HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-16 CHC Correspondence - Item 1 (Ulz)RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUN 2 7 2016
C0MMUINFTY DEV EL PW
Meeting—L. � fel O )1- II ty.
Item: Eva Ulz
681 Y2 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
evaulz@gmail.com
June 27, 2016
Cultural Heritage Committee
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Committee Members and Staff:
Many of you know me from my role at the History Center. The ideas and opinions in this letter are solely
my own and do not in any way reflect the position of the History Center, its board, or its staff.
I am increasingly concerned by the rhetoric I hear regarding the proposed project at 71 Palomar—I have
been copied on emails from Allan Cooper and heard from other interested parties. The fervor with
which the changes to the property are being opposed seems out of proportion with the relatively
modest risk posed by moving the house—a widely -accepted compromise that preservation
professionals employ when leaving a historic building in situ is not possible.
Local preservation programs, like San Luis Obispo's Master Listing and Historic Neighborhood
designation, are intended to protect the unique character of our communities as they grow, not freeze
them in time. Alas, preservation programs are seen by some as privileging existing, often well-to-do,
property owners while making it difficult for communities to create the new housing and economic
opportunities they need. The state of Michigan considered a bill earlier this year that could significantly
weaken its historic district protections, citing concerns about property rights and development.
The narrow and inflexible interpretation of preservation guidelines that is being advocated by those who
oppose 71 Palomar does not reflect the reality of professional preservation practice and, if given too
much weight, has the potential to weaken the credibility of important preservation arguments in the
future. I am also deeply troubled by the seemingly unfounded allegations levied against Applied
Earthworks, one of the most respected archaeological firms in the area, whose credibility to identify
resources worthy of preservation could also be weakened if such claims were taken seriously.
From what I've seen, the Cultural Heritage Committee has been and continues to be a real force for
good in San Luis Obispo, advocating for preservation of the past and thoughtful integration of the
future. You do this by collaborating with other committees and city departments, by following due
process, and by making fair and thoughtful judgements that reflect a spirit of compromise between the
claims of the old and the new. I commend you and urge you to keep these larger goals in mind as you
consider the information that is presented about 71 Palomar.
With gratitude for your service to our community,
Eva U Iz