Historic survey update

Opposed the survey, saying none of the 124 property owners asked for it, many homes have been altered, and the city can't afford it with a $17 million deficit. Urged option three.

Said her East Santa Inez home has been altered since 1902 and was never sought historic designation; urged option three.

Said with an election near, the city should pay down debt instead of spending on the survey, and questioned why no financial benefit to the city has ever been shown. Urged option three.

Urged option one — survey all 124 properties — saying a partial survey repeats the limitations of 1989 and that significant resources should be identified before they are lost.

Read General Plan actions CD 5.8-5.10 supporting survey updates and said there's a huge economic benefit to keeping historic properties intact; hoped the city wouldn't wait another 30 years.

A disabled Marine veteran who owns a targeted house said he's already losing his home and designation would cut his share of the sale price; he put the city on notice he'd sue over any loss in value.

A North Central homeowner urged option three, saying the city can't ask residents for higher taxes via Measure H while spending on a program that harms property owners and was backed by less than 3% of residents.

Owner of a classic Italianate Victorian featured in the Daily Journal, he wants to pass the house to the next generation and described its history, including a builder who sailed around the horn.

Supported option one and the full $168,687 appropriation, saying the update is long overdue though she wished more east-side homes were covered.

A planning commissioner speaking as a resident, she opposed the spending given the $18 million deficit, noting the amount equals last year's entire exhausted emergency rental assistance budget. Urged option three.

Suggested a different approach: have volunteers visit the 124 owners to find who consents, ask about future designation costs, and come back before deciding. Offered Heritage Alliance volunteers.

Said the city is being sued over the historic ordinance and spending consultant money before that resolves is putting the cart before the horse; also criticized poor notification. Urged option three.

An affected homeowner and mother of two, she said her family got no notice and asked for an opt-out option, reimbursement of extra permit costs, and compensation for lost home value.

Said a promise made is a debt unpaid, but given the city's finances the survey should be shelved until excess funding exists.

Called owner fears misinformation, noting designation raises values and brings Mills Act benefits; warned against well-funded outside interests and urged option one to protect historic neighborhoods.

A single parent who bought her home ten years ago without knowing its survey status said she learned only when remodeling; she said specialty insurance could cost $20,000+ and urged option three.

Argued option three leaves owners stuck on the list with no way to challenge their status, since only a new survey can reevaluate properties; urged option one so the door opens for everyone.