Thank you.

the agenda for Tuesday December 2nd that meeting is noticed for 930 closed

session and 130 regular session and consent starts on page 4 and continues

on pages 5 6 7 and 8 and section 3 we have clean energy project revenue bonds

the acceptance of the comprehensive annual investment fee report and actions

related to North San Pedro Park and Bassett Park projects section for

amendment to our gaming control municipal code section six the semi-annual

report from climate smart San Jose clean energy pilot program options and San

Jose Clean Energy customer bill credits.

We have two items on land use consent which will be heard immediately after regular consent

and one item on land use item 10.2.

Do we have any public comment on the agenda?

We do not.

All right.

Back to the committee.

Do we have a motion?

Move approval with the add sheet.

All right.

Great.

That's a vote.

I don't see any other hands.

okay motion carries 5-0 thank you so much and we're on to our consent calendar today we have

three items on consent public comment no public comment public comment all right back to the

committee for consent move approval all right let's vote

alright consent patch is 5-0

and it looks like our district 3

council member has just arrived just in time

to do a brief introduction of

the memo item C1

historic preservation ordinance reform

so if you'd like to just come down to the box

and briefly let us know

give us an overview and then we'll have a discussion.

Sounds good. Hello colleagues. It's my first time at RULES, so good to be here.

Here with a memo that touches on a broad set of recommendations on improving our city's

approach to historic preservation. This has been something that's been of interest to a lot of folks

in District 3, just with everything that we've seen with business closures in Japantown.

But I want to be clear that I think this is an issue that really affects the entire district

and other districts in the city as well, not just Japantown.

So there's a number of different recommendations in the memo that I'm happy to walk through.

First is that we've heard a lot from residents who may not even realize that their property

is on the historic resources inventory.

They may not have a good understanding of the city's historic preservation ordinance

and what that entails.

So this one is just focused on outreach and education,

improving that for owners of historic properties on the resource inventory.

And I think this will also help when these properties go up for sale, since if the owners

are aware that the properties are on the inventory, it can then be disclosed and there can be

more transparency throughout the process.

The second recommendation is focused on exploring an amnesty program for previously unpermitted

construction on properties in the inventory.

I want to be clear that this is specifically an amnesty program for any construction that

is not posing any active health or safety standards, but maybe, you know, cosmetic things.

So this is something that was raised by a number of members of the Japantown community in particular.

And in our conversations, many people pointed to the distrust in government that occurred after incarceration during World War II.

And that in the years following the war, there were many properties in Japantown that may have had unpermitted construction or renovation work.

And that now as those properties are being looked to pass on to future generations or be sold or be subject to future investment and renovation,

that that kind of legacy on unpermitted work can pose challenges on all of those fronts.

But this is another thing that anecdotally I've seen be a problem far outside of Japantown.

I live in a historic home in a historic landmark district,

and I see even some of my neighbors have unpermitted work that has happened

because they haven't fully understood that their properties were on the inventory

and that that came with certain requirements,

which I think, again, points to the importance of the first recommendation

around more outreach and education.

The third recommendation is about providing a simplified legal framework for demolishing

or removing certain structures on the inventory, where there's blight or substandard conditions,

and where the historic elements of the building may no longer be evident.

So we included in an example a photo of one such property that we think makes sense in

Japantown, but within Japantown, when we went on a walking tour with residents, they pointed

to over a dozen properties where there's substandard conditions, potentially the properties have

been vacant for many years and the inclusion on the inventory poses a challenge for forward-looking

investment on these properties whether that's redevelopment or renovation. And then the final

recommendation is around modernizing elements of our historic regulations to make it easier to

install things like modern windows and other building elements that will both improve quality

of life for residents but also help to support some of the city's goals around energy efficiency

and our climate goals and wildfire preparedness and safety.

So this one is something that, again, we've seen and heard from residents in Japantown,

but I've also heard this from areas throughout the district.

It was also something that came to a bit of a head during the city's recent consideration

of the Shelley Historic District, where I know when that came before Planning Commission,

we had a lot of residents from the neighborhood who came out and were worried that the inclusion

on the historic resources inventory would then make things like modern window replacements

prohibitively expensive.

So this is looking at kind of streamlining the process to enable those sorts of renovations

to advance all of the goals that I mentioned within the existing historic preservation

ordinance.

And finally, I know that this is a broad set of work.

It is complicated work.

There are people with different perspectives on these different trade-offs.

So this direction is just about the importance of continuing to have engagement with folks

like Preservation Action Council, with the Developers' Roundtable, with community groups

like the Community Congress in Japantown.

I know we benefited immensely from talking to a diverse set of stakeholders as we were coming up with this memo.

We expect that that process should continue as all of this analysis unfolds.

So happy to answer any questions and also just want to say thank you to all of the co-signers on this memo for your valuable insights and support.

All right. Well, thank you so much.

Do we have any public comment?

We do not.

Okay. Back to the committee. I'll start with Councilman Verk and Delis.

Thank you, Chair.

No, my appreciation to the author of this memo.

I do have a question.

I mean, before the question, I do want to just start by saying, like, I think the notion of supporting, preserving our historical landmarks in the city is important,

and that's why we have this ordinance in the books.

You know, we know the dangers of our unpermitted work and what that could lead to,

but we also know the cost of some of these improvements to these historical structures.

I guess my question is for, say, government entities who have historic landmarks within our portfolio,

would this apply to the actions that we're proposing here?

Apply, for example, Metzger Ranch in my district is a city historical landmark,

and it's within the portfolio of the city's PRNS program.

But some of the ADA improvements are cost prohibitive.

We have a really, really old barn that has, I want to say,

it's like three quarters of the way burnt down,

but we can't touch it because it's a historical landmark.

So curious the interface between the memorandum

and the possibility of this also applying to our own government list.

That is very interesting and not something that I at all consider.

So again, I think speaks to the importance of getting broad perspectives here.

I think that some of the elements like around processes in place to consider removing structures from the inventory is something I could imagine applying to city properties as well.

And some of the things around making it easier to do renovations like window improvements.

If we have a historic building that is on the city's books that we want to find an adaptive reuse for, I think the city could also then benefit from some modernization of these ordinances.

Awesome. Thank you. No, I appreciate that.

and now with that I'll I'll move your memo for consideration to do a cost

analysis or not a cost analysis do a work workload and a workload analysis to

come back to us in the next couple weeks right and to see to see what what staff

has to say and then we can review it all right we have a motion in a second and

that would bring it back for final rules consideration probably on December 3rd

if not the third than the tenth all right Vice Mayor Foley yeah just briefly

Thank you for the memo.

Thank you for including me in it.

There is some precedence with the amnesty program as it relates to ADUs.

We had an amnesty program for allowing property owners to convert or get permitted ADUs that were unpermitted as long as it was not a health and safety issue.

So completely supportive of the memo and look forward to the workload analysis as it comes forward.

Thanks.

All right. Thank you. Council Member Duane.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for bringing the memo forward.

I just got a quick question. So the inventory

for historical landmark, is there a timeline

like certain years to certain years or only a particular

one that is designated as a historical

landmark or in general i i'm by no means an expert on the full extent of the inventory but from my

you know exploration of the inventory it covers a broad range of different types of structures

and time periods uh there are structures in there that go back to the 1800s and beyond

there's also things as recently as like the 1950s and 60s that are included there and then the other

thing that i'd point to is that there's a bunch of different categories that get included you have

city landmarks and eligible city landmarks but then you also have things where it's an identified

structure something that was just kind of noted during a previous historic

inventory process but where there may not have been much exploration of the

actual merits of historicity for the individual structure and I just want to

make sure this is only for historical landmark with an inventory especially if

they have a non-permitted structure not just landmark structures basically

anything in the inventory some of these are kind of in those lower tiers of

contributing structures or identified structures.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Alright, I don't see any other hands, so we have a motion to refer this to for workload

analysis. Let's vote. Okay, that motion carries

5-0. We look forward to seeing this item back in front of rules in a few weeks.

We are on to open forum. Thank you. We don't have any comment cards.

We have no members of the public, so our meeting is adjourned at 2-11 p.m.

Thank you.

Thank you.