Recommendation to receive a report and consider amendments to the Cultural Heritage Commission Ordinance as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Commission (Version A); or as recommended by the Development Services Department (Version B); Request City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.63 related to the Cultural Heritage Commission (Version A or Version B), and amending Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.65 related to Administrative Citations and Penalties; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Development Services Department (DV) by $69,000. (Citywide)
24 is a Cultural Heritage Commission ordinance. So why don't we do 24 since I know there's people here for that and and then we'll go from there. So, Madam Clerk, item 24. Item number 24, report from Development Services Recommendation to receive a report and consider amendments to the Cultural Heritage Commission Ordinance as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Commission VERSIONE or as recommended by the Development Services Department. Version B Request City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code related to the Cultural Heritage Commission. Virginie Irby and amending Long Beach Municipal Code related to administrative citations and penalties and increase appropriations in the Development Services Department by 69,000 citywide. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. There's a motion and a second. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. I had a couple of questions. One. I know the staff report acknowledges the use of other cities in forming this policy amendment. If you can tell me, your staff can tell me what do the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena and Glendale say about property, property owner authorization? The staff member answering these questions will be our development services. Manager, Linda Tatum. Continue. Good afternoon. Members of the council. Mayor, in response to the question about the city, specifically the cities of Los Angeles, Glendale and Pasadena. Of those three cities, the one city that does require owner notification prior to a landmarking process is the city of Glendale. The other two do not require owner authorization. Okay, I appreciate that. And the second question I have is from my staff. I know they asked about the policy in other cities in Southern California, such as Claremont, Sierra madre and Santa Ana. Do you know if they have a similar ordinance and what it requires by way of owner consent? Yes. I have the list. 1/2. We'll get the list. Yeah, we have that list as well. We did look at all of the cities in Los Angeles County that do have these types of ordinances, and it's about 5050 as to whether they actually require owner consent or not, specifically for. Claremont. Owner consent is not required. Okay. Uh, what were the other cities? Santa Ana. Sierra madre. Santa Ana is not on here because we only looked at Los Angeles County, and, uh, Sierra madre does require owner consent. Okay, so it is. It is a mixed bag. 5050. And, Mr. Mayor, I apologize. I'm sure staff has a proper report, and I should have waited till the end, so thank you. No problem. We'll go. We'll come back to you, Vice Mayor, as soon as don't we go to the staff report on this and then we'll come back to the to the council. Okay. Back in early 2015, our the development services staff was we began initial discussions with Long Beach Heritage regarding the process to designate some of the city facilities with the landmark designation. And as a result of that list and looking at the process, we realized that the process was fairly cumbersome and lengthy and there was some redundancy in the process. As a result, staff requested our historic preservation consultant, Galvin Preservation Associates, to to work with staff to come up with a recommended way to streamline the ordinance, to make the process a little bit more straightforward and a little simpler and more efficient. So working closely with that staff, we did with staff. The consultant looked at other ordinances in Los Angeles County. We also got feedback from Long Beach Heritage and from of the some of the historic districts in the city over based upon our annual meetings with those groups and based upon our experience with the process for previous historic preservation designations. So as a result, we came up with a recommended ordinance and you see that in your exhibit. And I'm just going to briefly tell you some of the changes to the ordinance. We added some definitions that were recommended by our consultant to clarify some of the terms that were contained in the ordinance. Really importantly, we simplified the designation criteria. We narrowed it down from, I think it may have been 11 or so criteria down to three. And the important component of that designation is that those criteria are now consistent with the State Office of Historic Preservation, as well as the federal regulations. So the benefit there is that once a designation is made at the local level, it can can go forward to the state and the national level a lot more simply and consistently. We also streamlined the application process. We made it less cumbersome. It now goes directly from the Cultural Heritage Committee, directly commissioned directly to the City Council, rather than the intermediate step of going through the planning commission. The other thing that was really important in this process, in terms of the recommended process, is that we we feel that it enhances the credibility of the designation with the process that we now have in place. Because for every application, whereas in the past, the application, along with whatever documentation, would go forward without any additional staff analysis or assessment of the application in the material submitted in the application, the city will now with every application that we receive for designation, either for an individual property or a district, the the city will pay for a consultant to do a much more thorough assessment of the property and do a proper survey. This was based upon some of the concerns that some of the current designations did not have a very thorough vetting based upon their current designation. So we wanted to remedy that. And the city will contribute resources to make sure that that occurs and that process would occur prior to it being taken forward to the CHC for a recommendation. The other items that we did was establish a process to either rescind or amend the designation that was not previously included in the process . And lastly, we took out some of the redundancy by the leading the the section that addressed the publicly owned resources because when city properties are involved, the city had the right to to go through the existing process. So in addition to that, the less what we think was a really significant change to that process is that we added provisions for administrative citations. Currently, the code enforcement staff does not have a way to cite property owners for making additions or changes to historic designations. And the change that we're recommending with this adoption is a change to add citation provisions or administrative citations to Chapter 9.65, the administrative citations and penalties section of the code entitled to the Long Beach Municipal Code. So with that, that's an overall summary. So what? You see in your packet, there is a an exhibit A which is a CHC recommended ordinance and staff and the CHC agreed on all of the components of the ordinance with all of the changes to the process and the additions of the citations. But you also see in your packet a version B, which is the staff recommended ordinance. And the one difference between the two ordinances is that staff is recommending that we get owner consent as a part of the application packet. The Cultural Heritage Commission did not agree with that direction or with that recommendation, so they recommended that the owner, the language that does not require the owner's authorization, which is not in the current code, that that the current language remains. And in the staff report, we've provided more specific details of that language. The last component that I bring your attention to is the fact that this ordinance is also looking at the fiscal impact, and that impact is approximately up to approximately $70,000 each year because staff, as we said before, the recommendation is that the city fund full assessments of any applications that come before the city. The thought being that we want to make sure that the city's resources are being wisely spent as a part of that process. And we feel that the recommended ordinance, which includes the owner authorization before a process is going will essentially it's a good balance, we think, between the private property rights of the owner too, because the designation will affect the the owner's property and it will indeed establish some limitations on their property. And we felt that the owners informed consent to go forward with that process was an important consideration for the city to make, especially given that the city will be committing resources to have these properties fully vetted and that that commitment of resources is not to be taken lightly. And that concludes staff's recommendation or its presentation, and we're available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. I'm going to turn this back over to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. That's all I have right now for questions. Thank you. Okay. Then I mentioned this over to councilman. Now, just to be clear, is there is there a motion on the floor or. No. There is a motion for option A. Is that how we're doing this? Well, there's two there's two versions. So there's version. Version. A, which is the recommended Cultural Heritage Commission version. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ms. BODAK And then there's version B, which is the staff recommended version. So the motion I'd like to make is for version A. Which is the cultural heritage recommendation. Yes. Okay. And Councilman Richardson. Okay. So there's a second by Councilman Richardson. So that's the motion on the floor. Councilwoman Gonzalez. It's so good. Okay. So I had a couple of questions. So is it possible I know we had just mentioned, Linda, that research within city staff would be about $70,000. Is it possible for us to do some sort of outside research, maybe using Long Beach heritage or using an outside group to be able to do this research that would show that that that amount. We actually did some preliminary research on a list of properties that were being considered by Long Beach Heritage. And we actually used a member of Long Beach Heritage to reach a certain point in that research. So we did have the benefit of that, and we do expect to be able to rely on those research capabilities. But beyond that, we still need to have them in a professional form and do a bit more research than I think volunteers are capable of. So it also would not necessarily be staff costs that are incurred, but actual outside consultant costs that we would we would incur in order to move those nominations forward. We did provide you a maximum. The $70,000 is a maximum, assuming that we have a very, very robust landmarking program and we're moving forward with multiple designations in the course of a year. Thank you. And then I know, of course, many people are afraid that if we go ahead with owners property rights, that it could potentially lead to demolition of these potentially historic buildings. So is there a way I mean, how do we I know that's difficult because we still need to do research, but is there an answer for that or is there a way to minimize that risk? And certainly, I think the issue before you today is is really an issue of a matter of trust. And we have not had an active historic preservation program for at least ten years in the city. And with the addition of Linda Tatum and with the addition of our advanced planning officer, Christopher Coons, and the addition of a of a historic planner funded by the city council during this fiscal year 15 budget, we do have a renewed emphasis on a historic preservation program. Linda and her staff have put together a work program that is actually presented to the the Cultural Heritage Commission. And that work program should hopefully demonstrate a renewed commitment to historic preservation that also includes the landmarking process. In this instance. The difference is that that we want to be able to work with the property owner ahead of time and make sure that the property owner understands what they're getting into and the potential impacts to the private property owner rights. With a landmarking designation, however, if a if an owner chooses not to landmark, we are fully informed and we have a lot more resources in place than we ever did before, that we know that that property is potentially historic. We now have those properties identified through surveys which we currently previously did not have. We now know that those are potentially historic properties and can put them in the computer system so that when an applicant comes forward and wants to demolish a building or a house, a commercial building or a house, it's in the computer system that gives us a warning that says we can't just automatically issue them a demolition permit. And I think that there has been have been cases in the past where that has occurred. And so there is a legitimate fear that there is that opportunity that a new property owner could come along and just ask for a demolition permit. I think we've put safeguards in place and that we have the programs in place now to prevent that from happening. If a private property owner says, I want to demolish the property and we know it's potentially historic, we have an obligation under secure to to look into that analysis and to actually complete a square review before we issue the demolition permit. That's a big change from the practice and the protections that we've had in the past. So I don't see this as weakening our ability to stop an unintended demolition from from occurring. I think that the protections that we're putting in place and the renewed focus on historic preservation will will provide us those protections that the preservationists are looking for. Thank you. And I just think your commitment and I thank you for bringing that forward, because I know you did speak at the Banbridge House to the Cultural Heritage Commission and some members there as well. As, you know, we had a great historic forum and we got I felt like there was a renewed sense of that as well. So I thank you for bringing that up. So appreciate it. I'm gonna go. If there's a Lester's any objection, I'm gonna go to the public comment, and they will come back to the councilmembers. So public comment on the item. Please come forward. Any public comment on a cultural heritage item? Nope. There's one come forward and they're going to move on. Good afternoon, Mayor. Vice Mayor, City Council. My name is Lee Fukui. I'm a sixth district resident. I'm a member of Wrigley's Going Green, Wrigley Clean, team member of L.A. Conservancy and Long Beach Heritage. Basically, I'm a local volunteer and architecture geek. Overall, I think the language of the ordinance is great. Especially with version A. It gives better. Enforcement in protecting Long Beach landmarks. I have great concern with version B, but it's a deciding factor with potential landmarks, you know, solely dependent on property owners. Even though we have the computer survey. And. Those protections in place, mistakes can happen. I'd prefer someone to. Be to double check, go on. Site. And and see. The site in particular, you know, up front and physical, because I know mistakes do happen. And with whatever survey you have, once, once a demolition goes through, that's it. You're not going to get that landmark back. And for example, the press telegram building is not landmarked, but it was fortunate to have Molina health care come in and adaptively reuse that building. But what would happen if Molina decided to sell that building and a new owner wanted to tear down under version B? That could happen and it would be a dramatic loss to the city. Um, as a council, all of you have historic landmarks or future landmarks in your districts. We've all seen positive transformations in areas like East Village Arts District, the art theater on Retro Row, the insurance exchange, and American hotel buildings near the promenade. These landmarks helped energize and encourage investment in your communities and the city overall. It makes Long Beach unique, and these places matter. This Council as a governing body should have the final determination on what is best for this city. This decision is far too important to let property owners. Have the last word. Please vote for CHC. Recommended version A and keep Long Beach a landmark. Destination. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. We think we've got three speakers. I'm going to if there isn't any warm closing the speaker's list of the three and then we'll go back. Yes, ma'am. He's with me. Oh, together. Then you're the last speaker. Go ahead. Hi, I'm Mary Vaux. I'm the executive director for Cure VI, which is the Community Foundation for the Preservation of the Iris Queen Mary. I have a few comments related to the current item. As a community based 501c3 nonprofit for the preservation of the Queen Mary. We're kindly asking City Council and the mayor to please consider postponing the vote of the recommended R 24 amendments to the Culture Heritage Commission ordinances to allow the community and Council members ample time to consider the cultural aspects and the possible outcomes they might have on historical properties and those yet not designated by the City of Long Beach as a historical landmark. I gave a few examples, one being the Queen Mary. It's been a long time intention by local preservationists, Long Beach Heritage and Termite to have the Queen buried designated as a city of Long Beach landmark. The Queen Mary was added to the National Register of Historic Places in April of 93 and remains recognized as a significant landmark around the world today. The possible outcome of these proposed amendments will directly affect the long term preservation opportunities for the Queen Mary. Also taking into consideration the mayor's newly formed Queen Mary Land Task Force, these proposed changes could interfere with national community preservation efforts of the Queen Mary. I gave a copy of this letter to each of you, and I'll hope that you'll take a minute to read it. Some of my points aren't directly related to this particular item, but I guess what my main concern is is we're in favor of option A. We would like the Cultural Heritage Commission to be as involved in the preservation of the city and the Queen Mary as possible, because right now we have no oversight or policy in place . Anything can be done to the ship. Right now it's being done and the city and city council has allowed it. So I would just urge you to read the fine print. Thank you. Thank you. Sir. I Makaurau. Kill my secretary nonprofit Long Beach. While sitting here. I came up with a couple of questions. I just want the the council to consider and the staffers. You mentioned streamlining the process. The one question I has is let's not streamline history. Once you demolish history, it's gone. It's just gone. The the projected penalties and fees that you that you put into their proposal. I completely am in favor of that. Was there any. Projections made of what that revenue. Source would would create. To offset the costs, you know, the. $70,000 that you mentioned? When you talk about property owners, does this include long lease, long term lease holders? Let's say if somebody has a 20 year lease, 50 year lease. Does that fall into that. Category as as a property owner? We're obviously in favor of version A. You mentioned trust. That's a tough one to swallow sometimes. So. I would I would trust the CHC on their opinions more than anything right now because they they've been they've been the constant with preservation in Long Beach. So I would trust their opinion and their their recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I take this back to the to the council. I know. Uh, Vice Chair. I'm gonna get back to you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And let me tell you, I don't feel very strongly one way or another on this particular item, version A or version B, I got to tell you, I am a bit concerned about, you know, the ethics with property rights here in the conversation. They're seeing that this is not a time critical issue. I feel a lot better if we we have some time to talk to the Cultural Heritage Commission and the commissioners. I haven't had any meetings with anybody regarding this matter prior to reading it over over the last few days. It would it would make me feel a lot better if we would continue this item for for 30 days or so to allow us to study this a little bit more, because obviously this is a decision that is going to be a significant decision. I did so. So I'd like to put forth a substitute motion to continue this item for 30 days if there's any appetite or will or the council to do so. And. I don't hear any. So we can no motion. Okay. Well, you want to. That would be be something that I'd like for this council to consider this evening. I did have a question regarding the volume of applications for cultural landmarks or historic landmarks that we actually get as a city. And maybe that's more appropriate for staff. Can anybody answer that question? Uh, Councilmember, we have not had an active request for landmarking status in in the last several years. This conversation really started with our renewed partnership with Long Beach Heritage and their request for us to consider a potential list of properties to consider potentially landmarking. That list has maybe eight or 11 different properties on it, three of which are city owned assets. The commitment that we were talking to with Long Beach Heritage was that we would look at the city assets first because that would be easy since we knew the property owner and we wouldn't have to have the discussion, the difficult discussions with the property owners if they chose not to move forward with landmarking. So I'd say that in the next two years or so, there's probably a minimum of three, but upwards of maybe ten or 11 properties that we would look to be landmarking. I do want to correct something. For the record, we are not talking about imminent demolition of any buildings. We're actually not talking about erasing history when we're talking about improving the process. The ordinance, as it is currently written, is so incredibly cumbersome that I don't even know if we could actually landmark a building if we actually followed the process. And the criteria that is used for the city of Long Beach does not match the criteria that is used by the state. We would like our criteria to be simplified to actually match the state criteria, which we think would actually make it easier to landmark properties. So I just want to correct a couple of those issues for the record. So when was the when was the last time we actually did land a property? We landmarked a building that I don't know the name of it. You might remember it. It's the the emancipated youth facility on Anaheim. The Hotel Pacific. Hotel was on it. Council members who were not. Are you referring to the Palace Hotel? Yes, it's the Palace Hotel was landmarked in order to assist it in getting historic tax credits and in order to allow that building to be rehabilitated. I'm going to say that building was probably landmarked in, you know, 2005 ish, somewhere around there. And that was probably the last building that has been landmarked. And I'll just like in with the statement, again, I'd like to know more and learn more about this. But if I can recall, when there was a debate to build a new North library, there were several people who were in opposition to doing that because of the historic value of the theater there. And had we had this kind of provision in place, we may not have a north library under construction as as is today. Martin. Before we go on, I have a couple more council members. I just want to just remind everyone that I think it's really important. There's been a lot of work that's gone into getting us to this point. And I just want to be clear that the commission and staff agree on probably 95% of the document coming forward. And so there is a disagreement on one item, which is the notification piece. But I just want to also just refocus that on a vast majority of the items in that are in discussion. There is agreement. And so a lot of work has gone gone into it's important that we update our codes and our audiences here. So it's good to have a debate about this one issue. It's an important issue. But I also want to just make sure that that everyone knows that were generally in agreement on where on where this is going. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think you covered it for the most part and misspoke. I want to thank you for correcting some of the misnomers that were stated here. I think typically. We would like to have a suspicion that the city and municipal government are not interested in preserving history, but that's an anathema to who we are . I think that is exactly who we are in Long Beach and we are not raising history or demolishing anything. If anything, I think the staff's work and the Cultural Heritage Commission's work leads us down a path where we can actually landmarked something. So, Miss Burdick, if if you could give us some examples, for instance, of the 8 to 10 potential properties that were mentioned and what the ownership would be, I would appreciate that. Certainly one of the ones that come up. Off the top of my head is the Alamitos Branch Library on Third Street near Cherry. It is a city owned facility that is a beautiful Spanish Mediterranean facility that is very qualified to be a landmark but has not been considered as a landmark. An example of a potential private property is a beautiful craftsman, a two storey single family home in Virginia Country Club that was constructed by famous architects Green and Green Brothers. That is a private property that the property owners have spent an incredible amount of money restoring to the version of the Green and Green Brothers that that it was originally intended to be viewed as. But that house is not a landmark. And so, you know, one of those could potentially be a landmark. Another one is the community center at Highland Park. We've had discussions with Councilmember Richardson about that. It is not designated as a landmark now that the has the Long Beach Heritage Association pointed out their concerns, along with the Cultural Heritage Commission, that the building was not landmarked and may be potentially considered for demolition in the Highland Park master planning process. We talk to the council member, we talked to the city manager, we talked to Parks and Rec. We made it clear that it had value as a resource. They all agreed and that building will not be subject to demolition as part of the master plan, but will actually be incorporated as a master plan even though it is not landmarked today. So I think that in particular shows that we have a willingness to work with the preservation community to meet their preservation needs while still meeting our facility needs, particularly on city property, and that we are willing to have those conversations and not just consider demolition. I appreciate that. So also. So for the most part, I think it's safe to say we will have examples where the city of Long Beach is the property owner. And I should have clarified earlier when I made the motion to support version A that I do believe for the most part we would be the property owners. And so and I think when there is a private property owner, you will find an example such as the one that Ms.. Murdock elaborated on with the green and green home. You have invested owners who are already investing in preserving the historic aspects of their home. And a landmark status process is not cumbersome. And Ms.. Burdick, remind me, when we were working on activating the Jurgens tunnel, the Jurgens Trust at one point was on some registry, and we had looked into opportunities to possibly designate the tunnel as a landmark status. Is that something that the Cultural Heritage Commission has looked at? The Cultural Heritage Commission has not looked at any of these properties. We haven't gotten that far in the process. I don't believe the Jurgens tunnel was on the initial list that the Long Beach heritage provided to us, but we can certainly look at that as an option. Related to the initial list, I would say it's somewhere around eight or ten properties in length. I can recall three properties at a minimum were city properties and the others were private properties. Okay, thank you, Miss Burdick. So I recognize and understand that there might be some interest in delaying this item. But what I don't want to do is call the good men and women of our community to participate on our commissions and have them spend an exorbitant amount of time doing so and staff putting that work into it and cause unnecessary delays on our part. I'd like to emphasize to my colleagues that the motion I had made for version A is one that is fully vetted by the commission that we charge with these with these items. And it's also been vetted by the staff. And as the mayor said, it is identical. The two versions are identical except for the consent by the property owner. And for the most part, I think we can assure everyone that we would be the property owners city of Long Beach. And so with that, I urge my colleagues to support version eight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, I want to thank the staff for their hard work on this item, but I also want to acknowledge the success. A resident emailed me on this concerned about this item. You know, as we have presented these two choices today, I can see that there may be a chance of losing some of our city heritage, which makes Long Beach a very unique place. And I just have a question that I'd like to ask Mrs. A anybody. I have a question for the staff. If it goes to option B and the property owner decides not to sign off on the property to become a landmark. Which option is there for the public to pursue landmark status? So in option B and the city, you know, we approach a property owner. The property owner says that they're not interested in landmarking the property and they're not interested in doing anything with the property at this point in time. The public frankly, it the property stays in in situ. It just its status stays current. However, what is known is that it has a it is a potential resource. It gets logged in to our system as a potential resource and a demolition permit or an adaptive reuse permit or a building entitlement permit will not be issued on that property until we have that discussion. Two years go by, three years go by, the property owner decides to sell or the property owner decides to do improvements to the property. At that point, we can then have the discussion with them about potential landmarking, particularly if the property owner is interested in receiving discretionary entitlements. We do have the ability to make it a condition of approval at that point in time that that they are required to landmark it. So we do have the opportunity to do that. And Option A does not wipe that opportunity off the map. Or option B excuse me, option B does not wipe the opportunity to landmark off the off the charts, I should say. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I'm kind of inclined to think that time is of essence really with this. And I would like to kind of I would like to see a little more time because I really haven't had that much time to really go. And I think 30 days or 60, what it would take in order to get this right, because this is something that would be extremely unique for the city and for, you know, people who in the city of Long Beach, when we talk about historical, you know, venue. So I would really like to kind of wait. And if we could get that, I would like to you know, if Mr. Armstrong is willing to make that motion, I don't know what it would go, but I would go with it. Yeah. You want to for any emotion, I like to ask, could we get it from the emotion to maybe for 30 days or more? I think the the friendliest asked the maker of the motion to move this move this a 30 days. I decline that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Councilwoman Mongo. I think that first, I want to thank so many people that worked so hard on this. And again, I know I say this often, but not each and every person is here every week. I really appreciate the written testimony that comes in in advance because it gives us an opportunity before Council to really go through the deep questions. And I think that the part that has had some concern with neighbors and I think that Ms.. Bodak and Vice Mayor Lowenthal, you've done a great job of really outlining some of the details, is that there's a fear from property owners that they will be forced to be a landmark. And the current document that I read from President Perry related to that the record owner may petition to withdraw from designated status. Really seems reactionary to me more than proactive in in reaching out to them. And so I'd be open to maybe instead of prolonging it 30 days to just give a direct result that it meets the concerns that I've heard, which would be that before. That the owner is involved before designation. Can can Steph maybe weigh in on that? We thought we had done that with version B. So we version B does not require the property owner to come before the city council after the property has been designated and ask for that designation to be withdrawn. So I think I'm asking for something slightly different. I think what I'm asking for is before it becomes designated that the property owner is reached out to and given the opportunity to speak with their council member to potentially prevent it from becoming designated. If they feel that they have cause. To maintain its current status. Vice Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if. I could. Understand this a little bit better. I think what Councilwoman Mungo is asking us to consider is more along the lines of the level of involvement we're. Yes. So Maverick, while version B approached it from that aspect, I do think there's an opportunity in version A to keep that in tact, but ensure that the property owner has the opportunity for a greater level of involvement in the process so it doesn't appear or in reality feel as though they are not in control. And again, I have to reiterate, for the most part, almost always there is cooperation because it is in everyone's best interest to go through this process. So if I could get some direction from the city council, that would be greatly appreciated in understanding it. At what point in the process would the property owner involvement be required? Would it be before it goes to the Cultural Heritage Commission, or would it be after the Cultural Heritage Commission has made an initial recommendation, but before it gets to City Council, or is it at the City Council? So my friendly would be that it would be before it goes to the Cultural Heritage Commission so that the owner could be there and present and present information should they request not to not receive that designation. And I think that it's important, again, a majority of the properties that are currently under consideration are owned by the city and are all in agreement. But when we legislate at this level, we really need to think of the potential unintended consequences 30, 40 years from now. And so if we could out of friendly that the property owner would be notified in advance of it coming to the Cultural Heritage Commission that would give them the opportunity to be present and a part of that process. Vice Mayor. I would accept that. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor with a friendly amendment. Councilman Austin I'm satisfied with that. Okay, then. Mr. Mayor, may I just ask one clarifying question, which is important to us, that this would occur before it was even scheduled for CHC hearing, or would it be at the CHC hearing? Before. Before. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. We're very satisfied with that resolution. We do think it still balances A and B. So if that's the will of the city council, we would be pleased to implement that. Great. And before we go to a vote, I just want to because I've been hearing some of the I've been getting the emails and the had had some conversations. I just want to also just say that there is no question that when the city had a recession and an economic downturn, that there was definitely the level the level of commitment the city had to start preservation as far as having a dedicated staff member. There's no question that that suffered. I think everyone on this council recognizes that. Well, I think everyone has in their hearts wants to preserve and want to preserve our history. I think the city did slip a little bit when it came to having a commitment that was consistent. And so I think I want to I think it's important that we recognize that and the community understands that. But I'm also hopeful that now we can all move forward together, realizing that we have great new, new planning staffs on board that has this expertize, new historic preservation planner and new director of planning in Ms.. Tatum, and that we move forward with trust because we're all on the same page. We're all on the same team. We want to preserve our buildings. We want to make sure that there's trust that's there. And certainly that to me is important, I think, to this to this council and certainly to staff who's working very, very hard to ensure that we have a strong historic preservation program. And so with that, there is a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. I'm going to go. We're a little bit behind on doing the budget, but there's there's been a request to hear Ms.. Ridder. So I think Kimberly Ridder here in the audience, if we can have Ms.. Ritter, please come forward and know she has a few folks here in the room to go straight to the budget so we can have the budget. Folks, please start setting up. We're going to go into the budget after this.