration resulting from the property owner's neglect or failure to maintain the property should not be a justification for demolition. The applicant may be required to provide structural reports, to the approval of the Community Development Director or City Council, to document that repairs or stabilization are not feasible, and or (b) The proposed demolition is consistent with the General Plan; and (c) Denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described under findings a-e of Section 14.01.075. 4epffin:..e the e.«.. owner- F n eGgae .,�i.. . .,wie t9 the 2. Edit proposed criteria for relocation under 3.7 to eliminate sections b2 and b2(v); and modify wording in 3.7,3.7b(1) and b2(i). 3.7 — The preamble to the Relocation section indicates that relocation is "discouraged, except where it is the only feasible alternative to demolition". Historic Resources are treated in a similar manner to other environmental resources in the environmental review process — impacts to the resource are to be avoided or mitigated. The language in the preamble reflects direction from both CEQA guidelines and the State Office of Historic Preservation, both of which indicate that while relocation may constitute a significant adverse impact to the resource, it might also be the only feasible alternative to demolition. Eliminating the language after the word "discouraged" would not affect the intent of the section. It might, however, remove language that could lend support for projects that propose relocation as an alternative to demolition. 3.7b(1) —Relocation criteria b(1) —the wording indicates that relocation may not be supported if it results in an adverse change to all or part of the historic resource ("in whole or part'). Changing this wording to "significantly" will not impair the intent of the criterion and may more -2- accurately reflect provisions in CEQA. Those provisions indicate that a project that materially impairs a historic resource may cause a significant effect on the environment. CEQA further defines "materially impairs" as an action that demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance or account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources (15064.5b(1) and(2)). 3.7b(2) and (2)v— Both of these sections deal with the idea of relocation as a means to preserve the resource if it cannot physically be preserved on-site. These criteria also reinforce the CHC's intent that retaining the resource on-site should occur unless demolition or relocation are the only other options. Staff, however, agrees that the wording of the sub-sections, may be redundant and would recommend that 3.7b(2) be eliminated with the following sections renumbered. Section v should be retained as an "or" choice. With the proposed staff revisions, a proposed relocation, if it met b(1) through (5) OR criterion 6 could be found appropriate. Suggested wording is found at the end of discussion on item 3.7(e)(3). 3.7e(1) and(2) — Typographic corrections from "demolition" to "relocation"are appropriate. 3.7e(3) — Council member Carter proposes that the findings for relocation be eliminated. These findings mimic those found under the demolition section because relocation of a historic structure is grouped into the same category of demolition in the CEQA evaluation. Staff proposes referencing the demolition findings as part of the criteria under 3.7b and referencing those criteria in this section. Suggested wording follows: -3- i (b) Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on the Inventory of Historic Resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the Director to be potentially historic, is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitted only when: (1) The relocation will not, in whele ,._ significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource; and (2) Preservation o f theyesoi-iree a site :.. pt,ys eally.. nfe.,,ible, and relocation the only F .. ible t: to ensure tke e. t:e eA f tt e e e n Q(i}-Relocation will not adversely affect the character of the historic district or neighborhood where the resource is located or at its proposed location, and 2(4The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through ownership long term lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing relocation, to the Director's approval, and ��kiii}The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource's historic significance and the relocation will pose no adverse impacts to the surrounding property, and (5) Relocation is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, any applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, OR f6 (v)—The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site and no other measures for correcting the condition are feasible, OR (7) The proposed relocation meets the same findings required under Section 3.6.4 for demolition of a historic resource. 3. Other recommended changes: a. Both the draft Ordinance and Guidelines contain a definitions section. Any changes made to the definitions in either document will be made consistent in both. Staff recommends amendment to the definition of alteration to reflect exemptions for ordinary maintenance and repair. b. Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 contain information regarding the CHC's responsibilities and duties as well as the Community Development Director's role. Staff recommends eliminating these sections as they are redundant with those contained in the ordinance and additional edits to those sections in the ordinance are proposed to more clearly indicate intent, roles and duties. -4- Council Member Carter's Red File Recommendations: 3.6 DemalWou of Htstorlc Rcsources 16.1 iatPr_L It, =c the :+teal of the City that 1-g-.1 his:-io msnwrces rsa es s �p:aea'ale camm:M;ty re owca tzri=z=iz Special nrotectioa to oresc v,; thgE!, f'or fttltue gcmerstio;7_s+ 2nd s^_x:l rat h.delid§ex3 4;rils'S5 C`att`c�.�r3u;:.as aII o«the tsar!°ngy:u`ted z�rrl+;.r Stir-n 3.5.e. 3.53 P3'.maEftn review. ne Q,C -,ball rusi= and na{e recersntetulljon to tae Di=tex, ARC ar city Co=!aonaeeraiog demolition applicnt;= £sr s;ruc=Fsrf t„d in d:e Lnvwtaa o: 4v , _ z 3.4:3 Ar rraiitSon ihres>roisls. D=n-J;zian Fotm?ts for mueire3 7ikEkt are L=kWed un the h,=rory ofFjimic rescurces&-ill be requrod for. (a)A4 tcr7tior-%in,the:rsourcc irwolti xe,Vrutcr th.^n,251,,%ua the origi=l bust iii; ctccd, root are.rwari . .'ars;nad (b)1'cmovul oz creatcr thau 25%ofa'ty bta,-Jing a 1?s3meWO'rOM' taiemkT—wa!s;nu (c)Rdcz:,rimb-m r26atL*c e3 to a site i7 Cide t;-c cit,Iitri+� These ttar ld. sltu net er.ply to Yepairs`t� list sl• istc¢ri rewixC&S:V=the CST{;or.a e Director dderzilines€nct wcrk is stet w ti the'Se eiati?gf the interior's Stang,:-,for the Treatm-en ot'13istor°.c,,prq"l+ iT6 and with ti e;;,�pider7ctkS:T 3.5.4 Reguteed ftdlQi�for ctemodon of a b1siot rw,=rce. 'i he t ity Oz=cal shall apae:sT Im nsrrlicadon for d=-.1oRb of 3-� ctwz €sEed fii:r71e:Lvenwr+ of li^ata is Resasr.=out v tf Cotmeg d-=mi=s char: �a r'st8x4kas a hzz to atthlic he.:lth or safety,and repairs car arsl}F i is no! atm-f Wle. Mfeiiara!~ori j�>F jdn3 from the property owcer's rxziact or fa::;aa to � tnibtin , zonzaty ahaiiTd:t(n b~nlus6f!catac n yor dem aliti.r. The Vplizaw,rvsy`ac rrgd--rzd to prosi&W—pStura3 repart%-7a the mproval ;.,it:te Cw m—c-gity L3eY>lout D4-,zctgr sr City Couicn,to ttw#saE fast re 91, or st b Laos are rot fusible,znd (ba T9c gzopo�d di =tea is,oasis tt s;itta tPx Cs�crl),l:,atr and (c) Dcnisl of ti e.upsgilc -- .rill &-wive tka p:aaety on-er:•of "aooncati^,.ally Nq,.ble osl�al Q the property, aPer ;rn lacadv of fL*ivmci&L iacd use and o&er incectGve.3 asailrhlo r, rhr ptoptaty. 3.6.5 i?etMlltaau tit drg. City X9 aticsns =ymide for a 5-14ty walling ersod before. d=-alonm of a l:Sttxl Ystoxic mr,,5ar„e W 8.iow eoasidtniioa of aaiicruati,%= m a,-Z-qcavr• lk bmdding tLmttgv tzlr. r>rcn atttLlor p apaxty_ales T hz C:hicf 8�dlatg Offioia: s7,s]l not iss.:e a pcxmifi fo,-darned hir>v a t133Duric n s* antl: s) g7ihiic nut=cc rrou:irn+xts in t:^cyC: 's -5- "D , 5tc�viC:cc�s�l� (i) Reioceticn will not tha draratxer of tho Fis(orie rR;itirt vliera the :csourcc is located or at its proposal Iocation,and 44,✓ A �:�b (u)The original site and tic pramsed rw6vi.*g site are c lmzolled though oweenhin long icnn lesse or sieil=as.•ti<eme by the personsa)prapesing re:ecatioa,to the Dircctoi s approvni,and Ciii)The propcsed rcczsv*,site is relevant to(ht rwaurce's historic;signiF."gce and thorloc-tion will poseno rdversc imps.:ts toP.u:xo3mva irig}r rpetts,and (iv)Reiacaticn :a consisimt with Vals and policies of the Gmeral Plwr,, any appliv-!ble aea or spedfic pears,aLd ti=t Gtudrlacs;of amtte en n nsafe act tt3ditto !t,~�rr� .S+ (c) 32e oentioa isming The^sYoric esaence malt a ^tc rrtsv3 unless tl c(td f Boi?tt Omdal iu1 es a permit for zelosation sud a1I gaa»r dr:itfl .d €zes !w n row des tlapnscrt y paid;ar where uo new dxetopmem ix. aposod zm apntis ser xeit}°w y�ostnl to gerar«u<t� fhat relocatac alsss arcirtplernasttsxi,m,tlia�sectnr's apronva`];;. (c).Histarical nerd arcltfiecttual doCwnen' tiaii:"liior.So isso x ce'�Yf z co�smcaon petfiit fm rlw•ne` ♦, rein tioq to resource and Its .; shall trSstiinetui .:tlocamented ser Wcificd in there - . GuiMLxs,to the smh-vac q1 -pf tawc CBC anti f?irectaz i tr attic,owtal serrt of the r csvwce, such ea a ,enna"a"° 4,y itbeilrt1 hustoric ua A21 4Y inmzpore-ed on the esorca's arip,mrl site as pmrof pary ovvner,subject to the rporcr- l oftho ca c. (e)Rdac mdo©ply and}fgr.. clpicaa3- n�ctiansr'sbai]follow a plan apptoi-ad by the Gic the Llirxto{y, mai ,r t is[irmolivan and Building Rclocatior, czee. the Cc3iEorJia 3iu } "lcin8'6dd�;and IlIz—alto ing -�'�.�xl+.ItE;aition fzt? shall be mala ouafcrvs gcuvidcd by eha^veoarPccent ar•.c : ail ins rde Iuro m respond m c;n c6raiu in Sc,tioa 7.8(bl �a _f (Z) The sE shall a mrticed public he ing and reamnaaard ami-an to%;.c ARC or $T Crty Cit&Eil^siS Iho Uyglicrtion:or-1cation -=-tea of a n , isceric ra3awr C� and tho Aj- ,tror Cound shell cwssidcr tiro CBC's retUumenda ioe in m2kirg the fs» demi» MI'm to aoprm c mr deny the p=rEi. (J) 71tp , or th- y t otmafl wit]no en approvJ ' relocation Umvd >ml one o rlivwzng Cxo gs cot berna� qp sr' fi) 1 h e zro is a 4szard W ac lrralth errf .nerd repau Urs 2nkon iy i a i' Det�inra iw,, ttiu2 from the or&Zu cite Oona m ttt�tea vU not be co ezed a for -6- ma ' this fin ' f4e U' a may L licmt ire aI n to duc ait that pjmvida eir or ;natio no fras's6t !Of appbcxtio M W pro ov!ner sIl acw ms' . y viable a o! the afi zmi3' tine aI. �aei^J, _a� - acid oth Irl, s afilem proper / VP ,i,. sir F - .-. -,., z ,,,, ^cY�i`• ,,, .. ;ate �;,,:»`-«o%„v�¢!�C�v Meaturay"ty'G'ut.0'rart c�Cna�„rLalia d975c.,1cra,r7re S Mda�'Y w' From: Shelly Johnson[SMTP:SHELLY-J@EARTHLINK.NETI RECEIVE; , Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:09:52 AM To: Council, SloCity OCT 0 5 7010 Cc:acornejo@thetribunenews.com Subject: Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines Auto forwarded by a Rule SLO CITY CLERK I have attached a letter that I have written expressing my concerns about the subject. Shelly Johnson ISCOUNCIL L--EDD DIR RED FILE p�� GM l3"FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA ��NEY aPW CHIEF TTORNEY C�3'PW DIR DA a o ITEM #,. tC^ CLERK/ORIG aTOLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS IrREC DIR _- C3'UT1L DIR p'HRDIR lN&&)r7 ihL-5 (20"Let L- �SGo crra n/�vs � crry MGe. I 1 1541 Nipomo St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 4, 2010 Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members: Although I have several concerns about the content of the proposed historic preservation ordinance and guidelines, I am writing today to express my concern with the process of its creation and the speed with which the City Council is expected to make a decision about it. I request that a decision be delayed until homeowners have an opportunity to learn more about the proposed ordinance and guidelines that will affect them and give their feedback to the council members and/or staff. In the 248 page staff report for the item (#5) on the September 21, 2010 agenda there are several descriptions of the attempts made by staff and the CHC to engage the community in the process of the development of the ordinance and guidelines. They may be true as worded. However, in my opinion they are misleading The"public hearings"that are described were committee meetings that were open to the public, but not forums for homeowners to learn about and discuss the new ordinance that would affect them. The postcard notifications and brochure sent to owners of listed properties did not at all convey the importance of the happenings. (I have copied below some sections of the staff report. I cannot copy only the words I want since the report.is a scanned image.) O� n page 1 it says: I upuaLeu guluermes for Councii consideration(Attachments'/and 8). The CHC and Architectural Review Commission conducted eight public hearings and two workshops, and staff has conducted numerous outreach efforts in an attempt to engage the community and incorporate changes supported by the CHC. In addition, the State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed i Page 4 sas : Local Governments, their input was critical to the process. Over the course of the next seven j months, the CHC hosted 8 public hearings and one special workshop event .and the ARC considered the Guidelines during a public hearing—all designed to elicit community input to the proposed documents. The CHC conducted hearings on the draft documents in a workshop format, normally during their regular meetings,with public comment and interactive discussions occurring as part of the proceedings. Input from the participating public was considered and often endorsed, and edits to the documents were made in real time as part of the proceedings in response. 1 J\ And page 5 describes the communications that went directly to the owners of"listed properties". resources inventory. Postcard notifications were sent to those property owners prior to the CHC hearings and workshops in an attempt to generate questions, input, attendance and response. In addition, a brochure (Attachment 2) was sent to the same list of owners to provide some basic information, a location where owners could find more information and a contact name, number and email address. Interested parties were added to an email list and staff provided notifications, links to staff reports and updates to the almost 50 names on that list.. Display ads were used for I am one of the few homeowners who was aware that the new ordinance and guidelines were being developed—at least from the time that I received the first postcard that was mailed on February 26, 2010. (I assume I received the postcard because I am an owner of a contributing property in Old Town.) For your reference, the front and back of the February postcard are included below. I've also included a copy of the only other postcard, sent June 16, about the consideration of the documents at the CHC meetings. • 015'{255n7ni1 City of San Luis Obispo d $00.280 Community Development Department v 919 Palm Street _ _ T� a 02 26'2010 San LUIS Obispo,CA 93401 nhnac o,nm 53t PLEASE READ REVERSE SIDE US POSTAGE APPLICATION NUMBER:GPI 72-09 71 SLO City Wide New draft Historic Preservation ordinance and Guidelines. For more Information go to: 003-616-018/FILE#: www.stocity.Wig/communttydevelopmenVlongrange.asp JOHNSON GERALD L TRE ETAL Or e-mail.ihook@stodty.org 1541.NIPOMO ST SLO CA 93401-4353 HEARING/ACTION DATE: March 8,2010 FOR QUESTIONS CONTACT: 88 g JEFF HOOK.t1eI,��F�W1@.Ir875)�Iii���s�iulnllnl�lnllulnln,Ilnll�l 2 MY Of San 1UIS OBISPO NOTICE OF HEARING CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE The Cultural Heritage Committee will conduct a healing to consider an application near your property or residence. The date of the hearing and a description of the application are printed on the other side of this card. The hearing will be held in the Council Hearing Room (Doom 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, beginning at 5:30 p.m. The agenda wiii be available before the meeting. Anyone is welcome to comment on the proposal. An action of the Cultural Heritage Committee is typically a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission or City Council, and therefore is not final. City of San Luis Obispo OQ Z8 Community Development Department N v� 919 Palm Street {� { •' _ ^c":75.Z t ' San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 14 �� �{ faaiftd Fron, U i PLEASE READ REVERSE SIDE US POSTAGE APPLICATION NUMBER:GPI 72-09 City-Wide.SLO Continued discussion of the Draft Historic.Preservation Ordinance and Draft Update of the Historic Preservation D03-816-018/FILE ii: Program Guidelines JOHNSON GERALD L TRE ETAL 1541 NIPOMO ST SLO CA 93401.4353 'J HEARING/ACTION DATE: June 28,2010 FOR QUESTIONS CONTACT: �\�^ KIM MURRY,telepIoRe. (8?5J7fl1j727411�1„L,i{nl l,nl{nl„I,,,H„I1J 1' 3 The postcard says that the new guidelines would be discussed at the March 8 CHC meeting. In fact, according to the staff report for the March 8 meeting, the new documents were introduced at the January 25th CHC meeting and the review started at the February 22 meeting. I was not able to attend the March 8 meeting, but was able to attend the regular March 22 meeting. The afternoon of that meeting I downloaded whatever information I could find about the subject and was overwhelmed by the quantity of material to read. I went to the meeting just to try to learn what it was all about. After sitting through several other agenda items, I watched and listened as the committee picked up where it had left off- displaying the draft guidelines on the screen and discussing the wording beginning with chapter 5. Since I had not read the entire document there was no way I could understand what was taking place or make any meaningful comments. There were several members of the public present who were prepared, with printed copies of the document, to offer suggestions, but my impression was that these people were professionals who were well known to the CHC members, not "ordinary" homeowners. I went to as many of the subsequent CHC meetings where the draft documents were on the agenda as I was able to (4/26, 5/11, 6/28; not 5/24)just so I could listen to the discussions. I still did not comprehend the content of the documents,but assumed that once the committee finished working out the details they would present them to the community for discussion. I never attempted to print the documents in order to study them because they were over 100 pages and in a constant state of flux. In addition, before the May meeting, the contents of the two documents were significantly rearranged. Eventually, after the CHC finished its review of the documents, I received notifications about a meeting on August 26 to present the draft documents to the public. (See below.) I erroneously assumed this would be the first of several meetings to get input from homeowners. Shortly before this meeting is also when I received the brochure (attachment 2 of your report) in the mail. A sign up sheet at this meeting provided the first opportunity I was aware of to be put on an email notification list. It was only because I was on the list that I was able to receive some of the documentation that was given to the City Council members before their September 21 meeting. 4 I . City of San Luis Obispo GlaHZ65v'i G Community Development Department ! Q rip 919 Palm Street O0.LOO_ San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 g 08 12:2 G 10 PLEASE READ REVERSE SIDE Mailed From 934G1 US POSTAGE Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines Workshop A workshop to discuss the proposed draft Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of San Luis Obispo will be held on Thursday.August 26,2010,from 6 p.m.to 003-616-018/FILE rf: 8 p.m.,at the Ludwick Community Center,located at 864 JOHNSON GERALD L TRE ETAL Santa Rosa Street,San Luis Obispo. This workshop will provide an opportunity to discuss 1541 NIPOMO ST Proposed changes:provide input to City stat and learn about next steps in the public process. SLO CA 93401.4353 The draft documents may be viewed online at www.slodt,/.org/oommunitydevelopment VD Questions?Kim Murry:kmurry@slocity.org. Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines Workshop CORRECTED NOTICE City of San Luis Obispo Our Workshop notice was inadvertently printed on postcards that showed the start time and location for the monthly,Cultural Heritage Committee meetings on the reverse side of the card. We apologize for the confusion and are confirming the correct information below: A community workshop to discuss proposed updates to the Historic Preservation Guidelines and draft Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of San Luis Obispo will be held on Thursday,August 26,2010 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.at the Ludwick Community Center, located at 864 Santa Rosa Street (on the comer of Mill), San Luis Obispo. This workshop will provide an opportunity to discuss how proposed changes may impact historic structures and development in historic districts; provide input to City staff; and learn about next steps in the public process. The draft documents may be viewed on-line at www.slocity.org/communitvdevelooment For more information,contact Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director,at(805)781-7274 or kmurryeslocitv.ora 5 The CHC did a very good job of gathering input from commercial interests, as is evident by the quotes from the staff report below describing contacts with the Chamber of Commerce, local architects and realtors,but homeowners' perspectives need to be considered as well. In fact, in the final documents it might even be appropriate to have different requirements and sanctions for residences and commercial properties. Staff provided an overview of the proposed documents at several Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association meetings, spoke at the local American Institute of Architects meeting, j 1 and presented at a SIA Realtors Association meeting. Attendees at these meetings included Please allow homeowners - not only those who are directly affected because they own "listed" properties -time to learn more about the proposed ordinance and guidelines. The topic is too important to be decided without more community involvement. Sincerely, Rochelle Johnson 6 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA From: nuttyshtuff@gmail.com on behalf of Mark DATE&Sh2c ITEM #ft Coward[SMTP:MCOWARD@MRCOWARD.COM] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:58:05 PM To: Council, S1oCity Subject: Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines Auto forwarded by a Rule Esteemed Council Members, I am writing to voice my opposition to the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines. I am opposed to the ordinance itself, which amounts to an unfunded mandate, unfairly aimed at the very people who are the ones keeping up our historic downtown. I am also unhappy with the process, which seems rushed and dismissive of the public input. &qAYLI C3-COUNCIL !'CDD DIR ��. m ET-FIN DIR C�ATTORNEY D"PW CHIEF From: nuttyshtuff@gmail..com on behalf of Mark O'CLERK/ORIG CSW DIR i []"POLICE CHF. Coward[SMTP:MCOwARD@MRCOWARD.COM] E7 DEPT HEADS Q REC DIR Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 7:12:58 PM C� P/P C�UTILDIR To: Council, S1oCity - - --- - 2!_HR DIR Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines (again)"- Auto forwarded by a Rule i10"AJe44- SY.p"V4& daly m4e- Please ignore my previous e-mail. Send and Save are so close together. eLC-1?4_' Here is a more complete version of my thoughts. I am a local teacher who owns a home on the contributing list in Old Town. The Historic Preservation Ordinance is unfair and punitive. The process was rushed and the city has not sought nearly enough input from the homeowners involved. Unfair. There is no upside for being on the contributing list. We already have to pay to go through the CHC if we want to modify our home in any way, and that process can be easily abused. (I am the homeowner referred to in Peg Pinard's letter. ) The new ordinance calls for financial aid, and extended timelines for those homes on the master list, but nothing for the contributing list. The city is issuing an another unfunded mandate, similar to those we teachers complain about from NCLB. The homeowners have always been the ones who have kept up SLO's historic homes, not the city. In fact, what has the city been doing about the historic residences it owns that are becoming more dilapidated by the day? Unfair. Why are only 700 homes singled out? Have you seen some of the places being called "historic"? Why doesn't the city enforce the laws we already have about dilapidation? Why do we need another set of fines, targeted at a small portion of homeowners? Unfair and punitive. Liens on people's houses? $10, 000 fines, plus $5000 per day? What? How will that encourage cooperation? I 'd like to see the city give tax refunds of $5000 per day for every day those old adobes aren't repaired. Other cities with historic areas, like Pasadena and Santa Cruz, have ordinances that do not single out homeowners and subject them to special fines. People who can't afford to fix thei� y can't afford to pay $160, 000 a month in tOCT 052019 �J SLO CITY CLERK fines. Unfair and rushed through. Most of the people affected have never heard of the ordinance. Some postcards were sent, but they were misleading (on the front they were the same as the cards you get when a neighbor applies to put up a carport) , and meetings that were continued were not publicized at all. My wife and I canvassed the neighborhood for two hours on Sunday, and found 3 people who had heard of the ordinance. That's not community outreach. What's the rush? Where's the deadline? I'll keep this brief. I have several suggestions: Vote down the ordinance completely. As far as I 'm concerned, this would be best. Enforce existing laws. Don't single us out.. Sever the residential from the commercial element. The business owners, it seems, had plenty of input and are happy with the ordinance. The homeowners don't have the luxury of a paid organization, but we are not happy. Send the whole thing back TO THE COMMUNITY before acting. Table it for public input, and reach out to those homeowners affected. Thank you for doing the right thing.. Mark Coward From: Susan Coward[SMTP:SUSAN@MRCOWARD.COM] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 7:36:36 PM To: Council, SloCity Subject: Notification of Property Owners regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance&Guidelines Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members, I would like to share with you the e-mail conversation (below) I had with Kim Murry. I think you'll find the exchange interesting. I'm very disappointed with the public notification and input process related to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines. I'd like to ask you to delay any decision on this matter until the public has had the opportunity to truly be actively involved in the process. I know we've heard repeatedly that there were 8 hearings and 2 workshops and that property owners were notified by postcards. That would lead one to think that there were 10 postcards sent. But the 8 hearings were addressing a single continuing item, thus separate notifications were not deemed necessary. So if you weren't available for the first meeting, you wouldn't have known about the others. I don't consider this an appropriate or effective way to meet the city's stated goal to "generate questions, input, attendance and response" from property owners. Is it fair to say there were 8 hearings, yet at the same time say notice wasn't required because it was really just a single continued hearing? Also, the wording on the cards was inaccurate, as I explain in my exchange with Kim. I think you'll see that the following discussion expresses both my concerns and my willingness to pitch in to improve this process for all of us. Fond regards, Susan Coward P.S. I have yet to hear back from the office manager regarding the actual number of cards sent or the complete wording on each. From: Susan Coward [mailto:susanObigearsmarketing.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:13 PM To: Murry, Kim Subject: Inquiry regarding property owner notice of Historic Preservation hearings/workshops Hi, Kim I'm hoping you can clarify something for me. My neighbors and I are confused about the property owner notification process for the hearings and workshops for the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines. You said there were 8 hearings and 2 workshops and postcard notifications were sent to the property owners in an attempt to generate questions, input, attendance and response. I have two questions: If there were 10 meetings, does that mean 10 postcards were sent to property owners? If not, how many were actually sent? How can I get copies of the actual postcards that went out, since it appears that I and several of my neighbors somehow didn't receive all the notices (and some of the ones received had incorrect/confusing information)? We'd like to see what we missed! I stopped in today,but staff was unable to assist me. Thank you for your help! Susan On 9/29/2010 3:46 PM, Murry, Kim wrote: Susan- The quick answer is that postcards were not mailed for every meeting because public hearing items are typically continued from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if the date of the subsequent meeting is known. I will check with our office manager as to how many postcards were sent out and we can get you the exact wording that was used for both the hearings and the workshop. The postcards were sent to owners of all properties on the historic resources list-both Master List and Contributing List properties based on the ownership information we get from the County Assessor's office every six months. I know that in instances where an owner owned multiple properties on the list, an effort was made to avoid duplicate mailings of the same hearing to the same address (i.e. one owner receiving four postcards for a single meeting). The postcards that were mailed to notify owners of the workshop in August (after the CHC had made their recommendation) were inadvertently printed on standard Cultural Heritage Committee postcards which created some confusion since the workshop started slightly later and was being held in the Ludwick center rather than the standard CHC meeting room. This was corrected with a subsequent postcard containing the corrected time and location prior to that workshop. I will check to see if we received any returned postcards-otherwise the City does not keep copies of the original postcards sent out. We have a spreadsheet of the properties on the list that were notified of the meetings if you would find that helpful. Please let me know if you would like a copy of the mailing list. I am happy to answer any questions for you or to meet and discuss any issues for which you have concerns. The Council will be considering the draft Guidelines on October 5'" (next Tuesday) and the draft Ordinance with Council-recommended changes will be considered on October 190'. 1 will follow up with the information regarding the postcards. Thank you. Kim Murry From: Susan Coward rmailto:susan(dbiaearsmarketing.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:22 PM To: Murry, Kim Subject: Re: Inquiry regarding property owner notice of Historic Preservation hearings/workshops Thank you for the prompt response, Kim. We're interested not only in the portion of the postcards that stated the specific meeting date/time,but also the wording on the rest of the card. In speaking with neighbors, I see there has apparently been some confusion. For instance, the notice for the Sept. 21 st City Council Public Hearing was on a postcard that said "The City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to consider an application near your property or residence." Several of my neighbors tell me they read that part and thought it didn't affect them, since they don't have strong opinions of how others use their property. I wish I had known that being unable to attend an early meeting meant that there could be further meetings I wouldn't be notified of. A further complication is that when I went to the CHC section of the advisory bodies page and followed the "Past Meeting Updates" link (from this web page: htti)://www.ci.san-luis-obisyo.ca.us/advisorybodies.asn#CulturaI ) to this page: http://www.ci.san-luis- obispo.ca.us/communitydevelopment/culturalherit/chcmeeting_undates.asp I received this: "The page cannot be found. The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." Only today did I find a correct link elsewhere on the City's site. Unfortunately, the "meeting updates" I found provide little information about what occurred at the meetings. I feel that I missed many important opportunities to participate in and provide input regarding a very important issue. I'm concerned that I'm not alone. As a marketing professional specializing in Public Relations, I'm always interested in promoting effective communication. I'd love to provide input on the notification and outreach process. Although the notices sent may have met legal requirements for notification to property owners, I'm not sure they were the best way to reach-your stated goal to "generate questions, input, attendance and response" among property owners. I'm not just complaining, I honestly would like to volunteer to help. My work in Public Relations has won top honors from the Public Relations Society of America(Central California Region) and my copywriting has received industry awards from the American Advertising Federation. If you'd like to learn more about what I do,please let me know. Thank you again for getting back to me. I look forward to receiving the additional information you have requested on my behalf. Susan On 9/29/2010 5:36 PM, Murry, Kim wrote: Susan- I will get you a copy of our blank cards so that you can see what they look like and the verbiage that was used to describe the hearing item. Our office manager is collecting the information for the remainder of the response. I appreciate your willingness to volunteer your expertise in how to encourage public participation and would love to meet to discuss your ideas. I am not a marketing professional and it's often difficult to convey how important these longer term planning efforts are and to communicate what they mean. Admittedly, reading ordinances is not very exciting and the CHC was very appreciative of those who provided input-either in person, in writing, or via phone conversations. The City has many long term projects that will benefit from robust community input and I would value learning how you would approach these efforts. While it's disheartening to hear that the outreach efforts that were made did not achieve the desired results, I thoroughly appreciate your offer of help. Again, thank you for your email and let me know if/when you would be willing to meet. I have passed on the information regarding the broken link to our City Clerk's office to get it fixed! Kim Murry On 10/4/2010 7:03PM, Susan Coward wrote: Hi, Kim So sorry for the delayed response. I've been working on couple of big projects. Yes, I would love to help. I am deeply concerned about the notification process. My husband, son and I walked Buchon and Islay Streets (until our son got bored, LOL) Saturday, speaking with residents. Only a few had even heard of the proposed ordinance and of them, only one actually had read the documents. He was opposed. Unfortunately, he is also bedridden, so hasn't been able to participate. He spoke to my husband from a hospital bed in his living room. Another homeowner and his wife didn't even know their home was on the Contributing List. I think they've owned their home over ten years! We asked people to come talk with us the next day at the park. I estimate we spent about an hour on this. We went up and down only portions of two streets and a couple of blocks worth of cross streets. Very few people were even home. We left flyers at some of the homes on the Contributing List,but skipped Master List properties and obvious rentals. Even so, eleven people showed up at the park to discuss the issue. It is my understanding that none of the public meetings had even 30 attendees, after sending 700 postcards. I think that speaks to the inadequacy of the notification methods used. So, I'm going to pursue this issue with the City Council to make sure they understand that more work is needed to reach the goal to "generate questions, input, attendance and response" among property owners. I want to assure you that although I will be sharing my disappointment with the Council, it won't affect my ability to work willingly and cheerfully with you. It might even be fun! My personal code of ethics includes this: "Never complain about something unless you are willing to help fix it." I am very interested in volunteering to work with you on this. I think we'd both enjoy the process and, most importantly, we could do something that benefits our city and its residents. Would you like to call me to compare schedules and select a date and time? I can be reached at (805) 541-8566. Thank you again, Susan From: pinardmat(claol.com [mailto:pinardmat@aol.com] Sent: Mon 10/4/2010 2:52 PM To: Romero, Dave; acarterCd)slorcitv.ora; asettle( calooly.edu; Ashbaugh,John; Marx,Jan Cc: bmoremCalthetribunenews.com; sierraclub8Cakgmail.com; rmcdonaldCalnewtimesslo.com, itrompeterftsby.com; dcongalton( charter.net; rr n.boardCayahoo.com; azuniaaCalnewtimessio.com; dmason@kprl.com Subject: Request for Continuance RED FILE October 4, 2010 - MEETING AGENDA ®A /o o ITEM # i i I Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members, RE: Request that the Oct. 19 Council meeting be rescheduled to allow sufficient time for meaningful input from the historic residential neighborhoods The mandates under which the California Office of Historic Preservation operates repeatedly refer to making every effort to meet with homeowners and, interestingly, the largest of this year's grants went to Los Angeles specifically for neighborhood outreach! In contrast, there has been a lot of controversy over the lack of input from owners of historic homes -the ones who will be most affected by San Luis Obispo's proposed ordinance. Some homeowners have pointed out that the city failed to get early and meaningful input from the residents before writing the document, and that the city failed to follow its own General Plan requiring the city to hold meetings in the neighborhoods. Others have pointed out that even the post card notification was flawed in that, even though the staff identified that 2 postcard mailings were sent out about CHC meetings, the information on the card itself was inadequate. In fact, the main body of the postcard said: "The Cultural Heritage Committee will conduct a hearing to consider an application near your property or residence." This is exactly the kind of postcard notice sent when someone is building a garage or other improvement in the neighborhood. Many homeowners did not understand that new laws were being formulated and that there would be fines and penalties associated with them. Also, according to staff, "postcards were not mailed for every meeting because public hearing items are typically continued from one meeting to a subsequent meeting..." In other words, if you thought the initial postcard referred to a neighbor's project, you would never know that there were more meetings being held. No information about the details of the proposed ordinance was available in the CHC minutes either. r GjCOUNCIL E CDD DIR RECEIVE[ E"�C"' 2-C-TFIREIRC C�A6A6fM�lt1 2-FIRE CHIEF E,�6 70RNEY LVPW DIR OCT 0 5 2010 C7 CLERK'ORIO Z'POLICE CHF 11 DEPT HEADS 3 FiEC DIR CTUTILDIR SLO CITY CLERKii- s—�— allk DIR In August, when the city finally held a community workshop, the city sent out multiple notices with incorrect and conflicting information. In contrast, the city did an excellent job reaching out to the commercial interests. Staffs slide presentation, attendance at Chamber meetings and communication with Chamber members was very effective. The Chamber is supported by 16 paid professional staff members who have a very efficient machine for communicating with their membership: website, e-Flyers, e-Insider, and e-Newsletters. "Influencing legislation" is a stated Chamber goal and to reach that goal they have paid, former newspaper and television experts to lobby for them. As the paid lobbyist of the Chamber said, they had organized a committee of architects, lawyers and other professionals and were very much a. part of the early evolution of the ordinance. On the other hand, as the city has acknowledged many times, it is much more difficult to communicate with hundreds of disparate and disorganized homeowners who do not have paid staff to help them. Since the city did not go into the neighborhoods, the city created a real disparity between the commercial interests and individual homeowners. The problem is that there is not enough time for homeowners to review these documents line-by-line as the commercial interests have been able to do. The fact that the City Council meeting was televised last week was a significant factor in making homeowners aware of what was actually being proposed in the ordinance. On Oct. 3 the first organizational meeting was held in the neighborhood to coordinate and set up a structure for homeowners to give input to the City Council. The reality is that the homeowners are lust now becoming aware of the specifics of what.is being proposed in the new historical ordinance and -guidelines. This reality cannot be ignored. The Council's proposed hearing schedule will not accomplish that goal and will, effectively, shut out the effort of homeowners to have meaningful input into laws that will affect us so greatly for years to come. We are asking that the council take this reality into account and, when you discuss the guidelines on Oct. 5, that you reschedule the Oct. 19 meeting to allow sufficient time for the documents to be brought to each of the neighborhoods for review and input. Give the neighborhoods more time. The documents themselves, both the ordinance and the guidelines are legally complicated and take time for the many individual home owners to understand the provisions and changes that are now being proposed. We are asking for time for review and analyze in order to give meaningful input on these documents. It's the homeowners, not the city, who have been the conscientious stewards of historic homes. The fact that these homes still exist and are presently such an asset to the city is due to our individual efforts! Since the city did not go into the neighborhoods, the city created, whether intentional or not, a real disparity between the commercial interests and individual homeowners. For whatever reason, early and meaningful input from the neighborhoods did not occur. Please do not ignore the constituents you have sworn to serve by pushing these laws that will greatly affect us. There is no reason to ignore homeowners' requests. There is no emergency. There's no 'life or death' situation. We strongly request that the Oct. 19 Council meeting be rescheduled to allow sufficient time for meaningful input from the historic residential neighborhoods. Sincerely, Peg Pinard Susan Coward Mark Coward Shelly Johnson Richard Dickey Carolyn Dickey Brad Huggins Craig Lindaman Trudy Lindaman Leo Pinard Paul Rys (Committee for "Saving San Luis Obispo Homes") +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Page 2 - Attachment: J At the first neighborhood meeting of homeowners the following specific comments came up. We are attaching them because we feel they may be helpful to you during your discussion on Oct. 5. Fines: The mandates under which the California Office of Historic Preservation operates clearly differentiate between residential and commercial properties and offer substantial tax incentives only for commercial properties. San Luis Obispo's proposed historic preservation ordinance must also do this. "One size fits all" does not work for both commercial and residential historic properties. For example, fines of$10,0000 plus $5,000 a day may be appropriate or even inadequate for commercial properties but they are totally inappropriate for residential properties. Substantial and Significant: Issues need to be substantial and significant and enforcement will be reserved for conditions that are deemed unsafe and dangerous. The City of Davis emphasized this is their historic preservation ordinance. Davis also clarifies that: "...Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any structure or property..." No one's home is perfect and San Luis Obispo's proposed ordinance does not even recognize that older homes are exactly that...older homes. The definition of "Alterations" (covered by the ordinance) in Pasadena states that the ordinance "shall...include new construction of additions, but does not include ordinary maintenance and repairs." Third Party Complaints Create Problems: In other ordinances there are no provisions for getting the city involved in minor repairs or for third-party complaints that could require a homeowner to pay for very expensive expert reports and be required to appear before multiple city commissions. For example, in the City of San Luis Obispo, a young family recently applied for a permit to finish-off their attic space in their small house. They hired a very reputable local architect to do the drawings and submitted the plans to the CHC. In order to get ready for the construction, they emptied their attic and garage and were sorting things out in their backyard - behind a 6 foot fence. Unbeknownst to the family, a neighbor took a picture of the sorting. She showed up at the CHC hearing protesting the permit and presented the picture of the piles being sorted as "proof' that this family shouldn't have a permit. The CHC did not know what to do with this 'evidence' and referred the issue to the ARC. That process of waiting to be scheduled on the ARC's agenda took months. The husband in this family is a teacher and he had planned to work with the contractor during his time off in the summer as a way of saving money. The ARC unanimously decided in the family's favor and this family thought that was finally the end of it. However, this woman appealed the ARC's decision to the Council and, on the day this issue was to be heard by the Council, she withdrew her appeal. Meanwhile, the family lost their contractor and the husband had to return to work so was unable to work on his own house. This woman cost that young family over$30,000. Property Rights: Desirable modeled communities such as Davis, Santa Cruz and even Pasadena have provisions much more in keeping with representing the interests of homeowners. For instance, one of Pasadena's defined goals is: "Ensure that the rights of the owners of historic resources and owners of properties adjacent to historic resources are safeguarded." Reduced Fees for Historic Residential Properties: Santa Cruz specifies in its ordinance that there are reduced permit fees for historical residential properties. 'SLO's proposed ordinance simply speculates that a provision for reduced fees could happen sometime in the future. These are only a sample of differences and provisions that are important.from a homeowner's point of view and that have obviously been effective in other communities. These are just a few of the comments that came out of Sunday's first neighborhood meeting. We believe that given sufficient time the historic residential neighborhoods will help create a much improved ordinance and guidelines. The city just recently approved the demolition of many historical buildings on Garden St. for a project the city wanted. And, as Mayor Romero commented at the last meeting, even when the City had lots of money the city didn't take care of its own historic adobes. It hardly seems fair that the city council would now refuse the request of the homeowner's who actually worked to preserve their homes and push this law through just as homeowners are becoming aware of the specifics of the ordinance. Only 42 of the 700 homes the city contacted are under the Mills Act. Those properties receive substantial compensation, in the form of tax forgiveness. The rest of us do not receive any such assistance. That means that, what you see today, is the result of individual homeowner's hard work and at their own expense. It seems only fair that you continue the Oct. 19 meeting to allow sufficient time for the historic residential neighborhoods to give meaningful input on this ordinance which will specifically affect us. Sincerely, Peg Pinard Susan Coward Mark Coward Shelly Johnson Richard Dickey Carolyn Dickey Brad Huggins Craig Lindaman Trudy Lindaman Leo Pinard Paul Rys (Committee for"Saving San Luis Obispo Homes") - RED FILE This is a follow up to the red file sent by Roy Parsons. -_ MEETING AGENDA The bottom letter is my response to his red file letter. DATE A/kL ITEM # Ot I The top letter is his response to my response. "--y�t"`— Hope this helps clarify his concerns. Thanks, Dan k�Kl-2 C4yPR-1L 13-COUNCIL 2-CDD DIR -------- Begin forwarded message -------- 1TCAAC q 2'FIN DIR Subject: Reply to letter 'GAG Ac,/K M'FIRE CHIEF Date: 9/30/10 3:23:10 PM M-ATTORNEY G-PW DIR 0 LER HEA S 1-!1 RECICE D RCHF From: "RoyParsons" To: dancarp54@charter.net 1 L P�UTIL DIR Cc: "Roy Parsons" r .N 'nn tl-HR DIR 7yGrd uUE ee&uw-, " 5L-D4re* X*-fCi VI -446-r- e Dan: Thanks for your letter, which clarifies some of the misinformation I apparently had. I have known from the start that the Council had given direction on this matter, and I have sent several Emails to all the council members about my position on this matter, so I was not only picking on the History Center and you for where we are on this damn ordinance. I have long thought John Mandeville was a force to be reconed with, and I think he is probably more to blame on this thing than any staff person. I think we are losing too many of our freedoms, and the City of S.L.O. is too aggressive on imposing more stupid restrictions, many of which are not lawfully enforcable, and I think this is one of them. No city should be creating ordinances which are lawfully unenforceable. My position on this matter remains as it was, and I hope you have the foresight to come forward and convince others that creating fines is the wrong approach to making happy historical property owners. If the Council passes this thing with fines attached, I think many historical building owners will be demanding that the City remove their structures from any historical designation list. That, to me, would seem counterproductive to the goals of the City to encourage good historical building maintenance. Thanks again for your letter. Roy This is the letter I sent Roy Parsons after receiving the red file each of you received: Sept 29,2010 Dear Roy, I received and passed on your letter today to both the Executive Director and President of the Board of Directors. I understand your decision to resign as a life member. The fact that the Board does not take a position on issues is a Board matter. I am a staff member and do not get involved in those kinds of decisions. In regards to my participation, I wanted to clarify a few things. My position as Chairman of the CHC is to guide the Committee to a decision based on two things; The Historic Preservation Guidelines adopted by Council in 1983, and to conduct public hearings to take input. We did provide 8 public hearings and took dozens of comments and incorporated those into the draft ordinance and guidelines. Our direction to come up with the ordinance was from Council directly through the goal setting process. RECEIVED C C C I` ,C D SEP 3 0 2010 SLO CITY CLERK If you had the opportunity to watch the Council meeting, you would know that I did NOT speak or give a blessing as you suggest. It was our Vice Chair from the Committee that gave an overview. I intentionally did not because of my position with the History Center and in the community. The good news is that the additional input from the community was listened to and sent back to staff for adjustment. It will come back to Council on Oct 19th for alteration or adoption. This is why we have public hearings. Had these concerns come up during the 8 hearings of the CHC, we would have addressed them at that time. I have no agenda in encouraging this ordinance one way or the other. In fact, I live in a Master List Historic Home here in the City. This ordinance has potential impact on me also. If it was my personal agenda, I might have moved this in a different direction. As volunteers on advisory committees, we give many hours a year to the City and only make recommendations to Council. We do not make decisions. We take input and advise Council, period. I hope you understand my position and please feel free to contact me anytime Roy. Thank you for calling and I appreciate your desire to get involved. Sincerely, Dan Carpenter 2030 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-704-8567 dancarp54@charter.net