HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, UlzRECEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING:_ C-1 �`��' ► APR 0 5 -2017
ITEM NO.: _ ►
From: Eva Ulz [
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 1:27 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocitv.org>
Subject: Historic Preservation and the 71 Palomar Project
April 4, 2017
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Madame Mayor and City Councilors:
I am writing as a private citizen of San Luis Obispo who happens to have a professional background in
preservation, not as a representative of the History Center. The opinions in this letter are solely my own.
The appeal that has been filed regarding the proposed development at 71 Palomar is the final step in a long line
of protests and objections by neighbors and citizen activists, at least some of which have been made in the name
of preserving the master -listed building that currently sits on the property. While I am very much in favor of
saving local architecture, I am deeply concerned to see historic preservation being used to settle an issue that
should have been addressed under city zoning regulations.
When we set up historic preservation as mutually exclusive with needed development — especially the creation
of moderate -income housing — we do a disservice to the cause of preservation itself, not to mention to the
community. The Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation are designed to give a practical
and realistic path to preserving our built environment while also allowing it to change and grow to meet
evolving needs. Buildings and neighborhoods that are preserved to the point of being unusable by residents
today (and into the future) do not survive or thrive.
While I am not familiar enough with the proposed development at 71 Palomar to have an opinion about its
modern aspects, I understand that its treatment of the master -listed building complies with Secretary of Interior
standards and includes long -overdue structural restoration, without which the building is at serious risk of
demolition by neglect. If the City Council decides to reject the current development proposal, I ask that it do so
only on the condition that another plan be immediately put forward to restore (and to fund restoration) of this
master -listed building.
Let's keep the dialogue about historic preservation, and what it can and can't do, going. Let's keep it civil and
collaborative, and let's work together to find compromises between neighbors and developers that honor our
city's past while improving its livability for current and future residents.
Sincerely,
Eva Ulz
Eva Ulz
San Luis Obispo, CA
(
April 4, 2017
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Madame Mayor and City Councilors:
I am writing as a private citizen of San Luis Obispo who happens to have a professional background in
preservation, not as a representative of the History Center. The opinions in this letter are solely my own.
The appeal that has been filed regarding the proposed development at 71 Palomar is the final step in a
long line of protests and objections by neighbors and citizen activists, at least some of which have been
made in the name of preserving the master -listed building that currently sits on the property. While I am
very much in favor of saving local architecture, I am deeply concerned to see historic preservation being
used to settle an issue that should have been addressed under city zoning regulations.
When we set up historic preservation as mutually exclusive with needed development — especially the
creation of moderate -income housing — we do a disservice to the cause of preservation itself, not to
mention to the community. The Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation are
designed to give a practical and realistic path to preserving our built environment while also allowing it
to change and grow to meet evolving needs. Buildings and neighborhoods that are preserved to the
point of being unusable by residents today (and into the future) do not survive or thrive.
While I am not familiar enough with the proposed development at 71 Palomar to have an opinion about
its modern aspects, I understand that its treatment of the master -listed building complies with Secretary
of Interior standards and includes long -overdue structural restoration, without which the building is at
serious risk of demolition by neglect. If the City Council decides to reject the current development
proposal, I ask that it do so only on the condition that another plan be immediately put forward to
restore (and to fund restoration) of this master -listed building.
Let's keep the dialogue about historic preservation, and what it can and can't do, going. Let's keep it civil
and collaborative, and let's work together to find compromises between neighbors and developers that
honor our city's past while improving its livability for current and future residents.
Sincerely,
Eva Ulz