SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Karen Diaz Subject: FW: Item 17 8-22-2013 Council Agenda - Ponderosa ProjLoTPPLEIVi EN TAL MATERIAL Provided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet From: Peter Macdonald Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 3:33 PM Date /19-20 To: Mayor and City Council Cc: Nelson Fialho; Brian Dolan; Scott Raty; Laura Olson; Subject: Item 17 8-22-2013 Council Agenda - Ponderosa Project Good afternoon Mayor Thorne and Members of the Council, Here are my comments on Item 17 of your Agenda, the Ponderosa Project: 1 . I support Option 1, (preserve existing home with $30,000 cosmetic improvements), but only because Ponderosa has acquiesced in that option. 2. The preferred option, in my view, would be Option 1 as presented at the Planning Commission - preserve the existing home with no obligation to improve it. Under this option, the home is "not a part" of this subdivision because ownership is to remain with the Lutheran Church. 3. The only justification for even the less oppressive Option 1 is to just preserve the status quo until completion of the $100,000 City study to determine structures worthy of listing on the California Register of Historic Places. When that City study determines that this building does not have significant architectural and historic merit under the criteria adopted, then this t:uilding should be eligible for redevelopment at the option of the property owner. 4. The bad precedent that is being set by Staff Recommended Option 1 (the lipstick on a pig option) is that it fossilizes blight. $30,000 improvements is just enough to keep a blighted and unattractive building operational. The major investment in reconstruction that it would take to convert this building into a masterpiece of historical architecture is not a reasonable obligation to impose on its property owner, and is unlikely to happen, leaving downtown with a ugly marginal building. 5. The cumulative effects of imposing historical mandates on older buildings which lack historical and architectural merit will be to discourage anyone desiring to invest in and redevelop obsolete buildings in downtown. Recent erratic historic requirements have cast a cloud of uncertainty and delay on downtown investment. 6. One purpose of the historic building study being commissioned by the City should be 1. to identify the limited number of buildings with authentic historic and architectural merit, and 2. to liberate the remaining older buildings for reconstruction or redevelopment. Our experience on Second Street, until the last four years, is that the lack of oppressive historic regulation resulted in many reconstructions which mimic and are compatible with the character of this neighborhood, while significantly upgrading Second Street. 7. If the City Council wants to incentivize reconstruction and preservation of the decrepit older building (under either version of Option 1), the City Council should initiate and complete the rezoning and general plan changes at no cost to property owner– You've done enough damage to this property owner already. May I suggest use of the C-C Zone. 1