City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. Thanks everybody and good evening and may the fourth be with you. Welcome to the city council regular meeting this Monday evening, May 4th. Uh please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. City clerk, can you please call roll? With pleasure. Mayor Lorraine. Council member Diaz Nash here. Council member FCO Gditzky

here. Deputy Mayor Fernandez here. Mayor Lorraine here and Council Member Nome here.

Thank you and welcome. We're excited to be here in person with options for those who choose not to be in person to still participate virtually. Thank you for your cooperation and for helping us maintain an efficient and accessible meeting environment. There are several ways to participate tonight. For those attending in person, if you wish to give public comment on any items, you may complete a yellow request to speak slip and hand it to our city clerk. He's waving one as a sample there. If you are participating remotely with us, you may use the raise your hand feature in Zoom and you can be called on at the appropriate times. If you're calling in by phone, you can press star 9 to raise your hand. And when you are called upon, you may press star six to unmute. These options for public comment will remain available until I close public comment sections for each specific item in our agenda tonight. For members of the public who may be watching us on YouTube, uh if you wish to provide live public comment, unfortunately, we do not have that feature available through YouTube at this time. You'll want to join us via the Zoom webinar using the access information listed in our agenda which is available on our website city of samonteo.org. Thank you. And we are going to begin tonight with a number of ceremonial items. The first of which is National Police Week. We have a proclamation that I will uh start off by reading and then we uh have our chief of police, Ed Barbarini, who may have a few words as well. Whereas the Congress and President of the United States have designated May 15th as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which May 15th falls as National Police Week. And whereas the

members of the San Mateo Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the residents of our community. And whereas it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties, responsibilities, hazards, and sacrifices of their police department, and that members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property by protecting them against violence or disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression. And whereas the men and women of the San Monteo Police Department unceasingly provide a vital public service. Now therefore, I, Adam Lorraine, mayor of the city of Sonteo and on behalf of our city council, do hereby call upon citizens of Sonteo and upon all patriotic, civic, and educational organizations to observe the week of May 10th through 16th, 2026 as National Police Week, and call upon all of us to join in commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, who by Their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and in doing so have established themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. I further acknowledge that Friday, May 15, 2026 is Peace Officers Memorial Day and call upon all citizens of the city of Sonteo to honor those law enforcement officers who through their courageous deeds have made the ultimate sacrifice and service to their community or have become disabled in the performance of their

duty. And let us recognize and pay respect to the survivors of our fallen heroes. Thank you. Well, good evening, mayor and members of the city council. On behalf of the men and women of the Santo Police Department, I want to thank you for this proclamation recognizing National Police Week. It is deeply meaningful to our entire organization and to the families who support the work that we do every day. Our staff, both sworn and professional, show up with a commitment to serve this community with integrity, compassion, and professionalism. Whether it's responding to emergencies, solving complex investigations, supporting victims, or working behind the scenes to keep operations running smoothly, their dedication often goes unseen, but never unappreciated. Police Week gives us a moment to pause and recognize the incredible work they do day in and day out. National Police Week is also a time of reflection. On May 15th, Peace Officer Memorial Day, we honor those who gave their lives in the line of duty. Here in Sonteo, we remember police officer Steven Clark and Sergeant Gordon Joinville who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to this city. Their courage and commitment will never be forgotten and their legacy continues to inspire all of us. We also recognize the families of our officers and staff who share in the sacrifice that comes with this profession. Their support is essential to our ability to serve. I'm incredibly incredibly proud of this department and grateful for the continued partnership and support we have with our community. Thank you again. Appreciate it. Thanks. Glenn, would you like to come up here for a photo?

Thank you, sir. Thank you. What out? Everybody

Thank you. Thank you. This leads us to our next ceremonial item of the night, a 4.0 0 grade recognition for Sonteo, Aragon, and Huniper Rosera high schools. Uh we're going to start with Sonteo High School tonight with uh principal Ivon Shu uh here with us and uh with a number of academic allstars. uh I will come down to be with the principal and we'll uh name those who are with us and uh a number who may not have been able to join us in person today but uh we look forward to recognizing uh dozens of young folks who have achieved quite a bit in their academic careers at our local high schools. Good evening, Mayor Lorraine and members of city council. It's a privilege and an honor to be with you uh tonight to celebrate the valadictorians of the city of San Mo. My name is Ivon Chu, the principal at Sonteo High School, and I am proud to introduce to you 17 of our 19 valadictorians of the class of 2026. Uh, this group of 19 took 198 AP exams over the four years at Samonteo and still managed to earn all A's. Many of our validictorians volunteered as peer

tutors on campus in the subjects in which they excelled and dedicated themselves to their communities or library tutoring. 75% of them volunteered in their community, ranging from serving on their city's youth council commission to campaigning for a congressional candidate and from volunteering at Samaritan House to Mills Peninsula Hospital. Among our validictorians, we have students who have served as coaches, camp counselors, and freshman ambassadors. While they were maintaining all A's, they were also involved in arts activities and athletics both on and off campus. Students were in student government, leadership, on the math team, robotics, mock trial, music, athletics, dance, drama, and journ journalism. I don't know how they managed all of that in 24 hours and still managed to sleep. We are so proud of their accomplishments and our future looks bright when we have young people doing community service, mentoring other young people and supporting their schools and local agencies. All their hard work has paid off. We will still have bearcats across the country. Some are staying local. Skyline, Stanford, UC Berkeley. Others are leaving the area but staying in California. UCLA, Harvey MUD, UC San Diego, and others are heading east. BYU, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, Cornell. Congratulations, Bearcats. And it's my honor to introduce the 17 that are here tonight. Sasha Bongara, Vanchka, Vanchika Gar,

Grace Wong, Irish Iris Wong, Clara Kim, Allison Lee, Ellie Lib, Peter Lindamman, Gayen Louu, Christian Louie, Joshua Melamood, Jua Park, Ella Roslanski, Vivian Shei, Emma White, and Matteline Yang. And those that couldn't be here tonight actually are James Sue, Lena Suhoo, and Alan Sue. Thank you. Coming up to Nice to meet you indeed.

Thank you. I take a group picture. So if you guys come all the way over here. You can be in the middle of greatness. Some people can be on the side. Yes. How wide do they need to be? Or closer. Uh oh. Okay, everybody in

can come in here. Bearcats. Go Bearcats. One, two, three. Go Bearcats.

Congratulations. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you very Thank you.

Do you have Thank you. And now we have Aragon High School. with principal uh Dr. Michael Jones. So, let's give them a round of applause. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor, city council members, and citizens of San Mateo. It is my privilege to stand before you once again tonight in recognition of such a remarkable group of young leaders from the Aragon community. As you know, it is no small feat maintaining this level of academic excellence while navigating the complexities of high school. Our scholars have shown that they are not only capable of meeting high standards, but of setting them for themselves. Congratulations to all families and honores. And let's begin the recognition of our 4.0 dons. Ashley Alvarez.

Congratulations. Madison Britt, Yuri Bichkov, Anelie Dot, Gavin Epstein, Aaron Finn, Maria Javorgian, Nia Gulichev, Charlotte Graham, Matthew Hegodorn, Charles Harger, Harrison Shu, Chinray Kong, Eden Quan, Emerson Makata, a doover. Emerson Makutoa, Sydney Miller, Cameron Nye, Luke Novak, Dalia Celig,

Kabir Pierce Sulor, Anson U, Caitlyn Z, Charles Jung. Thank you. We recognize. Yes.

Please feel free. I'd like to also recognize those scholars who were not able to make it this evening. Victoria Chin, Phoebe Harger, Ethan Wah, Midori Saitto, Evan Westimer, Jimma Albertson, Ashley Kabayaro, Sylvia Demu, Samantha Green, Aushi Kotari, Annaise Krauss, Alvin Lee, Oliver Levit, Hannah Lynn, Young Louu, Max Mindle, Tyler Nicholls, Hannah Cotana, Milin Refe, Aiden Schneider, Evie Stern, and Adam Woo. Thank you. Try to make space where you can.

Thanks. Pleasure. Thank you so much. Congratulations. Yes.

And we're gonna say go Dons on three. Ready? I'm a dog. One, two, three. GO.

Congratulations on parents as well.

Just a couple more. Just pretend you're 30 gall. That's right. It's the mech tonight.

All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Take care. Thank you. And we're also graced by the presence of graduates 4.0 recipients from Sarah High School and principal Charles McGrath. Hello everybody. I want to bring greetings on behalf of Mr. Michael Fidelli. Just just one moment. Okay. Okay. You're good to go.

Thank you. I want to bring greetings as well on behalf of our school president, Mr. Mike Fidelli, who could not be uh here with us tonight. Hello to everybody. Um to our neighbors. We live up the street from you uh at Sarah High School. So, it's good to put faces and names together as we introduce our students for the class of 2026 who have completed four rigorous years of study at Sarah High School. Our graduation learning outcomes focus on faith, wisdom, service, community, and leadership. And through our mission and brotherhood program talk about respect, integrity, inclusion, and compassion as part of our overall uh program of study. These gentlemen who are here tonight uh represent the best of who we are and other students because of conflicts uh with AP exams tomorrow and with the spring uh concert tonight and a volleyball game all of our students are not present. So I'm going to read their names and they're going to come forward and be recognized. First we have Charles Deal,

Charles Musich,

Brody Rian,

Akash Sethman, Yayya Abat, Eric Hung, and Matthew Milo. Other students who could be with us tonight are Jack Nuin, John Paladano, Sam Roach, Jonathan Barb Baker, Aiden Hen, and Isaac Josephson. Thank you all so much.

Have one more. Congratulations.

On three, go Padres. Yeah, that's right. Congratulations Padres.

One, two, three, go. Go Padre families. Okay. Uh oh. I know what it feels like to be.

Y next year. more. Thank you.

Second. Where you going to college? Thank you all for joining us in recognizing dozens of inspiring individuals. We have another ceremonial item, last one for tonight. Item three is a presentation from Peninsula Clean Energy. We have chief executive officer for Peninsula Clean Energy, Sean Marshall, with us today. I may have a proclamation, but I may have to go find it.

Goodness, that's exciting. Yeah. Do you have a proclamation for PC? my mistake. In that case, the floor is yours. Executive Officer Marshall, please go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council. Thank you so much for having me this evening. I'm here tonight and I will be brief because I know you've had a lot of cere ceremonial items. I'm here tonight to just provide a very brief update on um the impact that we've had throughout our community and specifically in the city of Sonteo in our 10 years if you can believe it um of service and also um to ask you for your support on a consent item that is um our change change of our name and approval of the new uh JPA changes to the JPA agreement. Next slide, please. Okay, so briefly just to level set for those that are not familiar with PCE, Peninsula Clean Energy is a community choice aggregator. There are now 25 of them in the state of California. PCE was number five uh that launched in 2016. We are responsible for handling the power procurement and development of clean power resources on behalf of our residents, businesses, and local governments within our service territory. We partner with Pacific Gas and Electric, so it's really a shared service model. Um, they handle all of the pole and wire infrastructure, the power delivery, um, repairs, power outages, all of that. They also handle the customer billing. So that at the end of the day, all of our customers are saving money and benefiting from cleaner power on the grid. Next slide, please. Oh, sorry, next couple. Okay, so as I mentioned, we've had 10 years of local impact here in the county. And I'm so pleased to say that um as somebody who was around at the very beginning of all of this, I really

feel that we have delivered on the promise. And there is so much more to do and that we will do. So just at the highest level, um we have lowered customer costs. So we have served customers $230 million um since our inception. We're presently offering uh uh generation rate discount of 10% um discounted from PG's rates. From day one, we have offered cleaner energy on the grid. Uh we are heading toward a 2030 goal of 100% renewable energy for our default product. We've had substantial local infrastructure investment territorywide over well over hund00 million in the last 10 years here. Um we've had a solar project at your at your rec center over 700 EV chargers in the city of Sonteo at the list is very long. So, um just lots of different properties including um city properties. Next slide, please. So, here for the city of Sanonteo, your customers have saved 20 almost $27 million um since our inception. That equals out to about a week a week of free electricity um per year per household per business. About 8.3 million in community reinvestment. That's over and above the infrastructure investment that I re referenced earlier. And then as I mentioned, right now both of our power products are 100% uh powered by 100% carbon-f free and we are on our way to 100% renewable by 2030. Next slide. So in the 10 years that we've uh been around, our role has really uh expanded and become more sophisticated as the energy uh landscape has really changed in the state of California. So our bread

and butter is to provide our customers with cleaner, cheaper energy. But now in the last couple of years and going into the next decade, we're really working on focusing our work with you, our customers as partners, working with our communities, our residents and businesses through all our various programs to really assist in how they can invest in their home um and their business in terms of electrification and making smart, clean choices for where they live. Next slide. So, what's ahead? I mentioned to you that our rate savings is currently offered at 10%. Unfortunately, it is not likely to stay exactly at 10%. Um, uh, Mayor Lorraine and others will be taking this up this summer, but it we do plan to be somewhere in the 5% discount. The reason for that is that we have some headwinds coming with respect to our exit fee and drops in rates and other things so that we always balance affordability with achieving our goals. So, um stay tuned for that. That'll be happening this summer. But the plan is to always remain under under PG& and offering our customers a discount. We are rolling out a new residential solar plus storage program which will offered which will offer preferred terms for our customers who want to put uh solar and batteries in their homes. Um we are supporting uh EV charging fleet your city fleet at city hall. And then we've partnered with uh Peninsula Family Services to assist lowincome residents with understanding the various programs we offer in meeting energy needs. Next slide. We also um provided the city with a $1.4 million member agency energy grant and um lots of things underway with that money. Good for you for allocating it

across all these different opportunities. The way this works is that we provided the half the grant upfront when the projects are complete. Then we provide uh the back half once we have the report out. And um we will soon be moving into the city of San Monteo um to have our primary office here. In fact, not too far down the street. Yay. Uh hopefully that will be happening in October and you are all invited to attend our um office warming party. Next slide, please. So, the big news tonight and why we're here and why you have a JPA amendment on your agenda is that we are planning to become West Light Energy and roll that out this summer. Customers would begin to see the new name starting in July. And the reasons are actually pretty simple. Um, we have had a lot of trouble over the years with just customer confusion between PCE and PG&. It's just a repeated problem. Sometimes it results in angry customers, opt outs. Um, it's also not reflective of our entire service territory because we serve customers in the city of Los Manos in the central valley. And so at the end of our first decade of service moving into our next decade, it seemed like an opportune time um to be inflective to have a more inclusive name and a name that actually can resonate with with all of our customers and not be confusing. So same grade a agency nothing else is changing uh just a rebrand. Next slide. Almost done. So our ask is that you approve the JPA amendment that you help us clearly communicate the change to our customers through website newsletter. We'll be in touch with the city to um talk to you about that and then please help us mark our 10-year anniversary. Uh

we have a number of activities happening starting in the summer through the end of the year. We will be be having a policy reception on September 30th. You all will be invited. Lots of community activities. And then I mentioned also the um the office ribbon cutting that'll happen I think Decemberish. So with that, thank you so much. I do want to acknowledge Mayor Lorraine who's been on our board for many years. We do appreciate so much your leadership and then also Council Member Nash who's the alternate. So thank you for all of your service and leadership. Any questions?

Thank you council. Any comments you might want to make? Any questions? Okay, Council Member Nash, thank you very much. We are so excited for this. And as you go around and tell all the cities about your news and what's happening, are you getting any kind of interesting feedback? Are you learning things about what your relationship is with them?

I have to say this is one of the most favorite parts of the job because it has been nothing but positive feedback. Sometimes there's not a lot because there's a lot on the agenda, but more than 50% we get comments. Last week we were in Redwood City and a gentleman, one of the council members was working with our team on some schools programs and so just wanted to give a shout out, you know, for all of our support for all the work we were doing within the school districts. And so just things like that, just you know, specific examples we hear a lot and you know we appreciate that that our support is appreciated. Thank you.

Well, uh, thank you very Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Council Member Nome, I I I completely understand the name confusion, but I was wondering, do you think are you any concerns about removing the word clean from from your company in the sense that won't all of your power be clean power? It's a great question and one that the board uh grappled with and ultimately a couple of things sort of decided to not have an acronym that had three letters so that it would basically then become WCE as opposed to PCE. It wasn't enough of a differentiation. M

um there was also a sense that our tagline would so our tagline will be power with purpose and so and then we'll have lots of different you know references to clean and renewable. Great. So that there was lots of discussion though and that's where we landed. So will you be WLE or just we just I think most people will short it to Westlake. Yeah. Okay. That's that's the likely outcome and the and the branding. I mean perhaps you can speak to it, Mary Lorraine, but I think the branding is very beautiful and I think it'll resonate with people. Well, congrats on 10 years. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. I think one benefit to having W and E is that it's the power of we. That's right. Right.

That's what we use internally. Actually,

this is pretty good. It's pretty good. So we already have power with purpose and the power of we uh among uh a new design scheme uh new new colors and uh just uh a new splash of paint maybe on an organization that has succeeded for our rateayers and those within the county and in the city of Los Bpanos for now 10 years overall. Um, I I want to thank you for giving us an update and uh I had the pleasure of presenting as an example uh to members of the city of Sanonteo in our state of the city address the the carport at Barisford, which I think to me really represents uh the the opportunities that we get by having a energy provider that cares about investing in our county, that is uh committed as a partner to helping us clean our energy to solve our our climate issues while uh also providing uh energy at a a more affordable rate to folks. So, uh so far so great. Uh and we look forward to uh the you coming to the city later this year.

Yep. And uh come on down. We'll give you the move date if you want to swing by. Very good. We appreciate your report and uh we will have another item later on to uh to finalize changes that are to come. But uh very good. Thank you all so much. Have a lovely evening. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh executive director, we could have a a quick photo to commemorate your arrival and report as well. So many photos.

That's a beautiful picture. Yeah. And I I would invite anyone from the Peninsula Clean Energy team who's here um to join us if that's all right. I should have introduced Mark Hershman, our director of government affairs. Apologies, Mark. Hey Mark. Hi. How are you? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Congratulations. Thank you, mayor. Have a good evening. Congratulations.

Thank you so much. Nice to see you all. We'll see you in a few minutes. Okay, thanks everybody for your patience. We are now moving beyond the ceremonial portion of tonight's meeting which includes business items being considered by the council tonight. For this I would just like to remind all in the room and online that at this point of the meeting and going forward we will be enforcing rules of decorum. As such, we do not allow for cheering, jeering, or booing during the business portion of the meeting as this tends to put a chill on public comment. Our goal is to ensure that all perspectives are heard. Our motto is give respect, get respect, and we appreciate your cooperation with this. Uh, next would be the consent calendar uh part of our agenda. City clerk, can you please read the consent calendar?

Certainly. All matters listed under the consent calendar are considered by the council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed and considered separately. Item number four, city council meeting minutes approval. Item number five, Sonteo Union High School District, Sonteo Adult and Career Education Recreation Instruction Services 2026 28 agreement. Item number six, summer youth theater program agreement. Item number seven, on call design professional services agreements. Item number eight, 2026 2027 school crossing guards agreement. Item number nine, animal control services agreement amendment. Item number 10, downtown business improvement area approval. And finally, item number 11, comprehensive liability fund appropriation. Thank you, city clerk. Is there any member of the council who would like to pull an item for the consent calendar?

I just want to make a comment on one. Okay. Um would you like if there's any members of the public who wish to comment on any consent calendar item? Uh I I actually might wait to see if you wish to make a comment first.

Yeah. Um so item number six which is the etc theater program. Um I would like to propose that and um city manager you let us know when but if we could have a more formal update on parks and rack in general um in the future just to understand the entire program and the offerings. That would be great. So can I I'll I'll go ahead and respond through the mayor. Uh we have a robust program with our city's parks and wreck. If uh fellow council members, if I see three nodding heads, I'm happy to bring back an item in the fall. I see over three nodding heads, so we'll go ahead and schedule a study session this fall on this item. Thank you.

Thank you. And city clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on any consent calendar item? Yes, Mayor Lraine, we've received one request to speak on the consent calendar. If you're in our chambers um and wish to speak on consent calendar items, please provide me with a request to speak slip. Also, if you're in our virtual environment, please raise your hand. Now, Mayor Lorraine, that is one request to speak and we'll invite up Kevin Simpson to the podium and per council adopted rules and procedures. We'll set the timer at three minutes.

Thanks, Martin. Thanks, uh mayor, and thanks, city council. I want to draw your attention to item number eight, which is one of the smallest budgetarily items in this consent calendar, but in an atmosphere where people are getting run over on our streets month after month, sometimes week after week, um, I'd like to ask you to pull this item and find out why Humbleton Cypress does not have a dedicated crossing guard. I brought this up last year. We still have hundreds of kids that get on and off school buses there. There is not a four-way stop there. There is not a four-way stop in the latest plan that I saw for Humbult Street safety improvements. And this site ought to have a dedicated crossing guard. And what I see when I walk my mo dogs every morning and sometimes in the afternoon is a hodgepodge of ways that we're controlling traffic there. And I just don't think we can keep doing business as usual. When something crosses your agenda that is safety related and has to do with pedestrians, you ought to be giving it a lot more scrutiny than you are. And rather than this routine reapproval of last year's item, and I brought this up last year, and we never saw a change in the crossing guard posture at that at that place. Do we want to wait till the kids run over there before we do something about this or are we going to take this stuff seriously? And when we see safety items on the agenda, give them extra scrutiny. That's what I would ask you to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Lorraine. That concludes public comment for the consent calendar. Uh thank you. I see council members would like to make a comment as well. Yes. Thank you through the mayor. Um to Mr. Simpson's point. Um I did follow up with the city manager on consent number eight and so I'm hoping you could provide more clarity on what this item actually is.

Yeah, happy to do so. So the Sanonteo Foster City School District uh manages the crossing guard contract including evaluating requests uh for new and additional guards. Last year at our residents request, the city went ahead and contacted the Sanonteo Foster City School District and they did evaluate that intersection regarding the need for a crossing guard. After evaluating that intersection, they stated that they did not uh deem it warranted that a crossing guard need to be at that location. We'll continue to try to work with the school district and with the community as we make sure that pedestrian bicycle safety and automobile safety is of paramount importance for us. Thank you.

Can I also council member also like to call uh call out that we have a 2 by two with the school district throughout the school year. Council member Fernandez and I both sit on it and we often I mean probably every month ask them what the city can be doing to provide better service and safety for their schools. So I I also just wanted to let you know that I I share your frustration. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. And council member, do you have any more to say? Apologies. Um can you also explain how this funding structure works for the public? So, we're a partner. I'll have our chief come down and speak to the funding structure because we're basically a contributor.

Yeah. The agreement with crossing guards or or the crossing guard contract is actually managed by the Santo Foster City School District. That's the agreement between the crossing guard provider and the school district. We serve as a reimbursement or fidiciary um to reimburse the school district for their um agreement with the with the crossing guard. So the contract we don't interact directly with the crossing guard provider. That agreement is between the school district and the in and that entity. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for the public comment as well. Do we have any more uh public comments on consent calendar items? City court. Uh no additional request to speak on the consent calendar. Okay. Is there a motion from the council to approve the consent calendar?

Motion to approve. Second. Very good. I believe we have a motion uh from Council Member Diaz Nash and a second from Council Member Nome. City Clerk, can we please have a roll call vote? Certainly. Council member Diaz Nash. Yes. Council member Newsome. Yes. Council member Spo Gaditki. Um yes, but I would like in the 2 by two as this to be a follow-up item for number eight. We ask every month. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Fernandez. I. Mayor Lorraine. Yes. Motion carries 5-0.

Okay. Thank you. Next on the agenda is general public comment. So members of the public who wish to comment on any item that's not on our agenda tonight may address the city council at this time. State law prevents council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda. Uh but your comments may be referred to staff for follow-up. This public comment section is generally limited to a total of 15 minutes. However, that's subject to council's discretion and can be extended if council wishes to do so. If needed, an opportunity for additional public comment may also be provided later in the agenda. City clerk, can you please tally the number of requests to speak on general public comment?

Certainly. At this time, I've received three requests to speak in chambers and currently we have one hand raised in our virtual environment. Give you just a few moments to if there's any additional requests. seeing no requests coming forward in chambers and just one in council in our virtual environment. Um so that'll be a total of four requests to speak. Council adopted rules and procedures will set the time at 3 minutes per speaker. Our final speaker in chambers will be Rich Hedges and our final speaker on this item will be Mike Swire. We'll begin um with our in-person request to speak. If I call your name, if you could please line up to my right, that'll help make sure we receive all of your comments this evening. Um we'll start with Ruth Anderson. followed by Kevin Simpson and Rich Hedges.

Uh, thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Ruth Anderson and I live on North Delaware Street. I wanted to make a very brief comment regarding the city's response to the terrible car accident that happened last month. happened on the evening of March 28th at the intersection of North Delaware Street and State Street, basically outside my window. In the accident, a vehicle was traveling northbound on Delaware and hit a father and two children crossing at State Street in one of the two crosswalks there on their way to go to Safeway. Um, in correspondence from the deputy mayor, I was very, very glad to see a list of all the improvements that are scheduled to come to Delaware and state, such as the rectang uh, sorry, the rectangular rapid flashing beacons, which I presume should be uh, coming out in early June based on the time frame that I um, am kind of um, gleaning from that correspondence, and also several really great sounding capital improvements that are coming on further on down the line. Um, however, I am frankly disheartened at the lack of immediate safety improvements made to this known dangerous safety look dangerous location. Uh, it's been over a month since the accident occurred. And the only thing that's changed at the site, which of course I'm I live there, so I I'm see it all the time, several times a day. The only thing that has changed is that there is now a large portable flashing sign warning drivers to watch for pedestrians, which sounds great, but unfortunately that sign is facing the southbound Delaware traffic, but it's actually the northbound direction that is problematic. That is where one lane opens up to two lanes right before the State Street intersection. It's the northbound lane where signs announce that the school slowdown zone has ended right before

State Street. So, cars naturally speed up. And most importantly, it is the northbound direction where a family experienced life-changing injuries and they could have died. All of them could have died. I have to wonder um I'm not in city government and I know there's many many many issues that I have no clue about but I have to wonder if some sort of the perfect is the enemy of the good dynamic might be happening and I would like to urge the council in the future to consider implementing immediate quick build measures uh that add to safety in a matter of days and weeks rather than months and years which seems to be what we've experienced with this accident. I would also very respectfully suggest that the portable flashing sign be relocated to face the northbound traffic. An ideal location would be where there's a parking space that's blocking the view of drivers right in the crosswalk, which surely was a factor in the accident. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker will be Kevin Simpson, followed by Rich Hedges. Uh, I think you probably know what I'm going to say because I seem to be saying this every month. Um, and what just transpired is a perfectly good example of this. You explain what you didn't do and we see it over and over again. And there's a distinct note of defensiveness on the part of this council and this city government about what you're doing. Now, they're planning to build a rehab center over here, and that rehab center hasn't hurt anybody yet, but you all felt it was adequate or necessary to have a special city council meeting about that. You haven't had one about safety. You haven't had one that elevates this issue and looks at it from the top down and the inside out. and we're still waiting around and people are still asking questions about when you're going to do something. And last time I spoke about this, you rattled off a bunch of numbers. But I just told you about an intersection that isn't included, as far as I know, in the Humbled Street improvements that you touted last time I spoke about this, and you had an opportunity to pull that contract and say, "No, no, no, no more business as usual. We want to know why you think it's okay for kids to keep crossing the streets the way they're doing it. You got to dig in on this stuff. We're not seeing it out here in the community. And I know it frustrates you to hear tones like this and words like this from people that I ostensibly all I consider you all my friends, but it's just not getting through. And it plays out in big ways and little ways. this contract that you just passed, giving up another year where you're just going to take it from the school district. And I imagine that's probably what happened at the meeting with the state where they said, "Oh gosh, you

know, we'll look into this." And nothing's happened. No promises, no commitments other than we'll look into it. So my gosh, let's pull up our socks. Let's elevate this. This is the most important thing happening in our city right now. Now, you can argue with me about that, but people are getting run over. People are getting maimed. People are losing their lives, and we're not seeing change. So, I ask you to please rethink this. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker will be Rich Hedges.

Good evening, Mayor Lorraine and city council members. I share Kevin's frustration with the mayhem that's gone on in the streets. That's not why I'm here tonight. I think this is going to be a very serious night and I thought I would try to bring a little levity to it. So, uh, I read a quote quote recently and reminded me of something and I want to see if you guys can figure out when it was said. I firmly believe that before many centuries more, science will be the master of man. The actions he will have invented will be on the strength to control. Someday science shall have the existence of mankind and its power. Sounds almost today, doesn't it? That was after the Battle of Shiloh where 20,000 people lost their lives in 1862. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to our virtual environment where our final speaker for general public comment will be Mike Swire. Mike, please go ahead and unmute your microphone. Yeah. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Awesome. Uh, thanks so much, Mayor Lorraine and the members of the council for your service to the community. Uh, seems like a common theme, but I'm also calling about street safety. First, uh, start with a positive. Um, thank you for the work that you are doing and speaking with the state and our legislators on 17th and El Camino. Um, I'm glad to hear this is moving forward. Um, I'm a little frustrated that we're now waiting for the state to come back with an analysis of what the traffic impact will be. My question is what level of traffic impact would be great enough to say that Veronica Vasquez's death was not worth preventing? Uh, for me that's that's a moot question. Um, so in my mind there's no reason to wait for this information. We should simply be doing the things that it sounds like are in the works. So I really hope so. Um, another positive, um, congratulations on the Norfolk and third uh, grand opening. Thank you to Mayor Lorraine and Council Person Goodiki and anyone else that attended that. Um, we appreciate that, uh, you guys implemented that project and also um, thank you to Danielle for looking at some of the issues that have arisen um, and continue to work on that. Um, getting a little negative. Um, North Central and Ruth Anderson's comment, uh, a quick build is supposed to be quick. Um, and unfortunately these are not quick. Um, the plans sound good, but a month later, we really haven't done anything to slow traffic there. I would urge you to move that sign that Ruth was talking about into that that northbound travel lane and block that extra lane of traffic only for about 50 feet. It it continues on the other side, but this prevents people from uh uh circling uh stop cars in the right before two crosswalks. Um, and I I would actually disagree with Ruth. this was not an accident. This was something that multiple residents had said was about to happen. Um that is not an accident. That is something that's predictable. Um and then lastly, I understand that um

finances are tough to implement a lot of these projects. Um and that's why I know the city in the past has said that they're going to be doing more with staffing uh for grants uh which is basically free money. Um, but unfortunately, um, as a member of the CKAG BPAC, speaking on my own behalf, I saw that the city, I do not believe, and let me know if I'm incorrect here, had not applied for free TDA3 bicycle and pedestrian money this cycle, which I think only happens every two to three years. Um, there were about 13 other cities that had applied, but I did not see uh an application from the city of Sanonteo. So again, this is free money that we might be leaving on the table at a time where we're saying we don't have enough money to move more quickly. So um that doesn't make sense. Let me know if that's wrong. There are several other grant programs like OAG 3 or four um that are going to uh require applications for later in the year. I really hope that the city uh asks for and receives free money. Uh that's always a good thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Lorraine. That concludes general public comment. Uh, thank you. Um, Mr. Mayor, yes. I believe the deputy mayor would like to say so. Uh,

through the mayor. Um, I want to thank all of the activists and, uh, residents of North Central who have come out today to talk about state, Delaware, and state. It's, uh, the highest priority for me, and I know that we are, um, actively working on it. I have made the request that that sign be moved coming from the popular direction and then adding A-frames on the peninsula coming from peninsula. Um and I know that staff is working on it, but I would ask the city manager to see if there are any updates that we can provide for the community. And again, I do want to note um we are a council that does indeed value pedestrian and bicyclist safety and um we are doing as much as we can with what we have. And I want to keep that I want to just remind folks of that we are I I truly truly truly believe that we are as committed as any city council in the county around this topic.

Okay. So I can give a little bit of updates on just a couple of the commenters on just our pedestrian safety um in town specifically. I know the commenter there was a couple comments just at state and Delaware um on that project when uh staff our traffic engineers have reviewed just the digital sign. If we do change it to the northbound there they're northbound section there are site visibility issues for the crosswalk that make it more dangerous. Um we'll be getting A-frame signs out there. It's what I requested few meetings back. I know that they put the digital sign out there but that is what um staff is going to be working on this week. Additionally, the um light beacons were ordered and they're coming in sooner than expected. Field crews uh met with traffic engineers this morning to review the layout um for this project at that intersection. Additionally, there's going to be uh greater lighting at that um crosswalk and that intersection here in our community as well. And then there's going to be removal of parking spaces and also there's going to be uh basically plastic lineers that aren't going to allow basically narrow down the street from two lanes to one lane uh going northbound in that area um at Delaware and State. Additionally, just kind of going through on the let's go with 17th and uh Bove here on El Camino staff had a meeting with Calrans. I know uh the resident spoke to why haven't we jumped in and made the um the improvements right away. We worked with CALR uh and we provided our analysis to them for them to react to. Um they have um concerns overall and I know that looking from a safety perspective, what we're looking at is a allway stop, no right-hand turns for that intersection for pedestrians to cross. uh moving forward. But with that,

the concern is is that traffic can back up potentially onto 92, which could create other accidents and other safety issues. So, that's something that traffic engineers have to evaluate, and that's what CALR was looking at, too. And so, uh, more information is going to be coming forward, but staff has been aggressively advocating for these improvements immediately. I think that covers it. If there's anything else you guys wanted to ask me on any of these other projects, council member N, we have implemented a time delay as well, right? So that the crossing crossing light triggers for the pedestrian and then there's a six or seven second delay before the car light or

I'm not aware at this moment of any improvements yet to date. And so that's something I'd have to get back to you on if that has already uh been implemented. Okay. I thought that they said that on the call, but let's make sure. We'll have to verify on that. and just publicly don't want to say yes if it hasn't happened. So go ahead, Deputy Mayor. I just want to remind our council members that we're not supposed to take action on these items and so let's maybe keep our comments brief from here.

I think through the mayor just for update to the council in June we have our annual transportation meeting where we will go into depth on all the different projects. I know there was a question just about even our grants and how we're going after grants. As you're aware, as a council, we've been very good and aggressive at getting grant monies up to $40 million so far. And so staff has to work through those. I know this council has said, "Hey, we don't want to have grant money just dictate everything. We have to work through that and get through those projects." And we're already positioning for future projects and going after grant funds. But we uh decided to not go forward in these cycles because we have to get all these other projects done first. But we're working off of 13 different plans and specifically the local roadway safety plan that we're working to implement uh methodically at our highest priority intersections. The last thing as a city manager what I have concerns over is a scattershot of having to do these improvements based off of just what you know the impacts that we have. We have to be methodical. Yes, if there are immediate improvements we have to make, we will work to quick build um on those and I believe we've put together and you'll see this in the budget of over $200,000 for quick build improvements annually. Um but we also have a plan that we're working through throughout this city. And so I have no problem sitting down and meeting with our activists, advocates um to have further conversations to really articulate what the city is doing in this area. Thank you. Um, sorry, Mr. Mayor. Yeah,

um, just one question. Could I make a request? I know this is a mostlyformational item, so I do want to respect that, but in terms of the visual issue that came up from the big lit sign at Delaware State, is there are there other size um signs that we could potentially explore that could be moved facing from popppler that would not impede the site of um those. Happy to follow up with staff that I would be very appreciative. And I also just want to acknowledge we I don't think that we're I I don't think any government entity is going to move as fast as some parts of the community would like, but as long as we're moving forward and forward together, I I think we're going to make the progress that we need. Thank you.

And through the mayor, if I can just jump in for a moment. So I want to remind the council, as the mayor pointed out, this is not on the agenda. This is the public comments made on this. So, a brief general response under the Brown Brown Act is fine, but if you're going to have an extensive discussion about it like we're creeping into here, you know, this needs to be in a future agenda item, which the city manager's already pointed out is coming before the council in June, I believe. So, I think we uh should leave it there.

Okay. Well, I was going to ask for that June meeting, would you be able to provide us an analysis of the existing department in terms of who's actually working on this stuff today and what the cost would break down if we needed to have a dedicated quick build team because that's a piece of it as well. So, I'll go ahead. Our public works director's online. He notified me cuz I'm going into, you know, more detail than probably what I need to over here. Um, we have reorganized and we have added additional staffing to the department. The council went ahead and approved that back in February. Matt, is there anything else to add? I don't know if we can get Matt up. Yeah. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah. Um, yeah. So staffing wise um we will we do have a a slide planned in terms of uh we will provide council at the June meeting an update in terms of our reorganization of the transportation group so we can get into those details. And then just briefly I did want to mention on the Delaware and State Street we will be starting work in terms of striping and signing and installing RFBs as soon as probably tomorrow. Uh our staff were out there this morning as as city manager said and so I think we should see uh signing and striped signage and striping starting to happen potentially as early as tomorrow and the rectangular rapid flashing beacon should be getting installed later this week into early next week. Um so that should be moving rapidly in terms of implementation.

Excellent. Thank you very much. And I I think with that we will move on to our next item of business. Item number 12, historic policy update ordinance introduction. We have Zachary Dah, community development director, and Joanna Winter, planning manager, and a number of other members of our community development department. Thank you for being here. All right. Uh good evening, mayor, members of the city council. Um Zachary Doll, community development director. Um and I'm joined here as part of the presentation with um Julianne Murphy, our architectural historian with Ringcon Consultants. Um and so we will go ahead and dive in. Excellent. So, um I also wanted to as we get started acknowledge the project team that has been supporting this this effort over the past year, year and a half. Um in addition to myself and Julianne, we also have Deputy Director Suan, um Joanna Winter and Summer Smith, as well as other staff within community development and then our Ringcon consulting team as well and and the city attorney's office that have been supporting the work. um that's gone into the products that are before you here this evening for tonight's discussion. We have a lot discover to cover. We will try to move through it as quickly as can we can but also kind of walk through some of the key issues that I that I know um we'll be getting getting deeper into here this evening. Um we'll be providing some background, an overview of the policies and ordinances before you. um and then other pieces of the outreach effort as well as um the the four documents that that you'll be considering here this evening.

So to kind of provide some background on historic preservation here in the city, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Julian.

Thank you. Thank you for having me back again. Um I know that this issue may seem like it's um from the recent past, but the historic preservation has been an issue in Sonteo for quite some time. It began in 1974 with when the city adopted its environmental resources management plan which was the first mention of um establishing a preservation program. Since that time there have been a number of key dates including um the completion of the 1989 historic building survey, the establishment of the historic ordinance that is currently in place that was adopted in 1993 that also established the downtown historic district and enacted the city's Mills Act program. Since that time, the ordinance has been updated a few times, mostly minor and more recently, um there was a general plan update in 2024, which is the guidance for the current effort. Um before the current ordinance was adopted, uh the 1990 general plan started the groundwork for the city's preservation program and eventual ordinance. Revisions made by city council to visioning policies prior to adoption, however, shows changes to the language that softened the direction on adopting a historic preservation ordinance at that time. The policy that was adopted committed to protecting resources, but didn't clearly provide how to achieve that. Again, these were vision visioning policies and were not incorporated into any ordinances yet, but demonstrates a rather narrow approach to protecting historic resources. This provides a useful lens into how the city's early policies were informed. When the 1993 ordinance was adopted, a local register of designated resources was not established. The um ordinance only applied to the downtown specific area plan referenced the downtown historic district which is which was adopted by resolution through that ordinance. It did not establish a local

inventory or register at that time and the language referenced the city of San Mo's downtown specific plan for definitions of historic resources. It did not name or reference the 1989 survey. The 1995 amendment to that um ordinance did allow for administering the program outside of the downtown district, but referred back to the general plan, which does not provide consistent definitions that are provided in the ordinance. The 1990 general plan did not include a list of properties identified as historic. It did include a map of eligible historic resources, but the language used in those maps does not correlate exactly with what is provided in the ordinance language. As a result, the city's historic preservation program had become a patchwork of sources that relied on inconsistent use of language and confusion of terms. The 1989 survey has always been acknowledged as an important source of information and we will talk a little bit more about it throughout tonight's presentation. From the outset, however, the importance of maintaining the survey results has been highlighted. This statement was included in both the 1990 general plan and the 2010 general plan update and warns that without maintenance, the inventory becomes unreliable and unusable. Unfortunately, because the current ordinance was not crafted with critical elements, it has not been maintained to the best management practices. As a result, many aspects of the survey results have become unreliable. When we when we began the process to update this historic preservation ordinance, we had to untangle the history that was um available in the documentation. I want to establish some important points that will help us get through tonight's presentation. Documentation has been consistent that the 1989 survey results were intended to be a tool to help establish and develop the city's preservation program. But the

language that continued to be carried through never established that the 1989 survey results was an inventory. As evidenced by the fact that the goal to establish and maintain an inventory continued to be a goal in the 1990 general plan policy that was carried through to the 2010 general general plan update. Thirdly, an important point of clarification is an inventory is not the same thing as formal designation which requires action. guidance documents and accompanying certified environmental documents have been consistent in asserting that the city did not formally designate properties from the 1989 survey aside from the downtown district when the ordinance was established in 1993. Most importantly for this process, the status of the 1989 survey results is not changing as a result of this effort. It will continue to be a source of information.

Great. Thank you, Julianne. So that kind of brings us to the genesis of the historic policy update effort um that is is before you right now. And this was really with general plan 20 240. And the goal of general plan 20 240 was to move our policy forward in a holistic and comprehensive way. And that's reflected in the overarching goal and the associated policies and actions that were included into the general plan. Um specifically the the core of the um the work that um staff has been working on over this past year is related to these two actions which focused on the the foundation for this policy which is updating our historic preservation ordinance and establishing a citywide historic context statement. So, our more recent timeline, which really picks up kind of at the tail end of our general plan 20 240 adoption, um is related to um kind of a a an increase in questions and concerns related, as Julianne mentioned, kind of the piece um the patchwork of regulations that we had that were not holistic or comprehensive, which which left gaps and raised concerns and questions about how it's applied and as circumstances or properties came up. um making sure that they were treated consistently across the board. Um so then moving forward um we had a number of study sessions where we received direction throughout the course of this project and the we really want to highlight that the work product that came out of this was aligned with general plan 20 240 and the direction that council provided at our various touch points. Um I wanted to bring this slide just um as a reference as the some of these resource status codes will be um highlighted in other slides. So we can go back to this as ne needed. But this is really a key to when you see a 1 2 3 4 5 six or seven the different levels um that that um that is that comes with that that code. I also want to just highlight we have a number of state and federally listed

properties around the city and those kind of overlap. Um we have eight nationally listed properties. Um 13 at the state level and then of that seven of those fall are mentioned within the 1989 survey and then a number are within our down our designated downtown district. Um the other piece um which has taken some entangling to really distill down to these numbers is our 1989 building survey. Um and so what we've um highlighted here is when you um review the document you resolve the um the different references and there are spots where properties are listed once but then show up in a different way. Um we are looking at really 91 properties that are identified as eligible but um not yet designated either as part of our downtown district, the recently designated Glazenwood district or at the state or federal level. Um additionally, we have properties referenced that were identified in 89 as being ineligible or um this status code 7 which is they were potentially eligible but there was no evaluation. So there's really no information beyond just a reference to them. um that they could be eligible. So um really that breaks down to a number of 91 individually eligible or those that have local significance. And then if you um include these other two categories up to 133 that um would not be designated or otherwise protected as part of tonight's um proposed ordinance. Um so now to go into um the ordinances and policies before you, I'm going to go ahead and hand it back to Julianne.

Thank you, Zach. Um, we used the information from best practices for um, creating historic preservation ordinance, feedback from the community outreach and engagement, and guidance from city council to draft the ordinance before you tonight. This comparison table illustrates how we have added missing pieces of the ordinance draft to align with the general plan goal, which includes a framework for designation and establishing review procedures. Aside from that, the draft that we have presented tonight is more complete, clearer, and easier to use than the current draft. Two essential parts of managing historic resources are the activities identifying them and then how to treat them. Um the aspects of the ordinance draft before you tonight that relate to identification is it establishes the Sato Historic Resources Inventory which is a list of locally designated resources. The ordinance provides criteria for designation, outlines the eligibility requirements for local listing, and provides the procedure for designating resources, both landmarks, which are individual resources as well as historic districts. In terms of treatment, the ordinance establishes the historic resources commission that at the direction of this council, which we will provide a little more information on in a bit, outlines the effects of designation, including outlining when properties will be required to um obtain a certificate of appropriateness. clarifies the permit review process that the city already has in place, identifies incentives for those properties that do choose to be listed, and includes enforcement and penalties for those properties that do work outside of those that would be um approved. So, one of the other items for you to consider tonight is um a code amendment to establish the Historic Resources Commission. Um the organization of the commission includes five members to be appointed by council. Uh priority will be given to applicants who are professionals in the field or who have a

special interest or or experience in the city's history. Their powers and duties include to make recommendations on landmark and historic district designations and to review and take actions on certificates of appropriateness for major alterations. Other responsibilities may be assigned by council. And I know there's been a lot of interest and um discussion about the ordinance, but I do want to illustrate that the city historicwide context statement is another very big part of the project that we've taken. Um it is the first citywide planning document related to historic resources that the city has ever done. It is a planning document that highlights the trends and patterns of development, provides a framework and consistency for evaluating properties. Hopefully you've all had a chance to review it. The document is organized by significant periods and includes themes, property types, an overview of architectural styles seen in Sonteo. Um provides some biographies of notable architects and builders who worked in Sato and includes an important piece which is the guidance for assessing significance. Uh this is an important feature that was still under development last time we came before you. Uh this is an important and essential tool of the historic context statement. It's a great tool for evaluating historic resources and understanding Samonteo's historic resources within their context. The guidance is outlined by period and then broken down by property type, associated architectural styles, the significance requirements, a discussion of integrity requirements, and additional discussion on integrity considerations. Um the image on the slide is an example of some of the significance requirements for one of the periods that we've identified. And then as part of this update, we've also worked on bringing the Mills Act to current laws and standards. It's included improving and standardizing the

procedure and materials for the application. Um updating the eligibility requirements to require local designation. It sets a limit of no more than two agreements per year. Uh we've also included a preference for if there are more than two applications a year that properties listed in equity priority neighborhoods, properties with lower appraisal values and or properties with documented financial hardship would get priority. It includes um more robust annual reporting requirements um property inspections by staff to be done every 5 years and removes the requirement for public access to be aligned with state guidance. Um outreach and engagement. I know we've discussed this quite a few times um our past visits and just a quick overview. We've done a robust outreach and engagement um effort as part of this update um that was based on our outreach and engagement plan. It included online engagement with things like eblast, social media posts. We've had a dedicated web page with a project specific email address, focus groups for targeted feedback, workshops for more general feedback which included pivoting some of our workshop design to um include pop-up activities so we could meet people where they were. Uh we've also provided public document drafts first in November 2025 and more recently we've provided drafts using the convo platform which was recommended by this councils that allows um interactive comments on those documents. These are some examples of the outreach and engagement we've done, including our digital time capsule, our web page, some of the activities that we've done both on our online activities and in person, and some of the um materials that we've been passing out at public events so people know about this effort. Since um our public outreach efforts, we've continued to receive comments,

even very recently. Most recent comments have been related to concerns over the 1989 survey results and how those should be treated. Um comments that clarification is needed between SQA and local review for those properties that are over 50 years old. Um a desire to see more clarity in the historic resources commission role. Um some comments that the designation process that we've developed is too ownorous and some who would like to see more economic penalties for non-compliance. Um, and with that, I'm going to let Zach take over and describe what we've seen from the planning commission recommendations.

Great. So, um, as was noted, um, beginning of April, we did have a public hearing before the planning commission, um, and where this item was brought up, um, we provided an overview and then the planning commission received public comments and provided, um, recommendations, um, both specific and then an overall on on the policies before us. Um they did provide um 10 different recommendations on um how to revise or update the historic preservation ordinance. Several of these have been folded in as recommendations as part of the the draft ordinance before you this evening. And then other ones here um we would be looking for council direction before they were incorporated in. Um happy to elaborate or discuss any any one of these in more detail if you are interested. Um similarly on the contact statement and mills act program they did have a number of recommendations some of which we have incorporated into the documents and then others we would look for council direction on before proceeding. Um so now um I want to go over um the most recent recommendations which have been folded into um the four um ordinances and and policies that are before you here. Starting with the historic preservation ordinance, following the planning commission meeting and in response to both their recommendations and and public comments, um we did incorporate a number of updates um to address key issues. Um we we updated the definitions section. Um we updated the um we added back a section, the review required section. Um, and so really what this does is this carries maintains the existing review process that's outlined in the city's current ordinance and with some minor adjustments to align um carried that forward into um the ordinance that's before you. Um what this does is ensures that um regardless of of SQL review, every project that has eligibility, potential eligibility um would be subject to a planning

application which would allow us to um assess the project further, go through the screening criteria and if necessary um evaluate um prepare a historic resources evaluation to ensure that um that document is or structure is evaluated and if it is ultimately found eligible um we would work with that that property um to ensure that its character defining features are preserved or designed around or the appropriate environmental review is done if more significant proposals or demolition is proposed. Um similarly, we did add a defined demolition section um which was already part of the ordinance but um this more clearly delineates when it's applicable and align it with our general special use permit requirements when a structural demolition is proposed. Um and then we've also provide greater provided greater clarity um for what constitutes a review at the different levels between zoning administrator, historic resources commission and what would be considered routine maintenance. Um for the context statement, we continue to um make adjustments, correct errors, clarifications because clearly this is a catalog of the city's history and there there's a lot of information that we will continue to learn. And so in addition to making those updates, we added um a provision to the adopting resolution which will allow staff to continue to maintain and update this document as new information becomes available. Obviously reserving more significant amendments, those would come back before um the Historic Resources Commission and council before those are folded in. But other information that builds upon what the the structure of the document, this would allow staff to administratively amend and incorporate it as it comes up. um for the Mills Act program um that that we have updated that to add that prioritization criteria. Um staff had originally recommended a limit of two per year. Um that is entirely up to council as to where how many you want to

allow. Obviously, there's financial um ramifications as that does reduce city revenue for each each Mills Act agreement that is approved. Um but it's entirely a local prerogative as to how many we might want to consider. And the idea with a prioritization is if a property isn't able to make it in one year, they would be on the list to then um reapply the following year. So they it wouldn't preclude them, maybe just delay them if there's there's significant interest. Um and then it also clarifies the annual reporting requirements that um all Millsac properties would be subject to. Beyond the draft documents before you, we did identify a couple of additional edits that we would recommend get incorporated in with the ordinance. Um, these have come from feedback we've heard over the past week, so it was too late to get it into the agenda report, but we do feel that these would be important additions to improve the ordinance. One is um with the updated uh definition of the historic resource, this definition of eligible resource is redundant and potentially could add some confusion. So, we would recommend that it be removed. And then um to provide clarity on intent for the designation of historic districts, we wanted as since there's potential for multiple property owners for one property or multiple properties under one owner, the intent with the vote is one vote per property regardless of one or multiple property owners. Um so we would we would um recommend that these two um revisions are incorporated into the the final version of the ordinance that is adopted. Um, also there have been some questions about um the environmental review that supports these um ordinances and resolutions. And so we just want to highlight that there are three different um exemptions being utilized to cover the the four documents before you and we want to reiterate based on everything in the record um and particularly what's been presented here tonight. What is

before you does not materially reduce or expand applicability or review requirements. It maintains and enhances and improves our pro procedures and protections. Um, and it establishes regulations for how properties can be modified, thereby protecting the historic resources um through the existing built environment. All of these are are key points to support um the SQUA exemptions that are associated with your and with the two ordinances and two resolutions here tonight. So um the items before you for action this evening are four parts. Um, we also wanted to highlight these are the remaining planning commission recommendations that we would look to council direction before um incorporating. Um, so we're happy to talk about any of them um or um if you're interested and want to highlight them, we can incorporate them into the final action you take tonight. So the there are seven remaining ones related to historic preservation ordinance. And then for the historic context statement um there there was some recommendations from for additional exhibits and um architectural um biographical information. This work can be done but it would res would require the city to utilize some additional contingent contingency budget to do it. And then there's three additional Millsac program requirements. These are all doable but they would require more staff resource to administer the program. So we would look for council direction before incorporating them. So with that, our re the recommendation to city council includes the addition introduction of an ordinance to update our historic preservation ordinance, an ordinance to establish the historic resources commission, um, and a resolution to establish the first citywide historic contact statement, adoption of a resolution to update the city's Mills Act program, make the associated findings to find that um, they are exempt under SQA, and then incorporate any additional revisions or updates that um that council is

interested in this evening. And then quickly next steps if if there is a council action to adopt this evening, um staff would then proceed with implementation. And it doesn't stop here tonight. We we would then develop resources andformational documents um to build out and implement um the ordinance and the policies. And um this includes handouts um screening criteria all the pieces so that the community can fully understand how the effect of these new policies and allow them to be fully implemented. We would then follow this up with anformational community workshop um anticipated at this point in summer of 26 which would give us the chance to roll out this information to the community, answer questions and and highlight this new historic preservation program that the city is implementing. And I I think it's really important to highlight these are some major steps forward to implement general plan 20 240 and really bring together I think as you can see a vision that's been decades in the making and and so I I do want to just highlight the steps forward a establishment of a historic resources commission a holistic um historic preservation ordinance as well as the first citywide historic contact statement. So um that is what's before you here um and we are available if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for that presentation. At this time, I would like to open public comment on this item. If you are in chambers and you wish to give a public comment, please get a request to speak slip from the city clerk if you don't have one yet or please share your completed slip. If you're online on Zoom, please raise your hand at this time. And I won't steal the lines of the city clerk. So, at this point, I'll ask the city clerk to let us know when he knows how many folks we have for comment.

Thank you, Mayor Lorraine. At this moment, we have received one request for organized presentation, which will be 5 minutes. And then we have received a total of 13 individual requests to speak. So, per council adopted rules and procedures, that would set the time at two minutes per speaker. Um, not seeing Oh, we have one additional request to speak. So, that

Mayor Lorraine, that is a total of 14 individual requests to speak and one organized presentation. So

go in once. We have 15 individual requests to speak and one organized presentation. Um the final speaker in our uh in-person chambers environment will be Diane Whitaker and our final speaker in uh virtual environment will be Kol. Um, so we'll begin with our organized presentation. We'll invite up Ashley Zerpa. Um, and we'll set the timer at five minutes.

Good evening. I'm a Samato resident and I'm here to ask the council where is the preservation in the preservation ordinance. The answer, there isn't. Next slide. Chapter 2766 doesn't preserve Sanonteo's history. It annihilates it through three main failures. Loss of prevention, legal vulnerability, and lasting damage to the community. So, let's break it down. Next slide. This table tells the whole story. Prior ordinance checks all the boxes. Chapter 22 2766 is a narrow inventory. No mandatory reviews, no demolition oversight, and no enforcement, aka no teeth. So, every protection that made the old ordinance work has been removed. It isn't an improvement. It's a step backwards. Next slide. The prior ordinance was a wide umbrella covering all eligible historic properties citywide. Hundreds of homes and a century of architecture. Chapter 2266 is a broken umbrella in a rainstorm. Only properties on the new narrow inventory keep any real process or protection. Properties identified as historically significant decades ago, documented, studied, and recognized, yet left completely exposed. Are you willing to abandon these properties? Next slide. Genuine preservation is simple. It's a clear line from historic value to mandatory review to protection. Chapter 22 2766 is a roadblock. After historic value is identified, the process hits a wall, needing a vote to trigger basic oversight. If that vote passes, what follows has no enforcement power. The result, properties are vulnerable to demolition. This ordinance doesn't

protect historic homes. It makes neighbors jump through hoops before anyone is even allowed to try. Next slide. Glazenwood proves communities want this. 83% of neighborhoods neighbors signed up for the historic district designation. Not because they were organized from outside or because they were pressured. It's because they already knew what they had. They moved there for the streets, for the porches, for the roof lines. Chapter 2766 demisses dismisses their investment in this. Next slide. Though Glazenwood succeeded under this ordinance, other neighborhoods won't get the same chance. This ordinance creates a consistent bottleneck, stifling neighbor-driven efforts. Samo has other historic neighborhoods that deserve a similar review to Glazenwood. The ordinance currently and eliminates this option. Next slide. So, what impact does the this have on the city? Three compliance failures. It contradicts the city's own 2040 general plan that you adopted. It fails to state best practices by limiting reviews to formally designated properties only. It lacks required SQA environmental review. And this is not a technicality. Identical roll backs have been overturned in courts for this very reason. This ordinance does not weaken preservation, it hands occonents a lawsuit. Next slide. Three circles, three failures. Where they meet one catastrophic overlap. That is this ordinance. This is a dangerous deregulation that exposes the city to lawsuits while permanently erasing the architectural soul of San Monteo. Next slide. So, I ask before you vote, are you

willing to adopt an ordinance that is weaker than its predecessor? Or are you willing to fix it by restoring stronger review protections for all eligible properties? Can you answer the question, this ordinance cannot, where is the preservation? If you can't answer this question, the vote should wait. This ordinance is not something to push through the docket and be done with. This will be part of your legacy. Remember, these neighborhoods took hundreds of years to build. Under this ordinance, it can be destroyed within an afternoon without any intervention. The people are glazing a wood are watching as well as future neighborhoods that strive for the same historical status. I urge you not to make your legacy about reducing historical protections in Sonteo. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move to our individual request to speak. If I call your name, please line up to my right. That'll ensure we receive all of your comments this evening. Um, we'll set the timer at two minutes per speaker. And our first three speakers in council chambers will be Thomas Mara, followed by Michelle Macara and Jay Cure. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Thomas Mccera and I'm 10 years old. I'm here because I care about Satail. Not just how it looks today, but what it will look like when I grow up. I like walking I like walking around my neighborhood and seeing the older buildings and houses. They make Satel feel special and different from other places. They tell stories about the people who lived here before us. If those places go away, we can't get them back. Recently, I went to our main library and learned that Sonteo used to have a Carnegie Library, but it was torn down a long time ago. I wish I could have seen it. I also learned that in the city of Richmond, they kept their Carnegie Library and turned it into the Rich Richmond Museum of History. People can still go there and experience it today. So, why didn't Sonteo do that? And I know Sonteo County has a really beautiful history museum, but why doesn't the city of Sato have one? That's what I'm worried about. And I learned that there are a lot of historic places in our city, but this new rule might not protect them. That doesn't seem right to me. If something is important in our history, why shouldn't we try our best to take care of it? I've also heard some people say that saving history makes it harder to build housing. But I don't think that has to be true. I think we can do both. And I've heard people say that only a small

group of older rich people care about saving history. But that's not true either. I know a lot of people who care about this. They just don't have the time to come to meetings like this or to follow everything that's happening in our city. So, we are here speaking for them. My mom and I don't have a lot of time either. I just came straight from practice and I should be in bed. But we have made it a priority to be here tonight because we know it's important to stand up for what you believe in. I know decisions like this are complicated. But I also think some Thank you. What? Thank you. Your time is Thank you. Please think about kids like me and the history we won't get to see if it disappears.

Our next three speakers will be Michelle Macar followed by Jay Cure and Lisa Vanort. Good evening, mayor and council members. Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak. Sanonteo has said clearly that it wants to preserve the places that tell our story. But when you look closely, what this ordinance does is not strengthen protection. It narrows it. It takes what used to be a city-wide commitment to protect historic resources and reduces it to a very small list, leaving hundreds of known historic properties with little more than a checkbox review. Nearly 200 historic resources identified in the city's own 1989 survey. Places that embody Sanato's identity are no longer meaningfully protected under this draft. They are not fully reviewed. They are not safeguarded from demolition in a meaningful way. They are effectively left vulnerable. This ordinance makes preservation largely voluntary, requiring property owner approval before meaningful protections even apply. That may sound reasonable on the surface, but in practice, it means the city is stepping back from its responsibility to protect shared cultural heritage. Historic preservation has never been about just one property owner. It's about community memory. It's about what we pass on. The state of California, the Office of Historic Preservation, and even SQA recognize that historic resources, even those eligible but not formally designated, deserve protection. But this ordinance moves in the opposite direction. It reduces protection at the exact moment when state housing laws have already weakened them. This isn't just a policy difference. Under California law, your ordinances must be consistent with your general plan. And right now, this ordinance is not. That's why this moment matters. Additionally, I want to address something that's been said in the past that historic preservation is somehow in conflict with housing or used to block it. Cities across California are building housing and preserving their history at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive goals. And I want to push back on the idea that only a small wealthy group care about this. It's simply not true. Many people care about this. People of my generation, but they can't be here

because they have busy lives. So when you hear from residents tonight, you're not hearing from a narrow group. You're hearing from people speaking on behalf of a much broader community. My ask is to please adopt the 1989 survey into the historic resources inventory, applying meaningful review to all eligible historic resour. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jay Cur followed by Lisa Vander and Tom Lee. Please choose to protect Samato's history instead of quietly allowing it to disappear. Thank you.

Jake here, 200 West Third Avenue. This is a simple subject. It's historic or it's not. All of the fderal that goes with the consultants and the advocates that say it resembles it's similar to it's indicative of it's restored in a manner that is consistent with history. Those are all disclaimers that prevent that promote false history. Most of the stuff in front of you is false history. I encourage everybody to support those folks that say take them to task. Put put it under the microscope. Whatever you do moving forward, regardless of what you do, the physical work that comes after what you guys do here today or in the future is far way beyond all of this falderall. that's happening about the politics and the paperwork. Doing the work is difficult, time consuming, and expansive. Acknowledge that all of you that support history. I do. I have done it a lot. I have done more than this whole room combined. And I say to you, take them to task. make them prove that it has historic relevance before you stamp it and say, "Oh, okay. Well, this is a historic house or a historic building or a historic neighborhood." It just doesn't work. I will fight to support this history and I will I will fight just as advocyly

against fake history. Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Lisa Vandervort, followed by Tom Lee and Lori Watanuki.

Good evening, city council. Um, to Jay's point, that's exactly what updating the historic survey is for. General Plan policy CD 5.3 explicitly explicitly defines historic resources as including 1989 survey properties. This ordinance excludes them. That's a direct inconsistency, not a matter of interpretation. Staff would have you believe that the 1989 survey properties are included. Sure, they're in the definition of historic resources. Sure, they're subject to the usual planning application approval afforded any property over 50 years old. But in practice, neither constitutes substantial meaningful treatment. And that's the rub. What was the intent of the general plan? To pay only lip service to the 1989 survey properties to slip them in so that technically you can say that it's in alignment with the general plan. I think not a substantial meaningful way would be would be to afford them the same protections as landmarks. This ordinance does not do that. Paying only lip service to previously identified historic resources is practically insulting and should be an embarrassment to those responsible for protecting them. And if you're seriously considering not including them in protecting only two districts and three properties, this whole ordinance is a joke.

Thank you. Our next three speakers are Tom Lee, followed by Lauri Watanuki and Laura Heater. Good evening, city council. I think it's ridiculous not to include the 1989 survey properties in this ordinance. This the city spent money for the survey back then and relied on it before, but suddenly it's no longer valid. And these properties are some of the oldest in Sano and deserve to be treated as landmarks. Staff says it's old and needs to be updated. That will cost money. We don't have it, but the money is there. I have it on good authority that there there is still $2 million remaining in unencumbered funds. The same pot from which Rinkcon was paid. If it costs between $50 or $100,000 to update the survey, it'll be money well spent. Money well spent to follow the general plan. If you're going to put all the time, the money, the effort into this or into this ordinance update, do it right. Update the 1989 survey to 2026 standards. Meanwhile, afford the current 1989 survey properties the same treatment as landmarks. That can happen concurrently with a survey update. There's no need to wait. The time is now. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Lori Watanuki, followed by Lori Heer and Rich Hedges.

Lori Watanuki. Good evening, Mayor Lorraine and members of the city council. In reviewing the Samale historic context statement, there are areas that are still missing or could be strengthened. The Office of Historic Preservation recommends adding a section at the end prioritizing next steps or recommendations. For example, targeted updates are needed to include the buildings not in the 1989 building survey. SP79 targets higher densities and heights within a half mile radius from the downtown historic transit center. Older neighborhoods like North Central and Central and the historic downtown are within this targeted area. Conservation areas are used in other cities to provide more protections for the preservation of neighborhood character and local history. We would like the council to direct staff to investigate creating conservation overlays. The city of San Jose has also created conservation areas and districts throughout the city. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Lori Watson or excuse me, Lori Her followed by Rich Hedges and Frank Elliot.

Good evening council members, Mayor Lorraine. Um, this draft ordinance really realizes our worst fear that the it significantly reduces historic resource protection. Uh, and it's also inconsistent with the 2040 general plan. I'm surprised how hard staff is working to eliminate the 1989 resources from this ordinance. Other cities use older surveys and I don't know why Santo can't as well can't count can't as well. Can we come up with the way to include those resources in the in the ordinance instead of a comprehensive approach? This ordinance creates a voluntary system that sharply limits the inventory and leaves most 1980 survey resources unevaluated, unreed, let alone protected. It eliminates the city council's required approval for demolition of historic buildings and places decisions about what renovations are minor or major and what requires historic resources commission review entirely in the hands of the planning department. So what's the point of having an historic resource commission if nothing may ever get to that point? We presented several pieces of evidence that the 1989 survey was used as the city inventory, including a 1988 MOA uh that the city was required then to use the results of the survey as the inventory. A 1989 staff report says that the report is expected to be adopted. I have the text and I can pass this out to council members. couldn't get everything in. Um, in terms of being consistent with the general plan, one of the biggest issues

is limiting the inventory, making it much harder to identify resources and of not um requiring city council review of demolition.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Rich Hedges, followed by Frank Elliot and David Long. Good evening again, Mayor Lorraine City Council. My comments are going to be general tonight. Sort of little perspective on this. Uh my family began a home in a uh in Northern Virginia in uh 18 or 1747, which served as a frontier fort during the French War and a supply depot during the Revolutionary War. It is not historic property. I worry every day that it will eventually be torn down because I don't have the money to buy the property. But you have to put and I bring this up to put some focus on this. There are communities like uh Satail Village in 14 years it'll be 100 years old. There are several other areas in the city that are not really that significant that'll be 100 years old. Because something's a 100 years old doesn't mean it's historic because it has to have some level of of importance in the development of the city and it has to have some importance in the in the the progression of the city throughout throughout history. You can't label something because it's old history. I guess you could, but it'd be a horrible mistake. So, let's focus on what's really historic in the city. Like I would love to focus on the property in Northern Virginia. It was actually Lord Fairfax who gave the land for that property. So it's exact and I've actually seen the uh the entitlement of it originally. It's in the historic uh facility there. So I want to see this done logically. I think 20% of a community moving for this is a little light. And uh I would say in closing that there's a neighborhood on First in Delaware going north to the old Brownhouse and along First Street east of uh of of Delaware that's some of the

first homes in Sonteo. I've never heard anybody mention those except one member of the community that lives there. But we need to focus on things like that. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be Frank Elliott followed by David Lawn and Jordan Grimes. Good evening. How about those uh validictorians? 4.0. It's almost as good as we did when we were in high school, right? Maybe if we could get some of them in the room here, we could get this gnarly issue figured out. Um I'm going to try not to make this too technical. I I do I do sympathize with the preservationists that want to to to remember and and preserve some of the the history in Sonteo. I'm not opposed to that. I what I think is missing in this conversation, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer for you to decide tonight. I think I do agree that we shouldn't be rushing this decision. We've got a lot of new variables that were introduced tonight. Thank you, Zach, for incorporating at least one of my ideas that I saw. So, I appreciate that. But I I think this is a really complicated issue and I think what's missing is open dialogue and an effort to compromise between the two groups. There's really two groups that are interested in this. The less red tape people and the heritage alliance. We need to find a way to compromise. We can't all have what we want. I'm sure I can convince our group to give some. I I would ask Heritage Alliance to do some of the same. That's missing. Uh, apart from that dream, um, if this ordinance moves part forward as it's written, and I I'm not an attorney. I don't know what the change that you made, I saw you dropped out eligibility, that may be enough, but there will likely be a legal challenge. And in my opinion, it's far better to have a conversation before litigation begins, not after. So, so council, what I'd ask is that you encourage your staff to have that conversation happen before this comes back again. Let's get these problems solved so we don't end up with a legal fight. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next three speakers will be David Long. Excuse me. Through the mayor, if I may, I'd like to ask for a point of order. Do we have to wait until public comment is over? City attorney, any guidance? Well, what is your question? Is there any way to validate if this document is legitimate or not? I don't see what Well, perhaps we can address that like after public comment is done.

Well, I think it's pretty important because the document in question would have you believe that uh in 1989 the council was going to adopt the 1989 survey. So the document that was passed refers to um action of the CAC that it says the CAC has not yet taken final action. It appears it will be recommending that the inventory be adopted. So it doesn't exactly say there is the inventory was adopted. But I think this this is addresses a question that uh several speakers have brought up and I think either council members will have questions about this issue that either I or uh our community development director or other staff can uh can help to answer. So again, I think I would encourage um the council to let public comment conclude and then we can answer that question a little more holistically.

Okay. I just I'm surprised that there's a document that exists that the city does not have but the public does.

Well, no. This is I don't know if I would say that exactly, but I think what's more important is, you know, what does the document say? It does not say that inventory was approved by the council, which I think is the central question here. But so it may very well be that these maybe they're minutes of a meeting that occurred. So that should be um in available to the archives. But I think more to the point I I think the council is going to have question as a whole is going to have questions about this issue. It's not so much about this one particular document. It's about uh the a series of actions and the history of how the city treated the 1989 survey and what happened after that, what didn't happen after that. So, I would I would just respectfully suggest focusing less on this one document that was just handed to the council. let public comment finish and allow the council to discuss del deliberate on this question and and ask questions of staff. I I'll leave it at that if that's all right.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, city clerk. Thank you. Our next three speakers will be David Long, followed by Jordan Grimes and Diane Whitaker.

Such drama. Um, good evening, mayor, city council staff. I'm David Long. I live on Popler Avenue. I rise tonight in strong support of this ordinance, for it offers us something truly remarkable. The ability to honor history and theory while steadily removing it in practice. Why burden ourselves with clear definitions of what matters when ambiguity could keep us flexible? Why require qualified historians or architects when staff discretion is faster and probably wiser? And why make it easy to protect historic places when we can design a process where almost nothing qualifies in the first place? This is preservation refined, streamlined, and safely out of the way. But where does this really lead us? uh demolishing Pennsylvania station and many buildings by Franklidd Wright that became uh national symbols uh not of progress but of irreversible loss not because they lacked value but because policy allowed it. If you're excited about the demolition of the east wing of the White House and the construction of the proposed triumphal arch, then this historic ordinance is for you. The overused local defense that I hear is just because it's old, that doesn't make it historic. Well, tell that to the owners and their neighbors who enjoy the Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck homes or homes that previously were occupied by Frederick Law Olmstead or MV Griffin or Christopherson. Those all somehow still stand in San Mato. There's more history than you might think. That's a pattern, though. Uh it's not a lack of value. It's a lack of protection. And it's true here in Sonteo, we don't have one famous loss like Pin Station. Instead, we've had something more quieter, more quiet. Uh many beautiful, culturally significant homes demolished one by one,

always with full city approval. Please return this to staff and planning commission with clear guidance to strengthen definitions. Thank you. Align with state and federal standards.

Thank you. Our next two speakers will be Jordan Grimes, followed by Dan Whitaker. Good evening, council honorable mayor. Well, uh, everything he said at the beginning, uh, I support unironically. So, we can get that out of the way right there. I know he meant it sarcastically. Uh, I'm here tonight, uh, as I have come many nights, uh, concerned that this historic preservation policy, as drafted, will function as a tool to block the new small-cale multif family housing that our community so badly needs. There are clearly a number of issues with this latest draft that uh remain unresolved and I would encourage council to take the time to continue working through this uh to continue working through some of these issues. Um among the things uh that remain at issue are owner consent. Um the idea that no formal city designation would be required, no public vote. um that anyone who could commission a report and suddenly a property is pulled into months of additional review and delay and cost um is concerning. It sounds like that issue may have been addressed uh but the owner consent issue remains remains real. Um there's also the issue with the 1989 building survey. Uh a document that is 37 years old uh that uh presents itself as a present- day regulatory trigger. The city's own staff report acknowledges that it's outdated. The planning commission has said it's uh needs to be updated and state law requires surveys older than 5 years to be updated before they can be used in this way. Um I just want to say this, local housing advocates have chosen in good faith to hold on the pursuit of legislative remedies at the state level in order to allow local efforts to establish a historic ordinance that protects genuinely historic resources while allowing for reasonable housing growth in our neighborhoods. That restraint is not unlimited. And if this ordinance moves forward, I think as a

tool to obstruct housing production, which is how it operates now in my view, uh those options return and we will avail ourselves uh of them. Now that we've passed SB79, we have some extra time on our hands. Thanks so much. Thank you. Our and our final speaker in chambers will be Diane Whitaker.

Good evening. I'm going to talk about sustainability. If this council cares about the environment, it must care about preservation. The greenest building is the one that is already standing. Tearing down historic buildings to start from scratch creates massive landfills, waste, and high carbon costs. Integrated urbanism is sustainable urbanism. By adopting the Heritage Alliance recommendated recommended amendments, you are choosing a greener, more responsive future for San Mateo. The 1989 survey from the California Office of Historic Preservation verified that Sonteo has a large number of great diversity of historic resources. This new draft ordinance ignores over 35 years of that data, leaving hundreds of sites in legal limbo. We shouldn't be starting from zero when the work has already been done. I urge the council to include the 1989 survey data in the official inventory so we don't lose our history, our homes, and our buildings by accident. Thank you.

Thank you. move into our virtual environment where our first speaker will be Connie Weise. Connie, please unmute your mic. You can hear me? Yes, we can.

Thank you. Good evening, city council members. You were elected to represent us, the residents of San Monteo. I ask that you clearly direct and demand that staff who are not elected make the needed changes to the historic ordinance that will make the 300K investment worthwhile. The key thing is that what is not recognized in the ordinance will not be protected. There was too much of a me thinks they protest too much on the 1989 survey in tonight's presentation. What's what is staff afraid of? The bottom line is that the 1989 survey must be included in the ordinance and additional funding is needed to update the survey or you can do a new survey and have it as part of the ordinance. What you don't count doesn't matter. Without a survey incorporated, our tax dollars have been wasted as the ordinance puts all but five properties listed in grave danger of being destroyed by overzealous developers. Please do the right thing for San Mateo. Don't open the door to losing what makes this city so wonderful to call home. Thank you.

Thank you. And our final speaker on this item will be Kula. Cold, please unmute your mic. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Good evening, council. I'm genuinely confused by the direction of tonight's discussion. For over a year, the community has been clear and consistent. Historic designation ellegibility should require owner consent. That principle has been central to the ordinance you have been developing. Yet now we're discussing adding over 100 private homes to the historic inventory based on a 37year-old survey without that consent. That raises a fundamental question. Why undertake a thoughtful ordinance process if in the end the council may bypass it and make unilateral design designations? Um we have seen how this plays out elsewhere. Palto faced significant legal challenges in political fallout after taking a similar approach. Samato should not repeat that experience. There are also practical concerns. The 1989 survey is outdated and it was never adopted. Many of those homes have since been demolished or significantly altered and do not qualify anymore. Relying on that survey data today risks inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ultimately legal exposure for the city. At a minimum, any homes on that 1989 survey should be reserveed using current standards and then go through the now established designation process. I briefly looked through the list of homes there. Um, for example, 1641 Palm Avenue is a gas station today. By no means that is a shared cultural heritage. And why is that even on that list? I don't understand. Uh, 831 Prospect Row is fully torn down and rebuilt. Why is it on that list? that can't be incorporated in that in in our ordinance right now. Um, thank you so much. Um, have a good night. Bye.

Thank you, Mayor Lorraine. That concludes public comment. Okay. Thank you for everyone who gave public comment. Um, before we continue with questions and deliberation, uh, the council will take a short break. We'll be back in about five minutes. Thank you.

Hey,

Thank you folks. Let's see if we can get back in about a minute. Thank you very much. We have returned. And at this time, I would first just like to check with staff to see if there were any uh public comments, anything mentioned in the public comment that uh you'd like to respond to.

Sure. I can I I can start. I think there's a couple clarifications that um we wanted to speak to. I think one which was regard to this this page which was part of a larger document that went to city council. Um and I think the key is is there was a preliminary discussion. The main action from the agenda report that this pages came from is to accept the 1989 survey and then provide further direction. Um it even highlights preliminary council comments are welcome. The plan will be distributed in January with workshops and hearings continuing through June. This was part of the process that led to the ultimately to the 1990 general plan. And I think even on one of our slides we highlighted how there was evolution as there always is in a general plan update process from maybe initial draft language or initial intent to the final version that was adopted. So I think this was part of that discussion similar to now as there was probably a lot of strong opinions about where the city should be on historic preservation. Thank you for that. Um, at this time, I'd like to hear questions from my fellow council members, but um, I'd like to continue trying uh something of a cycle um, in which we could begin with asking maybe a few questions uh, and then allow others to ask some questions to keep it moving. I I know we may have a number of them. Yes. Mr. Mr. Mayor, could we name a number?

Yes. I was thinking I think three, maybe in the middle with four around a lot of people. Well, yeah. I mean, that's that's fair. Why don't we try four? Uh, may the fourth be with you. And um and uh let's Yeah, let's give that a shot. Um, and who would like to begin?

Start. Yes. Very good. Thank you, council members. And we'll go maybe clockwise or something. Okay. Um, Zach, can you go back to slides 36 and 37 from the planning commission recommendations?

There we go. Right there. Oh, and actually before we get started, just so I'm clear, so I understood that tonight is a hearing and then there would be a second hearing where we would make a decision.

So tonight is a if I can interject here. So tonight is a public hearing to consider the proposed historic preservation ordinance. It's a update to the zoning code considered by the planning commission. And then you have, as our community development director mentioned earlier, you have a separate ordinance, not part of the zoning code, but still included within this public hearing to establish the historic preservation commission. So the recommendation, as you see on the screen, the first two items are to introduce those two ordinances. And then there's two other resolutions to establish the contact statement and update the Mills Act program. So you have approval of two resolutions, introduction of two ordinances. It's all wrapped up and the sequel findings all wrapped up into one public hearing. So there's no the only second hearing would be the second reading. It's not really a hearing. It would be if the council introduces an ordinance these ordinance ordinances perhaps with changes perhaps not. Then those ordinances would come back to the council for adoption on consent. It's not it's not a hearing.

Okay. So just to confirm tonight is the night where if everything that we discuss any potential changes etc. This is the appropriate time to discuss that. Yes. And the next time would be appro like a consent calendar approval. Right. So if the council uh wishes to make changes to either ordinance, then we will do our me best to make those changes now and then those would be incorporated into the ordinance that comes back ordinances that come back to the city council at an upcoming meeting on consent. But then if we sorry to go out of order, but if we make changes,

we're going to want to look at those changes. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Uh, okay.

So, maybe if I can start to answer your question through if if it's all right with the mayor. Um, so it depends on the complexity of the changes. So, uh, if because there's been some topics that have been hit on repeatedly, uh, whether or not this ordinance, um, reduces the amount of oversight or increases the amount of oversight or whether it's roughly the same. So that that's what I think a central point here. So if there's some questions about that, you know, we may be able to make those changes on the spot and kind of might have to take a short break even and then show you what does it look like on the screen. Um the more complicated it gets then the harder it is to kind of do that immediately. But you know, we'll just have to kind of talk through it and uh see what we can get done tonight. And well, maybe I'll I'll just stop there. See if you have any questions. Um, I would just say just so the public's aware because I know this is a heavy topic. I will definitely follow the four question rules, but I'm very much of the mind of for this council that this is a move slow to move fast moment. So, I do expect this to be a little bit of a lengthy discussion tonight. Um, okay. Can you go to slides 36 and 37? Yeah. And I I'll just mention that I I don't intend an ordering of four questions per person to limit us from engaging in a discussion as we're hearing these questions. I think I think we just let's just be mindful uh that we don't end up asking, you know, a large series of questions without giving other people an opportunity to respond. And I think if we're all okay with allowing for someone who has a relevant uh followup or or clarification point that they can they can do so and I I think that's fine as long as everyone else is

okay. Okay. Deputy mayor. Sorry. Just just one pro just one process question for the city manager, the city attorney. Um if we're going to ask all of our questions. Awesome. Um but if there if we were to advocate or if we we had a number of people today saying perhaps if we get some of the parties in the room to like kumbaya it maybe there that might yield some different results from this. Is there an action that we could take to give them that time to come together if the parties were interested in doing so?

So you have options tonight. I mean the the staff recommendation is to introduce both ordinances as written and approve both resolutions. Now if you uh if you if you wanted if you directed staff to uh allow more time which staff I think is not necessarily recommending because it's been a long process here but could you do it? Yes, you could. um would it yield results if you get uh those folks in the room and to achieve some um compromise given how long this process has taken remains to be seen but could you do it? Yes. Yes, you could. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, council member. Um, I'm just going to ask one big question to start, which is could you please go through slides 36 and 37 and help us understand, you know, what why the planning commission made these recommendations and what it would actually look like if we were to add some of these additional ones in.

Absolutely. So, I think yeah, I'm going through this and they they did have a lengthy discussion and thought through the different options and kind of what their intent was. So I think if you look at recommendations one and two, they're kind of together. And the thought here was they were concerned that the process was so long and multiple notification points that it actually was would would be a barrier to seeing a historic district proposal even get to that public hearing for consideration. And so their intent here was to reduce some of that burden while still supporting the the goal of owner consent and transparency. So I think um one they said this is really a property owner thing so let's focus notices just to property owners rather than to occupants. So that was kind of one intent to lighten the noticing burden a bit. And then I think for number two they looked at the different points at which there was notification provided and they felt well if there's already going to be canvasing to get that 20% to even submit do you also need to do a mailed notification? So they said, "Hey, this would could be one where we remove that requirement, take lifts the burden a little bit, and you're still achieving your goal of of transparency." So I think that was one and two. Um, three was the notion of incentives as being one of the primary tools available to the city to support designation, especially under an owner consent model. And so the thought was, let's really look deep at how we could incentivize um designation. So that was kind of what was um the the thought behind recommendation number three. Number four was concern that the enforcement structure wasn't strong enough um and they wanted to explore an increase um for violations related to historic properties. I that's definitely possible. Right now it is aligned with our general code enforcement structure, our penalty structure. So I think there would be have to be a broader effort there if we were going to move forward with this recommendation. And ultimately

there's there's different basises for if you're going to increase penalties beyond kind of our current I think it's 100 um 100 100 300 and 500 or 100 200 500. I mean we can ultimately get to 500 every day if we really need to. So there's different tools in our current toolkit but they they felt there could be opportunities to increase the penalty structure for violations of a of a historic property. Um I think the um task five recommendation five kind of speaks for itself. A part of the recognition so establishing a plaque program and um the creating uniform parameters for how plaques could go in around the city. Um I think obviously um the six was related to prioritizing updating that survey to see how it could be utilized and facilitate designations. Um and then um number seven they identified that um there obviously there's a lot of work that goes into creating a new commission and in their opinion they felt the planning commission had um relevant expertise here and it could utilize an existing commission rather than creating a new one. um especially um their feeling was well how much will it be utilized and with the change in the overall structure with other developments will the planning commission over time have more bandwidth to take on a task like this. So that was kind of some of the thoughts that went into that seventh. Um moving to the the recommendations on the historic context statement. I think both of these are just a matter of of resources. we would probably we would need to dip into the contingency budget for um this agreement if we were to complete this work. So I think that's just that we would look to council on if you wanted us to move forward there that could be done as part of our implementation process. Um and then these recommendations on the Mills Act program I think focused on kind of performance making sure they were really meeting their intent. Um I think there's different levels of return on investment

that some of these espec I think especially like an audit um analyzing impacts there's a lot of staff resources that go into there. So for the amount of money that maybe we're tracking down is it worth the amount of staff time involved but then again I think these are recommendations we can move forward with if if council has has interest there. Um,

but right now since we only have two properties, this might also be something. Let's start with the new ordinance and context statement, see how it moves forward, see how much interest is in the Mills Act program, and if there is growth, maybe then in three years we could come back and revisit and see how it's working and if there was ways we wanted to strengthen it. But, um, all of these are options if if council wishes to provide direction to staff. Um, and then just on the Mills Act, and I'm happy to have Ringcon answer as well. Um, what is the actual financial benefit to a homeowner who agrees to historic designation, and how does that compare to any added costs or restrictions?

I'll start. I think overall the intent is that you reduce the amount of property taxes that a a historic property owner would pay with the objective that then those that money rather than being paid in taxes is a you're able to reinvest it in the property to support the cost of maintenance, preservation, other projects that um support the long-term viability of that historic resource. Um so that's kind of at its core what it's doing. And so it it really does benefit property owners that have purchased more recently because if you're a longtime property owner, you won't because your property tax valuation point is already pretty low, you won't see much savings if you enter into a Mills Act agreement. But there is much more substantial value with more recent purchasers where there's a bigger delta between the value that you're paying on and the money that you're saving. So you can see thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars in overall savings. Obviously, just a percentage of that is lost revenue to the city because also that's going to the state or going to the county and and going to the school district as well.

Okay. Thank you. That's all for Thank you very much. Uh Council Member Nome, would you like to go next? Thank you. Um it's been brought up a so I'm just going to ask the question. Why was the 1989 inventory not included in the historic inventory? And I'm this is like a three-parter, so I hope you count let me count as one question still. How many of the around 124 properties do we think still exists? Can we protect these properties and give ourselves and our historic commission a term of example three years to either keep or strike them from the list if we put them in?

I guess the short answer is yes. If we have council direction, it's definitely something we could do. I we were following the direction that council provided us beginning of last year when we move forward. Um and the focus is really on updating the historic preservation ordinance and development of a citywide historic context statement. There is another action in the general plan related to updating surveys. That was not included in the scope. So I think this was really about staff aligning the work with the direction provided by council. But it's definitely work that we could do if if directed by council. Um we're highlighting on the screen. Um this is our current evaluation of what is in the 1989 survey. Um kind of starting with all the different there's cross referencing. There's there's some redundancy properties. So obviously it's it's a document in need of an update. So um if if council wants to direct staff to move forward with updating that and and developing enough information to consider for these properties for designation, it's definitely something we could do.

Okay. Um, I know that SQA, for example, gives protections to homes over 50 years old and, uh, learned today from the city attorney, we generally start that clock at 45 years old because the process might take four or five years before they actually are doing the work. I'm curious if if it's possible to have another elevator or another level where any building over a hundred years has additional uh review that the historic uh commission that we put in place could could kind of look at it and and I'm also wondering, you know, is there even enough teeth behind this ordinance to protect these historic resources?

I'll I'll turn it over to Julian to speak to some of those points. Yeah, I just want to clarify that um sequin itself does not offer protection to buildings over 50 years old. Um generally you have to identify whether there is a resource or not in the in the process of doing a SQA evaluation. So it's when you look at a resource. So being 50 years old in itself doesn't offer protection. It's age plus eligibility for significance. So um it's best practices to start looking at buildings when they're 45 years old. understanding that sometimes projects take about 5 years to come to fruition. Thank you for clarifying that.

And I think speaking to your other point about a 100red years. I mean that's a local policy prerogative if we wanted to create that. I I think we're generally at this point have been looking at kind of wide best practices and it starts at that 45 year mark to start evaluating and then based on our eligibility criteria that kind of drives. But um if there wants if if the council's interested in looking at something beyond for 100 years, I think we'd have to evaluate it and understand well what's the significance? Is that the right level? Is there some another point that is notable in Samonteo's history? We could look to the context statement. So I think we would need to look more closely at what's the basis for a a given line.

Sure. And you know, I understand um editor of the Daily Journal picked the number of 1910 and you know, having my family's lived in the Bay Area since 1850 and I know that a lot of homes were rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake, so I kind of see where that number comes into play. Um that said, I I'm also wondering, my understanding was that we didn't have a true historic ordinance in place before, and this is this is a new proposal for us. So, we're getting a ton of public outcry that we are weakening our historic ordinance and protections, and I'm wondering if you can explain or address how is that possible if we didn't have a historic ordinance before, and how do we ensure that we are not weakening it?

So, I I think some of that might be the published draft that went to the planning commission, I think, was much more focused on owner consent. I think since that point, it has evolved in response to planning commission recommendation and public comment. um to address a number of those things. So, I think there's significant evolution between that that earlier draft and the draft that's before you this evening. And and in staff's estimation, we see it as as addressing many of those concerns. I think some of those remain as to where exactly you want that to land, but I think there I think there's probably some of that going on and it's maybe not reflecting the most recent versions that including the version that's before you this evening.

Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, I yield to the next speaker. Very good. Council member Diaz Nash, would you like to Thank you. be next.

If I can get my microphone over here. Number one, we haven't said thank you. So, I just want to say thank you to everybody who's been involved in this the whole way through. Um, as I said to Summer outside, it's past, present, and future. Thank you. Because this is this is our history and this is the beauty of it. So, we're learning and I'm very excited that the context statement is going to be a living document so we can update it as necessary. So, just wanted to say that very clearly. Um, so couple things. Somebody uh I think it was our former colleague uh former council member Hedges who said just being 100 years old doesn't mean it's historic. But, you know, how do you figure out what is historic? Because I think there is a there's a fear in the community, which if it were true, I would be worried, too, that if it's just a hundred years, it's it's automatically made historic and it's already put in the inventory and it's done. And I don't think that's true. And I'd love you to either disabuse me or explain the difference. I'll look to our architectural historian to dig into that a bit.

Yeah. So, one of the things that the ordinance draft achieves is providing those criteria for designation. So it a a property must be 50 years old and meet one of the criteria for designation which means it you can show that it's um significant for its relation to historic events to a historic person for its architectural style or its um potential to yield information which typically involves archaeological properties but not exclusively. So it's not just a matter of age, it's age plus significance.

Right? So I think somebody brought up the the uh comment earlier that in a couple of years all the houses in you know the village uh could be 100 years old but that wouldn't mean that they were would be considered designated historic resources. Correct. Correct.

Right. So there would have to be a whole lot more than that. Okay. So that's that's an important thing I think for all of us to understand. Um number two, um under this draft, the latest draft and the latest the latest draft, what exact level of reviews will an individually eligible historic resource not in the inventory receive compared to the prior ordinance? because I heard a lot of questions about or concerns about it's going to be a lot less protective or maybe it's too protective. But I think just talking about the specifics would be very helpful.

Definitely if you're looking at an eligible resource, we carried forward the language from our current ordinance which is review required. Um but we've added clarity um with regard to the definition. So I would say under this ordinance when you start with the definition of what is a historic resource. So anything that is in that definition and so that includes both eligible and listed at the the federal level, state level, local level and explicitly references those properties identified in the 1989 survey, you would then be subject to that review required section. There's a there's enhanced review if you're designated, but even if you're not, you would still be under that. And so then what that means is before you can proceed forward with any building permits or issue permits, you need to start with a planning application. And typical as we do right now, we would be evaluating it both for compliance with SQA, but now we'd have criteria under this ordinance um to look at historic attributes and yes. All right, starting with its age. All right, if it's over 50 years, you've got potential eligibility. We would then look to our contact statement and the screening criteria that we'll build out. Does it have that added significance? So obviously age alone isn't enough. Is there other things in there that would merit further review? So many of these properties as we it's kind of like a funnel. You're starting with a bigger pool and it narrows down into where ultimately your properties that all right this property is is potentially eligible and then we would start to look into the documentation have a his an HRE historic resource evaluation prepared and then that would yield out well it's close but it's not okay you can kind move forward and then onto your permit stage. Okay. If it's an eligible historic resource, then that facilitates a conversation of what are its character-defining features, what makes it significant, and then how do we work with them to craft a project that avoids impacting those um attributes. There's definitely some pathways under state law now that that might provide a pathway around that, primarily in the non-s

single family route. Um, but those would be the conversations we would have. So, this doesn't ensure that it will be protected, but it ensures that it's documented. we have that discussion and we provide um pathways for alternatives that do preserve that um historic significance. Thank you. And and how does that differ from I guess the ordinance that is still current because we haven't adopted anything new.

It will be very similar. But I think the difference here now is it's more clearly articulated. So I think there's predictability and clarity where I think before there were questions of we're doing this process but why are we where in the code says we have to do it? And I think as we've highlighted there were holes. And so now we've got a clear progression of when you hit get to this point, you go on to the next. And so we'll have an ordinance that has a much clearer framework and then we'll build out those pieces that then map out that that flowchart. So now we'll have resources and clarity for how you move through this process. So it'll be similar to what we're doing now, but there'll be enhanced clarity and predictability.

Okay. And would that only apply to resources that are listed in the inventory like the the three houses plus the two de two districts or would what you're saying apply to anything in citywide? The review required would be anything citywide? It would not be limited to just our historic resources inventory. Once you're designated, you would then have a specific certificate of appropriateness approval that you would need to get depending on the scope of work. um that's um specific once you're designated, but before that you would be looking at this other review process that still assesses and um works with the property owner if you're ultimately eligible.

Okay, I think those are all on one topic, but those are my three or four right now. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, would you like to ask questions at this time?

Yes. Um Apologies. Yes. Um, can you can you provide a uh can you talk a little bit about the historic resources commission and specifically if the creation of a of this new commission will affect permit processing times for homeowners and if and talk a little bit more about the shot clocks in place if in case there are lengthy project delays.

Definitely. So I would say there's definitely a project that requires a historic resource commission review that will add time to the review process. So in this case their their two primary powers and duties would be related to um their role within the landmark or district designation process. So they would be that first public hearing um and then they would provide a recommendation to the city council. I think that's part of a voluntary process that someone would choose or the city would initiate. Um, and so there would be the time that goes with that. I think probably what you're speaking to is primarily related to when a certificate of appropriateness for a major alteration is required. Um, and you would probably be looking at between 30 to 60 days um once an application's complete, everything's tight to um get that to the commission and then they would take action and then obviously there is an appeal process. So in theory, um, someone could either the property owner if they maybe were denied or another interested individual, they could appeal it to the council. So that could there could be a time aspect to that. Um, are we would imagine this commission meets monthly similar to the the cadence of other city commissions. Um, so obviously depending on when you fall might dictate whether it's closer to 30 or 60. Um, so there's variability there. We don't have a built-in shot clock, but like I think anytime we're scheduling something, staff is always mindful of that and we work to keep things moving expeditiously, but approximately that's kind of how we would imagine that taking place.

Thank you. I think council member Spir Kukaditzki might have a

follow. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Fernandez. Just within the same vein of historic resource commission, how much authority will the commission have if we create it versus staff versus the council? ultimately any any action taken well the commission will be a recommending body for landmarks and districts. So I think really their action piece would be on these major alterations for for certificates of appropriateness or if there was a minor alteration that the zoning administrator took action on and someone appealed that that would go to the historic resources commission. So um any final action they take is always appealable to city council. Um, but that would kind of be the only point where they actually have decision making, final decision- making authority.

And to follow up a little bit on Council Member Spiritski's question, I don't think you're on. Oh, sorry. To follow up on Council Member Spear Cookitski and and I apologize if I'm repeating her question. I just want to make sure that I I'm really driving this home. Um, based on the policy that has been promote pro provided to us via staff and with the what you've integrated from the planning commission, are there any extreme circumstances or circumstances that the city council could override the requirement for owner consent

as drafted? I mean, I think right now owner consent is required to initiate an application for a landmark designation and um we would still do the study, but to initiate that designation as drafted right now, you would need owner consent to move forward. Similarly, there's an owner consent process outlined for um districts. So, in theory, it's 60. So, you could still maybe have 39% in opposition. Um but right now owner consent is required for both of those designation pathways to move forward. Mr. Mayor, may I have one more question? Is that for Is that okay? Yep.

Um so I mean I'm just going to be transparent and honest where I am. I I don't see any way in which I would personally vote to include the 89 projects without um on I do believe that own that the owner should be notified and there should be like an we should do it um iterative it iteratively with owner consent and owner involvement. Can you tell me a little bit about what a process would look like if we were to study those um properties mentioned in the8 survey? Definitely we can speak to that and and knowing that this this discussion topic could come up. We did include some draft language for council consideration if if you wanted to incorporate this as part of the ordinance. Um and so let's see one more. There we go. So if there was interest in moving forward um obviously we're um we're um on looking at adopting new regulations and we want to make sure any future actions are aligned with that. And so staff would recommend incorporating language somewhere along the lines of what's drafted here if um if you were interested in seeing a establishing a process specific to the properties in the 1989 survey. And so what you would see with this added provision here is the council would have the ability to nominate um properties all some on the 1989 survey. And you would kind of get a more streamlined focus process where um following the nomination there would be owner notification and then there would need to be some um preparation of documentation to support findings looking at the existing record and then building it out if it was not complete and then move forward with scheduling a public hearing where coun city council could consider it. So I think in a pathway like this you would have owner notification but we you wouldn't have that same level of owner consent as currently drafted. But um if if council was interested, this is a recommended pathway to consider from staff.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'm done for this round, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I think uh I'd like to pause a beat and just read this a little more thoroughly.

Yes, please feel free. Uh thank you. Um just going back to um if we were to establish a new commission, um could we as a council decide then that the the residents that apply for that commission have some kind of construction management accreditation um state license or like green building accreditation?

Yes. I I think our caution would be and we had um if if if everyone's done reading I can I can scroll back to the um the slide on the his proposed historic resources commission. The challenge is always if you make it a requirement you run the risk of not being able to find enough qualified individuals to fill the commission. So the way we had drafted it is that the council would prioritize that list of credentials sets of experience when appointing members. But if those experiences aren't present in the group that's applying, you would have the prerogative to still move forward to fill the commission. So I think here what we the list and this is um this is the list of we would recommend prioritizing the list of experiences that that align well with a historic resources commission. But it wouldn't say if say you've only got three or four but not a fifth. You would be able to exercise um judgment in who you felt be best of the remaining candidates um would work on the commission. So you could choose to leave it vacant and say no it has to be. This just gives flexibility over time because I've definitely seen examples where commissions will go underfilled because there aren't enough qualified individuals who are interested in serving. Okay, I have some questions too. Let's see. sample language is interesting though I'm just want to make sure I think about one thing related before I forget uh let's see and yeah okay okay great okay uh thank you very much for your patience on that All right, let's see

what I can do here. Okay, so um we've asked a little bit about Oh, you know, we we've heard a bit about the 1989 survey and a current scan of what we see in it. Um, if we if council were interested in updating the survey as soon as possible, do we have any um current like ideas about how much that might cost and when we might be able to get started given what we already have in our work plan and and how long how long it might take to complete. So, I can start with that one and I may look to Julian for some of kind of the more technical pieces of that. Um, initially in looking at it, we had quoted that it would it would likely cost at least $50,000. And so, I think realistically to get a barebones assessment that that meets minimum findings, if we looking to update the survey so that those properties could be considered for designation, I'd say an estimated range of of $50 to $100,000 is is probably what it would take. can probably in the neighborhood of 6 to n months just depending on how how quickly the work comes together. If you're looking at doing um full historic resource evaluations for each property, you could think of around $3,000 per property is kind of a a a reasonable estimate. there will be some documentation that already exists and we can utilize the historic context statement. But I I think obviously um evaluating all of the properties there at that full level probably um at 200,000 or more but doing the math extrapolating around 300 3,000 per property to the number of properties covered would be an approximate range. So I guess it's it's it's the the goal is what is the objective? Does council want a full update to that survey? um

are you looking for enough information to consider designation of the pro of the properties? Um so I think with that direction we could then take that information develop a scope and come back to you in pretty short order um with a more defined cost and timeline. So, I just want to jump in real quick. And so, on this item, the you know, looking at updating the survey, that is a general plan policy item separate and apart from what we're considering today. And so, I would look at that as a separate priority or initiative. Um, we have just on tap for our future work in the planning department, the staff, you know, we're looking at the downtown plan. And so if you are looking at wanting to, you know, work on this new general plan initiative as a priority, I would I would recommend that you bring it up during next year's blue sky as a council to have that discussion. That' just be my recommendation overall. Um, but ultimately it's up to you guys as a council. You know, we work for you guys. So if three of you guys direct regardless, we we'll take that. But I'm just letting you know that, you know, to pick up another priority, we'd have to dep prioritize another priority. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Zach, could I just dig into a little of what you were saying cuz you mentioned there are different levels um to uh you know a potential survey update and um like you mentioned like a full re you know historic resource evaluation would cost more um when if someone were to bring um if someone were to apply for a a property not currently on the 89 survey a as a landmark in this process. Um would would that would we need a a full historic resource evaluation to determine uh if it made sense to add to the inventory?

Yes. So that will be what is outlined in the application materials, but there would have to be enough documentation to show that the property meets the requirements outlined in the ordinance, which it is ageeligible and it meets one of the four criteria for designation. So they would have to include some history that shows that it is of age and then lay out an argument for how it meets one of the criteria.

Okay. But is it would it be fair to say that given some of the work that's already been done in this uh 89 survey, if we were to we might be able to update it uh I think you had a phrase that escapes my mind uh to to a baseline that that could, you know, get it to almost that level uh given the work that's been done. Does that sound like a possibility? I think the important thing is that the 1989 survey continues to be a resource for the city and that it has a lot of great information in it. And so I think if a property were coming forward that were interested in being landmarked and there is information in the 1989 survey, of course, that would be uh a great amount of work that's been completed. There would have to be updates to show that it's still in the condition it was described, that it still retains sufficient integrity to be listed, and that it still meets the criteria for designation. So there would be some effort to update that information, but a huge amount of it has been completed in the 1989 survey. Okay, thank you. I think that's helpful. Um, okay. Let me see if I can find something else to ask. And uh I I I think given that you had this sample language of uh you know council having the opportunity to potentially list something from the survey into the inventory. Um I think I'd like to ask a question about that. If if uh if we if council decided to

incorporate this language tonight and um in a you know future meeting maybe even you know like a a soon after the council had an interest in exercising that. Um, can we talk through like um how soon and what would maybe be required to get some of these properties that are in the survey uh into the resources inventory in a manner that that seems uh appropriate with all the work we've done. So, I I think we can be responsive to council's direction here, but I I think we would still need to scope it to figure out like, all right, what would it take to get from here to there, but if you're giving us direction to prioritize this something that needs to be done as soon as possible, we can build that in, but it's I would say short of saying 6 to9 months. Could it be shorter? Well, I think we just have to assess that and really kind of roll up our sleeves a bit. Um, obviously we this this part has only been evolving over the past week, so we've been putting together some ballpark ideas, but I think we'd need to dig in a little deeper, look at what it would take, map that out, and then we could report back to council if that was the direction provided shortly, but I don't know that we could give you that tonight.

Yeah. Okay. I also want to point out that the current process we have requires a recommendation from the Historic Resources Commission, which hasn't yet been established. So,

yeah. This is kind of like what uh what's on my mind. I imagine it would it would still take some time. Um frankly, maybe I'll just have this be my last question for this round about uh if if we were to go ahead with establishing a historic resources commission uh about when could we expect to have one that can begin to perform these sorts of duties? We uh we were um Martin and I were just talking about that a little bit and I'll I'll high level it and then um look over to him to if there's more specifics required, but I think in general probably at the soonest end after um actions taken in the realm of 3 months if everything fell in line with recruitment appointment and everything more realistically probably closer to 6 months. So 3 to 6 months would probably be a range that it would take to get a go through the recruitment appointment and then get them seated. And this is a new commission, so there's also going to be some ramp up, some training. So unlike another commission where you're seating new commissioners, we're going to have to build out the processes to support it as well. So um those will all go into getting them seated and up and running.

Excellent. I appreciate that. And we'll pass it back to Council Member Spirro Giddyski.

Yes. Um so I've heard a lot from residents. Um, I think something that has come up consistently and I I heard a little bit of the answer, but is really understanding, you know, we're talking at the macro level, right? Um, what happens in terms of once this is approved, how the city will actually administer at the ground floor. You know, what does that look like in practice? Um and then how are we going to ensure that code enforcement because I assume they'll be checking these things. Um is actually you know following a consistent rubric and standard

definitely and I can go back to the I think the next step slide speaks to that a little bit. Um so the ordinance, the context statement, the Mills Act program, these are all tools that then inform the resources that we develop. Similar to any any code requirement um development review process, we would we would treat this the same way. So then you you build out your resource guide. You kind of then articulate for individual parts like what does this mean? Um this process, how does it break down? What are the submittal requirements, the application forms, what are we looking for to deem an application complete? These would all be resources and handouts and information that we would build out the screening criteria to say, "Okay, I've got an old house, but how do I know if it's historic?" Well, we now have increased tools to assess that before we have to get a historical professional involved. Um, so we would be able to articulate that. So, those are all the pieces we would build out to support this updated um program. Um once council takes action to to adopt um these pieces or a version um of them, we would then kick it off with a with anformational workshop to kind of roll it out, talk through what all all these how these resources come together, answer questions, and then that would be the starting point. And then we would also have our staff train so they could answer questions as inquiries come in. Um I think with code enforcement, um we're responsive. So, I think just like any number of other other activities, these these would probably be activities that come up. Maybe planning flags them, maybe a resident flags them, building inspectors when they're out there. Um, it doesn't happen a whole lot. And and I mo in the vast majority of cases when you're issuing a permit or when work's being done, they're following the rules, they're abiding, but you do have instances where someone goes too far. Sometimes it's inadvertent, sometimes it's intentional. And so we calibrate the code enforcement response accordingly um to make sure that ultimately we're outcome driven. We're not here to be punitive. We're out here to protect a resource in the case of a historic resource. And obviously the the

values there once it's gone it's going to be really hard to replicate. So the goal is building when you're approving a project the right conditions looking for the right things making sure the right safeguards are in place as part of the plan. So those are all the pieces that would go into how we administer it, issue permits, conduct our inspections, and ideally avoid the need for code enforcement to be involved.

So I think some of the community feedback I've heard is that when you deal with historic resources or properties and let's say a contractor or an engineer goes into the building or the home and you open a wall, then you find more issues. And because it's historic, that creates more complexity. And so I I guess what I'm asking for is when this comes back in the next cycle, you know, is there any way that you could provide the council or the public with like a loose framework or infographic maybe of, you know, what those different um policies would look like. Definitely. We're happy to speak to that. I think anytime you're doing a remodel addition to an existing home, there's tons of old homes that aren't historic, but you run into the same challenges. You open up a wall, there's rot, there's things you weren't expecting. The foundation you thought was there, wasn't there. And so, our team is dealing with that on a very regular basis where you have a scope of work approved. And now that you're halfway in it, it's changing. So who making sure the engineers in the mix, coordinating with our permitting team, making sure we're getting appropriate updated plans, helping them keep their project moving so they don't just all of a sudden have see a job site go dead. So we actually have a lot of experience in that realm. And so we would see this in many ways as being a very similar approach to how you coordinate and work with a property owner and their team over the course of construction to keep a project consistent with um the approved plans or when you need to adapt. In this case, you'd also be including the historic professional. Make sure that you can still get that work done while respecting the the characteristics or this the elements that are really important to that historic resource.

Okay. Um and then just going back to the Mills Act. So, right now the ordinance, you know, adds new requirements and a review process. You know, what incentives are being offered to balance that? Is that something you want this council to weigh in on tonight?

I would say that that's up to you if if you want to. Um I think probably the key thing with incentives is there's going to be a financial commitment generally. I think the the key one that is some um does impact the revenue but not as significantly other as other incentives would be is the Mills Act program. There's also the ability to utilize the state historic building code, but I think beyond that, we would to the degree that council wants to provide direction or not, we would we would just look to you and then we could work from there.

Okay. Um I guess I'll share where I'm at. Thanks everybody for answering all our questions. Um so first the context statement. Um I think it's excellent. So thank you for putting that together. Um, I really liked what planning had proposed for the context statement. If you can pull up, I believe it's slide 38 or maybe

one more, sorry, 37. Um, consider adding additional biographical information for notable architects and architectural firms that did work in Sonteo. Um, so I think that's a great suggestion. would recommend incorporating that. Um, I do want to be clear. Um, I believe we should incorporate the properties identified in the 1989 historic survey into the historic resources inventory. Um, because then we're not losing track of already recognized historic resources as we transition to this new framework. And I want to put this in perspective for the public. So currently in Sonteo, there are 20,000 parcels. We are talking about adding less than 120. On top of that, Glazenwood was already added. The downtown is already acknowledged as a historic. So there's 120 parcels of which we would still need to do the work to really properly assess um which ones are still viable or not. Um I also want to be clear that property owner consent should still remain central moving forward. So any future designation for properties or districts should continue to require affirmative owner consent consistent with direction already outlined in the ordinance. Um third, I would like to recommend establishing a historic resources commission. Um initially I did want to do this as a limited time body of two years. However, after looking at all our other commissions, um I would recommend to my council colleagues four years um so we can really focus on reviewing and

validating historic re resources citywide. I think it would help us build a credible foundation for the program and ensure consistency in how our resources is are evaluated. Also, um I know you had suggested five commissioners. I would like to recommend that we extend this to having two youth commissioners. Um we have heard from youth that is interested in preserving historic res historic resources. Um they obviously are not a voting body but I think it would be good to include them. Um, in addition, um, when it comes to the requirements for creating a historic resources commission, I would like to add preferred skills, um, which would be construction management, having some kind of historian um, or architectural background, um, green building accreditation, and contracting or state licenses. Um, and again, those would be preferred skills, not required. Um, because I hear you on flexibility. Um, number four, um, when it comes to, um, what to do with looking at the properties from the 1989 survey, um, I'm going to leave that up to staff, but, um, we have already spent 300,000 as a city on this. Um, we do have an advanced planning fund that I believe has roughly unencumbered funds of up to 2.2 million. Um, so, you know, I I think if we're really talking about this and doing it now, um, or doing it in this next 6 to9 months, we should allocate some amount of funding. And I'll leave that to you to come back to council with the recommendation. Um,

sorry, a lot of notes. Um, also wanted to add, um, so I would like Zach to really understand what other additional incentives such as fee reductions, expedited permitting, permitting or grants um, could be explored for Mills Act properties um, to encourage participation. I also want to say that I agree with the planning commission um that we should evaluate every 10 years these Milsack properties and also continue to audit for effectiveness. Um and the last thing I want to say is that I also agree with the planning commission. Um they talked about a plaque program. Um, initially I was thinking maybe we could do a one-time special allocation for areas like Glazenwood or the downtown, but I actually think what would be better is if we model it after the Ching Lee Laundry. Um, they have a plaque. So, let's go find out, you know, what they did, how much it cost, and then maybe you come back to council um with the recommendation. So, those are my comments. Thank you for those comments. Council member Newsome.

I have a few more questions before I move to comments, so I'll ask them and then pass along. Um, this has already been talked a lot about, but I just want to kind of dive into it a little further, which is currently the suggestion is that we can get approximately two mills acts uh per year. How do we ensure that people with potentially historic properties per perhaps not the resources to maintain them uh can qualify? Um if we for example have three or four Victorian homes as I think former council member Hedges pointed out on North Delaware, once one qualifies, do we have any economies of scale or could a small cluster of three or four homes actually be considered a district which would make the process more accessible or easier? We could definitely explore all of those. And I think the number two is entirely council prerogative. So if you wanted to set that ceiling higher or not set a cap initially in review, I think all of those are options are on the table depending on how you want to incentivize or encourage it. So I guess I'd like to know Rencon's experience. When other cities have done this type of thing, are we going to see a huge upsurge very quickly of the number of properties that would want to participate? You may with people who are new homeowners because they have the most to gain from it. Um, cities administer their programs all kinds of different ways though. Some have application periods and they choose the best from the period. Some are competitive, some are just open and they allow a lot of mills contracts. Some communities have uh paused their programs. So, there is a lot of flexibility on how you do it. You could start with two and choose to update the program later if you're seeing a lot of interest or if you're not seeing a lot of interest, you can choose to make the thresholds different than we currently have outlined. So, it it's it's entirely up to how the city how they want to design it.

Okay. Thank you. Through the mayor, um staff has also made a recommendation on years when we do receive more than two applications for milac projects or contracts that we develop a ranking priority priority. So, um, we would consider preference for houses located in equity priority neighborhoods or lower income individuals.

Thank you. Um, similar vein, state and federally listed properties that already exists. How do we make sure that it is inexpensive for owners of state and federally recognized sites to be also recognized by the city? The easiest way is in the application materials that we would allow them to rely on materials that they provided to the state or to national park service for those applications. So that would be the evidence of their eligibility and they would just have to provide how that also applies to um the Sanonteo requirements.

Okay. And then moving into downtown for a minute. Um I know that we have protections already in place for downtown. Uh but I'm curious is there is there availability for example to maintain facades? Um I go my family have a cabin up in the Sierras and there's entire blocks of old city towns towns really where the facade is historic and it's maintained but they build new hotels and buildings directly behind them. And when you walk down the street you feel like you're in 1906 but when you walk into the building you're in a new building. Um, have we have we considered that on some of our kind of maybe failing buildings that are historic in downtown San Monteo?

Yes. So, there there are many ways to meet the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. What you're describing, I think, would be seen as partial preservation, where you're keeping the front of a building and not maintaining the rest of the building. Some communities accept that as standards compliant, others don't. Um, if that was the direction provided for your historic resources commission, if a project like that were to come before them, then it is an acceptable route of preservation that's available.

And I know we have some buildings in downtown that are, for example, putting elevator shafts on the roof and and things that are not in compliance. How do we make sure that there's teeth and enforcement for those types of situations? I think part of it is recognizing like in the a case of say an elevator overrun you have to give them enough flexibility so they can continue to use their building meet minimum safety requirements ingress egress requirements and it is a challenging balancing act and I think also if you there was direction provided to be more aggressive and say how we um pursue that we could definitely do it. We've always as as would articulated before looked at what is the activity, what's going on, what's the best way to address an issue. If there's scope creep or projects go beyond what their approved scope of work was. So, um, we would model that after council direction.

Okay. Thank you. That's all for now. Thank you. Thank you very much, Council Member Diaz Nash. you um what can you tell me about demolition because that was something a number of speakers and a number of emails have been concerned about. Um h are we providing the same level and breadth of of uh protection in this draft ordinance as the previous one? How do we do it so that it's it's not too ownorous, but that there's serious consideration before demolition is is approved.

So, the demolition requirements um that those are carried forward from our current ordinance and they do align with our general plan which does um discourage them and look for alternatives as part of that. We don't see demolitions all that frequently. And I I guess I would look um or maybe major, you know, major renovations, too. I mean, that's Yeah.

And even there, I I think the goal is really to avoid getting that level. How do you meet a property owner's objectives while ensuring that that resource is protected and maintained? Um but as was noted, there's different ways to get there um to still meet their needs, ensure that they can have a structure that meets current requirements or whatever their objectives are with that that ownership. Um but I think going to what's in the ordinance, it maintains the current level of protections that exist in our existing ordinance and it is aligned with um our our policy in the general plan that um speaks to how we discourage them and look for alternatives rather than before we approve any demolitions.

Okay, great. Um let's see in terms of so and I guess if we found in actual practice that that wasn't the case the it would be let's bring back we want to make an amendment to the ordinance definitely I think if we always have the ability to review sections and and oftentimes if there were demolitions obviously this process would ensure that there's documentation there's daylight um there's appeal processes So there's different ways to ensure that there's robust discussion around a request like that before a final action's taken too.

Okay. Thank you. Um let's see. So I think one thing we haven't talked about is actually and it frankly I didn't think about it when we talked about this before. So I think there's a lot we have we've learned since then. But right now in the ordinance, the only body or entity that can make a historic resource application is the owner of a property. Correct. That's correct. So there is no opportunity right now for the city for whatever reason to make a historic resources application. Not as currently drafted.

Right. And is it also the case that in that that's a very unusual thing that most other cities that have a historic resource ordinance have some way if the city identified a property. I mean I I think of the AP Giannini building but I mean there could be a lot of other things that for some reason Yeah.

Yeah. Please interrupt you. Um, we gave a presentation I think at the beginning of this where we we looked at comparative analysis of 36 cities that had similar characteristics to the city of Sanonteo and looked at what their ordinance is done. And there really is a variety of how they do designations. Some require strong owner consent as we've drafted. Others allow for owners to nominate properties or for it to come from either city council or their historic resources commission to initiate nominations. And some communities allow nominations to come from anybody.

Okay. But there I mean there's no reason why you couldn't have the city have the the ability to do a historic resource nomination along with owner consent and all the other things that we've already agreed we want to have going forward. Well, if the nomination were coming from the city, then you extinguish the owner consent provision. Unless you're suggesting that you could initiate it but still require them to consent.

Well, I guess I would be interested in how in staff coming back and giving us some understanding because there will be situations and we may not know them now where if the city has no ability to do anything even if it's narrowly crafted then that just seems to me to you you want to provide flexibility in how you do a historic resources commission. This seems to be another area where I would think it'd be important to give the city the opportunity and then we can maybe discuss what that opportunity means or how it would apply.

Definitely. So, I think here um to your point, we do have some draft language if if council is interested in including that provision. I think up until now we've been aligning with the direction proceeded, the focus on owner consent, but there's absolutely a path if council wants to include that provision. And so some draft language here kind of identifies how we could amend the procedures for designating a landmark to include nominations to come from the city council um or the historic commission. And so I think the key is is you would still have a public process. This would just be a nomination. This isn't a you're done at one based on direction. So this would allow the city to get something in the door. So obviously it wouldn't be that hard owner consent. There would be still owner notification. There would still be a process. But this would be uh how we would recommend if the city wanted to incorporate that a way that you could do that. And so this would kind of have those two pathways for nominations and how that over overlapped with owner consent.

Okay. Okay. That would be something I'd want to take a look at. Thank you for thinking about it ahead of time. Um, so let me go back and see. So going back to the the planning commission recommendations essentially, u you don't have to go back to whatever page because I'm going to get my eyes with the slides going so far. Um, I'm supportive of all the planning commission recommendations except for the one that says that we should we should vest all this ability in the planning commission. Now, I believe we should establish historic resource commission and um I'm fine with the 4-year as a because I think we need to take a look and see once it's been created, what have we created and is just like once upon a time the sustainability commission and the public works commission merged into sustainability and infrastructure and that very well may be the case after a certain point, but there's a lot to do here. So, um, and I'm it's four years we're talking about. You didn't mention the the term, but I'm assuming it's a four-year term.

The commissioners would have four-year terms. I think like anytime if you started, you'd probably have to do some staggering. So, but um but we weren't necessarily saying the commission had a four-year term. No, no, but the the the um individuals. Yes. Okay. So, I think I've I've asked my three or four for this round, so I will pass it along. Um, if I may, through the mayor, it's 10:45. Should we extend the meeting to 11:30? Yeah, I uh appreciate that. And uh I think at this time we could check in with council to get a sense on I I would I would frankly ask for longer than 11:30 given that we have items beyond this item.

Um, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, I would actually ask us to bump the remaining items to another council meeting. I I I think that this is going to continue to be a robust conversation past 11:30. If I if my my colleagues don't agree with me, that's just fine. But I would like We do have the TA here. I would like to put that I Yeah, I appreciate that. But we are having a like I don't know how late we want to stay here. So, what's the council's desire? Uh, okay. Yeah, that's

I I would suggest we try and get through this and and the 10192 and apologies to the uh the last item. Maybe that could come to another Well, there's PCE and then there's also SP77. So, we can go ahead and look at I was talking about SP77, right? But an internal I would even bump PCE. We have someone from PC here with all due respect. I think PCE is on a certain timeline. Yeah. Uh and it's and I imagine it would be a very quick item. Yeah, I would be okay with extending the meeting until m midnight and trying to get everything in with the exception of item 15. I I I support that recommendation. I see three nods.

Excellent. Thanks for the deliberation and uh um through the mayor. So, under our new council rules, you have to actually vote now to do it. Previously, you didn't have to. So, uh I think if I can get a motion to extend the meeting until I make a motion to extend the meeting until midnight and um take up all council items except for item 15. I second. Uh thank you. Uh we have a a motion in a second. City clerk, can we have a roll call vote? Certainly. Council member Nome, yes. Council member Diaz Nash, yes. Council member Sphere Gditzky, yes. Deputy Mayor Fernandez, yes. and Mayor Lorraine. Yes. Motion carries. 5-0.

Thank you. Uh, Deputy Mayor, I think you may continue our conversation. Awesome. Uh, thank you to my colleagues for covering a lot of what I wanted to ask. So, I appreciate it. Um, as the representative of probably the part of town that has maybe most of the locations on the 89 survey, um, can I ask for specifically regarding the the Mills Act, um, the update mentions prioritizing the Mills Act's contracts for equity priority neighborhoods. Can you clarify how this priorit prioritization works if a high resource neighborhood and an equity neighborhood apply for the limited n number of annual contracts at the same time?

So it would be up to two. So I think we'd have to look at the total number and if the cap stays at two. We I mean there might be almost a lottery or I mean I think we would be open if council had specific direction but probably a combination of a lottery or we bring them all and maybe you're picking the two that you want to move forward with or you could set a target objective of two but you could consider more under special circumstances. So it could to start I mean I think the goal is if if council supports giving opportunities for properties maybe you um have flexibility in that cap. So you could consider if the first few years maybe there's more requests and you wanted to be open to those. So I think we could do it any number of ways and our goal is to start to frame that but wherever council wants to go where we can definitely work with that. And then with regard for to our Milsac properties um whether they currently exist or might be um appropriated as such in the future, is there any way that we can have a public benefit component to those such as making them available for historic tours or school tours or something like require those mil mills act owners to have a public benefit requirement as part of that? Can we mandate that? We can the um original Mills Act legislation included a provision for public access that the state removed in 1987. So what we're proposing currently is to be aligned with state guidance that doesn't require public access. One of the recommendations from planning commission was to have something like what you're describing, including maybe even just having it be a property that is very visible from the public right away. I would um ask my my colleagues to consider that as we move forward on this policy. And those are my questions. Thank you.

And doesn't the planning commission also recommend things like videos and I mean there was more to their giving access. It wasn't just having it be visible, but there was more to it. Yes, they I think it and this is probably something where we'd maybe set parameters and then this could be a work item for because I I think we'd want to look at it look at options look at examples and come up with a program that makes the most sense but isn't you you want to respect the privacy of a private property too but how do you how do you ensure there's there's appropriate public benefit or aligned with what council wants to see. So I if there was parameters I think that's definitely something we could explore and kind of figure out what's what are the best options there to meet that objective

and also might be driven on what what circumstances of the property are.

Okay. I have a couple questions about the review required section um that has been added to this draft. Um could we could you Zach talk us through a little bit about like um for the for the section A relating to um eligible uh historic resources that are not designated. Um what uh there's there's discussion in the in the language about um needing to complete a planning application. So uh right now uh review required a historic resources no building permit that includes an exterior facade modification etc involving an individually eligible historic resource shall be issued until a planning application has been approved in accordance etc. Um can you just explain how that what sort of additional protection is afforded um those type of resources over say a a newer home that's trying to make that kind of alteration

there would definitely be more focus on the scope of work and if it's ultimately found to be an eligible historic resource um we might need to work with them and their historian um or professional that prepared the report to make sure that your character defining features. So maybe it's windows, maybe it's key um roof decorations or ornamentation or whatever might be that that makes that property historic. How does that how is that project able to happen meet their objectives but avoid removal or um impact to those elements. So it could really vary depending on is it the front facade, is it the whole house, is it an event. So it's understanding what makes the property significant and then how do you work um to make sure that that project can um get achieved without impacting um those elements. So it um that would that's the process we undertake now and that's that's the discussion and the process as part of that planning application that is specific to an eligible historic resource. Okay. I guess I'm just thinking like if I had if I owned a home that happened to be let's say 50 years old um right now if I wanted to make this kind of alteration to my home would it trigger a similar uh review? Not off the bat. Um it would be a starting point. So we as part of our planning review we' say okay this property is 55 years old, 60 years old. All right, you're above the threshold. We need to dig into this a little bit. Let's look at um its construction. Is it a rancher? Is it it is it are there there elements um that clearly differentiate say? No, no, there's nothing here that that would push it into an eligible resource category keep on. This is where our screening criteria and our context statement are tools that the planner would use to kind of work

through. And as I had noted, we had 100 planning applications over say a three-year period. 28 required an HRE and of the 28 six were ultimately eligible resources. So you kind of do that same winnowing down process. You start with the age, you start to look at their significance, then if you've got potential for that, then you're moving into preparation of an HRE and then does the HRE ultimately say you are historic or no, you're not eligible. So then if you it's really winnowing down to that very last group that if you are eligible then you're you're working with them to maybe hone the project or maybe they they already have awareness and they've already designed it to where you're just confirming the project has proposed doesn't impact um those historic elements or the resource. I'd like to just add that the historic context statement, the guidance for assessing significance, also offers some additional information that city staff would be able to use to make those determinations, including um integrity considerations, which has uh a pretty robust discussion on in these situations, a property is not likely to be eligible. So, it's another tool that's at the city's hands now to make those kinds of decisions. Mhm.

Uh yeah, council member Nome, did you have a just curious, is what you're describing currently in the draft of the ordinance. Yes, the the review required section facilitates that and then we would use the tools um that are coming from the context statement to implement. Thank you. Yeah, but just just FYI like this is a section that was added between the planning commission meeting and tonight.

Okay. Um, let's see. Okay. So, I I do want to ask um I I I think we we've heard from a number of folks uh via public comment and emails and so on um concern about this language um applying to individually eligible historic resources. Um because if we have, you know, a framework that's focused on owner consent for applying for and designating historic resources, um this I it would seem I think the the claim is I guess like as a hypothetical if someone were to uh commission a historic resources evaluation valuation of a property um or perhaps a number of properties. Um and the conclusion of that evaluation were to be that these properties were eligible um I guess or potentially eligible um then it might uh you know without having like I I guess if if that evaluation were done without an owner's consent right if I if I have my 50-year-old home and and somebody for some reason decides to commission a an evaluation of my home and perhaps some others in the area and that evaluation finds them to be potentially eligible under these

guidelines and then I want to make some sort of alteration of of this nature to my home. Um uh and it it it would seem that it might I I might now have potentially uh more restrictive uh review uh done to my home given this uh this eligibility that was bestowed upon my property without my consent. Is is that correct? It would be I couldn't imagine a scenario where it would go down exactly like that. But because I think with the review required section is this is it's saying no permit shall be issued. So we're not actively at that point seeking out properties to evaluate. This is saying if somebody is seeking a permit, we would be assessing their to their property as part of that review process. So they would have initiated the process. So it's and this is consistent with SE the SQL principle. I think what was flushed out is mo in most cases SQL will require this level of review. The you don't as an owner get to opt out of that SQL review piece. So you would whether you consent to it or not, we would still have to do that evaluation. We do now have some um state legislation that allows that um that piece to not take place, that evaluation piece if you're not listed. And so this review required was a way to say we're going to keep the playing field equal. We're going to require the same of all properties that are in that initial boat of being older than 50 years. We'll go through that evaluation process. We were looking at SQA up until recently be requiring that anyway. Now, that's not always 100%. So, that process which is really initiated by an owner when they're looking to get a permit as opposed to someone else seeking out at that point, you're getting more into the designation territory than this review required section.

Okay. um through the mayor also um if there is like an HRE done by an outside party without the owner's consent, the owner can also do an HRE and then we can evaluate like the validity of of the original HRE that was not done by the owner just like surveys like we would just like take a look at it.

Okay. Um, yeah, I I do think I I I I appreciated uh the answers because I I do think I'm being reminded that there is still a distinction perhaps between those that are considered eligible in this case and those that are designated, right? because it seems like the the letter B, for example, if it's designated um then we get into the certificates of appropriateness and more of the protections that uh this ordinance is meant to confer upon uh historic resources that are in the inventory. Uh whereas it sounds like to me then that letter A is is pretty similar to the type of review that would already happen under SQUA with properties that are 45 plus years old. Is that fair?

That's fair. And I think this ensures that it there aren't any um pathways where maybe you could get around it saying everyone if you're you hit that initial baseline we will do this required review um and potentially an HRE if it makes it that deep in the screening criteria. Okay, thank you. I do appreciate that. Um, okay. I, um, am happy to pass it back to anyone who has more questions at this time. Looking around, Council Member N. Okay. So I'm just curious right now in the way this is presented does the city council approve the demolition of a historic resource if it is not listed as a historic asset. Well, at that point, so you're saying if it's an eligible resource but not a listed resource,

right? I think we would need to understand what the proposed project is. Very likely that would require well that it would have to demolition of any structure requires a special use permit and um you're generally looking at very narrow circumstances where that's done at the staff level otherwise that's elevated up and it always has the ability to be appealed to the plan the city council. And I think that's an important point too is with a planning application, there's always the ability to appeal a decision up to city council. So you may not be in the decision-m process automatically, but an appeal would always allow council to be involved. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for now. Anyone else?

Looks like Council Member Dash may have some more. Yep.

Um not to duplicate. So where did so in terms of saying okay you've got the required review but then we started to have a discussion about um a pre 1910 or whatever staff would say the year is saying that any building that before that date that wanted to do a major remodel or update would have to come and get an additional level of scrutiny. I wouldn't say there's no currently as proposed there isn't a dividing line for an increased level of scrutiny pre or like before 1910

right but if we if we wanted to do something like that I mean just to because as I understand it what you're talking about the required review is sort of going through and documenting it but doesn't necessarily at the end of the day you can still say okay it's documented but go ahead would there be some level If we wanted because there are very few buildings that in that are pre-1910 let's say in San Mate if we wanted to do some kind of special focus extra protection or extra scrutiny maybe um would that be a 19 a pre-1910 structure that's identified as being eligible or just any pre-1910 structure it it could be it could be eligible

because I think if once it's identified as eligible that's naturally going to then trigger a an enhanced sequa process as well as that um need where planning would then be working with them to avoid that impact. So I think the moment that once it's identified as an eligible resource there is an enhanced level of review that goes into um that project and there are in most cases still sequel ramifications if there's a significant impact.

Okay. So, um, in terms of Okay, so I guess I could say that any any building pre, let's say 1910, just cuz that's what we're talking about, that is has been judged to be eligible historic, even if it isn't designated, it would have that additional evaluation. Yes, but I I think we're looking at all eligible resources. We wouldn't be doing something more with a pre-1910 as opposed to anything that's over 50 years old. and meets the criteria to be eligible

through the mayor. Um what you what the council could consider is allowing um building that was built before 1910 as a priority for the Mills Act. And so, you know, you have all these other um parties to look at and just you can just add that as as a factor that way that um if a building was built prior to 1910 that that might have more of a priority for Mills Act in addition to like um priority equity communities. Thank you. Um, okay. So, I guess I'm finished with my major questions, but I think we want to sort of go through and have everybody comment on their priorities.

Yeah, that sounds good. Um, I I would be happy to do that. Do you have any more comments you wish to make, Council Member Dnash? I know you noted a number of things. No, I've got I've got my comments and my what where I come down on all the various issues, but Right. Yeah. Uh, Deputy Mayor, you have anything else you'd like to add? So, at this point, we're doing like summaries, not like questions. Yes, I think that sounds like where we are.

Okay. Um, I am supportive of the version of this policy that came out of the planning commission. Owner consent is paramount for me. Um, and I also believe that we should be obtaining owner consent or doing something uh incrementally to include the 89 um the 89 locations um from the assessment in 1989. Um I do believe that the owners should be included on that and so I would be wholeheartedly against any proclamation resolution that just automatically involves those properties. Um, additionally, I am in support of establishing an HRC, a historic uh, resource commission with the four years that council member um, Diaz Nash and council member Suco Gaditzky both um, uh, liked and including the um, including the youth per uh, youth commissioner. Um, I apologize it's uh, it was late. Um it's really late and um I didn't have a great night last night. Um so I apologize if I'm I'm feeling a little sticky here. Um

doing great.

Thanks. Um and then um yeah, I think I'm I'm I I would be in favor of the fee wavers and other incentives for for those. um that those are ideas that came up and I would be very wholeheartedly in in favor of pursuing those. But for me, the paramount thing is making sure that the owners of these properties are on the journey with it when they if if and when they become quote unquote historic. So that's kind of paramount for me. For me, everything else kind of we can talk those through, but those are the big things for me when where my support is and where my priorities are. So that's where I am. Thank you. I believe we got a pretty thorough comments from council members Gadiski already. Okay, start off with the easy stuff. Uh I agree with approving of a historic commission. Would love to see it installed in three to three three to nine months. uh including of five residents with the suggested qualifications to youth commissioners. I would suggest that we look at historic commission structures uh for example in our neighboring city of Redwood City and I'm sure Rencon can provide us other examples. I um I think as we reimagine our future Sonteo library and you know there's less need for books because more things are online, I think we should look at having a wing of our library be considered a city museum or history wing. Um I think we should take some of the feedback from the planning commission to have videos of historic buildings and historic maps. I think that that's all very important. It would be great to have a collection of um Sato City History books, of which there there's not a lot, but there are a

couple half a dozen or dozen. Um I would like to see the 1989 inventory included in some way in this. Um of the 124 now properties, I'd like us to come back with an idea of how many still exist. Um, I think it's important that, you know, we've spent a lot of time and money um, getting ready to pass a historic ordinance. And I think that as such, it's important that that that ordinance has some teeth. And it it it shouldn't just be an expensive book report. It should be something that helps us and makes a pathway to preserve our historic assets in the city. Um, that said, you know, I recognize and understand the concept of owner cons consent. I do have concerns, however, that a developer could buy a house that was built in 1907 and and still without any, you know, need and demo it. And so, that's where I'm kind of conflicted with the owner consent piece. Um, not that I don't think that it's important, but I'd like to think that most the time if somebody has a 1916 Victorian house that they're going to want to preserve it. Um, but I I have concerns about that and I'm open to suggestions as how we address that. Um, one of the things that we talked about earlier on was the idea of putting some sort of a rolling protection or additional protection in place for homes and that could be homes from whatever you know date mark we come up with whether it be a 100 years or 1910. I would like those to have some additional um protections so that they can't just arbitrarily be demoed without being reviewed by our historic commission. Um I'd also suggest that we do update what that goalpost is every 10 years. So in 10 years we might come back and say, well now we have a lot more homes that

are 100 or 110 years old. So maybe they're not historic. and we reset that timeline to or maintain that timeline to what we came to at this point. Um, what other questions am I supposed to be answering? I think you uh provided enough information for us to

Can I take that back? say there's there's one question that I would support that I'd appreciate my colleagues opinion on giving the the city an ability even if it's I think the language that you put up earlier to have the ability to do a nomination um I think that's very important it can be it seemed as if that was a fairly structured recommendation that you had but that would be something yep I agree and that's my feedback thank you Okay. Um, so let's see. Okay.

Through the mayor, can can I just ask some clarifying questions here? So, just on the issue of allowing for a nomination um but without uh owner consent. Is is that what you're suggesting? What was I'm looking at the the language that director D put maybe you can bring that back up. it is without consent,

right? It's a new this the idea the concept of the council or the HRC being able to nominate a resource for addition there's more process to it but the existing code what we've discussed I think at length at other council meetings is the idea of owner consent so that's what's in the ordinance but it says here the application shall not be accepted without the written consent of the property owner if it's coming from the property owner A is if it's coming from the property owner B is if it's a city recommendation, meaning the council or HRC, in which case you would not have property owner consent there, which

so that that that's seems somewhat at odds with kind of the conversation we've had up until this point. Um, so I I just want to be very clear about what this is and what this isn't. Yeah, that's fair. I guess that my question would be maybe to Rancone. Are there other places that have that have dealt with this other cities that have owner consent requirements? But my my basic concern is I don't want the city to be totally without some ability to nominate not necessarily to get but just to get the ball rolling to say we're part of the conversation.

Yeah, that's yes. There are many cities that have owner consent but still allow nominations to be initiated by either city council or the historic resources commission. That's the language that we've provided in this draft. Because the nomination is coming from the city, it then continues through the process we've outlined in other sections of the ordinance. So you would be no longer requiring owner consent. It would be designated through the initiation of city council. they would still be notified that the action was happening and there would still be a public hearing and so the the council would definitely consider the owner's position on it, but it wouldn't be that it's not moving forward if the consent isn't there.

Right. So, I guess I would I would welcome the opinion of my fellow council members on this particular point because I totally hear the the the issue and it's a real issue, but I just don't want the city to be totally without the ability to get the ball rolling, I guess, is so city attorney. Um, so I don't want to, you know, I don't want to deliberate with you, but I just want to, um, that's not my role, but I just want to introduce another idea. Please do. Please do.

Um, so, you know, in the other slide that was shown, um, there's this idea about if there are properties that are on the 89 survey that there's a process to, um, there it is. there's there's a a process where the council can nominate those properties.

So, uh it does not al it also does not involve owner consent, but it's narrower than what we saw in the prior slide. And I think you know there's there's at least a policy argument. I'm taking my legal hat off here now from for the moment. But you know there there there's this idea that because these properties have been listed on this survey document for since 1989 there's some degree I think of awareness that the for the property owners that their property might be eligible to be on a local register a local inventory as opposed to what we saw on the other slide which is kind of breaking it wide open.

Yep. I that's not my intent. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean this what what's on the slide here is I think addresses some of the issues you were talking about with the 89 survey wanting to make sure there was some level of protection even apart from the review required section. And also, you know, if you wanted to direct staff to expedite updating the survey, whether it's part of the blue sky or whether it's sooner, you could do that as part of your motion. But like what I'm suggesting is this is a little narrower. Absolutely. And I would be concerned about kind of doing a 180

and no I I'm not trying to do that. I'm just I'm just thinking about the city, you know, and city authority. So, but I think this this well I I um I can this is a good I think a good baseline because I also believe that the 89 the structures from the 89 survey the intent is there. Um, so I believe that it should be carved out or included and I think this uh language gets to that. So I think that's great. In terms of um at one point we were saying gee what are we going to do because it's going to take 6 to9 months to get the historic resource commission up and running. Could we continue to ex expedite this particular section and things related to it and keep it at the council level until such time as the commission was up and running and it was trained because if it's going to take six to nine months to get the commission up, it's probably another couple months to train and so we're already talking about a year delay. So is is that an option?

That's an option. Yeah. and and we drafted that language with that thought in mind because the noting that there was interest in moving quicker and so this kind of outlines that that more focus process that would bring it back to council to make that final action. Okay. So that would be that would be great. Um so is it my are you is it your turn? Is it No, I was just just going to lend my support that I I agree with this this idea of designating the 1989 survey. So I'm seeing three nodding heads. I I agree with slide 43. Is this slide 43? I'm not sure I would go as far with the the other one. And I I I agree with you. Okay. I I don't either.

So, there's council consensus or majority for including slide 43 language.

Yes, I I would I too would support this, but I would like to get some clarification from my colleagues. To me, I think this is an elegant way to address including properties from the 1989 survey without rather instead of incorporating all the properties into our inventory before a survey has been updated. Um, to me, I think what I appreciate about this idea is it offers something more strategic and surgical, i.e. I.e. I think as I think council member Diaz Nash was just mentioning if we keep it at the council level and expedite some work with uh community development perhaps ringcon um we could dig into the information we already have and start you know considering properties that are like the most important to you know like the the the the VIPs in that survey as opposed to um pulling everything in and potentially in my mind uh setting poor precedents. Um thoughts on that?

Um whoops. I guess I would say that if we're talking about the 89 survey, would you say there were 133 structures? Probably they're less than 200. So, it's a it's not a super large and we could start or we not me someone could start just you could go do a Google search and say here are 10 buildings that just don't exist anymore. I found two of them. A couple of people mention that tonight in their comments. So, there are a lot that don't exist. They're probably several that are are structurally not relevant. So, they're to your point, mayor, they're going to come out pretty fast. So, um, my concern earlier was if it was going to take us years and years and years to do the survey, just like the first survey was done in '89 and now we're 2026, then I would have concerns. But if we're saying we want to sort of keep this moving, then I would agree with you.

Um, I I'm not sure. I I think here's here's here's my perspective and let's see if they these dots connect because in my mind I mean I would agree with you to some extent there are some properties that from a Google map search can clearly be taken out perhaps. I would think though that there are also many properties on here that would not pass a Google Maps test and we would have to determine through some research whether they maintain a certain amount of integrity that was found in 1989 to make it considered significant. So, um, you know, that process would take quite a bit of time, probably about as much time as updating the survey, um, potentially. And to me, to my mind, I think what I got from the editorial in the Daily Journal um as as an option was this idea that some properties I think are are more well known as being kind of from a different era. And um you know I think there's been a bit of discussion on the deis about trying to trying to focus on some of maybe the most important properties that might be on this list but are not yet on the inventory. To me I think um we may have different perspectives. There's there's one potential approach of of pulling it all in and sorting it out as we go. Uh and my thought would be with that other language, we could instead uh avoid pulling in a lot of properties that might be uh in need of significant review and instead maybe get going on

focusing on the most important looking seeming properties and get those in the inventory sooner rather than later and go from there. And I I would certainly agree. We'd have to prioritize and in the process we'd figure out which are the ones that don't exist, which are the ones whatever. Um we're doing Okay. Okay. Sorry, I don't want to interrupt the conversation. So, just really quickly, I counted three if not more than three to include slide 43. How the sausage is made. We can come back. Okay. I know we're kind of going back and forth just overall of how we go about the survey and updating it that can be

brought back at a later date. Does that work? I don't know. The mayor's looking at me like So, so I think I'm I I feel like we have I I am fine with what was noted with regard to council consensus on slide 43. I I was trying to indicate that um maybe we don't also like there's a separate question of incorporating all the properties from the survey into the historic resource inventory and that's a whole another process. That's a whole another process that's separate and apart from this and we'd have to that's a whole different initiative as we've been talking about and talking about how we scope that out and how we approach that. That would be a whole another meeting to have this dialogue and discussion about how you want to approach that.

So can you so what does that mean? Can you put that that slide 43 back up? Slide 43 basically says that the city can initiate conducting this, you know, updating the survey from 1989 without owner consent for these properties. Okay. But then the question becomes when that's the discuss that it's either you know I I let you know this is a well it's your guys's time. So,

so I think what I heard is Council Member Nuome, myself, Council Member Nash are comfortable designating the 1989 survey as part of the historic resources inventory. And then what I had suggested was that Zach because there's going to be a cost to this and his team come back to us with what is that cost likely going to be and maybe this is a blue sky item that someone brings forward or it's possible that we can accomplish this in less than nine months and it can be done much more quickly. um through the through the mayor. Can I interject to clarify a point? So, I think that that's um it's not quite accurate, but it's it's close. So, so uh think about property owner consent. Talked about it extensively. So, what's on the slide right now is an alternative to the property owner consent process. It the the ordinance creates a framework. The proposed historic preservation ordinance is all about creating a framework for future action on individual properties or future districts. So with that in mind, property owner consent is um the primary method of designating resources and including them in the inventory. This would be an alternative method where property owner consent is not required for properties listed on the 89 survey. So this is part of the puzzle. Another part is asking staff if you want to do so to update the 89 survey which could be uh a short process or a longer process depending on the extent of that update.

And then also separate apart from that is how do you how do you actually um how do you implement this? How does implementation work? um which is I think part of that would be I think explored by staff as it goes through the process of updating the 89 survey if if that's the council direction. I'm going to look to our community development director to to add to that or

yeah I think that's the important point is this wouldn't be doing any designating but it would provide a path um for council to do that and then if you wanted to provide direction to staff to move forward with I mean because you could do a couple properties you could do all you could look at all the properties in the 89 survey that is the part that we would need to then scope for you and come back and say it's going to cost this much it'll take this amount of time and we're not predetermining anything because we don't know exactly how many of those properties all of them 90% how many of them are still eligible and so that's where the work would need to come in once that work is done and you have that information then you could consider designation and obviously as part of that there would be owner notification um and then we'd need to public publish the meeting accordingly

right and I would recommend going forward and looking at all of them and you then you find out if you look at all of them that these are no longer there these are not you know they don't qualify But just not nominating three out of the 89 survey. So you're looking for just a update of the 89 survey in totality. Yeah. Okay. And I want Go ahead.

If I may through if the So if the mayor I I want to be crystal clear about something that uh our community development director just mentioned. So there is no designating of properties on the 89 survey tonight. That's that's not on the agenda. The council can't do that. Now that so this is creating a framework for updating the survey and you know as I mentioned before but uh you're not actually adding you're not adding those properties to the inventory tonight. It's creating like a foundation a framework for future action.

I I agree and I I would want all the the properties on the survey to be included in the update. That would be my opinion and then we can talk about time and you mean you'd have to come back and tell us what that meant. Okay. I think with the clarification from the city attorney, I would uh support as well the idea of I what I feel like was noted in the planning commission recommendation which was to uh explore updating uh the current survey. And frankly, um, I I would just add on to that exploring, including this language to allow for the city council to nominate properties, um, following a uh, update of the survey and and a subsequent discussion on details related to be discussed later. Um,

so so just real quickly, just question on timing. How quickly do you want to get to this? Do you want to wait till the blue sky or did you want us to dep prioritize our downtown initiative and start working on this? I guess that's a real quick that's a council question. My question would be is there anything we can do to preserve or protect the buildings until such time that the survey can be complete? So if for example we say look this is going to take three years because we can't make it a quick priority. We we have to get this done in order to be able to do exactly what you're asking for. You'd have to conduct the survey and determine what you want to designate and get it on the inventory in order to protect it. Well, also keep in mind, oh,

you still have the HRE though tech, you know, there might be some buildings though that might fall under state law that might not have that preservation.

So, keep think of it this way. the existing ordinance and this proposed ordinance. You know, they have kind of a similar review process in place for properties that are, let's just say, eligible, potentially eligible for say the California Register. You wouldn't be able to de demolish those properties today without doing an evaluation, going through a process, you know, through a planning application, perhaps getting a special use permit. I think a community development director mentioned before that that's the process today. And then under the proposed ordinance, you'd still have to go through a review process to alter and certainly like demolish uh eligible resources. So I know to to council member Newsome's question, I mean whether a property is on the 89 survey or not, um there is a review process in place today and there would also be one if this proposed ordinance is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'm in favor, Mr. Mayor. Please. Um, I would be in favor of uh Blue Sky this blue sky. I don't think that there are any projects right now that I'd be willing to dep prioritize for this. Looking for others input.

I I when you say blue sky, it could be one year, it could be five years, it could be 10 years. And I don't think we can wait 10 years to do this work. So that's my difficulty. So I'd be interested in other people's opinion. Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't want to wait that long. I mean, if we're waiting a year, year and a half, be one thing, but I mean, I there's no guarantee that if we put as a blue sky item next January that it it gets done by the following January. So, that's my concern as well. Yeah, I guess to me that was why something like this language was appealing because it seemed to me like uh rather than consider updating the entire survey at once, we might be able to maybe look at certain properties on the survey in a more expedited manner. Um but um yeah, I mean I I guess frankly I I find myself probably in the blue sky category on this.

Zach, do you think that your team would be able to get this done before the end of the year realistically to review all the properties? I wouldn't want to make that commitment. I I think we'd have to assess it, look at what's going into it, and that's feasible. So, um, we could try, but I I couldn't make any promises without rolling up our sleeves and really scoping this out a bit more.

I'd also just say that there's probably a community engagement portion when you're you're letting the owners know and you might get push back from some of the owners as well. So, you got to take that into consideration, too. Um, but that's your guys's, you know. Well, what I would say to my council colleagues on this is like kind of the reason we're in this mess with the 89 survey, and it is a mess, is because the council back then didn't finish the work. And so if we, you know, also punt it to blue sky, and I totally appreciate that we have a ton of priorities and initiatives, then we run the same risk of it keeps getting punted and then it becomes a future council's problem. And don't we want to be proactive? Like we're already here, we've already invested the money. So to me, I would say we should try to finish this this year so we have clear direction from this council going forward.

So I'd say you're what I'm hearing then from a majority of the council is we can move forward. I don't know if we'd be able to get it done this year, but this process would begin this year. The process would begin.

So that's the direct. So, what I have heard is you guys all agree on slide 43 um want to get going on the process. So, we'll bring back a scope and have a further dialogue with the council about what to include um for the survey update for the 1989 survey. Additionally, I'm just trying to wrap because I'm kind of getting kind of what I'm what I'm hearing just overall. So I hear support for the historical historical resources commission, five members, two youth update, basically broaden out just uh some of the um backgrounds preferences so to speak that uh council member Scoitzki brought up. So include that as well. Um those

Can people nod their heads or thumbs up so we can get a firm? I'm trying to just kind of hit direction. Yes, I see a majority giving direction on that as well. Um and then just on Mills Act, we'd have to come back separately just um on more information of what fee wavers would look like and the number of uh properties. And I would ask that we look at the other and enforcement and penalties. Yes, enforcement and penalties, too. Sorry, I I'm all into move slow to move fast. So, I saw Nicole, Lisa, and I shake our heads. Nod our heads. Nod our heads. Yes. Okay. Next one. Yes. Yes. What else you got for us, Alex? There's the context statement.

Yeah, just do you guys agree with moving forward content? And I would just point out that it is a living document. We've already gotten a couple of Okay, here's suggestions. So, let's you know, first. Yeah.

So, I guess the one question would be does council want to direct staff to use some of the contingency to u move forward on the the two recommendations from planning commission about adding the additional maps and graphics and additional biographic information. I'm seeing three. I would also say as we are able to and it may not be this year but part of what we said we wanted to do with the context statement was include groups not just buildings and people but like the Japanese community in San Monteo has been very influential the African-American community in Sonteo has been very influential including their history as a group I think is

yeah each each period has a a section that is designated to discussing the um ethnic the communities that were um either came to San Mato at that time or had like very productive things happen during that time and that's carried throughout the document. So that has a pretty robust discussion of all the groups that came to Sato. Um let's see. Go ahead. I'm just waiting. Can we go down the list of what you have? We pretty much have the direction that we there's all the planning commission recommendations that we haven't talked about. Well, not all. I don't know if we had agreement on all of them. HRC talked about them all.

So, do we need to go through them one at a time and and nod or raise our hands or whatever? I think so. We need to be very clear about the direction here. Yeah, maybe if we followed uh a structured process involving a mayor who facilitated the meeting, we might have an opportunity to do that. Um, fair point.

Point taken. So, I I mean I I think that's right. Um, and we could potentially just go down the line and nod our heads. Uh, I So, why don't we do that? Excuse me. I apologize, but I would like this to be on the record. So, I would appreciate if people said yes or no to these items because I don't want there to be any confusion about what's being drafted, reddrafted, etc.

Well, sure. I mean, I think generally when when getting direction, having the majority is sufficient. I don't know if we have to. I mean I I guess to your point just making sure that we have the the the three out of five or not. Is that is that does that satisfy? Okay. Yes.

Okay. Great. I mean I think people were giving comments such as I agree with all the planning commission recommendations except for one or two. So we were we were kind of on our way there but we could reset I suppose. I I I think it's a it would be helpful to just make it clear which recommendations are being uh approved by the council which aren't because it was a little it it wasn't completely clear correct earlier. So I think if you just want to quickly go down it's up to it's up to the mayor though how you want to proceed.

Yeah. Well I think that's fine. Why don't we why don't we try that? So, um, I mean, I'm I'm just gonna I'm just going to pause for a minute because I I felt like I had plenty of other things I was interested in saying related to this broader topic uh that I might have liked to, but we had a number of questions and so on that went in a bunch of different directions and um but but I think we can get this out of the way maybe. So, let's let's just go ahead and um so I mean, frankly, I'll just start by saying I agree with all of these. Does does anyone not agree? Let's just go down the line. I council members Gadiski.

Okay. So, um not number seven, which is right. We're we're going to create a historic resources commission commission and then I am not clear on the penalties for violation. Um you know I I don't I don't know if I want to punish residents when we're implementing a new process.

Go ahead. So, I I don't know if this is helpful or not, but we have in the past handful of years had someone who was renovating a house destroy the facade that they were supposed to preserve. And so we didn't have a a penalty that could maybe um I would say adequately compensate for that destruction. Um if you think about our administrative citations, it's $100 for the first violation day one, $200 for that violation day two, and then $500 for every day thereafter. compounds, but when you have something that is destroyed all at one time, it's it's done. So, you're talking about day one $100 for the administrative citation and if they pay it, I don't know. And maybe there's multiple violations because maybe it violates more than one code section, but that is what the penalty would be. So, it's a one-time maybe multiple penalties or or multiple violations, but it would be a one-time infraction. So, you would be assessing it one time. It's not compounding day after day after day because they're only violating the code the one time that the destruction occurs. So, that's the thing that maybe I would consider when thinking about when what the penalty would be for something that happens only one time. It's not like hoarding or leaving your trash can out or overgrowing your weeds where we're going out there multiple times. It's one and done.

Just through the mayor, I I think this is probably a topic that merits more evaluation and and staff would need to look at what our current code provides for examples of of ordinances that are more robust and then how that could potentially be rolled in. So, if there's council interest in in strengthening, we would need to do more research and then come back to you. similar as with the Mills Act. That would probably be the most effective way if there's interest in pursuing this. May I add something through through the mayor? Sure.

So, keep in mind the the remedy the uh administrative citations is not the only remedy available. Yes. It's it's 100 200 then 500 and then you can each and every day of a violation of a violation of the code is a separate violation can be citable. But there's also other uh remedies. You could order a work stoppage for example under the proposed ordinance. I mean there's other more robust remedies like you could go out and get an injunction or you could apply for an injunction if you wanted to. Um you know that that's something that usually doesn't happen. But the usual uh variety of code enforcement remedies that are applicable to uh most any code violation would also be applicable to violations of the historic preservation ordinance. So it's not just finding somebody like $100 like once. It's there's other there's other possibilities. But I would agree with the community development director what's being proposed here in terms of remedies. It's sort of tried and true and um to change those uh penalties would require I think some further research.

Yes, Council Member Niss. Thank you. Through the mayor. Uh so could we could we say for example like I my my take is I support one through six uh but before I commit to four I'd want us to come back for further further uh information. Yes. Okay. It sounds like we have agreement on that. It sounds to me almost like we were taking that explore word and maybe putting it at the very beginning. Sure. Yes. Yes. Very good. So, can I get back to just to clarify and through the mayor? Um, so 1 through six, no to seven, explore four. Correct. Can I hear you guys all on the microphone?

Yes. Although I just want to be on the record in saying I I would have appreciated more consideration for the planning commission given that as being the body given that they had a strong meeting that I think many of us got a lot out of and I just want to make another small point which is when we're talking about funding uh for this survey uh there's going to be some funding that we're going to need to put toward making a new commission and that could have gone toward this survey.

Um, just as a point of clarification because the mayor brings up a good point. When I say historic resource commission, I do mean it as a limited time body of four years. So, after four years, we revisit. Does this go back to planning or do we still need a historic commission or we merge it? Great idea. I just saw five nodding heads on the limited term of four years and a reconsider. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. So, if we're going to go that route, can I ask can I ask a question? So, do you do you want the ordinance itself to expire after four years or do you want us the staff to just come back to the council say do you still want this commission to continue? I would say come back. Come back.

Yeah, I think I think that sounds right to me. Not expire. Just come back for review. Ditto. Okay. So I think what we have with this slide then is 1 through six not seven explore four as the city manager said. I just wanted to get in a little context but I think we're ready to move on. I see five nodding heads to that Mr. Mayor. Okay. Very good. Uh we can go we can go down the line on this. Go ahead. Uh, council member Sphere Gadeski.

Um, for historic context statement, yes to number two, I'm okay with number one. Yes, for both one and two. Yes, for both one and two. Yep. I think we and I I would also be a yes for both one and two. You've got five. So I have agreement from the full council move forward with historic context statement as it states on this screen for one and two. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Got direction on that. Millsac program.

I I guess my my thought would be I would love if director Dah is saying some of these may be too much for the early years. I would be happy going I think they're all good but if we need to grow the program before it makes sense I'd be happy to defer to your opinion on that if you wanted to provide us direction to explore all three of these and then we'll be bringing coming back anyways to flush out a couple of these the other we could then come back and and provide a little bit more analysis on what it would take and if you're still interested that would be yes for me I would be happy to I would actually be fine with dep prioritizing number too. If it seems like that's the brunt of the work that you would be doing in this section,

that would be I would agree. Yeah, I would agree as well. Me too. Me five. So, we to the mayor just to confirm for the record. Yeah. What I'm hearing is agreement on the Mills Act program section that is on the screen right now that we'll staff will continue to explore one, two, and three. Actually, what I think we just changed is we're really just interested in one and three. Okay. So, one and three, no to two. Okay. All right. All right. I think we can and just sorry on the Millsac program. Oh, let's go back one

for there. Thank you. Um, so are you envisioning making changes to that resolution now or just coming back with a revised resolution? Back. Okay. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, we're 10 minutes away from midnight. Do we need to extend the meeting further? Yes. Um, thank you. I I suppose at this point we can uh maybe ask for another half hour because I I feel like we may not need it all. Um we're we're getting through this, but we're we do have How about 12:30? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I meant. Sorry.

Till 12:30. Do I have a motion? Second. All right. We have a motion. Uh and a second. City clerk, can we have a roll call vote, please? Certainly. Uh Council Member Diaz Nash, yes. Council member Spirro Gaditzki, yes. Deputy Mayor Fernandez. Yes. Mayor Lorraine. Yes. Council member Nome. Yes. Motion carries. 5-0. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And yes, there we go. Okay. Can I ask Mayor a question? Sure. Where did we come out or did we come out on anything about um saying any structure that's pre910 uh go, you know, go through an additional review? Did we did we come to any yes or no?

I'm not sure that we did. Okay. And maybe could I suggest that since we're all wanting to protect these but we're not quite sure how that we could ask staff and Ringcon to come back with what that might look like that would be meaningful if Yeah. Yeah, I mean that could be part of what we report back on where that line would be or what that would scope would be but what that would mean what that that would work for me. Okay, so that's like a that's like a number seven.

So, um through the mayor, you know, we had the slide 43 language in there. Um, and you know, in terms of uh what you were suggesting for I'm sorry, like can you um the 1910 for the 1910 threshold? So I don't we didn't hear I didn't hear like a council consensus on that issue. That's what we were just talking about. Okay.

Right. So that we what I was saying um was that we should ask the director D and his team to come back with a recommendation as to how would we apply this? What would be the year? What additional protection could there be? But the idea would be that you wanted to put some additional protection on buildings before a certain time and you said you could come back with how that might work. So is yeah I guess and there's still um an open question of the the specific direction on the um it sounds like moving forward with the update to the 89 survey as part of that if we had a second age threshold beyond the 50 100 1910 whatever. So you're saying you're asking for report back on what that might look like

what that might look like. Yes, we can do that but that's different than what is in slide 43. Slide 43 is specifically correct. Correct. So it would be bringing something back to the council at a later date to imple like to figure out what's an appropriate threshold for additional protections, what that would look like, would it be incorporated in the ordinance that this this is go explore that topic. It's completely different from what was on slide 43. Correct. Yes. Correct. Okay. But it's important to note I I didn't want it to get lost. Um through the mayor, if I may comment on this.

Yes. I think Lisa, what I'm what I'm having a hard time with with 1910 and beyond is

before the 1989 there's precedent, right? You know, based on the documentation like the survey was funded by the council as part of the general plan revision. Like this is in documents, right? So there's a real precedent that this is something the city had explored, wanted to do. There's also this other piece where several community members across many districts have advocated and pushed for consent. So if we open that up beyond, you know, 1910, 100 years, how does that go hand in hand with the consent? That's this is not I don't really think this has a whole lot to do with consent because consent would be do you do I want to have my property listed or evaluated. This is just saying as part of the standard at least in my head as part of the standard what do I have to do if I want to do a remodel on a building that was created in 1890. Is there anything additional an additional layer of review that you should go through? Not saying it's it may not be designated historic. It may not be designated anything. Maybe it's eligible. Who knows? But that because of the fact that it isund and whatever years old that we should take a look. Now we may depending on what staff comes back with they could come back and say you know what this is this is 150 years old but it really is not worthy of anything. it's old to the point we don't want to say just because it's old it's not historic but because it is old does it deserve an additional look when there is a major renovation or a demolition

um so you're talking about exclusively for major renovations or demolition anything older than whatever the appropriate whatever the appropriate we've been talking about something over I I was just saying 1910 but because it seemed to make sense after the earthquake as a date but through the mayor I we can explore the topic and come back I mean I think generally there isn't precedent for a age specific threshold beyond the initial qualifier um but we can look at that and report back if there's a majority of council interest in looking at that

so in the interest I'm going to interject a little and and say given that I I think based on what I've heard I I don't know that I am interested in this um extra particular study and would just ask others if they are interested.

Nope. I guess I keep coming back to this the editorial of like how do we protect something that's older than 100 years old and you know until we have structure in place to determine whether it's historic or not. That's what I'm I'm still struggling with. So through the mayor. Yeah.

There still is a HRE that has to be conducted. And I mean, if there's direction to proceed with updating the 1989 survey, I think that's getting to that overarching point as well. So, through some of the other actions and with the updated ordinance that um is before you this evening, but the 1989 survey doesn't cover every building that's older than 1910 in the city.

No, it doesn't. But I think what I might note on this is that if we're going to be expediting work on this survey, we're going to have our hands full for a little while. And um so to me I think that adding another thing to that list might be a a lot at this time and and I think yeah I think that's something we could consider after we begin the expedited work in my opinion. Yeah. I guess I guess what I'm hearing is that if a building was that old and it was going to be demoed we're it's going to be coming in front of us to some degree. It's going to be brought to our attention. So, I guess with that I' I'd be okay.

Okay. With what? The extra study or not having the extra study for waiting on the extra study. Not saying we're not going to do it, but not not yet. I don't That's Yep. Yep. So, that's a no. That's a not right now. Not right now. Say no. Okay. Not right now. And uh with that, maybe we can uh return our attention to the items on the list.

Um through the mayor, could I see if I can summarize what I heard the council say? Um and then you can sort of correct what I'm what I'm about to explain. So it's the what's on the screen right now. Um and then also uh incorporating slide 43 as indicated, although perhaps I should say consider um the adoption of a resolution to add something to the inventory because I think it says right now it just says adopt. Um correct.

If you go to uh shall hold a public hearing to adopt a resolution. Um, did you want to say consider or adopt, approve or disapprove? To cons. Yeah, I think instead of Yeah. On the third line, shall hold a public hearing to consider. Yes. Makes sense because that way it's not Right. That's right. Exposing the outcome, right? Exactly. That was that was my point. Okay.

Okay. So, turning back to the other slide, um, the recommendation slide. Everybody. Okay. So it's at slide 43 with the word consider also uh with respect to the 89 survey council direction as part of the motion to do our best to uh get that done as quickly as possible. Um which may or may not happen before the end of the year but at least initiate that process

before the end of the year. And then also with respect to item two to add two youth commissioners and I think similar to language you already have in the municipal code. For example, with respect to the parks uh commission. Uh and then also with direction not part of the ordinance but like direction to staff to uh bring this ordinance back to the council in four years to evaluate whether or not you want this commission to continue. And then with respect to the Mills Act, um even though you would be adopting a resolution here under item four, you would be asking staff to bring back a resolution to uh update this to consider should there be a reevaluation every 10 years uh to consider fee waiverss and explore other enforcement and penalty options. I I think or perhaps a community development director. My point point of clarification, do you want to adopt the Mills Act program as drafted and then direction to bring back those additional items or hold off on updating the program until we work through those items? I guess would be the

you could do either one. I was suggesting the former to just update it now. But it's um that's what I'm okay. So it would be updating now, bringing that item back to amend the update to update the milac program again with those items and then moving on. Um except for number two. We struck we struck that one. Correct. Yeah. For the additional planning comm. Yes. Y number two under Mills Act. We're going with one and three, not two.

Right. I was I was referring not to I'm going to get to that. I was get that's under planning commission recommendations. Um, and then under the PC recommendations, you had a slide that said, uh, PC recommendations 1 through 7. And a majority of the council said, I think all the council said yes to one and six, no to seven, explore number four. Yes through one through six. Yes. No, that's right. It says one to one and six. One, one, two, one through six. One through six. One through six. It's it's the same thing.

Okay. And then for the historic context statement under the PC recommendation, it's a yes to one and two. Thank you. There we go. And then the Mills Act program one and three, but not number two. And correct. There's there's one other piece um and there was these were two um additional recommendations. They weren't in the draft, but these were recent ones in response to public comments received. And so, um, we would ask, does council support these incorporating these two revisions into the ordinance? No, thank you. That's an important clarification. It's the with those changes as well in addition to everything I just mentioned.

So, it's a bit of a complicated motion, but I think that captures everything that you the council was saying. Yes. I mean, I I would say I I'll just start by saying I I can support these additional recommendations and ask around. I see a nod head. Okay, very good. Is the motion clear for the council? No. Can you say it all over again, Rob? I make a motion. No,

there's one. Can we go back to the plan the planning slide again? Sorry. Just one more time. that that's well the plaque program is in there. That's why I paused. Okay. I believe Yeah, it sounds like it is clear. And I'm hearing a motion from Council Member Nome uh to adopt as the city attorney just described.

I second. And before I call for the roll call vote, I do just want to make a quick clarification on my end because we were talking a little bit about uh how much to expedite the updating of the survey and I think at some point I found myself in uh the blue sky uh section, if you will, uh thinking we could postpone it. And and I I do agree with what we've uh agreed as a as a council to to expedite it beyond a blue sky item. Uh, and I I just look forward to the next steps to learn uh what that entails. Um, but just wanted to make that clear. And uh, with that, uh, city clerk, can we have a roll call vote, please? Certainly. Council member Newsome, yes. Council members FCO Kaditzki,

yes. Council member Diaz Nash, yes. Deputy Mayor Fernandez, Mayor Lorraine, yes. Motion carries 5-0. Okay. Hey, I thank everybody for their patience as we went through uh a lengthy complex item with lots of public comment, lots of questions, lots of uh new language to consider and uh but we got through it. So, thank you. And now we will move on to the next item which is item number 13. US 101 state route 92 direct connector status update.

Thank you both very much with esteemed guests from the Sono County Transportation Authority. If you work an extra day, if I may, through the mayor, it's 12:06. Could we extend the meeting till 12:45? Just to be sure we can get through it.

Do I have a motion for this? Second. Do I have a motion for this? I motion. Second. Okay. Yeah, I have a motion in a second for extending to 12:45. City clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please? Council member Speco Gaditki, yes. Deputy Mayor Fernandez, yes. Council member Diaz Nash, yes. Mayor Lorraine, yes. Council member Newsome, yes. Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.

Well, good evening. While the PowerPoint's being brought up, uh, just introduce myself. I'm Jessica Manzy. I'm the director of project delivery with the Sanonteo County Transportation Authority. Uh thank you for having us this morning. I appreciate your stamina and continuing this meeting and we will do everything we can to make this as expeditious as possible. And we could say the same thing about you.

So it's been roughly a year since we were back in front of you and the community to give you an update on this project. At that time, we heard a lot of concerns about the project and its potential impacts. And so, we've been working really hard over the past year to make sure that um we and the technical team are doing everything we can to respond to those concerns. So, tonight we have an update for you on the status of the project and um some important um new information and information on next steps. So with that, I'll hand it over to our project manager for the project, Carolyn Mamarado. Good morning, council members, and thank you for having me here tonight. Um, uh, listed on this slide are the items that we're going to cover in this presentation. And what we're looking for from the council are really any general comments on the current status as well as feedback on how we engage with the community about what's proposed for this project uh specifically at the Hillsdale interchange. Uh so starting off with an overview uh what is this project and why are we doing it? The project is a prioritized regional improvement uh funded by voterapproved measures to address long-standing congestion at the 10192 interchange and the result of a 2016 planning study by the project partners. And we're proposing a new uh flyover connection between the 101 express lanes and state route 92 similar to what you see out there today at 10185 in Mountain View. uh and this aims to achieve better reliability, more car pooling and transit use and increased travel options. Uh so we're still very early in the

overall project schedule. The current environmental evaluation phase uh shown in blue here is just the beginning of the process and intended to inform whether we advance into design and construction. The most important milestone in this current phase is the public circulation of the draft environmental document which is on track for next spring 2027. After receiving public comments and considering the technical analysis in that document, a preferred or no build alternative will be selected by fall 2027, which all gets recorded in the final environmental document by summer 2028. So, I won't dig into each one of these, but uh one of the biggest concerns raised uh that we've been working really hard towards is providing more opportunities for public participation. To date, we've led a number of engagement efforts which are listed on this slide. And this slide summarizes some of the key concerns raised by the council and community members to date. Um, early on, many were alarmed by potential property impacts, uh, which we've been, uh, working very hard to clear up since last year. Based on the current analysis, we now clearly know that no houses or parks will be needed for this project and that two of the four alternatives remain within Calrans property. And I'll cover this in greater detail shortly. Another uh concern I'll highlight here is in response to uh concerns regarding congestion relief as well as merging and weaving on the freeway, particularly on northbound 101 near the 92 interchange. Um we are now evaluating potential ramp changes at Hillsdale um within this

environmental document and that I'll talk about uh on slides ahead. Oh, sure. Thanks. Um, so illustrated here is a summary of the current property needs for each of the project alternatives. Again, none of the alternatives require acquisition of houses or parks and the no build or and alternative three don't require any additional property beyond Calrans property. The other two build alternatives one and two would require space that is mostly within an existing utility easement and that's the space between the freeway sound wall and residential backyard fences as well as linear space along the edge of uh residential yards for two properties along Norton Street. Uh so we're still working with Calrans to uh ensure um that the non-standard design features that allow us to use less space are uh approved. Uh many of these features are what's out there today, but we're still waiting for uh CALR to give us that thumbs up. Uh we're also looking more closely at how we can reconfigure the drainage within the remaining utility easement which I'll go into more detail on the next slide. Uh so this is a closer view of that existing utility easement I mentioned along northbound 101 at the Kho interchange marked in orange. And this easement has an approximately 27 foot wide drainage ditch currently within it. With the direct connector, the freeway sound wall is going to move easterly, leaving about 16 to 21 ft of remaining space for that uh drainage ditch. Um,

and a new underground box culvert would ensure we maintain proper drainage capacity. We're also coordinating with the city's engineering staff on future opportunities to upgrade the system consistent with plans in the draft storm water uh storm drain master plan. So, one of the other ways that we're addressing public concerns brings us to the Hillsdale ramps at northbound 101. Public concerns have been raised over the years about the short weaving distances and all the friction happening uh at Hillsdale on northbound 101. And it's been something we've committed to assessing design solutions for as part of this project. So beyond just the freeway congestion issues, we also see that this is a safety issue with a high incidence of crashes clustering on this segment of 101. and we see traffic spilling onto uh local streets with about 15% of traffic from 101 exiting Hillsdale and getting back on 92. So, while previous design concepts for the Hillsdale ramps were eliminated because of either significant rightaway impacts and high costs um that were not supported by the city. Uh this new concept avoids those concerns and entails reconfiguring the loop on-ramp and removing the diagonal on-ramp uh to increase the length of the auxiliary lane. With that uh extended auxiliary lane, people have more time to merge and weave safely uh reducing the likelihood of crashes on 101. This also leads to a substantial reduction in freeway

congestion as shown on this graph that turns from mostly red orange on the left uh to much more green on the right indicating 45% faster speeds, shorter peaks, and shorter cues on northbound 101. Um and with that removal of the free right turns for those existing on-ramps, uh people walking and biking also face fewer conflicts and safer conditions. Uh but nothing here is a done deal. We're going to continue to assess this concept and take a closer look at how this affects traffic for the local intersections and how it performs in tandem with the direct connector. If advanced, the ramp uh Hillsdale ramp elements could be phased to move forward separately uh from the bigger direct connector connector project and vice versa. And while the Hillsdale ramp improvements are closely tied to addressing that freeway congestion, uh this won't address all the other ways that people move through Hillsdale. Uh so a separate more comprehensive study would be needed for the city to evaluate uh ways to further improve Hillsdale traffic operations, multimodal connectivity and safety. To bring awareness to this part of the direct connector project, our proposed outreach strategy summarized here on this slide for the council's feedback. Uh we're scheduled to launch targeted outreach later this year, starting with an initial scoping period. Um by early next year, the team would then return to share technical findings and gather public feedback that would inform selection of the preferred alternative by late 2027. And our approach for this includes updating our collateral, making

announcements through our newsletter and social media, all to drive attendance for in-person activities in convenient locations near the Hillsdale interchange. And our outreach will prioritize the people most directly affected, uh, including the residents and businesses adjacent to Hillsdale, people who walk and bike Hillsdale, and the commuters who drive these ramps every day. So, we'll continue working on the technical analysis and ongoing outreach, aiming for this fall to do targeted outreach for the proposed hillsdale ramp changes. And we plan to be back before the city council early next year. And finally, uh, while this project and the proposed ramp changes for Hillsdale are focused on addressing three-way congestion, um, it's not a silver bullet and really part of a bigger solution. So later this month on May 18th, you'll hear from our SMCTA colleagues about broader plans as part of the 101 corridor connect strategy uh which would have opportunities to advance other projects in the area for 101 and Hillsdale. So with that, I'll open it back to the mayor for questions.

Well, thank you very much for your presentation. Uh before I ask council members for questions, I'd like to open public comment on this item. So if anyone still in the room would like to give a public comment, there at least one. Let's go. Um please turn in your request to speak slip to the city clerk. If you're remote, uh please use your raise your hand function and I'll ask the city clerk to please tally those interested. Mayor Lorraine, we've received three requests to speak on this item. Uh, no requests in our virtual environment. Uh, three in chambers. Um, we will, uh, begin with Kevin Simpson, followed by Rich Hedges and Drew.

Council for this late opportunity to continue to weigh in.

Won't start until you give me the clock. Thank you. I don't want to take up more time than I'm allowed to. I don't know why we're still here talking about this. The number one thing we could do to improve the lives of everybody on either end of this bridge and everybody up and down 101 and everybody in San Francisco and everybody in Silicon Valley is to put transit on 92 across the bay. And we're not doing anything about that. Instead, we're coming up with a what looks like a Brev era Soviet plan to put private lanes to for the convenience of East Bay commuters to get up to San Francisco or get down to um Silicon Valley. We should be incenting people to get on buses at the Cal Train station in San Franc in San Monteo or the BART stations on the East Bay to get a to to to get to and from those two stations and then get on buses to get over the bridge. This is a ridiculous, disruptive, inequitable, inefficient and dangerous project for us to continue. And I don't know why we're still here talking about this. I think it was Jackie Spear who said this seems to be on autopilot. Although there isn't a good business case, there isn't a good effectiveness case, and there isn't really a good uh sanity case for us to even be thinking about this to put one more lane in each direction to connect people who can afford to pay for it or whose employers, well-healed corporations, can pay them to take the limousine lanes. We've The amount of disruption for this project to our community, the danger that will result from all the cars trying to get around these things is

unconscionable and absolutely unacceptable. And I don't know why we're here talking about this. And yet we are. It just keeps coming back like a vampire. And I think that we need to make it very clear that this community does not want this project. And what we want to see is effective transit across the bridge, which will help our transit services like BART and Cal Train, which will help the people of San Francisco, which will help the people of the East Bay, which will help all the people who have to live around this proposed project. So, please, for the love of God, somebody put a stake in this.

Thank you. Our next two speakers will be Rich Hedges followed by Drew Thank you. Mine's going to be pretty short. I actually thought we'd have a wider presentation, but I'll ask the question anyway because it's the second half the the that I expected to be here tonight. I have not been able to get any information on where the fly over from you going south on 101 over to 92 will land on 92. Does anybody have any idea where that's going to land? Because it's an important question.

Thank you, Rich. I imagine we can bring that back to staff. Did you have anything else you'd like to add?

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this project now that we're not eliminating three 33 houses. Uh but I do want to make a a comment out of someone who rode the bus to the East Bay five to six times a month and uh it was called the MBUS. It was run by AC Transit and I'd say not too well. I actually filed a complaint against a driver uh and was ready to go to a hearing with him when he confessed that he didn't show up at a stop. So, uh, I will tell you that myself and Marshall Luring were almost the only ones on the bus in the morning. It went right to Hayward Bart. There's only one way you're going to get these projects to work, and that's you've got to grab Visa and Gilead and these other big corporations who are running buses to actually buy transit passes and give them to their people. And for our transit companies to have coaches, that's a long trip through a lot of turns throwing you around. It's not a comfortable ride. So, I love transit. I don't mind buses, but they've got to service the people that want to take them. Once in a while, there would be somebody coming from the East Bay that worked in Bridge Point, maybe three times in the years I rode it. So, you got to advertise it. You've got to get the major companies to use it. Thank you.

Thank you. and our final speaker and this item will be true. Hello there. Uh it's been a few years maybe since I've been here. Life has uh gotten in the way, but it's good to be back though it's a little late. Uh so I am here for a couple reasons. one, you know, we voted several times for like measure a I might a couple measures to improve the interchange and that's all good. And we also though voted in to me in part of that was the weave patterns Hillsdale to 92, not just a direct connector. This isn't an anti-direct connector comment. There's pros and, you know, pros and cons, but I think dealing with the weave that space between 92 and Hillsdale, northbound, possibly southbound as well in the morning. Um, that I do not like drive. Now, this is a personal thing. It's just like it's hairy getting through those weave patterns. And so, measure the measures we've passed. I think the average citizen, that's part of why they voted improve the interchange. So, it's just as part of this project, I'm happy, very happy to see that those weaves are starting to be looked at because again, the the weaves don't need to be fixed via the direct connector. What has to happen is whatever's happening with the direct connector doesn't prevent a fix happening later. How that happens because we're not going to take out rows of houses to try to fix these weaves. We need to have a plan that deals with both of that. and then how when they happen in the sequence that all can be worked out and stuff. So I really appreciate the presentation talking about that's being looked at and stuff because I think that's that's a great thing and I look forward to corridor maybe the Hillsdale 101 being studied some more as part of this. Thank you very much.

Thank you and apologies. Our final speaker in this item will be Jordan Grimes. Jordan, please unmute your mic.

Good morning council. Uh apologies. 12:15 a.m. was my threshold, at least for in person. Um, I want to echo the comments that Kevin Simpson made. Uh, it is somewhat mindboggling to me that we are still doing this. Um, that we are still doing projects like this. This feels like something out of the 1950s to me that like we know doesn't work. Um, yes, there are road designs that are that are better than what we currently have now. Will they meaningfully alleviate congestion? No. Um the the fact is that this is a problem of geometry. You have too many cars in too small a space. Um the only way to deal with that meaningfully is to create the transit access and opportunity that we all know we need. Um this doesn't do nearly enough of that. Instead, it doubles down on the failed policies of yester year to uh solve congestion and won't do it. Um, we we know that uh quite frankly the express lanes are not doing it. We know that we know that freeway widening and expansion is is not going to solve this problem. Um, so I, you know, I know that we are probably tilting at windmills at this point. Um, but I do feel the need to say for the record that our investment would be much better spent uh focusing on increasing capacity uh through public transit rather than um yet another freeway boondoggle. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Lorraine. That concludes public comment. Thank you. And oops. Thank you. And do we have any questions from council members? I see council members.

Yes. Um, so first I want to thank the transportation authority for being here and for continuing to provide updates on the project. Um, I also want to acknowledge the increased effort around community outreach. Um, door-to-door engagement, office hours at Apple Fritter and um, more consistent communication. I think the community has seen that on the east side. So that is progress and that is much appreciated. Um that said, um my chief concern um about how some of this information is being shared um is that it's still very much dependent on future approvals. Um, so we've heard, you know, the feedback that no homes or parks will be taken. Um, and that impacts are minimal, but as I understand it, many of those outcomes rely on CALR ultimately approving key design assumptions and exceptions as well as final rightaway determinations. And so, um, how confident should the council be that this scenario will hold through, um, decision- making? Yeah, I we're we're very confident that we're not going to be in a situation where we're removing or impacting houses and parks.

Okay. Um again, would still like to see something from CALR. Yes. So we'll have unfortunately the the process with CALR is it's very prescriptive and it's typically a pretty nailed down black box until we get to the environmental document. So this will be all very clearly um detailed in the environmental document when that's released for public comment.

Okay. And then um I I just want you to know and be aware and I'm happy to send those emails, but there were several constituent outreach today um not just from the east side of the freeway, but residents in the Fiesta Gardens neighborhood on the other side um particularly Portsmith Way that um still remain concerned. Um we also received several questions um regarding eminent domain congestion reduction, environmental um particularly air and noise pollution um financial impacts um particularly um a lot of these express lanes are financed um by local businesses. And so how much um are those businesses contributing to the express lanes? Um given the additional structures for noise, congestion and air pollution, how much should nearby homeowners expect, um we also received questions about the net benefit um for equity priority areas like the Parkside Shore View area um and will these express lanes lower um provide benefit for residents? And then um just additional safety. So, um I know you guys are doing a lot of good work, but I I still think there's these big buckets where people have questions and would like um more clarity. Um for sake of time, I did just also want to follow up about the Hillsdale interchange. Um I have um three questions. So, I'm just going to pose them and then I know we're limited on time so we can go back around. Um, but so why are most important, why are the Hillsdale interchange improvements being bundled into the 10192 direct connect project instead of being evaluated and potentially advanced as a standalone project? Um, if the Hillsdale improvements, this is number two, if the Hillsdale improvements provide local congestion relief, what analysis has been done to determine whether those

could be delivered faster or at a lower cost independent of the 10192 proposal? Um, and then if we were to pick the no build option on the 10192 direct connector, um, could we still do the Hillsdale improvements? Um, and I think for me, you know, I just want to make sure, um, that, you know, the Hillsdale interchange has come up for over 30 years. Um, and so I just want to make sure the community is not being asked to accept one in order to receive the other. Um, and so would just like more clarity around those future funding investment opportunities. Thank you.

Uh, happy to uh respond. like there's a lot in there. Um but the I guess the the crux of it is we included it in the um the 101 direct connector because it addresses the purpose and need of the project which is to increase safety and improve mobility through the 101 92 interchange. So, a lot of the delays um that happen particularly on northbound 101 is due to Sonteo and Foster City residents that are getting onto northbound 101 while you have people who are already on 101 trying to get off. So, so that crossing patterns contribute to crashes and delays in that location. Um and we thought by so it addresses the purpose and need of the direct connector project and there's potential um economies of scale by combining them. That doesn't mean that they have to be done together. As Caroline mentioned, we could be phasing the improvements and just doing the Hillsdale modifications and then following with 10192 direct connector separately. You could do one without the other. like there are a lot of different ways um to actually implement it, but we want to do all of the studying now to understand where we get the most the most benefit and the associated cost with it.

So, I think if you were going to go back out, thank you for that clarification. if you're going to go back out to the community because I saw that was a question is, you know, that would be something to ask is I think we heard from one person today specifically about, hey, this is a really, you know, tricky area to weave through traffic. And I actually agree. Um, you know, should that be phased in first? Should that go on its own? Um, I just Yeah. Yeah. I just think we really need to examine that traffic area in particular with the residents. Thank you, Council Member Nome.

Thank you. Through the mayor. Um, our former council member who I guess has left asked us, "Where is the flyover south on 101 landing? Could we get an answer to that? So I think the e the most appropriate answer is that we're still deciding where exactly that's going to be. Um so it's one of the refinements that we're working on on the design. So there's no specific answer yet.

Okay. So um I've made the commute across the east to the East Bay for 35 years of my career and unfortunately in four months I get to start doing it again every day. Uh I'm not a big fan of these express lanes. They're paytoplay more more they're used more for paytoplay than people that have three people to a vehicle. And I'm also concerned that there doesn't seem to be a lot of oversight on on the pricing. The pricing seems to be set and it's surge pricing. So to go an eighth of a mile might cost $6. Um I don't know. I guess I'm I'm kind of curious how is it that to raise rates crossing a bridge and having bridge tolls, we have to go through a bridge toll authority. But these express lanes don't seem to have any oversight or um parameters as to what the tolls can be.

Would you like me to go? So I mean we can spend a lot of time talking about the the algorithms that are used to do it. But most fundamentally the reason why express lanes can be a useful tool for managing congestion is that specifically because it adjusts the price when it's most congested. So when there are a lot of people using the freeway, the price goes up in an effort to get fewer people to use it so that the traffic still flows. And so without having that price to manage who how many people are using it, you don't have the ability to deliver on the travel time savings and reliability that express lanes do offer. And we didn't go into more detail on the express lanes, but we've recently completed or the express lanes um joint powers authority recently completed an preliminary evaluation of the express lanes and show pretty positive findings on the performance of those. Um a presentation was made to both the TA board as well as the express lanes board if people want to watch that presentation and see what the preliminary findings are with regard to the performance of the express lanes. Thank you. Oh, look at that. Thank you. Um, and then my last question is, do we find mathematically or scientifically that having express lanes as opposed to just an additional lane are actually reducing traffic? And and why I asked that is because there are no express lanes on the 92. So, these four express lanes basically just seem like less than an eighth of a mile extension onto putting you at the front of the line when you get on the 92. So, I'm kind of curious, is there a is there is there any proof to the fact that this is leaving congestion as opposed to just uh a pay-to-play model to get to the front of the line?

So, that's that's what the the track the technical studies are doing right now. So, we're developing a series of different models to to look specifically at that.

Thank you. And it's already been brought up about Fiesta Gardens neighborhood. I I would love to get more information when you have it about that. Um the other thing that is happening in in the west side of this is my district. Um the Hillsdale Inn is cited for um a big redevelopment and there's a lot of concerns with the south on-ramp uh from Hillsdale onto 101 South. Uh there's a culvert there that floods pretty significantly um when we get rains and actually on the inner side meaning that where the property is for Hillsdale in u there's a definite amount of concern for the amount of flooding that that occurs there and the the drainage that has some challenges. So I hope that whatever moves forward with this that we are making sure we are addressing that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Um, I just wanted to confirm. Apologies through the mayor. It's 12:40. Do we need to extend the meeting? Yes. Um, do I How about 1:00? Yes. I motion for 1 1 a.m. I'll second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Council member Sphere Gaditzki. Yes. Council member Nuome, yes. Council member Diaz Nash, yes. Deputy Mayor Fernandez, yes. Mayor Lorraine, yes. Motion carries 5-0.

Thank you. Okay. So um to be quick uh just confirming I think I saw in the presentation that the environmental report may be available in was it early 2027 and will that include some of the data um related to congestion findings on this project direct connector? Um, great. And would you be willing and able to come back after that point to share an update? Great. Thank you. Um, and thank you for this. Um, did you have a question on your slide related to um, people to reach out to or something related to Hillsdale you wanted to share back? Yeah, if if there's feedback on our proposed outreach strategy for Hillsdale ramp changes, uh we would love to hear your suggestions.

Great. I think we heard from council members Fuku Gaditzky and Newsome uh the Fiesta Gardens neighborhood. Um people near I I imagine the Samonteo Village. Uh of course. Uh so I um were there any other suggestions or thoughts related to that? Um, I mean there is so much traffic, especially in the evenings, um, that you could honestly put one of those big freeway signs up with some kind of place for people to go comment about their challenges because you're literally at a standstill in the afternoon. Um, I also think it would be interesting there's a senior living home and then there's the marina plaza um and the gas station actually talking to those businesses about some of the congestion that they experience. And then on the other side, um there's like the Whole Foods, the Kaiser talking to those guys about, you know, I think it's less of an issue on that side, but more on the other. Um and then in Adam's district, there are different neighborhood groups, so it could be worthwhile to connect with them as well as the um

Fiesta Gardens Village. Yeah. Yeah. And I can help you with those comments.

That's a good call. I I think the Barisford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association would be interested in uh being involved. So, thank you for that shout out. Um, I mean, frankly, I think there's something to be said about what we heard from some public commenters sort of uh maybe uh at least tangentially in that those who uh use 92 um and 101 in the area. So, uh, if we have major employers, um, in in the general vicinity that might have, uh, employees, uh, driving through here or otherwise, um, they might be, uh, good contacts, uh, to consider in as well. I mean, uh, and, uh, that's that's I think what I've got. I'll I'll just say as someone who bikes up Hillsdale regularly to Foster City now, I'm looking forward to anything that might improve the experience for all um and thank you for sticking with us late into this morning. And um with that, I think we'll move on to the next item of business. uh through the mayor. I thought we punted the

Well, we have one more. Peninsula Energy name change. Oh, got it. Yes, we punted 15. Correct. We did. Uh and but we have one more and Mark has been so gracious to stick with us. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Mark. Item 14, Peninsula Clean Energy name change to West Light Energy ordinance introduction. Well, good morning. It seems like just yesterday, uh, Peninsula Clean Energy CEO Sean Marshall spoke to this council.

And yes, I've been I have a few others, but in the interest of uh the hour, I'm I'm happy to pass. I'll be happy to take any questions you may have about our uh change of name, but I think Sean covered most of it uh in her presentation earlier. Excellent. Thank you. I'd like to open public comment for this uh just in case there are any. Mayor Lorraine, there's no request to speak on this item. Very good. And I'll close public comment and ask if anyone has any questions or comments. A motion second. City clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please? Certainly. Council member Sphere Gaditki. Yes. Deputy Mayor Fernandez. Yes. Council member Diaz Nash,

yes. Mayor Lorraine, yes. Council member Nuome, yes. Motion carries 5-0 West Light. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. The power of we the power. Power with purpose and the power of we. Okay. Uh we can now uh ask if anyone has any reports and announcements and committee updates. You can be forgiven for postponing. But I I know it's late. it is,

but and I know there's nobody here, but I do just want to say a huge thank you to um resident Max Mounter. So, um last weekend um we had a ribbon cutting for the Third Avenue and Norfolk intersection and Max actually organized two separate bike rides to the intersection um to really celebrate the accomplishment of the new infrastructure. Um and we're should be very proud of that and very grateful that a resident actually took that initiative on. Um he brought podium a podium and um like scissors and really did like a professional level job and so I just really want to thank him um on behalf of the council. There were other residents who did help organize and volunteer. I know Mayor Lorraine was there as well, but um I just just want to say thank you for that. I second that. Thank you for sharing that, Council Member Newsome. Thanks, Max. I'm sure he's going to watch the recording. Thanks, Max. Um,

he will. No, I know you will. That's what I'm saying. Thanks, Max. Um, I am not going to go into all this because I have way too many things, but suffice to say, the last two weeks I've been involved with the county department emergency management. I have quite a bit that I can report out about that. I also um got to sit in on the training that was done by FEMA, which was a great exercise to be prepared for future events. And I also was in on a fireboard meeting. So, um I'm going to table it though because it's way more information, but I am appreciative for all of the training and all of the information I've been given.

Excellent. Thank you. I'm really looking forward to hearing those next time. Okay. Two things. Number one, thank you to Parks and Wreck. Um, I assume that's who did it. It in Central Park, we now have portals, view portals that have been cut out at kids heights so that they can actually go up to the wall and watch the construction that's going on. And that was just absolutely wonderful. So, I assume that was Parks and Wreck or was it public?

That was our parks and wreck team. And we'll be promoting that via social media this week. Yeah, that's so great. That's so wonderful. Um, and then number two, I think if I could keep my head on straight, I am going to be going to the board of supervisors meeting tomorrow morning uh because uh the county executive is bringing back a uh contract for the Mala Road property and it's really being positioned now for as a center for many San Monteo County nonprofits. Horizon might be one. Um, the Pride Center might be one. There's no specific, but they've really decided to concentrate on bringing nonprofits in. And I will be as an individual council member be saying that I support this. And I would love to have once again the informal support of my council members to say on behalf of council we support this. So, I I would like to abstain this time and and I think uh individual council members can certainly uh do as council member Diaz Nash is uh doing going to the meeting and or giving public comment as an individual in support if they so desire or otherwise.

I echo Mayor Lorine at this time. I support it. I also support it from uh a DUI diversion program. I hope they they consider bringing that back as well. Oh yeah, I support it as well. Thank you. Okay. Uh anything?

Um yeah, I'm just going to roll super quick. Um I was I've been a part of a couple of big meetings or like things recently um including Cal's the Cal Summit happened two weeks ago. So, it was really great to be in community with other peninsula leaders and learn more about what we're doing statewide. Um, and then I just want to thank the council for being supportive of um, me and Martin and a bunch of us are going to Kentucky to visit the 101st Airborne on Wednesday. Um, and also just want so we'll be there through Saturday. Um, and I also just want to do a shout out for the Memorial Day event at the end of the month. Our first annual Memorial Day event. Thank you to the team for pulling that together and I'm very excited to be part of it. Can I jump in there? Sorry. Um on the Memorial Day event, so the city is hosting in the park, but after that there will also be um a packing day for the troops. Um so thank you Martin for coordinating that. Um and I hope I Yes. At the Elks Lodge, I hope you can all attend. Again,

just to clarify, we'll we won't be at the Elks Lodge. will be at the recreation center at Central Park. at the recreation center at Central Park. Excellent. Very good. Um I'll just briefly note that, you know, I had the opportunity to attend a PCE meeting, board meeting. We heard

I mean I I felt it. I felt it. Um I don't think I need it because I got it. Um, but uh a lot of great events lately uh I've had the pleasure of attending. I just want to I want to shout out the cadetses uh from the police department and PAL. Um I went I saw them four times in the last you know 10 days. Uh I saw them at the Earth Day cleanup. Uh, I saw them at uh the 25th Avenue uh business uh event for Premother's Day. I saw them at Central Park for the AsianPacific Islander Heritage Festival and um something else that's escaping me. But my goodness, a lot of folks working overtime. And really shout out to Parks and Rec and and and the youth activities. Oh, uh Boba Day. They were at Boba Day. So my goodness. Um, okay. Wonderful folks and just uh the amount of time they're putting in for all our events in addition to parks and recck staff and other amazing people um is to be commended. And finally, uh I do want to make sure we adjourn tonight in honor of in memory of Nancy McGee. So Nancy of course served as uh Santo County Superintendent of Schools from 2018 to just uh just recently here in 2026 dedicating more than three decades to public education as a teacher, administrator and leader. I know a lot of uh folks in the area gave some comments here, there and everywhere. And and there was an article in the paper. Nancy was known for her compassion, her

steady leadership, and her unwavering belief that every student deserves access to opportunity. Her impact across Santo County will be felt for generations. On behalf of the city council, we extend our deepest condolences to her family, colleagues, and all those whose lives she touched. This meeting will be adjourned in her memory, and we can have perhaps a moment of silence. Thank you. And with that we are adjourned.