City Council - Special Meeting

🎵 Bye. Thank you. you

Thank you.

Thank you.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. BEFORE WE BEGIN TONIGHT'S BEFORE WE BEGIN TONIGHT'S SPECIAL MEETING, OUR CITY SPECIAL MEETING, OUR CITY COURT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COURT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT REGARDING THE BRIEF STATEMENT REGARDING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF OUR

THANK YOU MAYOR LORRAINE JUST A QUICK NOTE BEFORE WE GET STARTED CITIES UP AND DONE THE STATE HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING INCIDENTS DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF ZOOM BOMBING THE CITY OF SAN MATEO IS FAMILIAR WITH THAT WE'VE HAD INCIDENTS WHERE INDIVIDUALS PROVIDE HATEFUL COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETINGS CITY STAFF HAVE WELL ESTABLISHED processes in place to address that, if it is to occur tonight, but wanted to make sure that everyone in the room had a heads up that we may expect to receive some public comment along those lines. During that time, there may be periods where we're hearing highly offensive language being used. We also just wanted to share for folks in the room who are uncomfortable with that language, there is an opportunity for folks to briefly leave the room while that is happening and then return. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS SHARED WITH EVERYONE IN THE SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS SHARED WITH EVERYONE IN THE ROOM. ROOM. AND I'LL HAND IT BACK TO MAYOR AND I'LL HAND IT BACK TO MAYOR LORRAINE.

LORRAINE. THANK YOU CITY CLERK AND THANK THANK YOU CITY CLERK AND THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. EVERYBODY FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. AND WELCOME.

AND WELCOME. RECORDING IN PROGRESS. RECORDING IN PROGRESS.

WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE IN WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE IN PERSON TONIGHT WITH OPTIONS FOR PERSON TONIGHT WITH OPTIONS FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BE IN THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BE IN PERSON TO STILL PARTICIPATE PERSON TO ST There are several ways to participate. For those attending in person, you may complete a yellow request to speak slip if you have public comment and hand it to the city clerk. If you're participating remotely, you may use the raise your hand feature in Zoom and you'll be called on at the appropriate time. If you're calling in by phone, you may press star nine to raise your hand. And when you're called upon, you may press star six to unmute yourself and give comment. These options for public comment will remain available until I close public comment for this item we have in the special meeting tonight. For members of the public watching us on YouTube, if you're watching us and wish to provide live public comment, please note that we don't currently have that functionality in YouTube available, you'll have to join us via Zoom. Use the access information listed on the agenda, which is on our website, cityofsanmateo.org. And we now turn to old business item number one, historic policy update, budget appropriation and amendment. And we have a presentation from Zachary Dahl, Director of Community Development. Good evening, Zach.

Mayor Lorraine, just before we move on to item number one, if you're comfortable, we'll take roll call at this time. Yes.

Thank you. Sorry.

Councilmember Newsom.

Here.

Councilmember Diaz-Nash. Here. Councilmember Spierko-Gaditsky.

Here.

Deputy Mayor Fernandez.

Here.

And Mayor Lorraine. Here. Thank you.

All right. Good evening, Mayor Lorraine, members of the city council. I'm Zachary Dahl, the city's community development director. I'm also joined here this evening virtually with Julianne Murphy. She is the architectural historian for Rincon Consulting, the firm that we have been working with on our historic policy update effort. I am also joined by Planning Manager Joanna Winter and Senior Planner Summer Smith. And I do want to note Summer will be taking on the role of staff liaison for our soon-to-be established Historic Resources Commission. SO THE ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, THIS IS CONSIDERATION EVENING, THIS IS CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET APPROPRIATION AND AN OF BUDGET APPROPRIATION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK RELATED TO AN SCOPE OF WORK RELATED TO AN UPDATE OF THE CITY'S 1989 UPDATE OF THE CITY'S 1989 HISTORIC BUILDING SURVEY. I wanted to start with a little bit of context to give you an idea of where we've been and where we may be going. This kind of provides the overall timeline for historic policy work here in the city, starting back in the 70s, noting that 1989 period when the historic building survey was conducted and published. And then moving through to more recent times with the adoption of our general plan 2040 and 2024. And then the historic policy update work that we have been working on in 25 and 26. With regard to that historic policy update effort, that project was initiated beginning of 2025 with work going through that year and then coming back to council this past May in 2026 where council took action to adopt among other things an updated historic preservation ordinance and citywide historic context statement. As part of that action, Council did direct staff to prioritize update of the 1989 survey and bring that scope back to Council for consideration, which is why we are here this evening. Since that time, staff has been working to wrap up the historic policy update effort on the implementation side. And we are looking to get that completed with a community workshop in October, on October 22nd at 6 p.m. And we will be doing outreach, but I just wanted to note that will be kind of our way of wrapping up that effort, introducing to the community our updated codes and policies and the associated resource documents to facilitate understanding and use of these new tools. Within general plan 2040 the work that you are considering this evening is supported by a couple of specific actions within the general plan. We have the overarching goal in our community design and historic resources section. And then specifically these actions 5.9 and 5.10 which speak to the use of the historic context statement and then updating and developing historic resource surveys. Looking a little bit more closely at the 1989 historic building survey, there are a number of properties that were identified at different levels. This included 91 properties that were identified as eligible and or having local significance. There was a number of properties that were noted but did not have full documentation to make a determination on their status at that time. And then a few more properties that were found to be ineligible. So we are looking at up to 124 properties between the either were previously identified as eligible with local significance and or potential but were not fully evaluated. But we wouldn't be looking at that column with the ineligible properties. And it's also worth noting these numbers do not include our downtown historic district, the recently designated Glazenwood district or properties that are on the state or federal register. So why update the 1989 survey? I think this was discussed at length in the lead up to action on the historic policy update effort. But this is a document that's now 37 years old. And so in order for it to be relevant and current in discussions, we need to capture the update, the existing conditions that exist today. We need to identify what changes may have taken place from the last time the documentation was prepared and document the condition of these buildings. Have they been demolished or significantly altered? Do they remain eligible? And so that brings us to the objectives of this project and these are encapsulated in the scope of work that's included with the agenda report this evening. We would focus on updating the evaluation framework. It's important to note that the California Register did not exist in 1989 and so that's a whole piece of framework that would need to be factored in along with our updated local framework. The goal would be that we would build upon the prior work that was completed in the 89 survey and then go from there to fill in the gaps to where we have a clear picture based on today's conditions of the status of the property. The goal is that this work would be streamlined so we're able to complete it as expeditiously as possible while maintaining meaningful community engagement focused primarily on property owner engagement OF THE EFFECTED PROPERTIES. THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS, THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS, LEARN FROM THEM ABOUT THEIR LEARN FROM THEM ABOUT THEIR PROPERTIES AND THAT WOULD ALL GO PROPERTIES AND THAT WOULD ALL GO INTO THE UPDATED REPORT THAT INTO THE UPDATED REPORT THAT WOULD REALLY ESTABLISH A CURRENT WOULD REALLY ESTABLISH A CURRENT BASIS FOR POTENTIAL DESIGNATION BASIS FOR POTENTIAL DESIGNATION AND OR ADDITION TO THE CITY'S So as was noted, there are a total of 103 properties identified in the 1989 survey. Up to 124 of those is what we would be looking at as part of this scope of work. And this would be an updated reconnaissance level survey of the built environment, a reevaluation of each property or resource as significant, based on the current state, federal, and local criteria. And we would also utilize the citywide historic context statement to help inform the work that is done with this update. So as part of what we're bringing before you, we do have two options for the scope of work that you could consider. Option one would be looking at up to 124 properties. That includes the 33 with limited or no documentation, as well as the 91 that were found to be eligible and need updated documentation. Or option two, which is approximately $28,000 less, which would just look at the 91 that were previously identified and have some form of documentation to build off of. Otherwise, the two scopes remain the same under either option, or the scope remains the same for either option. As part of this work, we would do focused but robust community engagement, focused around engagement with the affected property owners. So this outreach would include support at our public hearings, engagement materials mailed generally but also focused toward the property owners of properties that are listed as part of the survey. We would be doing various forms of digital outreach. And we would be hosting a virtual workshop ahead of bringing the updated report back to city council. Also wanted to provide an overview of the timeline and how you can see the overlap among each of the proposed tasks. We are looking at around seven months to complete this effort, give or take, as we are going over the holidays if we move forward. But you can see the goal is that we do focus community outreach, then moving into more general community outreach over the entire course of this project to ensure adequate awareness ahead of bringing this back to city council. WITH REGARD TO THE BUDGET, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS BEING AN ARE LOOKING AT THIS BEING AN ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY THAT WOULD ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY THAT WOULD UTILIZE OUR ADVANCED PLANNING UTILIZE OUR ADVANCED PLANNING FUND. FUND. AS OF THE END OF THIS PAST AS OF THE END OF THIS PAST FISCAL YEAR, IT DID HAVE A FUND FISCAL YEAR, IT DID HAVE A FUND BALANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 6.39 BALANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 6.39 MILLION. MILLION. SO THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE BALANCE SO THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE BALANCE DOES SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED DOES SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK IF YOU VOTE TO SCOPE OF WORK In addition to the consultant services, we are estimating that there would be between $30,000 to $60,000 worth of staff time to support this effort. And this would include staff from community development, city attorney's office, and the city manager's office. This amount isn't included in the appropriation because these costs would be covered by our current operating budgets. So I do also want to note that the update of this report does not in and of itself include any designations. That would be a prerogative of the council at a future date, but no decisions can be made until we have updated and current information. So before you for tonight, we have a recommendation with three options for your consideration. Option one being the full scope to look at up to 124 properties identified in the 1989 survey. Option two would be that more focused scope that just looks at the 91 properties. Or option three would be to not move forward with this project at this time. SO WITH THAT, THAT DOES CONCLUDE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. STAFF'S PRESENTATION. AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR THE THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. PRESENTATION. AT THIS TIME, WE ARE GOING TO AT THIS TIME, WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP THE ITEM FOR PUBLIC OPEN UP THE ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. COMMENT. SO IF YOU HAVE SPEAKER SLIPS IN SO IF YOU HAVE SPEAKER SLIPS IN CHAMBERS, PLEASE BRING THEM UP TO CHAMBERS, PLEASE BRING THEM UP TO THE CITY QUIRK. THE CITY QUIRK. IF YOU'RE ONLINE ON ZOOM, PLEASE IF YOU'RE ONLINE ON ZOOM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. RAISE YOUR HAND AT I'LL TURN IT BACK TO OUR CITY COURT.

THANK YOU MAYOR LORRAINE. JUST A FEW THINGS BEFORE WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ME WITH A REQUEST TO SPEAK SLIP PLEASE DO SO NOW. WE WILL BE CUTTING OFF THE PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER WHICH WE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING ANY ADDITIONAL REQUESTS TO SPEAK. THAT INCLUDES IN PERSON AND OUR VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU ARE IN OUR VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT AND WISH TO SPEAK PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND NOW. Just a reminder, we welcome all speakers providing public comment, but please be advised that this is a limited public forum. As such, speakers must stay on topic if speaking to a particular agenda item, and if speaking during general public comment, they must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. If speakers fail to follow these rules, they will be warned, and if they continue to disregard our rules, their opportunity to speak will be ended. We will begin with our request to speak in person first. And our final speaker in person will be Rich Hedges. Our final speaker in our virtual environment will be Doug Deanna. When I call your name, if you could please line up to my right, that'll make sure that we receive all of the public comments expeditiously. Mayor Lorraine, we've received a total of 16 requests to speak. So per our council adopted rules and procedures, that would set the time at two minutes per speaker.

Thank you.

All right, our first speaker will be Joe Valpone, followed by Mary Clarkinson, Christensen, and Sean Farenbrook.

Thank you You know as you've noted for the last couple years. We've had a number of discussions regarding historic and A lot of different outcomes for reasons that make no sense to me Glazing wood residents opted for it, but at least it was their choice whereas in Baywood when 90% of the residents opposed it a small group attempted to jam it down people's throats. So now we come to this 124 properties from a 1989 survey, and what bucket are they going to fall in? To my knowledge, not a single person has applied for historic designation, not a single one of the 124. Few, if any, were even made aware of the fact that this was going on. They had no idea. And many of these 124 properties, as was noted earlier, have been substantially modified over time. If they were historic at one point, they're not now. And finally, many of the current owners of these properties bought their properties after 1989. They were not aware of this at all, and they certainly would have made a different decision had they known that through a bait and switch that was going to increase their insurance costs, their repair costs, limit their ability to remodel, and subsequently potentially impact their marketability. We've seen firsthand what could happen with the Giannini property where that's fallen out of contract multiple times. They've had hundreds of thousands of price drops and the property is still sitting there largely because of restrictions on their ability to modify it. So with a city with a budget deficit of almost $17 million, it's unconscionable to me that we would spend money on a survey when none of the residents are asking for it. So I would vote for option three. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Mary Christensen, followed by Sean Farenbrook and Ashley Zerpa.

I represent 107 East Santa Ynez. And basically, like the previous speaker, I have never, and my husband Cyril, never required historic designation for our property. We were always working on it. It has been altered since 1902. If you don't work on your home, IT'S AN EXPECTATION. IT'S AN EXPECTATION. BASICALLY I WOULD OPT FOR OPTION BASICALLY I WOULD OPT FOR OPTION NUMBER THREE. NUMBER THREE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT THREE SPEAKERS WILL BE OUR NEXT THREE SPEAKERS WILL BE SEAN FARENBERG FOLLOWED BY SEAN FARENBERG FOLLOWED BY ASHLEY ZERPA AND TOM LEASE. ASHLEY ZERPA AND TOM LEASE.

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. GENTLEMEN. OPTION THREE, PLEASE. There may be some city guidelines to say what you can do with the advanced fund, but being this close to an election, there's no way that you guys are gonna explain that to the general population that's voting when they see taxes about why you can't take that money and just pay down the debt rather than going off on nonsense like this. Good luck with that. So right now, in the years we've been talking about this right now, I've heard lots of expenses with historic. I've heard expenses to homeowners. I've heard a little bit of financial benefit with the Mills Act. But in all the years that we discussed this, I've never heard a single financial benefit to the city. So why are we spending city tax dollars on this? YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. ELECTIONS CLOSE. ELECTIONS CLOSE. YOU CAN'T BE THAT TONE DEAF. YOU CAN'T BE THAT TONE DEAF. ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE ASHLEY NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE ASHLEY ZERPA FOLLOWED BY TOM LEASE ZERPA FOLLOWED BY TOM LEASE AND COLIN HOFFMAN. AND COLIN HOFFMAN.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS. GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS. I HOPE TO URGE YOU TO APPROVE I HOPE TO URGE YOU TO APPROVE OPTION 1 AND ASSESS THE 124 OPTION 1 AND ASSESS THE 124 PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED IN THE 1989 PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED IN THE 1989 HIST Since the original survey itself was limited in scope, it seems counterproductive to revisit only part of the properties identified. Instead, we should be using the 89 survey as a starting point, not the finish line. A thorough and accurate survey benefits everyone, providing reliable information and helping to ensure that historical significant resources are identified before they are lost. If we are going to do it, let's do it right. I encourage the council and staff to ensure the survey is conducted as effectively and comprehensively as possible, including reviewing the oldest parts of our community beyond the properties identified decades ago. The city has now invested considerable time and resources into the historic context statement and updated preservation policies. This is an opportunity to use that new information and evaluate the standards and evaluation standards to identify what is historically significant today. So let's not repeat the limitations previously. Please approve option one and guarantee this long overdue survey is carried out with the broadest and most effective approach. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Tom Lease followed by Colin Hoffman and Jonathan New.

Hi, everybody. Actually, there's a huge economic benefit to having historical properties intact. I'm just going to read the first three actions in the general plan, which is our guiding document. And this is really all we need to know. Action CD 5.8, update the city's historic preservation ordinance to create a framework for the designation of historic resources and districts.

We should update the redistricts too.

Establish review and performing procedures for historic alterations, demolitions, or relocations, be consistent with federal and state standards and guidelines, and align with the other goals and policies outlined in this element. Action CD 5.9, historic resources context statement. Prepare a citywide historic context statement to guide future historic resources survey efforts to identify individual eligible resources and historic districts. If a neighborhood is identified as a historic district, prepare a more detailed historic context statement for that individual neighborhood. The last one is historic resources survey. Establish and maintain an inventory of architecturally, culturally, and historical significant buildings, structures, Sites and districts proactively maintain an up-to-date historic resources inventory by seeking funding opportunities to update the historic survey. Prepare neighborhood-specific historic context statements prior to updating the historic resources survey. I hope we don't wait 30 years until our next historic update survey. Thank you very much.

Thank you. FOR THE NEXT REQUEST TO SPEAK, WE HAVE RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATIONS OR REQUESTING THAT THE TIME BE ADJUSTED FROM TWO MINUTES TO FOUR MINUTES FOR THE NEXT SPEAKER. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE COLIN HOFFMAN.

I WAS ANTICIPATING ONE MINUTE. I THINK I'LL BE GOOD WITH THE TWO. THANK YOU. HELLO. I'M COLIN HOFFMAN, THIRD GENERATION SAMATAYAN, DISABLED MARINE VETERAN, FATHER, GRANDFATHER, AND THE OWNER OF ONE OF THE HOUSES YOU'RE TARGETING. Thank you to the three city council members who have met with me previously. I hope Rob and Danielle will find it in their hearts to show me the same courtesy in the near future. One minute is not enough time for me to communicate the dire situation I'm in and how much worse things will become for me with a historic designation. I don't want my property surveyed. I'm already losing my house and historic designation will significantly diminish my fraction of the sale price. This all feels like a tyrannical misuse of your power, and your process is backwards to me. Why would you spend over half a million dollars on surveys before the appeal process? Telling us there will be the possibility for exemptions after the fact seems like an illusion aimed at placating us. I'm officially putting the city and its council on notice. If my house is designated historic, I will pursue every opportunity available to me to sue the city for any resulting loss in value. Without every penny of my sliver of the maximum value of my home, I will be turned into a homeless disabled Marine veteran. You will be creating another homeless disabled veteran on your streets.

Thank you. Moving on to our next speaker, Jonathan New followed by Wally Jansen and Lori Watanuki. And if I call your name, if you could please line up to my right, that would be greatly appreciated.

Good evening City Council has always I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Jonathan new I'm a homeowner in North central. I urge you not to appropriate any additional funds for the store funding updates which would be option C. In fact I would encourage you to terminate the projects altogether. Sam it is facing a multimillion dollar budget deficits. Well Council members are inundating my social media feeds asking residents to support measure H and supports higher taxes. It's difficult to justify supporting a tax increase when city funds are being spent on a program that actively harmed several property owners like my neighbor Colin and several other speakers. This was identified as a priority by less than 3% of San Mateans. This is not a good use of our limited funds. Let's not spend money we don't have on initiatives that residents do not consider a priority. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Wally Jansen, followed by Lori Watanuki and Seema Patel.

Well, hello. I see that the people that preceded me had their talk prepared and typed out so they could read it. I didn't do that because I care more about my house than anything else right now. And I think if you were to look it up, and you can actually look it up on the Daily Journal of August 22nd this year, my wife and I are standing in our dining room. where we got married about 48 years ago and after we bought it and so we certainly enjoy that building it is just a classic Italianate Victorian and I think it would be really sad if it was to disappear. Now, I will say that some of the development around our house has changed the ambiance, if you will, and that has saddened us but not changed our mind on whether we want to live there or not. I recognize that by these ordinances creating problems for selling houses like this have some validity, but at the same time, we think that we ought to be able to pass it on to the next generation of people that might appreciate this kind of thing. I did some research on the house, and although I don't have it, there's a lithograph showing the houses east of El Camino in San Mateo in approximately 1880. And our house is one of three east of El Camino. And that makes us very happy because it shows that we're one of the first ones to come out here. I did find out quite a bit of the history of the house. The guy who built it sailed around the horn with a steamer to ship people from San Francisco to Sacramento. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Our next three speakers will be Laurie Watanuki, followed by Seema Patel and Frank Elliott.

Mayor Lorraine and members of the city council, My name is Lori what to new keep we support option one for the full 124 property survey for 168 6.87 from the advance planning fund. We had hoped more of the homes on the East side of San Mateo could have been surveyed that are examples of the variety of early architectural styles, including craftsman, Spanish colonial revival, Tudor revival, and Eastern shingle cottage in the 1989 building survey. This update is long overdue, and we want to thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Seema Patel, followed by Frank Elliott and Andrew Ryan.

evening council thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight i currently serve as a planning commissioner but i'm speaking tonight on my own behalf as a resident i don't have to tell you that we are facing an 18 million dollar deficit this year and i think that now is not the right time to spend additional money on things that are not critical services for our community I THINK IT'S REALLY HARD TO ASK OUR RESIDENTS TO VOTE TO INCREASE OUR SALES TAXES WHEN WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON THINGS THAT ARE NICE TO HAVE BUT NOT A MUST HAVE. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS IS A REALLY HARD TIME FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. WE'RE FACING INCREASED GAS PRICES. WE HAVE GAPS IN OUR SOCIAL SAFETY NET DUE TO LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDING. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE IN SURVIVAL MODE RIGHT NOW. TONIGHT YOU ARE CONSIDERING RAISING THE BUDGET FOR THIS ITEM BY $140,000 OR $170,000. THAT IS THE ENTIRE BUDGET FOR THE EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE FUND LAST YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETELY EXHAUSTED. BY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE SPENT ALREADY, WE HAVE TOLD OUR COMMUNITY THAT HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS TWICE AS IMPORTANT AS EMERGENCY RENTAL RELIEF. AND SO I WOULD LOOK TO YOU TO SO I WOULD LOOK TO YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE IT THINK ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE IT SENDS TO SPEND ADDITIONAL MONEY SENDS TO SPEND ADDITIONAL MONEY ON THIS WHILE ASKING RESIDENTS ON THIS WHILE ASKING RESIDENTS TO INCREASE THEIR TAXES AND THEN TO INCREASE THEIR TAXES AND THEN WHEN YOU HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL ITEM WHEN YOU HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL ITEM BEFORE YOU AT 7 P.M. TO THINK BEFORE YOU AT 7 P.M. TO THINK ABOUT THE EMERGENCY RENTAL ABOUT THE EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE BUDGET AND WHERE ASSISTANCE BUDGET AND WHERE THIS MONEY COULD BE BETTER USED.

THIS MONEY COULD BE BETTER USED. THANK YOU

Good evening, everybody.

Nice to see you. Just a couple of questions that popped in my mind as I was listening to Zach's presentation. And to build on what Laurie said, remember, this is not a comprehensive survey done in 1989. They ran out of money. And so many of us are exempt from it, like in Baywood, because we're on the other side of El Camino. So we're not even talking about the whole city. And a couple of questions I hope you'll ask Zach. is what is it going to cost to continue on this path if we decide to designate these properties? We have a hearing for each one. Do we do a more in-depth study? Does that cost any money? And I know that it's going to take staff time and commission time. So this is just the entrance fee, in my mind. But Zach can enlighten all of us. I want to also address the comment about engaging the public. I think that is important, but I think we need to do this a different way. There's only 124 property owners here. Sending postcards does not do it. We did that for this meeting. Very few people showed up. They don't know what's hitting them. I would suggest that rather than spending more time and consultant time reaching out to people, Now, we get volunteers to go out and visit these people and see if we can get consent and agreement to do this for their properties. If they don't want to do it without an incentive, what kind of incentive would get people to do this? And I would volunteer my friends with the Heritage Alliance to go out and start this process. We don't need to spend taxpayer monies. Let's find out who wants it. Let's be creative. We're going to have to be more creative with this budget deficit. Let's find another way to do it and then come back and make your decision once you know how many people really want this. Do people really want to be designated? If they don't, then you've got a harder decision. So that would be my recommendation, that you ask the questions I just asked and also consider a different approach. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Andrew Ryan, followed by Carmel and Rich Hedges.

Hello council members. Thanks for having me. So if you've already made up your mind tonight, I'm not going to convince you, but if you're on the fence, I want to give you two things to think about as reasons to not do this. Certainly not tonight and maybe not ever, but let's definitely vote option three tonight. And here's why. So first off, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY BEING SUED ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE STUFF THAT THIS IS BUILT ON. I HAPPEN TO KNOW IT'S A CREDIBLE LAWSUIT AND IT SEEKS TO INVALIDATE PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE OR SEND IT FOR SECRET REVIEW. YOU COULD BE TIED UP ON THIS. Committing to spending money on a consultant when you don't even know the outcome of this lawsuit seems really putting the cart before the horse. And you have the luxury of time. These properties aren't going anywhere. So second reason here that I'd like you to think about is the legal problems and just the community problems around the terrible notification. You're hearing tonight, people are terrified. They don't know what's happening. They don't know what the actual legal burden is going to be or if there's going to be benefits. This is so unfair to people. And this is what we struggled with in Baywood. And it took us a lot of... time, a lot of money, a lot of intellectual capital to kind of understand all this. And the city can help the people that are affected by this do this. You haven't done that. It's going to create community problems like Humboldt Street. It's going to create possibly legal problems like you have now. So please, just say no tonight. Maybe come back in a few months when some of this stuff is settled down. But tonight, option three is really the only way to go. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next two speakers will be Carmel followed by our final speaker in chambers, Rich Hedges.

Good evening. My name is Carmel Somoza and I'm one of the people that owns the home that's at issue today. So my first thing is I am a mother of two teenage people and I want to tell them in life, you got to speak up for what's right and you got to speak up for what you have a right to have. We were not given notice. in any of this activity that's been happening, I guess, several months. That's not right. And for the younger people to be able to have a voice, come here and say, I want my home to be a place where if we need to, we can make change to. If we want to put solar panels on the top of our homes so that we can be more environmentally conscious, that's important. And for you to consider taking the away from a family and also, The fact that the people who are affected don't know to come and have a voice, the cost to the homeowner is very important and special and personal versus the entire community. I get the fact that people want to live in a place where there's history and pride, but those are things that are not going to affect the day-to-day lives of the people who are owning the homes. So I encourage you to really think about that. Make sure you're talking to people and I encourage your thoughts on one, definitely have an opt out option for all of these 170 homeowners. Give us a opt out option that we do not have to participate. Number two, offer reimbursement for any of the extra building permits that it's gonna take for us to make changes to our homes. Three, consider reimbursement for the loss in value of our homes that it's going to cost for insurance, market value reduction, things like that. Because the day-to-day people that it's affecting, you're not getting their voices because they don't even know it's an issue.

And thank you.

OK, thank you.

Our final speaker in chambers will be Rich Hedges.

Thank you, Mayor Lorraine and City Council members. I came tonight to discuss this because I think a promise was made some time ago that we'd continue looking at what we have here in the city that's historic. However, times change things. And Robert Service, an author, wrote something called Krimish as Sam McGee. Most of you read it by the time you got out of grade school. But there's a line in it that says, a promise made is a debt unpaid. But if you delay that debt, it's not unpaid. And so my advice to you is, based on the financial conditions in this city, that this be put on the shelf until and at which time there is excess funding to complete this. I THINK IT'S FOOLISH BEYOND FOOLISH FOR US TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS FACING THE KIND OF DEBT WE HAVE AND TRYING TO RAISE MONEY TO PLUG THE HOLE. YET THE HOLE WILL STILL BE LEAKING EVEN THEN. SO WE NEED TO THINK THIS THROUGH AGAIN AND REMEMBER WHAT ROBERT SAID. IT'S STILL OUT THERE AS A DEBT BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PAID TODAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MOVING TO OUR VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE OUR FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE CONNY WEISS. CONNY, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOUR MIC.

Good evening, city council members. This evening, we are at a crossroads. From earlier comments, it is tragic that misinformation from less red tape has owners fearing losing their home and control due to the historic designation, when it is well documented that historic designation increases home values and brings financial benefits via the Mills Act. We need to ask hard questions before we sacrifice the very things that make San Mateo desirable. Previously, I sent you proof of the substantial financial support behind YIMBY organizations and state housing legislation. They advocate policies that obliterate local control and endanger historic resources and neighborhood character. Your responsibility is to San Mateo residents. Our founding era homes on Claremont and Delaware are not just buildings. They are part of San Mateo's story. Our historic downtown buildings give our city a sense of identity that cannot be manufactured once it's gone. We can build housing while still protecting the character and history of our city. Do not allow well-funded outside interests determine what our city will become. Listen to the residents who live here. Protect our historic neighborhoods. Protect our downtown. Protect the character of San Mateo. Because development can be rebuilt, but history cannot. Please approve option one tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to our next speaker, Alisa. Alisa, please unmute your mic.

Hi. Hello. So I am a homeowner of one of the homes that has today historical significance. And like a previous speaker said, when I bought my home 10 years ago, I had no idea that it was of any significance until we went to remodel the home. which was completely unfair and should have been disclosed at time of purchase because we could have maybe made a different decision. Now I am a single parent and although some people say that historic, that there's a lot of benefits, I for one, I've talked with my insurance agent, we will have an issue even insuring this home. Most standard carriers don't insure historical homes, we have to, as homeowners, get specialty insurance. And that is an average cost of $20,000 or more, which how is the city going to fund that when you're already in debt, right? Because that will be money owed to the homeowners that are impacted without consent. So I would strongly urge you to vote option three. It's not fair. And this should not be imposed on us as homeowners, especially for those of us that were unaware that there was even a survey in 1989 impacting our homes. Thank you.

Thank you. And as was announced earlier, our final speaker on this item will be Doug Deanna. Doug, please go ahead and unmute your mic.

good evening mayor and council uh this evening over a dozen residents asked that you choose option three uh this evening But option three won't revisit the 1989 survey. And there's no door for an owner to correct or challenge their status except with a new survey. And according to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the only removal process applies to a property already formally designated a landmark, not the one that's merely survey listed. So there's no other door. They're stuck. And at this time, the survey is that door. It's the only thing that can move their status forward one way or another. For homes that have changed since 1989, additions, remodels, replaced original features, that reevaluation could mean coming off the list, not just staying on it. And choosing option three doesn't give them something better. It just leaves the current structure as it is. I know that's not the outcome they're looking for, but right now, under this ordinance, it's the only door available to get off that list. For these reasons, I urge you to choose the fuller option, option one, so that door opens for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Lorraine, that concludes public comment.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF THEY HAVE ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS AND OR FEEDBACK. QUESTIONS AND OR FEEDBACK. COUNCILMEMBER, PLEASE FEEL FREE COUNCILMEMBER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO START US. TO START US. GREAT. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. AND THANK YOU TO ALL THE AND THANK YOU TO ALL THE SPEAKERS. SPEAKERS. AND THANK YOU TO ZACH AND THE AND THANK YOU TO ZACH AND THE TEAM AT RING CON. TEAM AT RING CON. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FIRST. In terms of how we've looked at these houses, we don't know. We have a list from 1989, right, that says here are the 124 properties. We don't know their current status. There are a couple that we know no longer exist. But we don't know that this house on this corner has been so remodeled as many people have said their houses have been. And it would take this particular, this type of a survey to update our information. Is that correct?

THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

OKAY. SO TO THE LAST SPEAKER'S COMMENT, THIS WOULD, THIS SURVEY WOULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DECISIONS. WE WOULD STILL, ONCE THE SURVEY WAS DONE, IT WOULD COME BACK TO US AND THE CONSULTANT AND STAFF WOULD SAY, OKAY, THERE ARE 124 HOUSES WE LOOKED AT. 10 of them don't exist anymore, 45 of them have been so altered we believe that they don't, you know, they aren't necessarily able to be historic. And we would then have to go through the list and agree we want to pull some off, we think some are important, we think some have been altered beyond justification. Is that sort of the process how it would go?

Actually, I can look to Julianne in the virtual environment to maybe speak a little bit about the process. OVERALL, WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THESE HOMES AT THE TIME DID HAVE EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION AND EXISTING CONTEXT AND FEATURES TO SUPPORT OR THE FINDING THAT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE. IT'S LIKELY MANY OF THOSE HOMES STILL RETAIN THOSE CHARACTERISTICS AND THAT IS INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY IN THE RECORD. BUT, YES, WE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH AND UPDATE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AND EVALUATE IT AGAINST CURRENT to determine how many continue to be eligible for a potential designation or meet that historic resource threshold under CEQA. And then Julian, I don't know if you have anything further to add to that or provide in terms of clarification for how we'd approach the process.

Yeah, I think, you know, you've outlined the basic approach to what we would do. One of the deliverables that would be provided as part of the work that we've outlined would be a final report that gives our conclusion and recommendations on next steps. So that would be potentially actions that council could take either at the end of the reporting period or at a future date to be determined later.

Okay, so at the end of the day it would come back to council to make the final decisions as to what to do. But this survey would be establishing facts. Okay, thank you. Then a number of our residents talked about how people either in the neighborhoods or who had homes or just generally weren't aware either that they had purchased a home that was potentially historic or that council had taken this action. So beyond sending a postcard, what is the plan? Because I think it's very valid to say we need some very serious outreach to each one of the property owners and anyone else in the community to really make sure people are aware of what's going on.

Yes, and that's why, as part of the proposal, we do have that timeline that running concurrently with the work, we'll be making efforts to engage with each of the affected property owners in different ways to ideally have conversations, talk through, learn about what they know about their property, because owners are going to have the best information about their property over time. And so, yeah, the goal would be by the time this report comes back to you, we've been able to engage with and have conversations and understand where each property owner is at. That would be the goal. So yes, obviously mailed postcards are one way of conduct, but we can look at other ways to ensure that we've been able to make contact with and for those owners that want to engage with us, talk more about it, make sure they have an understanding and awareness as we move forward with this update process.

Thank you. I think it would be really important to go beyond just a postcard, whether it's, and I don't know whether Mr. Elliott made the suggestion of having volunteers. I don't know how you manage that. But going out and making actual contact with everyone. And if someone doesn't want to participate, obviously that's their choice. But I would be very interested in seeing what we could do about that. Also, Adam Clafter, one of our planning commissioners, but he was speaking in his personal capacity, sent a letter in, I think it was this afternoon, which he had sent in previously saying that he would be very interested in seeing what incremental incentives or positive criteria could be added to the way things are, encouragements. I think somebody made that comment about how do you incent people. Number one, you educate, and number two, you offer them things. So I think that would be something to look at. And he also made the recommendation that we prioritize how we consider things historic. So his suggestion was to focus on if somebody famous or something really important happened as opposed to how the building looked. I don't know whether I'm speaking accurately, but his general sense was, how do we prioritize what's important? And I think that might be something interesting to look at as well.

Yeah, we can definitely take that all into consideration and we would utilize our ordinance, which outlines the criteria to move forward. We'd also look at the state and federal criteria and that would inform it as well. And then ultimately that updated report would come forward and something like prioritization, if we were looking at designations based off that report, we would look to council to figure out how we might parse that out, but we can provide different options to consider.

Okay. And then just to sort of wrap it up, because are we doing questions and comments at the same time, or how do you want to handle it?

Yes, please. I'll just note that we don't have a ton of time, so thank you.

So I guess what I would say is, as one of our speakers said, I think the last person online, we need facts in order to make decisions. And the only way we're going to get the facts is by doing the survey. And so I would be in favor of doing the survey and doing it, I guess that's option one. but also with an addition to what the proposed plan is to do personal outreach so we make sure that anyone who is in one of the homes gets an outreach and has the opportunity to talk and not just, maybe it was always gonna be more than a postcard, but I think it's important to have that incentive. And I would also like to look at other ways of incenting homeowners to understand the value of what a historic designation could bring. So that would be my recommendation, number one, but with some additional outreach, looking at incentives, and then obviously coming back, no decisions made until we have the opportunity to look.

Thank you, Councilmember. I think I'd like to try and go next quickly, just because I feel like my thoughts on this have changed a little bit since May, and so I wanted to share that with my colleagues. I think in the May meeting, by the end of it, when we seemed to move ahead with what we have before us today, I was feeling good about the idea that we were setting a date to try and complete something that had been unfinished for quite some time. And I was interested in the idea of preserving, at least to me, I think like some of the most historic resources in our city that still exist and remain. with characteristics that we've just worked on together through a context statement and might be able as a community to believe together there's some historic value to these properties. But I feel like that THAT LEVEL OF AGREED UPON THAT LEVEL OF AGREED UPON HISTORIC VALUE IS SMALLER HISTORIC VALUE IS SMALLER THAN THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAN THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THIS SURVEY. THAT ARE IN THIS SURVEY. AND I'M CONCERNED WITH THE the fact that we decided to move ahead with this, I feel, at an expedited pace outside of our strategic plan initiatives. And to me, I think more so than the cost even of the money that's being put toward this, what concerns me is the bandwidth of staff. that we're putting toward this effort in front of other initiatives that our city and I feel like our community agreed upon to prioritize through the strategic plan process earlier this year. Add on to that the fact that we've gotten a number of comments from homeowners within the survey properties that say, I don't want to be a part of this. and the fact that we got sued, and the fact that our budget situation has gotten worse. And I feel that personally I'm on option three at this time. I do feel, you know, when I read these daily journal articles that talk about some of the Maynard home, which one of the gentlemen, the owner, is here in the chambers with us tonight, THERE ARE CLEARLY SOME PROPERTIES THAT I THINK WOULD THERE ARE CLEARLY SOME PROPERTIES THAT I THINK WOULD BE GREAT ADDITIONS TO OUR LOCAL BE GREAT ADDITIONS TO OUR LOCAL REGISTER OF LANDMARKS. REGISTER OF LANDMARKS. AND I JUST THINK TO ME RATHER AND I JUST THINK TO ME RATHER THAN UNDERGOING AN UPDATING OF THE THAN UNDERGOING AN UPDATING OF THE ENTIRE SURVEY PROPERTIES AT THIS ENTIRE SURVEY PROPERTIES AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE US TO WAIT AT TIME, I WOULD LIKE US TO WAIT AT THIS, YOU KNOW, FOR AT LEAST A SOME OF THE MORE PROMINENT PRIORITIES IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN WITH REGARD TO OUR STAFF BANDWIDTH TO GO AHEAD BEFORE GOING UNDERTAKING THAT AMOUNT OF WORK. BUT I DO STILL THINK THAT EVEN IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, IF THERE WERE an opportunity to set aside maybe a small bit of resources to facilitate and incent those who own some of these historic known properties, those cream of the crop. I'm thinking of the Maynard home, the Sands home, even maybe the Giannini home that's on Elm Street that was recently featured, if the owners are interested. If they are interested. um perhaps we can help them get on the list first um that would be my preference i'm i'm for option three and i just want to put in that even if the majority of council is interested in a different option i would ask that we please allow for some opt-out provision so that even if we go with option one for example if we we've heard from five to six people who who say we don't want to be surveyed And to me, I feel like The idea to help with a survey is supposed to be some incentive, something interesting to people who own these properties. And it will be, I think, for some. But if it's not, then I think it should be OK to allow those people to opt out. It frankly helps our bottom line, because then we would be surveying fewer properties. So when we look at option two, for example, that has a reduction. And there could be a bigger reduction if we asked people. I would want us to ask and be really clear about it. whether we go with any option, but I'm up for option three, and I'll just look for our next, thank you.

Council members, Fuqua-Gadiski.

Can I just ask a question of the city attorney or Director Dahl? If we were to add a carve out, so let's say we went with an option, but then we added a carve out later to make sure that whatever comes back from the survey, we did have to get homeowner consent, is that something we could do?

I'll start and then I'll look to our city attorney. There's two things here. A local designation, there's definitely council prerogative to allow for an opt-out if that's where council wants to go, if that's how it's structured. However, it is important to note that when it comes to projects under environmental review, an owner can't opt out. If there's conditions that exist that would make a property potentially eligible, we would still have to evaluate that and consider that against the project and determine if there are any potential impacts there. And so I think that's an important distinction is that when it comes to a project and a potential environmental impact, we would have to study that. That isn't something that can be opted out of. But for local policy choices, we could counsel as prerogative to determine if there's an opt out provision.

SO JUST TO BUILD OFF OF THAT, SO REMEMBER THERE'S TWO THINGS HAPPENING HERE. ONE IS THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL EARLIER THIS YEAR PROVIDES FOR A LOCAL PROCESS. NOTHING IN THE LOCAL PROCESS CAN OVERRIDE CEQA. SO UNDER OUR LOCAL PROCESS, THE CURRENT PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING PROPERTIES REQUIRES OWNER CONSENT BUT THERE'S A CARVEOUT FOR PROPERTIES ON THE 1989 SURVEY WHERE OWNER CONSENT IS NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS TO AT THE SAME TIME AS A SURVEY IS BROUGHT BACK TO SOMEHOW NARROW THAT CARVEOUT SO THAT IT'S A SMALLER NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT THEN WOULD BE SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION WITHOUT OWNER CONSENT. IS THAT RIGHT?

YEAH. SO SIMILAR TO ADAM'S COMMENT, LIKE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT THE GENINI HOUSE OR THE SANDS HOUSE OR THE MAYNARD HOUSE SPECIFICALLY.

I mean, so I understand your comment. Just keep in mind that the subject, that can be a subject of a future council meeting. The item, and the council can provide some direction in that regard. But any changes to the historic preservation ordinance as part of the zoning code would have to go through planning commission review and council review. So that is something that could be undertaken by staff. That's not specifically the subject. this item tonight but the council is free to provide that direction and one other thing other thing I'll say very quickly the other piece of it is CEQA so regardless of what our local ordinance says staff will have to evaluate properties under the California Environmental Quality Act such that for properties that are on the older side say 50 years or older THEN STAFF, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE SAYS, HAS TO EVALUATE THOSE PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THAT BUILDING WOULD RESULT IN AN IMPACT ON A HISTORICAL RESOURCE.

SO JUST TO RECAP, SO POTENTIALLY WE COULD CREATE A FOURTH OPTION TONIGHT WHERE WE DO MOVE FORWARD WITH COLLECTING THE DATA BUT THEN CREATE A NARROWER CARVEOUT FOR SPECIFIC

You could provide.

Outside of CEQA, specific properties outside of CEQA.

You could provide direction on one of these options, say option one or two or three for that matter. But let's say it's option one or two, you could choose one of those options and say, and staff please work on a change to the ordinance that would narrow the carve out. for 1989 survey properties and staff would have to work on that language. They'll be brought back to the council at a later date. You could provide that direction, but just keep in mind, there's no ordinance change that would happen tonight. It would be a longer process.

Okay, thank you.

Deputy Mayor Fernandez.

No questions, just some thoughts. We are in a deficit and I can't in good conscience serve on the ballot measure committee and ask these city's residents to approve a sales tax and put more money towards a historic policy that has already been fast tracked. We are not pulling this process as some would like to see. I heard your comments. But we are delaying it. We could delay it. NUMEROUS RESIDENTS OF MY DISTRICT HAVE COME AND SPOKEN TODAY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY POTENTIALLY HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND PROPERTIES ON THE 1989 STORE SURVEY IN MY DISTRICT. AND SO GIVEN THE STAFF LIMITATIONS AND FISCAL LIMITATIONS, THE ONLY OPTION THAT I CAN GO WITH TODAY IS OPTION THREE.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER NEWSOM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SOME QUESTIONS. Just to come full circle to this, this does not come out of the general fund budget, meaning this money will be appropriated at some point for this type of activity, right? We have a historic ordinance that's going to come on the books. It's in the general plan that we're going to update this. It's been 37 years. That money will be spent at some point in time, whether it be today or a year from now.

Yes. I mean, the advanced planning fund is targeted for policy efforts like that. We do have quite a long list of all the policy efforts. So it's really looking to counsel as to in what order we would prioritize and obviously making sure that the fund balance remains appropriate at an appropriate level. But yes.

Thank you. So looking at this, if we go forward with 91 homes of evaluation, it's $1,853 apiece. If we go forward with the full 124, it's $1,132 apiece. What are we paying for for that? What more information is being gathered for that amount of money?

I'll look to Julianne with Rincon to see if you're able to provide more details on what we're doing as part of this update.

Sure. As we've outlined in our proposal, the basis of what we would start from would be the 1989 survey and the work that we've done on the historic context update. That would still require us to do property-specific research. So the time and energy would include a reconnaissance survey, which would be us going out with iPads and taking up-to-date pictures, up-to-date notations on changes that we observe. And then it would also include archival and background research that would be specific to each of the properties we were evaluating. So that would include looking at parcel data as available, historic mapping data as available, and permit data as available. So we could document all the changes to the property that have occurred since it was constructed. That requires quite a bit of time and effort because each property is unique. And so that would be what the bulk of that effort would be spent on.

Thank you. Is it the case that a house over 100 years old, whether we have a historic ordinance or not, or have a historic designation or not, would most likely be caught up with CEQA because of the age of the house? Meaning before you could go and do significant alterations, the state would flag it and say, wait, this is a 110-year-old house. Is there accuracy to that?

Yes, the threshold had really started at the 50-year mark. And at that point, we would then be looking more closely at the property to determine if there's other things. We would use our recently prepared citywide historic context statement. We're actually in the final steps of developing a screening criteria so we could kind of look through. And so, yeah, we would start with the process of elimination. But any property that's older than 50 years, WE WOULD WE WOULD START WITH AN INITIAL REVIEW AND THEN WE WOULD WE WOULD START WITH AN INITIAL REVIEW AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OR DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OR OTHER THINGS THAT MAY EXIST WE OTHER THINGS THAT MAY EXIST WE WOULD THEN KEEP GOING FURTHER ALL THE WOULD THEN KEEP GOING FURTHER ALL THE WAY UP TO POTENTIALLY A HISTORIC WAY UP TO POTENTIALLY A HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION AND THEN A RESOURCE EVALUATION AND THEN A DETERMINATION ON IF THE PROPERTY IS DETERMINATION ON IF THE PROPERTY IS INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE THANK YOU AND WE'VE INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE THANK YOU AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OPTING OUT

We move forward with evaluating these homes. Is there an opportunity for the homeowner to opt out and say, I don't want to be surveyed? Or based on purely the age of the home, would they be surveyed anyway, or surveyable anyways?

Well, I think that would be up to council if you wanted to provide that direction. But I mean, as scoped, we would be looking at and updating the information on all properties in the 1989 survey. And that's documentation that exists or we would need to do research on to compile. So unless council was to provide direction on narrowing the scope, we would be looking at the number of properties either in option one or option two.

I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION, I'M NOT, I STILL WANT TO HEAR THE REST FROM MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, BUT HOW WERE PEOPLE INFORMED THAT THEY ARE ON THIS 1989 SURVEY? DID WE DO ANYTHING BESIDES MAIL A POST GUARD TO 124 ADDRESSES OR WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL OUTREACH THAT HAPPENED TO NOTIFY THEM OF THIS PROCESS?

Since we haven't moved forward with this process yet, we had focused on a mailed letter that provided a narrative, additional information about the process and reference to our FAQ page and let them know that this discussion was happening this evening. But since this work hasn't started, we haven't gone further than that. But we would, as outlined in our outreach portion and if any other counsel direction is provided as part of this work, if it's approved tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember. Do you have an option you'd like to go with at this time?

I think I'd like to hear from the rest of my council colleagues. Has everybody weighed in at this point?

We have one, three, three, and something a little different from what we have here, I think, that we might need to talk about if others are in. What are your thoughts with option four? Can you?

SO THE THING THAT'S BEEN WEIGHING ON ME IS PUBLIC GOOD VERSUS PRIVATE GOOD. SO THE PUBLIC GOOD IS TO PRESERVE HISTORY, RIGHT? THERE ARE THINGS THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS MIGHT FIND VALUABLE AND MIGHT WANT TO PRESERVE. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M A LIFETIME SAN MATEAN AND IT DOES MAKE ME SAD THAT NOT ONE PIECE OF THE RACETRACK WAS PRESERVED IN THE CITY. Right. So, yes, we have a beautiful development in Bay Meadows, but we also didn't do anything to preserve the history of Seabiscuit, the history of a racecourse, that legacy of San Mateo. So the public good would look at something like the AP Giannini House and say that deserves attention. It really should be a museum, in my opinion. AP Giannini basically, you know, got people to move down the peninsula and really created San Mateo. The private good is when I think about my own home and the cost of buying a home in the Bay Area, it's incredibly expensive. It's incredibly taxing on individuals. And they deserve, and I did champion it, consent. And they deserve to have a say in what happens to the home that they live in, right? SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND, IS THERE A WAY THROUGH? OPTION FOUR WOULD BASICALLY SAY WE DO SPEND THE MONEY, WE DO DO THE SURVEY, BUT RATHER THAN SAYING ALL THESE PROPERTIES, WHATEVER COMES OUT OF IT ARE DESIGNATED HISTORIC, WE GIVE PEOPLE AN OPTION TO OPT IN OR OUT. Right? Because the reality is of these 124 properties, you know, I've already heard maybe 30 of them for sure. Are a no-go then you're looking at 90 of them of that how many have been modified to lisa's point? I mean what we're really talking about here might be 25 homes that probably everybody in this room can agree We do want to preserve right? so I'm, just trying to see is there a mechanism? To do that. I think where i'm getting hung up is it sounds like if we come back and they would be historic, then CEQA comes into play and there's no real opt-out method, correct?

Not exactly. I think CEQA is at play regardless because we already have documentation on the properties here that we would have to do additional review and assessment if there was a substantial project or alteration proposed. What this effort would do would be update that documentation and provide greater clarity on maybe homes that are no longer eligible or if they are what the attributes are. THIS SURVEY WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY DESIGNATIONS. THIS SURVEY WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY DESIGNATIONS. THAT'S UP FOR FUTURE COUNCIL THAT'S UP FOR FUTURE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WHAT YOU WANT TO DO CONSIDERATION WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION. WITH THIS INFORMATION. THIS SCOPE OF WORK IS TO UPDATE THIS SCOPE OF WORK IS TO UPDATE THE SURVEY SO THAT IT'S CURRENT THE SURVEY SO THAT IT'S CURRENT AND PROVIDE A LEGAL BASIS IF AND PROVIDE A LEGAL BASIS IF THERE WERE TO BE A DESIGNATION THERE WERE TO BE A DESIGNATION PURSUED FOR ANY NUMBER OF THE PURSUED FOR ANY NUMBER OF THE PROPERTIES ON HERE. PROPERTIES ON HERE. BUT THERE IS NO DESIGNATIONS

We are choosing to move forward with the survey. However, there's a carve out. We ask, you know, staff to come back in the future with when they have the survey with a carve out of a narrower scope, right? That applies to, you know, those specific properties of significance.

TO THE MAYOR IF I CAN INTERJECT HERE. WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING I THINK IS A CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. CORRECT. TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT A FUTURE DATE AS OPPOSED TO PARAMETERS ON THE SURVEY TO BE CONDUCTED. IS THAT RIGHT?

CORRECT. BUT THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFINE THOSE PARAMETERS AT SOME POINT.

Well, sure. I mean, you could give some general parameters about future ordinance language that would have to be far back and go through the full process. But just so by way of example, if the council wanted to go with, say, option two, you could do that and, as part of your motion, provide direction to staff to modify the carve-out for 1989 survey properties to narrow the scope of the number of properties that could be subject to historic designation without consent, and to limit that to properties that have some potential for, to be historic as the result of a future survey. I mean, but that wouldn't happen as part of the survey, that would happen through future legislation.

So if I might after that, I think I wanted to throw out another idea related to this. Because I feel like what I'm hearing from you is an interest in narrowing the scope, focusing in on maybe the most historic properties, and then getting some information for those properties to potentially consider them for designation. I THINK I WOULD WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND SAY THAT I THINK RIGHT NOW WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES IS WE HAVE THIS OLD SURVEY FROM 1989. THE INFORMATION FROM THAT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED IF WE ARE GOING TO DESIGNATE PROPERTIES ON THAT SURVEY. To me, I think if we, let me see how I can articulate this briefly. I just think any property that is not surveyed will effectively be deprioritized in this journey. And to me, I think that's why I think we may have gotten a little ahead of ourselves here. If we were to maybe instead focus on helping some of those properties that we already know are likely to be historic, get that update, To me, I think that it provides two things. It begins to add to our register of landmarks. It preserves in that way. I think it hits the highest note of what you were mentioning, where not only are we, you know, trying to preserve the most historic parts of our city that have been identified to date. But we're also, I think, in doing so not focusing on other properties because they haven't received that update. And so to me, I think I wanted to see if I could just flesh out like an idea of like, for example, instead of spending 160,000 or 140,000 on a survey that encompasses a lot of properties, some of which we may actually not, you know, want to prioritize with next steps. We could instead maybe set aside five thousand or ten thousand and maybe have that be like some fund that anyone who's interested in volunteering to be part of the landmark registry could apply for. And maybe we cost share with what would be required for those individual homes to get onto the registry. IN THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO THAT WITH OPTION THREE. WE COULD SAY OPTION THREE BUT LET'S SET ASIDE A LITTLE BIT OF RESOURCES FOR THE MAYNARD HOME, THE SANDS HOME, ANY OF THESE HOMES WHO ARE INTERESTED, PROPERTY OWNERS OF THESE TOP THINGS. TO ME, I JUST WANT TO POSIT THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT I THINK MEETS SIMILAR GOALS TO WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND. DEPUTY MAYOR.

Could we potentially kind of working, riffing off of what both you and Councilmember Spierka-Giditsky said, could we attempt to do a survey of the homeowners who opted in? Can we set the universe as people who have chosen to participate? I'd be down for that.

Can I just say that I was liking where you were going, but I think $5,000 is just sort of an unrealistic base. And if you're talking about what is already identified as historic, it may be 37 years out of date, but the 91 properties listed in the survey had already been identified as eligible. So I think the purpose of option two, if I understand it, was just to update the 1989 survey to say of the 91 properties, so many are still eligible because they haven't been destroyed or something hasn't happened to them. Is that fair?

Yeah, that's what option. I mean, either option one or option two, but option two is more focused. But yes, that's the objective here is to update these surveys to verify all information and determine how many continue to remain eligible.

Yeah, because my understanding is for the houses or the homes that we've been talking about with AP Giannini or whomever, it's more a process of, okay, you want to fill out the form and you'll be added to our local historic designation. because it's already been identified nationally or elsewhere. So I think from my perspective, if we're really, there are two things here. It's do we want to update properties that have already been identified and it's just been 37 years? I mean, I was of the opinion Back when we were talking about this months ago, I didn't think we needed to do an update There are a lot of cities that take their old surveys and say that's it boom But the council said we want to do an update and that's fine. So I guess I would be in you know open to saying how do we really focus on just understanding the facts? because there could be I don't know. I mean, they were eligible in 1989. There might be a whole lot of them that aren't eligible. And we're going to keep talking about it and talking about it. If my colleagues decide they don't want to spend any money today, and you want to go with option three, I would strongly, strongly urge that we say we want to come back in 12 months and pick it up. Because what I don't want to have happen is we say, like we did in 1989, we don't want to spend the money and we'll kick the can down the road. And it might be another 30 years. And I just, I don't think that's fair to future councils or to future members of the community to just do that. So I'd want to put a specific, here's what we do, but I would, IN TRYING TO FIND SOME SORT OF WAY FORWARD TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, MAYBE IT'S OPTION TWO THAT WE LOOK AT AND FOCUS ON. BECAUSE I THINK GIVING, I MEAN, CONOR, DIRECTOR DOLL, TELL ME, I DON'T THINK OFFERING $10,000 IS GOING TO DO A WHOLE LOT OF ANYTHING. GOOD THOUGHT.

I APPRECIATE IT. WHAT IF IT WAS LIKE A $50,000 FUND?

YES. I'LL ADMIT IT WAS AN I'LL ADMIT IT WAS AN ARBITRARY FIGURE. ARBITRARY FIGURE.

I GUESS WE WOULD NEED TO I GUESS WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ACCOMPLISHING. ACCOMPLISHING. THE GOAL WAS TO COMPLETE THIS THE GOAL WAS TO COMPLETE THIS WORK AS EFFICIENTLY AND WORK AS EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE. EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE. INDIVIDUAL HREs ALWAYS COST INDIVIDUAL HREs ALWAYS COST SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE AVERAGE OF ALL OF THIS. By reducing the number, we will probably increase the cost per HRE. So if we're doing a set-aside fund where then we're, I mean, it sounds like maybe we would do outreach and anyone that's interested, maybe we can subsidize or contribute to an updated evaluation. And we could then just entertain those until an allotted amount was exhausted if that was a path you chose. But I think the goal with these numbers was to do these as efficiently and effectively as possible.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL JUST THROW IN THAT TO I'LL JUST THROW IN THAT TO I'LL JUST THROW IN THAT TO YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER NASH, I WOULD BE IF I HAPPEN TO NASH, I WOULD BE IF I HAPPEN TO NASH, I WOULD BE IF I HAPPEN TO BE RE-ELECTED AND I'M GIVEN THE BE RE-ELECTED AND I'M GIVEN THE BE RE-ELECTED AND I'M GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT BLUE SKY SESSION, I WOULD BE NEXT BLUE SKY SESSION, I WOULD BE NEXT BLUE SKY SESS That would mean that we would not take 30 to 40 years to figure out next steps related to this process. But instead, we would continue that conversation. I think to your point, you mentioned 12 months. I asked a similar question to Director Dahl before the meeting began about when might we be able to engage in this in a way that allowed for us to first do some of this strategic planning work, not NOT TO GET IN THE WAY. AND THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED WAS AND THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED WAS THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS THE THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS THE RECOMMENDATION IN MAY AS WELL, WAS TO RECOMMENDATION IN MAY AS WELL, WAS TO HAVE THAT BE A PART OF THE NEXT HAVE THAT BE A PART OF THE NEXT GOAL SETTING SESSION. GOAL SETTING SESSION. I THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE WE I THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE WE WOULD BE TARGETING SOME ACTION IN WOULD BE TARGETING SOME ACTION IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. AND I THINK WE COULD TAKE IT UP AND I THINK WE COULD TAKE IT UP FROM THERE. FROM THERE. IN THE MEANTI THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO WORK WITH ANY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED VOLUNTARILY IN BECOMING A PART OF THIS PROCESS. AND I THINK WE COULD GAIN SOME KNOWLEDGE FROM THAT AND WE WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY DROPPING IT EVEN IF WE DIDN'T TAKE IT UP BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AT LEAST LOOK TOWARD HAVING CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION WITHIN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

so through the mayor i'm just looking at the time and trying to get to our regular meeting just overall appreciate the healthy discussion on this so what i'm hearing is kind of a mixed bag of direction right now from overall council so i'm going to try if it's okay through the mayor and the council to try to figure out these options and how we want to proceed overall understanding there might be this hybrid option four that i'm hearing as well which would be very selective of or I guess changing the ordinance, looking at making an amendment to the ordinance itself while doing an update to the survey. Is that correct as option four is what I'm hearing from the council as a option four, it would be amending the current historic ordinance to have opt-in provisions for these 1924 or 1989 survey properties and still do the survey? THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I HEARD, RIGHT, DANIELLE? THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I HEARD, RIGHT, DANIELLE?

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. HEARING.

WE WOULD PROCEED MAYBE WITH WE WOULD PROCEED MAYBE WITH OPTION 2, BUT THEN HAVE... OPTION 2, BUT THEN HAVE... BRING BACK THE ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN OPT MAKE IT THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN OPT OUT FOR PROPERTIES. OUT FOR PROPERTIES.

SO YOU'RE SAYING DO THE SURVEY SO YOU'RE SAYING DO THE SURVEY AND GET THE FACTS.

AND GET THE FACTS. WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THE DATA WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THE DATA NO MATTER WHAT, BUT WHAT I'M NO MATTER WHAT, BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS, LIKE, I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT PROPERTIES ARE HISTORIC OR NOT, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT HOMEOWNERS HAVE A WAY TO OPT IN AND OUT. BECAUSE WE GAVE THE OPT OUT TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CITY EXCEPT THESE 124 PROPERTIES, AND IN RETROSPECT, THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME EITHER.

I think we you got this council has heard what option four would be through the city attorney and now myself just kind of saying what that would be so let's go over option one how many nodding heads do I have for option one ideally I would still like it but I'm I would be interested in finding a compromise okay option two nodding heads I have three for option two and then option three I have two so and then option four

I'M SAYING OPTION 2 WITH THE I'M SAYING OPTION 2 WITH THE NARROWER SCOPE. NARROWER SCOPE. THAT WOULD BE OPTION 4.

THAT WOULD BE OPTION 4.

OPTION 4. OPTION 4. OPTION 4.

I GOT OPTION 3, MAYOR. I GOT OPTION 3, MAYOR. OPTION 3. OPTION 3. LISA, IT'S ON OPTION 4. LISA, IT'S ON OPTION 4.

I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING. I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING. WE WOULD DO, EXPLAIN TO ME WE WOULD DO, EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN WHAT THIS WOULD BE.

AGAIN WHAT THIS WOULD BE. YOU HAVE TO COLLECT THE DATA YOU HAVE TO COLLECT THE DATA NO MATTER WHAT. But what I'm saying is- Now are we talking about the- The way that it's written for the 91 properties is that then they're designated historic. What I'm saying is you collect the properties, you come back, you edit the ordinance to do a carve out that says, okay, of these 91, here are the specific ones we would actually want to preserve like the Janini house. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY GOES IN. ACTUALLY GOES IN. AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAY, AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAY, HEY, HOMEOWNER, YOU ARE HISTORIC, HEY, HOMEOWNER, YOU ARE HISTORIC, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.

OUT. OKAY. OKAY. SO WHY WOULDN'T, IF WE WERE SO WHY WOULDN'T, IF WE WERE DOING THAT, WHY WOULDN'T WE DO THE 124 DOING THAT, WHY WOULDN'T WE DO THE 124 PROPERTIES? PROPERTIES? BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT GETTING BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT GETTING TO THE FACTS.

TO THE FACTS. MY UNDERSTANDING THOUGH FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THOUGH FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS IS THAT THOSE 33 PREVIOUS MEET

NO, THEY WERE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED AS BEING POTENTIALLY HISTORIC, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE FULL DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT.

SO IF WE DID, JUST WORKING ON THE DATA PART, BECAUSE YOU AND I AGREE VIOLENTLY ABOUT THE NEED FOR DATA, IF WE DID THE SURVEY ON THE 124 PROPERTIES AND THEN CAME BACK AND DID WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING, BUT JUST DOING IT ON A LARGER BASE. so that there would be, you know, do you want?

I'm just going to be blunt. I'm trying to work with you. You know, I'm also trying to be cognizant of cost saving too.

Right, and we're talking about, right, so we're talking about $20,000, which is not to say it isn't a lot of money. I'm not saying that.

It's a senior lunch program right there, so.

But it wouldn't, it wouldn't, I won't get technical. Okay, well, then, okay, so if we said option two, that we do the 91 properties, and then we come, how would this work?

So on a pilot promote, it sounds like. would have to come back and amend the ordinance to have some type of opt-out language overall um i don't know if it'd be the specific properties itself i think that that would have to be the council has to have basically um it's you guys giving up your authority to be able to designate a property with it with an opt-out but i'll look at the attorney on that

Yeah, so let me frame it like a little bit differently. I think what you're perhaps coalescing around is the idea of doing a survey of the 91 properties because remember right now the ordinance has this carve out where any property on the 1989 survey could be designated as historic without their consent. So I think by pursuing the survey of the 91 properties, and then as a result of that survey, you see what actually is eligible to be historic, then an even smaller subset of properties would then be potentially DEEMED HISTORIC, BUT SUBJECT TO FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION, BUT THERE WOULD BE AN EVEN SMALLER GROUP OF PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION OF BEING DEEMED HISTORIC AS OPPOSED TO THIS MUCH LARGER GROUP THAT'S CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED IN THE ORDINANCE, I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE DRIVING AT. BUT PERHAPS DIRECTOR DOLL HAS SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS.

Yes, I think the important thing is, is the carve out is to allow for consideration of any property on there. It doesn't commit the council to any designation. So you could, without any amendment to the ordinance, say, here's the update because we're just updating the survey. And with that, you could say we aren't going to pursue a designation of any property owner who opposes. That would be fully consistent with the ordinance as drafted today. IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE WHAT PROPERTIES OFF THE 89 SURVEY YOU DO OR DO NOT WANT TO PURSUE FOR AN ACTUAL DESIGNATION BUT YOU CAN'T PURSUE THAT DESIGNATION IF YOU WANTED TO WITHOUT THIS UPDATE SO WE NEED THE UPDATED INFORMATION TO EVEN CONSIDER IT BUT THEN YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER SOME OR NONE ON THE 89 SURVEY IT'S IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE SO I THINK WE'RE AGREEING IF WE DO THE SURVEY AND IF WE DO THE THE BASIC DATA THEN

we come back at a second step. And then your recommendation would be to say, let's go through and offer an opt out at that point.

Correct. I just want to get that in there now, that we all agree to that. That's what I'm getting at. So that we would do, I mean, because ultimately we would have to do a carve out anyways, correct?

Well, let me see if I can simplify the discussion a little bit here. So I think when you're, you know, one thing you could do, if you chose to do it, if you wanted to choose option two, I think you could see what is the result of that. Again, what Director Dahl said is absolutely correct. There's no, the survey doesn't result in designation. And any designation is subject to a future council decision. So if you wanted to, what you could do is choose one of the options, make a different option of what survey to do. If you want to do that, see the results of that survey, and then decide, OK, if any changes to the ordinance are appropriate at that time, maybe it's nothing. MAYBE YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT CARVEOUT FOR THE 1989 PROPERTIES BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY. BUT I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL MEMBER'S POINT THAT I THINK I'M HEARING AT LEAST FROM YOU, FROM HER, THE IDEA THAT YOU AT LEAST FROM ONE COUNCIL MEMBER THERE'S A DESIRE TO NARROW THE SCOPE. of the 1989 survey properties that could be designated as historic without their consent.

OK. We can make this work.

So that makes sense to me. Oh.

I'm sorry. Pardon me. Go ahead.

WELL, I THINK I JUST WANTED TO WELL, I THINK I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN ONE MORE NOTE BEFORE WE THROW IN ONE MORE NOTE BEFORE WE MIGHT TALK ABOUT WHICH OPTIONS MIGHT TALK ABOUT WHICH OPTIONS WE'RE ALL IN AT THIS TIME. WE'RE ALL IN AT THIS TIME. WHICH IS TO SAY, COUNCIL MEMBER, WHICH IS TO SAY, COUNCIL MEMBER, I AGREE WITH I THINK WHAT YOU'RE I AGREE WITH I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SHARING IN THAT. TO ME, IF WE WERE TO GO AHEAD WITH A SURVEY, REALLY OF ANY NUMBER OF THESE PROPERTIES, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO THEN AFTER HAVING ACCUMULATED THAT DATA, TAKE A LOOK AND CONSIDER WHETHER WE WANT TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF THIS THIS ABILITY OF COUNCIL TO DESIGNATE SOMETHING WITHOUT THIS ABILITY OF COUNCIL TO DESIGNATE SOMETHING WITHOUT CONSENT. CONSENT. TO ME, THAT CAN HAPPEN WHETHER TO ME, THAT CAN HAPPEN WHETHER WE GO AHEAD WITH THE SURVEY AT WE GO AHEAD WITH THE SURVEY AT THIS TIME OR AT A FUTURE TIME. THIS TIME OR AT A FUTURE TIME. SO TO ME, I THINK IT BRINGS BACK SO TO ME, I THINK IT BRINGS BACK TO THE QUESTION OF DO WE DO TO THE QUESTION OF DO WE DO THIS NOW BEFORE THE DOWNTOWN THIS NOW BEFORE THE DOWNTOWN AREA UPDATE IN OUR CURRENT AREA UPDATE IN OUR CURRENT FINANCIAL CLIMATE. FINANCIAL CLIMATE. SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT. Through the mayor.

Yes. Oh, thank you. I hear what you're saying. However. IN A PARK IN MY DISTRICT WE SPENT IN A PARK IN MY DISTRICT WE SPENT $800,000 TO RENOVATE TWO $800,000 TO RENOVATE TWO BATHROOMS. BATHROOMS. CENTRAL PARK WHICH IS A GREAT CENTRAL PARK WHICH IS A GREAT PROJECT IS A $14 MILLION PROJECT. PROJECT IS A 14 MILLION PROJECT. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A LOT I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY. OF MONEY. I COULD DEFINITELY USE I COULD DEFINITELY USE PERSONALLY $170,000 OR PERSONALLY $170,000 OR $140,000 BUT IN THE BIG SCHEME OF $140,000 BUT IN THE BIG SCHEME OF SCALE OF THINGS OF WHAT THINGS SCALE OF THINGS COST IN I SUPPORT DANIEL'S COMPROMISE I SUPPORT DANIEL'S COMPROMISE WHICH IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHICH IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OPTION 2. OPTION 2. I THINK WHEN WE HAVE THAT DATA I THINK WHEN WE HAVE THAT DATA WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DO WE WANT TO GO BACK AND WITH DO WE WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE OTHER 33 AND NOW LOOK AT THE OTHER 33 AND NOW WE'LL HAVE A HISTORIC COMMISSION WE'LL HAVE A HISTORIC COMMISSION THAT CAN ACTUALLY GO AND TAKE THAT THAT CAN ACTUALLY GO AND TAKE THAT ON AND DECIDE WHETHER IT SHOULD GO ON AND DECIDE WHETHER IT SHOULD GO BACK TO RENCON OR A CONSULTANT BACK TO RENCON OR A CONSULTANT AS W LET'S DO THIS. WE'VE KICKED THIS CAN DOWN THE WE'VE KICKED THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD FOR 37 YEARS AND WHILE ROAD FOR 37 YEARS AND WHILE TOMORROW, TOMORROW IS UNCERTAIN. TOMORROW, TOMORROW IS UNCERTAIN. SO I DON'T WANT TO BE, WE'VE SO I DON'T WANT TO BE, WE'VE INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY TO GET TO THIS POINT. ENERGY TO GET TO THIS POINT. I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE IT OVER I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE IT OVER THE FINISH LINE, GET THE SURVEY THE FINISH LINE, GET THE SURVEY DONE FOR OPTION 2 AND THEN WE CAN DONE FOR OPTION 2 AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND DETERMINE WHETHER COME BACK AND DETERMINE WHETH

OKAY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A, SORRY. DO WE HAVE A, SORRY. I JUST NEED DIRECTION. I JUST NEED DIRECTION.

SO THE DIRECTION THAT I'M SO THE DIRECTION THAT I'M HEARING IS IT'S OPTION TWO. HEARING IS IT'S OPTION TWO. SO LOOKING AT THE MORE LIMITED SO LOOKING AT THE MORE LIMITED SCOPE OF THE 91 PROPERTIES. SCOPE OF THE 91 PROPERTIES. BUT IN ADDITION THEN WE SEE WHAT BUT IN ADDITION THEN WE SEE WHAT THE SURVEY BRINGS BACK TO US. THE SURVEY BRINGS BACK TO US. AND THEN FROM THERE IF THE AND THEN FROM THERE IF THE COUNCIL DIRECTS US WE CAN COME COUNCIL DIRECTS US WE CAN COME BACK AND BRING AMENDMENTS TO THE BACK AND BRING AMENDMENTS TO THE HISTORIC ORDINANCE ABOUT

I'M JUST TAKING IN CONSIDERATION I'M JUST TAKING IN CONSIDERATION EVERYTHING THE COUNCIL HAS EVERYTHING THE COUNCIL HAS SAID. SAID. I THINK WHERE YOU'RE LANDING ON I THINK WHERE YOU'RE LANDING ON IS JUST A SIMPLE, STRAIGHT OPTION IS JUST A SIMPLE, STRAIGHT OPTION TWO. TWO. AND THEN WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO AND THEN WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR THE WHAT YOU COULD DO AT THAT POINT, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THESE PROPERTY OWNERS A CHANCE TO OPT OUT? DO YOU WANT TO MODIFY THE ORDINANCE AND JUST TEE UP THOSE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME? I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL IS SAYING. SO RIGHT NOW, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING, COUNCIL ACTION IS REQUIRED HERE IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO EITHER OPTION ONE OR TWO. So is that correct, that you're just landing on option two, keeping in mind the information that you're seeking from staff when the results of that survey come back? Is that right? Well, I want to be sure we bring up an opt-out.

That's what I'm trying to get clear with. That's been the big piece that I'm trying to understand from Danielle is that she wants to have an opt-out, bring an amendment for an opt-out.

Correct.

so it's option two with a hybrid for bringing back an ordinance amendment for opting out for some of these surveyed properties great and then we'd have to talk about what that was that's correct we would have to come back with a whole other item on the amendment

RIGHT. YOU CAN PROVIDE THIS DIRECTION YOU CAN PROVIDE THIS DIRECTION BUT KEEP IN MIND THE SEQUENCE MAY BUT KEEP IN MIND THE SEQUENCE MAY NOT LINE UP COMPLETELY SO YOU MAY NOT LINE UP COMPLETELY SO YOU MAY NEED TO HAVE THE SURVEY FIRST AND NEED TO HAVE THE SURVEY FIRST AND THEN AN ORDINANCE OPTION AFTER THAT. THEN AN ORDINANCE OPTION AFTER THAT. I'M SEEING THREE NODDING HEADS I'M SEEING THREE NODDING HEADS UNDERSTANDING THAT. UNDERSTANDING THAT.

I THINK THERE'S AN UNDERSTOOD I THINK THERE'S AN UNDERSTOOD MOTION HERE NOW. MOTION HERE NOW. OKAY. OKAY. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

MOT

OKAY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? OKAY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? I WILL SECOND IT. I WILL SECOND IT. OKAY. OKAY. CITY COURT, CAN WE HAVE A CITY COURT, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE?

ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE? CERTAINLY. CERTAINLY. CONSULT MEMBER GADICKI? CONSULT MEMBER GADICKI? YES. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR FERNANDEZ? DEPUTY MAYOR FERNANDEZ? NO. NO. MAYOR LORRAINE? MAYOR LORRAINE? NO. NO. MOTION CARRIES 3-2. MOTION CARRIES 3-2. OKAY. OKAY.

THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR PATIENCE FOR EXTRA TIME ON PAT continue to our regular meeting in about five minutes.

Thank you.