Dec. 9, 2025 City Council Meeting

Video

Transcript

Pledge Of Allegiance

[00:00:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Mountain View City Council regular meeting of December 9, 2025. Please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Item 3

[00:01:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, great. We'll move on to Item 3, Roll Call. The City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:01:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[00:01:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:01:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[00:01:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:01:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAllister?

[00:01:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Here.

[00:01:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[00:01:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:01:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[00:01:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:01:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[00:01:47] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[00:01:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[00:01:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:01:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have a quorum.

Item 4

[00:01:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. All right. We will move on to Item 4, our Consent Calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the Council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration. If an item is pulled from the Consent Calendar, it will be considered separately following approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. If you'd like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non-agenda items, in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the Council like to pull an item? Councilmember McAllister.

[00:02:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Comment on 4.4.

[00:02:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Great. Vice Mayor Ramos?

Item 4.4

[00:02:30] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I also want to comment on Item 4.4, but not pull.

[00:02:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sorry, 4.4, correct?

[00:02:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Correct.

[00:02:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. So, Councilmember McAllister, will let you comment first.

[00:02:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, so I asked a question about the, um, the maximum... we had a big discussion going back how much, uh, the cost for moving should be and we were teetering one way or the other and some numbers were flying out. And, uh, the Council decided let's, let's put it back, give it back to staff to come up with some numbers. And I'm glad we did because these numbers are much lower than what we were discussing and they're more realistic. And so, uh, I applaud the Council for taking, you know, an extra step to allow us to really research things instead of doing, uh, government on the fly. So, uh, I appreciate the staff coming up with the numbers. They look more reasonable. I think I've heard back from some of the, uh, landlords and they think that's much more reasonable too. So, government does work when you do it right. Thank you.

[00:03:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[00:03:40] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, and also thank you to staff on this item. I know it's been a long slog and I also thank my colleagues for working with staff to, um, get what, um, their concerns were hashed out and worked out to get a nice strong ordinance. The whole purpose of this was to help mitigate or partially mitigate displacement in our community. And I'm glad that we're taking this really good step forward for our residents and those so that they, even if they are displaced from their, their, their residence, they may not... they increase the odds of not being displaced from our community. So thank you all, uh, for finding ways to get to yes. So thank you.

[00:04:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on these items? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first, but I'm not seeing any. So we'll move on to virtual and each speaker will have three minutes. So if we can unmute Anil?

[00:04:54] Anil Babbar: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Anil Babbar with the California Apartment Association. I'd like to start by expressing my appreciation to Council for continuing this item, uh, from the meeting prior and allowing for, uh, staff to conduct the stakeholder outreach. You know, as you can tell and I want to echo Councilmember McAllister's comments, uh, the stakeholder outreach provided some really good feedback. Um, and, uh, you know, by extending the temporary displacement timeframe from 90 days up to 180 days, as well as placing caps on moving costs, especially, uh, according to unit size, I think this provides some good guardrails for the ordinance.

[00:05:39] Anil Babbar: Um, these changes weren't, were, were the result of pure outreach. If Council hadn't instructed staff to go back and conduct that, we would have a much more flawed ordinance. Uh, so I want to really underscore the importance of stakeholder outreach on every ordinance, which I think should be a mandatory component when external folks, individuals, organizations, or businesses are impacted.

[00:06:01] Anil Babbar: That being said, um, I want to just reiterate one more time that this trio does, may still present hurdles to getting, uh, you know, maintenance done, renovation done, work done on these buildings. And I want to make sure that the Council is kind of keeping an eye on how these will impact the, uh, property owners who want to do these necessary renovations but can't due to the added cost to, uh, uh, because of this ordinance. Um, because every cost, whether it's the cost of housing a tenant in a different residence or the cost of moving a tenant, adds thousands of dollars of expense to every unit. Um, but again, want to appreciate the listening that was done and the feedback that was heard. And, uh, we look forward to working with staff forward on, uh, future ordinances. Thank you.

Consent Calendar

[00:06:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I'm not seeing any other public comment, uh, in the queue. So I'll close public comment and bring the item back for Council action. And note that a motion to approve the Consent Calendar should also include reading the title of the ordinance and resolutions attached to the Consent Calendar Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 4.3. Looks like we have a motion by Vice Mayor Ramos, seconded by Councilmember Ramirez. So I'll turn it over to Vice Mayor.

Item 4.1

[00:07:23] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I move the Consent Calendar including Item 4.1, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing and directing the City Attorney to compromise and settle the case of *Alice Okuno versus City of Mountain View*, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 22CV405643 in the amount of $275,000 and authorizing the City Manager or designee to appropriate the same amount to the City Attorney's Office Liability Insurance Fund to implement the settlement, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

Item 4.2

[00:07:58] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Item 4.2, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing and directing the City Attorney to compromise and settle the case of *Ella Kobzanets versus City of Mountain View*, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 23CV420311 in the amount of $400,000 and authorizing the City Manager or designee to appropriate the same amount to the City Attorney's Office Liability Insurance Fund to implement the settlement, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

Item 4.3

[00:08:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Item 4.3, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View reappointing Tina Fan and appointing Shweta Subramanian to the Environmental Planning Commission to be read in title only, further reading waived.

Item 4.4

[00:08:44] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Item 4.4, introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View repealing Chapter 36, Article 13, Tenant Relocation Assistance to the Mountain View City Code; amending Chapter 46 of the Mountain View City Code to change the title and add a new article governing Tenant Relocation Assistance; and finding that these code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for January 27th, 2026. Woo!

[00:09:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Let's vote.

Item 5

[00:09:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, and that passes unanimously. We'll move on to Item 5, Oral Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items. If you'd like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Let's see. It looks like we have one person in person. And then if virtual, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the Clerk. We'll take our in-person speaker first and that speaker will have three minutes. Albert.

[00:10:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Do you have a presentation as well?

[00:10:09] Albert Jeans: Yep.

[00:10:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. We will wait for... All right, we'll set our clock to three minutes. Is the clock set? No? Okay. Okay.

[00:11:03] Albert Jeans: Well, I can... I'll just speak. I can send it later. You can forward it to them.

[00:11:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Sorry. Yeah, a little foul up there. But...

[00:11:13] Albert Jeans: Um, yeah, I wanted to give you an update on the RV situation since I've been taking counts of that regularly.

[00:11:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Do you, do you mind... I don't know what's the... I don't see the timer going yet.

[00:11:23] Albert Jeans: Oh, no, it's not going.

[00:11:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. I hear it telling you you're done, but you haven't even started yet. Okay, here we go.

[00:11:28] Albert Jeans: Okay, there. Okay. All right. Yeah, I wanted to give you a little update on the RV situation. Um, I performed a count last week on Tuesday and, you know, usually I show you this big picture of all the RVs, a simulated picture of 300 RVs in a parking lot. Well, that's reality now. We blew by 300. There are now at least 309 RVs on Mountain View streets. You know, up from 297 about a month ago. And so it's continuing to increase and you can see the trend just going up. I have a little graph I'll show you in my presentation.

[00:12:04] Albert Jeans: And, um, this issue really hit home for me because after the last meeting, Council meeting I attended last month, October 28th, I think it was, I went home and I neglected to close my garage door. And lo and behold, that morning at five in the morning, a man walked by down our street—we have him on camera, I have video of him—and he stole my bike that I've had since 1979. You know, I've lived in Mountain View for, you know, since 1983 and nothing like this has ever happened. And, you know, I'm not saying people in the RVs are responsible, but there is a sizable RV population just two blocks from me on Terra Bella Avenue.

[00:12:47] Albert Jeans: And so... oh, wow, you found it. Great. That's the graph. And, um, yeah, next slide please.

[00:12:55] Albert Jeans: Yeah, that's my bike, now deceased or happily living somewhere else. And then these are screenshots from video. A neighbor's camera on the left saw him walking by, and then I have two shots, one of him, you know, coming up our driveway and then riding away with my bicycle, you know, at five in the morning, you know. And our neighborhood is not that, you know, easily visited. It's sort of isolated. So, and he walked there, so he must be close by.

[00:13:27] Albert Jeans: But anyways, my point is, next slide please. RVs, you know, they're not just unpleasant to look at. There are real public safety issues associated with having a lot of homeless people living on our streets. As Supervisor Abe-Koga pointed out, you know, housed individuals are far less likely to cycle through our jails. You know, supportive housing reduces crime, things like that. And so, yeah, we need to care about them, but, you know, Mountain View has done more than its fair share, I think, compared to other cities with our safe parking lots, affordable housing. You know, I think it's time to spend more time on the residents and make sure we have a safe place to live and a pleasant place to live. And, uh, yeah, I know there's not much we can do right now, uh, because the *Navarro* agreement is still in place, but hopefully when that expires in about a year, you know, we can really take some positive actions to reduce the number of RVs on our streets. Thank you.

Item 5 (Public Comment)

[00:14:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. Any other in-person public comment on non-agenda items? All right. I am not seeing any, so we'll move on to virtual. James?

[00:14:35] James Kuszmaul: Hello. Um, James Kuszmaul. I just wanted to, since I know no action gets taken on public comment, I wanted to briefly call out Mr. Jeans's, um, wildly inappropriate insinuation that, uh, our RV neighbors would be connected to increased crime rates. I know he claimed that there was not necessarily any connection, but by bringing those up simultaneously, he made a connection and that is not appropriate. So thank you.

[00:15:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, so that concludes, um... um, oh, I see another public comment. So we'll stop our timer. We have Kevin Ma.

[00:15:25] Kevin Ma: Hi, Council. This is just a short message. The YouTube stream for this meeting doesn't work, so someone could get to that, that would be great. Thanks.

[00:15:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right. I believe that it's streaming via Zoom for those who, um, would like to watch our meeting or hopefully can see our meeting. Um, so we're going to proceed as I'm not seeing staff telling me I cannot. So okay, perfect, we can keep going.

Item 6

[00:15:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, um, that concludes, um, our, our public comment. So we'll move on to Item 6, which is New Business. Item 6.1 is our Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Registrar Update. Chinese translation services are available for this item. We'll now hear from our interpreter.

[00:16:15] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]... If you are joining the meeting via Zoom, you can click the interpretation icon on the screen and select Chinese to listen to the meeting in Chinese. When the Mayor announces the item you wish to speak on, you can click the raise hand icon in Zoom or dial star nine on your phone to speak. Thank you.

[00:16:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, so before, uh, we begin tonight, I want to acknowledge that we've heard concerns from property owners and representatives of property owners about sites associated with religious uses. Staff has evaluated these concerns and has determined that the City should not proceed with listing these properties without the property owners' consent. Staff will discuss this further in the presentation that's forthcoming.

Item 6 (Public Comment)

[00:17:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Given the need for Councilmember recusals due to conflicts of interest, this item will proceed in the following manner: We'll begin with the staff presentation, which will be followed by public comment. At the close of public comment, the Council will ask questions, deliberate, and vote on matters requiring Councilmember recusals first, and then the Council will ask questions and deliberate on the remaining items for discussion. So hopefully that is a clear process for us. Um, Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. We'll turn it over to staff. Thank you.

[00:18:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you very much. Good evening Mayor Kamei, City Council. This item is regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register Update. My name is Eric Anderson, uh, the Planning Manager. I'm joined tonight by Christian Murdoch, the Community Development Director. This presentation will provide an overview of the background of this project, the key discussion points, and then a summary of next steps including information on SB 79.

[00:18:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There we go. Uh, the City has had a Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register, uh, since 2004. Together these tools help the City preserve historically and culturally significant buildings as well as their character-defining features. There are several reasons to update the ordinance and register at this time that are shown on the screen. The bottom of this slide shows an overview of the project process. It started in 2022 and has three major deliverables: the Historic Context Statement to define the significant themes in the city's built history and provide a consistent framework for evaluating properties; an intensive survey of properties that may be eligible for listing; and an update to the ordinance. The register and ordinance are expected to be adopted next year.

[00:19:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: A City Council meeting was held in 2023 to clarify the project goals and scope. The project should reflect preservation priorities, provide clarity about historic status, streamline the development review process, provide incentives, and create a local district criteria for a downtown district. In addition, Council directed staff to conduct an intensive survey that would exclude single-family and duplex properties that had not already been identified.

[00:19:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: A number of virtual, hybrid, and in-person outreach events have been held regarding this project to hear from the community about the project's goals as well as to inform them about key deliverables and analysis. Leading up to this meeting, the City held two meetings, one virtual and one in person, to inform the community about the list of potentially eligible properties and to hear feedback on process improvements.

[00:20:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This presentation covers these four topics. We are seeking Council confirmation and direction on these topics so that we can finalize the ordinance and register for adoption.

[00:20:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The first main topic for this meeting is regarding resource eligibility. Eligibility for historic resources is composed of two different types of analysis: significance criteria and integrity thresholds. The City's ordinance currently includes significance criteria that are similar to those established at the state and national levels. Integrity thresholds are regarding the authenticity of the resource and are focused on the seven characteristics shown here. The City does not currently have integrity thresholds, though other cities have them as well as the state and national review processes.

[00:20:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The project team has conducted an intensive survey of properties as directed by the City Council. Based on the significance criteria and integrity thresholds, a draft list of 101 privately owned properties has been identified as eligible for listing in the local register.

[00:21:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: After further evaluation of state and federal law, staff has concluded that the City should not continue to pursue listing of religious sites as part of this process without an affirmative request of the property owners. Therefore staff does not recommend continuing with the consideration of the listing of the properties shown here as part of the Mountain View Register Update. One site is currently listed on the register, 1855 Miramonte Avenue, and staff will continue evaluating their request for removal and will provide more information in the future. Additional properties may al... may also qualify subject to further review.

[00:21:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff have the following recommendations regarding the eligibility and draft list of resources: Continue to utilize the City's significance criteria; adopt integrity thresholds; and include the draft list of eligible properties in the register, excluding the religious sites, subject to public review and the accuracy of published materials. The EPC supported the staff recommendation.

[00:22:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next topic: While most of the properties currently on the register are still eligible, five may not be eligible if integrity thresholds are applied. The staff recommendation is to develop a process whereby these properties have an opportunity to improve their integrity within a limited time before being removed from the Mountain View Register. They would need to submit an application with an analysis showing that the improvements would return sufficient integrity to be eligible for continued listing. If they have not met the deadline, they would be automatically removed from the register and any Mills Act contracts would be canceled. Staff recommends this balanced approach to minimize impacts to individual property owners from the loss of any incentives, such as Mills Act property tax reductions, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the ordinance and associated incentives provided to property owners.

[00:23:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The EPC recommendation included a four-year period to submit the restoration plan, after which they would be, uh, if they did not, they would be removed from the register at that time. A property owner submitting the application within four years would receive an additional three years to obtain City approval and complete the construction. EPC also identified, uh, recommended that the City identify and adopt more proactive measures for the two downtown properties.

[00:23:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next topic is regarding the nomination, listing, and delisting process in the code. Currently, nomination of a property may be carried out either by the property owner or by the City Council. And if the City Council nominates a property, the, uh, the following steps will only be carried out with approval from the property owner. There's then staff review and a formal listing action. The current code also identifies one formal delisting process. The property owner may opt off only on the five-year anniversary of the designation. There's no public process or formal findings that must be met for this action. In summary, the opt-off process is not transparent to the public and may not eliminate obligations, especially under the California Environmental Quality Act. National and/or California Register properties are not automatically included in the register, and there is no process for nomination of local historic districts.

[00:24:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The following are staff recommendations for this, uh, processes in the code: First, to remove the owner opt-off provision and the required owner approval with the Council nomination process. Owners can still nominate themselves and apply for removal, but listing and delisting would be under the authority of the City Council. The City Council may consider property owner sentiment in this decision. Create a process for neighborhoods or districts to nominate themselves subject to Council approval. List properties in the register if an official determination is made at the state or national levels. Provide delisting procedures that consider findings such as if there's an overriding consideration through CEQA. The EPC supported the staff recommendation with additional clarification and insurance that property owner negligence, such as failure to maintain a historic resource to the point that it becomes a safety hazard or economic hardship, should not be considered a valid basis for delisting a property.

[00:25:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The next topic is regarding the development review process. The ordinance currently has three levels of development review for projects that would alter a historic resource. Additional planning permits are not required for various improvements that have limited potential to affect the character-defining features of a historic resource. The ZA reviews permit applications for alterations to properties on the register if the property is not eligible for listing at the state or national levels. And the City Council reviews permit applications for alterations to properties that are eligible for listing on the California or National Registers, regardless of whether a property is listed in the Mountain View Register.

[00:26:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In summary, there's a limited list of exempt alterations, which are not objective. There's no differentiation between major and minor projects. Projects on properties eligible for state or national register are required to go through the City Council, but this is not transparent to property owners. There's no clear process for demolition or other modifications that impact the integrity of a resource and there are no enforcement provisions.

[00:26:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The following are staff recommendations regarding the development review process: Clarify and adopt comprehensive list of exempt alterations; define minor alterations such as in-kind replacement of doors and windows, rear additions not visible from the front of the house, or modifications to non-historic features; define major alterations such as relocation, visible additions, and alterations that would alter or remove or obscure character-defining features; create a process for listing a prop... delisting a property from the register; and incorporate enforcement measures.

[00:27:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The EPC supported the staff recommendation adding that the removal of original walls or reconfiguration of interior spaces along Castro Street should also be considered a major alteration.

[00:27:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The project team has continued to work on these items shown on the screen and will provide an update when the project returns to EPC and Council. If the City Council wishes to create a downtown historic district, staff estimates it would take at least a year since the enabling legislation would need to be adopted first.

[00:27:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This slide is regarding SB 79, which was recently signed into law and goes into effect next July. The purpose of this slide is to show the language in SB 79 that relates to the protection of historic resources. As an overview, the City must allow higher-density residential development in these blue areas on the map. There are five qualifying transit stops in the city. In general, historic properties that were listed as of the beginning of this year are exempt from this, uh, statute, but the City can adopt a local alternative plan that would allow the ex... um, newly listed historic properties to be exempt, but we would need to allow more density elsewhere to compensate. Uh, staff work has started on this including mapping of pedestrian entrances to, uh, stops and analyzing areas, uh, affected in these bubbles.

[02:28:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In conclusion, staff is requesting City Council direction on the draft list of properties eligible for the register and draft strategies for ordinance updates and the development review process for historic structures. We're happy to answer any questions you might have. Also in attendance tonight are Elaheh Kerachian, the Project Manager; Amber Blizinski, the Assistant Community Development Director; and team members from our consultant firm, Page & Turnbull. Thank you.

[00:29:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So per my earlier announcement, we're going to do public comment and then we'll go into Council question and deliberation. So would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk.

[00:29:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So we'll begin with, uh, in-person speakers. We have a little bit of a queue, so I'll call up, um, some names and if you don't mind queuing to the left of the podium, that would be great. And then those who watching online, please speak directly into the microphone so that those joining virtually can hear. Um, and then you'll see the timer clock right here. So, uh, first we have Julie Satake Ryu, then we have Robert Cox, John Martinez, George Abiat.

[00:29:56] Julie Satake Ryu: Directly into the mic. It's a little high.

[00:30:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: They're getting thumbs up from the back row.

[00:30:05] Julie Satake Ryu: Okay, good. Thank you. My name is Julie Satake Ryu—I'm going to try not to watch that clock—and I'm president of the Board of Directors of the Mountain View Buddhist Temple. I'm also a long time resident of the city and had a family business, Satake Nursery, here in the city. Served on the Tennis Advisory Board, the Mountain View Rec Department, and coordinated the Net Gain tennis program for public middle school youth up through 2021. And in fact, was here last night working the booth for the City of Mountain View, uh, tree lighting ceremonies and the Holidays Around the World on the, on behalf of the Mountain View Buddhist Temple.

[00:31:23] Julie Satake Ryu: The Mountain View Buddhist Temple has been located at 575 North Shoreline Boulevard since the late 1950s after our Japanese-American founders returned from incarceration camps from World War II. Since that time, we've continued to pursue our Buddhist religious practices and grown our campus to include a new worship hall, which we call the Hondo, and revised other buildings for education, social, and religious purposes. We have faithfully maintained and updated our structures both to meet current codes as well as to service our 350-plus Sangha community members, affiliated and related organizations.

[00:31:23] Julie Satake Ryu: While the process of updating the historic preservation ordinance began in 2022, we at the Mountain View Buddhist Temple were only aware of this process and the potential inclusion of our property in August 2025 when we received a letter. We were immediately concerned and attended meetings as described by the City staff. We voiced concerns as to whether we would be able to opt out, be, or be listed, as well as just to understand the implications of being listed.

[00:31:52] Julie Satake Ryu: The Mountain View Buddhist Temple believes that the encumbrance of a historic designation would significantly, negatively impact the ability to pursue our religious mission. Therefore, we at the Mountain View Buddhist Temple appreciate the removal of our property from the draft report by City staff and the City Council for inclusion on the historic register. I would also like to recognize any and all of our temple members and supporters who are here to support the Mountain View Buddhist Temple by having those in person stand to be recognized. And if you are here online, wave your hand. I'm waving for you. To express our support for being removed from the updated historic register due to the substantial burden on our religious practice. Thank you.

[00:32:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Robert? And I think you have a presentation.

[00:32:43] Robert Cox: Yeah, I have a presentation.

[00:32:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: You're going to have to lift it all the way. Yeah.

[00:32:48] Robert Cox: Right. Okay. Can I start?

[00:32:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right.

[00:32:58] Robert Cox: I'm Robert Cox from Livable Mountain View. I'm here to talk about why we need a downtown historic district now. Next slide.

[00:33:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Robert, do you mind saying that you're speaking on behalf of individuals?

[00:33:08] Robert Cox: Oh, I'm speaking on behalf of a number of individuals here with Livable Mountain View.

[00:33:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[00:33:12] Robert Cox: Okay. Um, Senate Bill, uh, 79 could eliminate our historic downtown. If you look here, the blue area is the impact circle approximated by us that covers up the historic retail district. And it means that six to seven story buildings would be allowed in this area by right. It provides a strong financial incentive for the property owners to assemble their properties, redevelop them as housing, and it could mean that our downtown would no longer be a retail and restaurant destination for the enjoyment of our city or a extreme generator of property tax revenue for its maintaining what we need in our city. Next slide.

[00:33:53] Robert Cox: So what's the answer? Senator Wiener has it himself: the SB 79 local alternative plan. Uh, in a talk at the [inaudible] District, he said that cities have the ability to craft their own alternative option that implements the goals of the bills but does it in a way that works for the city. Next slide.

[00:34:09] Robert Cox: We have presented a three-point plan, uh, local alternative plan, and the third point is the establishment of a preservation area as an official historic district for our local register. Next slide.

[00:34:25] Robert Cox: Here's our proposed preservation area which we sent to the Council this morning. It basically is the Castro Street Historic Retail District H, but we also want to include the Tied and Weilheimer Houses as they are on the national and, uh, eligible for the National and California Register. Um, and we could exclude, uh, two areas that are non-contributing in red, and, uh, the parking lots are up and structures are up for discussion. Next slide.

[00:34:55] Robert Cox: Um, there are tight deadlines. And as far as we know, the alternative plan should be adopted by July 1st, 2026. The review process could take as long as six and a half months. That means that it, uh, starting next week, we're at risk of maybe slipping the deadline. We've got a meeting with, uh, Assem... uh, Assemblyman Berman's office to try to confirm all of this. Next slide.

[00:35:19] Robert Cox: Our cities, other cities are already working on their SB 79 local alternative plans such as Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Los Angeles. Here's the Sunnyvale Historic Murphy Avenue. They are working on a plan for that. Unless we act now, historic core of our pioneer-founded city could be lost. Next slide.

[00:35:38] Robert Cox: Um, there are 12 California, uh, certified, uh, districts, um, historic districts within the state of California. One of the closest ones in Redwood City is the Redwood City Expanded Main Street Historic District. We look at it as a model for Mountain View. We note that it talks about the idea of many pioneer and early-day residents and organizations associated with the buildings in the proposed expanded district as part of the rationale.

[00:36:09] Robert Cox: And we note in Mountain View, the Castro Street was created in the 1860s as a commercial district when the Southern Pacific Railroad was built. Acknowledging contribution of minority populations is an important criteria when determining historic districts today. It came up when we were talking about the Tied and Weilheimer Houses. And the Castro area includes contributions for a uniquely diverse population of immigrants, many from minority groups, and that's why we believe it deserves special consideration.

[00:37:04] Robert Cox: We note that in the Redwood City district, uh, it has both architecturally significant and ordinary buildings. If you go clockwise from a very architecturally excellent building, you can circle around to the Savers Warehouse, which is very ordinary and yet part of the district even though not contributing. But the district considerations include persons and events that occurred there as well as architectural design of buildings. Next slide.

[00:37:04] Robert Cox: So going back to the staff report, we have a couple comments on that that may impact on the idea of historic registers, particularly the ones on the local historic register. SB 79 requires a historic district receiving exemption be added to the city's local historic register. While state and federal guidelines are useful in determining, um, guidelines for local districts, they are not a requirement. Our city has the final say on what it declares to be a local historic district. Next slide.

[00:38:18] Robert Cox: So what is a historic district? Going to the National Park definition, it's a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical developments. So it has to do with continuity and history and the unity of buildings. Um, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance in their definition says, notes that individual buildings within a in a district do not need to be highly significant on their own. Some are contributing, some not. Next slide. Next slide.

[00:38:18] Robert Cox: Our downtown historic district that we are proposing is around the Castro Street area. It was laid out in 1864 and has been in continuous use as a commercial retail district. We view it as it and its vicinity as a historic site. We note that taking the Redwood City example, uh, buildings need not retain their original architecture to contribute to the historic district.

[00:38:43] Robert Cox: If you look here at this picture of Historic Redwood City's Courthouse today, uh, what we can comment on it is that it has gone through several design revisions. It was completely destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and rebuilt. And the only part that is existing today is the metal dome up at the top. And yet it is still considered a part of the historical contributing buildings in the district. Finally, we want to say that a proposed historic district needs to be judged as a whole rather than by each of the buildings individually. Next slide.

[00:39:23] Robert Cox: Next slide. Who can nominate a historic district? The staff report talks about the idea of historic districts being nominated by owners. And while we sup... support the idea of doing that, we also note that by law, City Council, City Development staff, or citizens' organizations and individuals can make nominations for a historic district. And so since we believe quick action is needed to create this historic district, we are recommending whatever is the speediest method to do it. Next slide.

[00:40:27] Robert Cox: So finally, just a final slide here with a call to action. Uh, historic district encompassing the downtown retail district and its vicinity should be defined and placed on the city's local historic register to take advantage of SB 79 historic protections. This should be completed by when the law takes effect on July 1st in next year. And staff should defer less urgent land use work for six months to get an SB 79 local alternative plan submitted and approval. Thank you for listening to what we at Livable Mountain View have to say.

[00:40:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. John Martinez, George Abiat, then Jim Spangler.

[00:40:37] John Martinez: Thank you. I'm John Martinez. And um, I've lived in Mountain View for 39 years and I have been following the historical, um, process and my house has never been listed on the, um, registry. So now two weeks ago I get a letter and I look and I'm all of a sudden my house is on the registry. So I really am kind of behind the, um, queue here.

[00:41:09] John Martinez: Um, one of the questions is, um, I'd like to opt out and I was told that I had to wait for you guys to go through your whole process before I can even opt out. And then, um, so, uh, um, I was wondering why I had to do that. And then the, um, criteria that you of the company that, um, did the survey, um, listed, um, age and then historical, um, uh, significance and things like that. And my property is just age. I don't see why, um, I should be, um, considered on a historical registry just because my property is old. So anyway, thank you. Um, um, if, um, if I could, uh, reach out to, um, uh, you later and, um, talk more about it, is that possible? Okay. Thank you.

[00:42:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Is there a property address you can give us?

[00:42:17] John Martinez: 752 Monroe Drive.

[00:42:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: George?

[00:42:20] George Abiat: Yes. Thank you. My name is George Abiat. I'm the owner of Chez TJ Restaurant for last 44 years. And I'm 70 years old now and I'm trying to retire. I have, uh, put all my life and savings in this property and wanted to secure for future of my life to sell or to lease or to develop this property to manage a future security for myself and my kids.

[00:42:54] George Abiat: Unfortunately, I've been listed in historical registry without my permission and I've been fighting it for last 15 to 16 years to take this property out of the list, opt it out. And I'm not very satisfied by even without my permission putting this property to a state registry without my permission again, without my consent. And I wish to opt it out to either develop the property, which we had an amazing development plan for it about six years, seven years ago, which we were refused to permit for that. And I think I need to have this property opt out so as an individual who's been paying my taxes and the right of my life to exist and live in this town to be able to sell my property so I can retire. Thank you.

[00:43:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Jim?

[00:43:59] Jim Spangler: Good evening. It's been a while since I've been able to address the Council. Um, I've been, uh, slowing down a little bit myself.

[00:44:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Can you speak directly into the mic? Thank you.

[00:44:12] Jim Spangler: Still stay, uh, active in the business that I own, uh, and the property that, um, my father and I own at 799 Castro Street. Spangler Mortuaries was started in 1934 by my grandfather. And we've been active in the community, serving the public and the community, uh, with their, uh, needs.

[00:45:00] Jim Spangler: Um, I'm a bit surprised that this issue or our property is being addressed again. In 2004, um, we spoke against this, uh, issue and we were notified that we weren't, didn't qualify and weren't listed on the registry. Uh, the notices that I've gone out, I have been going to my 91-year-old father who just lost his wife about three months ago and I was not aware of any of the notices, so it rather surprised me that we were being considered again. Um, I would like to opt out as well. Uh, we have no development plans and I'm lucky that I have a fourth generation coming on and taking over the business. We plan on serving Mountain View, uh, continuously for the next 30, 40 years if at all possible. We take care of our property, uh, and maintain it in what we feel is a very respectful manner and it is a nice property but it is not historic as far as we're concerned. We don't feel that we should be punished for our service to the community by having it listed on the registry. Uh, we'd like to, uh, continue participating in the process and we hope that you'll take our consideration into plans eventually. Uh, something's going to have to happen whether it's 30, 50, 70 years from now in that block of Castro Street that's not in the downtown historic area by the train tracks. Um, but it's going to be a very unusual piece of property amidst all the other projects that have been going on and are anticipated to go on. Thank you.

[00:46:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Any other in-person public comment? Great, you can submit.

[00:46:50] Massimo Prati: Yeah, good evening. My name is Massimo Prati. I've been living in Mountain View for about 34 years now and, uh, my residence is the Minton home. Um, in early 2000 when the Council first, uh, looked at endorsing an ordinance, uh, we opted out. Um, we opted out because, um, the ordinance at the time lacked incentives, uh, that, um, made it financially worthwhile, uh, to stay on the register. And, um, um, it was a good move quite frankly, um, given the, the math, uh, that was offered to us at the time. Um, I'm surprised to come here in December 2025 and see that, uh, um, incentives are still being investigated and looked at. Uh, they should have been the first thing, uh, to be explored and, uh, and put on the table before this Council. Um, what I'm hearing tonight for many people is the financial distress, uh, that this ordinance could cause without proper incentives, uh, without the freedom to, um, uh, handle their properties in the way they would like. And, uh, I've heard the issues around financial security. Um, that is really all it, it's all about for us as well is, um, um, you can walk by our house and recognize that its historic significance has been preserved and beyond. Um, but, um, I think it is important if the Council is going to adopt this ordinance and, um, force people on a register without the proper incentives and without the financial security that they need in order to maintain their property and in order to, um, maintain their financial, uh, security, um, I think this ordinance will fail. And, um, that is a concern as I am an endorser, believe it or not, uh, of historic preservation. But I don't see any, um, again I use the word incentives or, um, progress in this ordinance. It seems to me it is stuck, uh, where it was 20 years ago and, uh, the exercise has been worthwhile. It has shown that, uh, um, much due diligence in terms of identifying new properties, uh, and evaluating historic significance of properties in Mountain View and I think that effort is commendable. But what I don't see going with it is an ordinance that, uh, makes any sense vis-a-vis 2025 and the, um, um, challenges that we all face or we all saw. Um, and there was a presentation about SB 79 and the and the need to and call to action. Uh, it's something that is being looked at right now. Um, we've known about it for months and it should have been addressed earlier. So I'm speaking to you with great disappointment that, uh, it has gotten to this point. Thank you very much for your attention.

[00:49:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Melanie K?

[00:49:53] Melanie K: Yes, Melanie K. I've lived in Mountain View since 1981 in the same little house in the same little, I like to say historic street. Yes, you've all heard from me, I did send a letter. I just wanted to speak this evening because it feels as though the real question is what is the value to having an historic district? What is the value of proclaiming a property or a place of historic significance? What is the value this city does bring to this picture? It seems that we're hearing that there is a lot of confusion. What do I get if my property is historic? So my question is directed at the city. Who are the personnel that are directly involved with this process? Is it simply, and it isn't just simply of course, are we counting on an outside group to tell us in our fair city what is and is not preservable? Are we not capable of having a group designated who live here? Who recognize the value of the community and not just of significant buildings via someone famous lived there or it was a famous architect? What we have here is a community in Mountain View that was based on the working class people who built it. Not a university, not famous architects, but a very strong community. And when you see those bubbles on the map, those bubbles are centered mainly around the small historic community that was not only commercial, but those people who built that lived a block or two or three away. This is what we have. This is what Mountain View was built on. And if we lose this idea because there are no positive aspects of being on this, you can hear the fear in people's voices. "Oh, if it's historic, what happens to me?" And you can already see and feel it. So I think we need to look as a city at what is the value of historic preservation, take it to heart. We need to do this quickly because SB 79 is coming down on us hard and it could be the absolute loss of what has been built up since they first watered the horses down there at the place that has been lost. Just... we need a city committed to this in a positive way.

[00:52:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Caroline McCormick?

[00:52:59] Caroline McCormick: Good evening. I do not come here very often. Um, the last time I was here was probably in 2014 because that's when I opted out of the Historical Society. My property taxes would have gone at—

[00:53:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I, I apologize. You need to speak directly into the microphone or else we can't hear you and those watching virtually cannot. Thank you.

[00:53:20] Caroline McCormick: Okay. Thank you. Do I get time again? Gotta go there. Um, I have not been here since 2014. I was a member of P.E.E.R. I've been a member of Interfaith Action and changes in Mountain View that have made significant differences to our society. I would like to say that the last time I was here, I opted out of the Historical Society. I looked at the Mills Act for my house. I would have saved over $6,000 a year, 11 years ago, in my property taxes had I chosen to participate. I have maintained my house. I have a really nice house on Bush Street. My house has, is a Victorian and we have maintained that structure like many people in my neighborhood. I have created a community here. I know most of the people in this room. Right? However, you are not giving us any clear definitions of how we proceed to either opt in or out. You have not given us any clear definitions of what you're intending to do to our community. People here are concerned about how their community is going to change. I live next door to the Awad house. It was built in 1921, but the original city plans don't have it there because I was at the bad end of Bush Street. I'm at the cheap end. I'm down near the Minton Lumber Yard. So it's on the property insurance plans, as I found out today at the Historical Society, but it is not on the city neighborhood street plans because I live in the bad end of town. You choose through this historical ordinance to send me a letter that I have to pick up from the mailbox at the... I had to go and get it, it was a certified letter. There are people in this town who don't get to check the certified letters. One of the people sitting next to me said, "Oh my God, did my mother get that letter?" The marketing and the information you are sharing to this community about what you're doing here is not apparent. You do not have a public information campaign about what's going on. And I would say that most of the people that you've never seen here before tonight, like the people on Monroe Street, had no idea. So I'm saying to you, the City Council that we elect, you need to tell the public what's going on. You need to be more open about how we change it. Like I said, I could have saved myself $70,000 over the last 11 years if I'd known you were going to make me do this anyway. We care about our community. I didn't buy a historic house. I bought a house that I thought was beautiful and I made look historic because I like living in a small community. Thank you.

[00:56:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Any other in-person public comment? All right, we're going to move on to virtual. Um, and we have a queue there as well. So first is James Kuszmaul, then Daniel Hulse, then Tushar Pankaj. James?

[00:56:22] James Kuszmaul: Oh, yeah, hello. This is James Kuszmaul. I'm speaking to Mountain View YIMBY's letter on this item. Our priority here is to ensure that we honor the most important aspects of Mountain View's history by prioritizing the preservation of critical historical resources while respecting Mountain View's history as a destination for those seeking opportunity. As with all things, the way that we implement these sorts of policies matters immensely. Staff have rightly called out a variety of procedural concerns that deserve addressing, including ensuring that we maintain a historic registry that makes compliance with the state mandated CEQA review simple and straightforward for both property owners and the city itself. With that said, both the way that we select the actual set of properties included in the registry and the constraints imposed on such properties matters a lot. And if we review the actual list generated by Page & Turnbull, there are a lot of properties on the list whose entire justification for inclusion seems to be that they are well-preserved examples of architecture from time periods when Mountain View was growing significantly. As you can tell from some of the comments from property owners today. While it is appropriate to allow these property owners to take advantage of the Mills Act compensation to maintain these properties because they do contain some historic significance, and while it would be appropriate to maintain an accessible list of these properties for members of the public with an interest in history, it is not appropriate to force property owners to maintain a specific facade that is, to be quite frank, of marginal historic significance. While we have other buildings in the city that are of substantially greater historic significance. For similar reasons, a downtown historic district would almost certainly be inappropriately broad and would likely prevent more people from being able to live, work, and bring their vibrancy to our downtown and our city. More significantly historic resources should be considered for acquisition by the city itself if they are truly that historic as we have, well as exists with the Adobe Building and the Rengstorff House. It is frankly not clear to me that there are any such properties in the city right now, but there may be. They're just not called out effectively in the Page & Turnbull report. And when it comes down to it, Mountain View's history is one of its people and the people who will come here in the future. Let's let's prioritize that history and make sure that we are putting people ahead of building facades. Thank you.

[00:58:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Daniel Hulse?

[00:58:43] Daniel Hulse: Hi, can you hear me?

[00:58:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:58:46] Daniel Hulse: All right. Um, so I, I didn't write anything beforehand, but I, I just have some, some comments here and some thoughts. Um, if I look at the staff recommendation, these first two bullet points are really concerning to me. Uh, the first one seems to be, to me, like whether or not the city should just be able to steal developability from landowners, which to me seems a little wrong. Um, and then the second one is whether we should be able to do it on a mass scale. Uh, and I, I think that's just, that's just wrong. If, if a property is going to be on a historic registry, it should be voluntary. Um, otherwise, otherwise you're just like stealing from these landowners who may have plans for their property. Um, and you know, this, this is actually kind of personal for me. Um, my, my husband's grandmother lives not in Mountain View, but in, in Fremont in the Niles Historic District. Uh, and really being in a historic, uh, district is more of a liability than an asset, especially when you're someone who's, who's lived in a house, uh, for a very long time. Uh, houses have to be maintained and when they're real old, uh, they fall apart. And you may have structures on your property that start falling apart when you haven't maintained them. Uh, and then, you know, uh, if you're in the position of trying to take care of these people and, and take care of the property, uh, being in a historic district just raises all sorts of questions about what you can and can't do. Um, and so we got to be real careful. Don't create these historic districts just because people like the vibes. Uh, it, it needs to be voluntary and we need to recognize that, that people are actually living in, in these houses and they, they are trying to use them and they're trying to, uh, contribute to their community. Uh, and we could be turning assets, land assets that people own into liabilities that they don't know what to do with. Uh, so thank you for listening to my comment.

[01:01:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Matthew Marting?

[01:01:09] Matthew Marting: Hi, can you hear me?

[01:01:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:01:12] Matthew Marting: Hi. Um, good evening. My name is Matthew Marting. Uh, I'm a renter. I live near Rengstorff Park. Um, I'm just concerned that a lot of the buildings that could be put on the historic register just happen to be old. Uh, and if we preserved every building that happens to be old, we would never build anything new. Uh, and that might be what some people want, but I don't. Because we have a housing crisis, we need more housing, and downtown right by the train station is the best place to put it. Um, someone earlier brought up the importance of community. Um, my closest friends recently talked to me about how they are thinking about, you know, long term they, they might leave, move somewhere else because it's too expensive to live here. They, they can't necessarily see themselves staying here long term. Um, so, you know, when we're thinking about community, um, you know, it, it's not just what we currently have, the way things currently are. We also need to think about, um, you know, the, the opportunities that may be lost by not building the housing that we need. Um, thank you.

[01:02:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Kent?

[01:02:30] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:02:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, nope. The speaker is Kent.

[01:02:40] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:02:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm so sorry, I think that they went to you. Um, but we're trying to unmute Kent, not unmute our translator.

[01:02:56] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:02:56] Kent: Yeah.

[01:03:04] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:03:04] Kent: Yes.

[01:03:04] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:03:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hi Kent. Is that you?

[01:03:04] Kent: Yes.

[01:03:04] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:03:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hi, is she on the, Kent? Okay. Can you hold for just a second?

[01:03:04] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:03:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Why don't we take a five minute recess while we work through the, um, component here. Thanks.

[01:03:04] Chinese Interpreter (EL): [Speaking in Mandarin]...

[01:09:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right everyone, let's try to bring it back. Thank you.

[01:09:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, so I think what, what's going to happen is we're going to put up six minutes and we're going to have simultaneous translation. So our, our translator Eileen will, um, confirm with Kent what he would like to say and then she is going to, um, give that back to us and that was, that was part of it. So that's why both lines are unmuted. Thank you for your patience as, as we work through this. Accessibility is one of the things that we try to do in, in Mountain View. Um, and so much appreciated. All right. So, um, let's unmute Kent, let's unmute Eileen and we have the six minutes up.

[01:10:04] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:10:25] Chinese Interpreter (EL): I have rented this property located at 134 Castro Street since 1992 to 2018 as a Chinese restaurant.

[01:10:42] Kent: 134 Castro Street. [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:10:55] Chinese Interpreter (EL): Okay. Okay. So on 134 Castro Street. So I have a very good understanding of this building, about the structure.

[01:11:09] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:11:19] Chinese Interpreter (EL): Okay. I found the material of this building, uh, is very, uh, normal when I did the remodeling of the building.

[01:11:30] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:11:33] Chinese Interpreter (EL): And nothing special about the structure.

[01:11:39] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:11:49] Chinese Interpreter (EL): And the exterior design does not look like ancient style.

[01:11:55] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:12:01] Chinese Interpreter (EL): And nothing shows a combination of, uh, ancient and modern, uh, structure.

[01:12:11] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:12:19] Chinese Interpreter (EL): And the materials to, um, about the facade design is very, uh, ordinary materials.

[01:12:29] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:12:39] Chinese Interpreter (EL): We try to remodel the, um, front, um, exterior area.

[01:12:48] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:12:53] Chinese Interpreter (EL): We invited the, um, Chinese architectures, um, designers from China to help us to take a look.

[01:13:02] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:13:19] Chinese Interpreter (EL): We were thinking of how to change, uh, remodel this, um, building to reflect the ancient, um, architecture or combination of ancient and a modern architecture.

[01:13:39] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:13:50] Chinese Interpreter (EL): We cannot define it as a historic architecture only because the roof has a special, um, color or design.

[01:14:01] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:14:10] Chinese Interpreter (EL): Because it does not reflect the ancient Chinese architecture style.

[01:14:20] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:14:32] Chinese Interpreter (EL): So I recommend that, um, uh, to remove the designation of this building as a historical resource.

[01:14:43] Kent: [Speaking in Chinese]

[01:14:46] Chinese Interpreter (EL): Thank you. That's all.

[01:14:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Xie xie. Okay. So the next speaker is Jennifer Michel. Michael? Oh, okay. It is now Matt Francois. Francis?

[01:15:03] Matt Francois: Good evening, Mayor Kamei and members of the City Council. My name is Matt Francois with Rutan & Tucker and along with Mindy Romanowski, we are land use counsel for the Mountain View Buddhist Temple. Uh, Miss Romanowski is also joining me online. We were both planning on appearing in person and speaking you to to you tonight, but given the updated staff recommendation, we decided we could combine our comments and keep them relatively brief. First off, I want to thank staff for their updated recommendation to remove the Temple's property and other church properties from the draft historic register. We sincerely appreciate staff's thoughtful review and consideration of MVBT's concerns and those other religious institutions may have expressed on this matter. As Miss Ru explained to you earlier tonight, the Temple is home to a vibrant Buddhist community offering a wide range of religious and spiritual programs. On December 1st, we sent a letter objecting to the inclusion of the Temple property on the city's historic register. Under state law, a city cannot designate a religious building or property as historic over the objection of a religious institution claiming it will suffer a substantial hardship as a result of such designation. In our letter, we explained how inclusion of the Temple on the historic register would impose a substantial hardship to it and its religious use of the property. Having a historic designation would increase costs, cause delays, and make it more difficult to obtain permits necessary for campus improvements. Specifically, being included on the register would inhibit the Temple's ability to make alterations or changes to the buildings that will be needed over time to sustain and grow its religious ministry. This is not just a hypothetical or theoretical concern. In the last 10 years or so, MVBT has made substantial improvements to the Hondo, its current temple building. It's also made alterations to its original temple building known as the YBA Hall. So two of the four major campus buildings have been recently altered in a substantial fashion. And MVBT has also been engaged in a master plan process for future growth. Through that process, it has identified renovations and alterations needed to other campus buildings. A historic designation would inhibit and restrict MVBT's ability to alter or demolish campus buildings as needed to sustain and grow its religious ministry. In our letter and comments tonight, MVBT is reiterating its objections to the inclusion of the Temple's property on the historic register and informing the city it will suffer a substantial hardship if the property were to be so designated. We urge the Council to follow the staff's recommendation and remove the Temple from the register. If the Temple property were to remain on the register despite staff's recommendations, MVBT will have to pursue other remedies to preserve its rights under state and federal law. Thank you again for your consideration of the Temple's views on this matter. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[01:18:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Jennifer Michel?

[01:18:12] Jennifer Michel: Uh, dear Dias, I'm sorry I can't be there in person. I'm Jenny Michel, a resident of Menlo Park, but long-time representative of owner interests managing several assets in Mountain View within a quarter mile of two, of the two train stations. I also graduated from Los Altos High School, lived in Mountain View for several years and my husband grew up in Mountain View for over 20 years. Personal comments: I'm a recovering homeless teacher who has lived on the streets for two winters. The housing crisis has been with us for several decades. SB 79 was born out of the vision to see our people living and working in resource-rich areas without being tethered to vehicle ownership, freeing up income to be allocated to other goals such as family expansions. As a commercial property manager, my trades that serve you directly and indirectly come from Manteca, Livermore, Sacramento, Lodi, Morgan Hill, daily. Historic preservation will be used, uh, has been used in many municipalities to stop critically needed housing that my family, my tenants and trades are on the market for. I urge this body to ensure that this ordinance is only used for truly historic assets that are strictly approved by owner owners. This ordinance is an encumbrance on owners and your long-term housing goals. Our workforce needs to be centrally located to transit in order to streamline services, productivity, and safety. How many people do you know working two full-time jobs, only sleeping for a few hours a day? More people in our city means more economic stability for all stakeholders. Hashtag maybe one job can be enough, right? If we want to reposition our assets to take advantage of housing density bonuses, why limit our investment strategies that help you achieve your AFFH housing goals, right? Finally, our middle school-aged son will be on the market for housing soon. He has selected Sunnyvale as his ideal city because the recently activated mixed-use development downtown at the train station is awesome. Sunnyvale has a competitive advantage over us. Let's allow the state statute SB 79 to work in our favor and limit the historical preservation ordinance to remain competitive for our youth and workforce. Um, and there is one, um, community member that couldn't be here, uh, he, because of the issue with the translation, uh, Tushar Pankaj. He has been a resident for five years and he is calling out that he wants to live in downtown, um, on top of retail stores, but right now that would not be an option with this ordinance. Thank you for your consideration.

[01:21:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Kevin Ma?

[01:21:14] Speaker: Ex...

[01:21:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I, I, I'm so sorry. Just a point of order. We're doing public comment and so I'm going through all of the public comment. This isn't a, um, in interactive portion. Um, you got your chance to, to speak for public comment and then we're going to go through all the virtual and then we're going to do questions and then we're going to do deliberation on the topic. So Kevin Ma?

[01:21:37] Kevin Ma: Evening Council. Uh, this is the first time in a while I've spoken as an individual comment, so there's that. I speak, uh, for a few items on this topic. One is, what is the purpose of a historic preservation? I feel like one of the reasons any government would do that would be to encourage people to research the history of the city. However, the way it's presented in tonight's item doesn't really very make that very clear, right? Once we make a property on the register, how does anyone know what's on the register if they d- if they had to look in the first place? There's no, you know, marker on the site and I'm pretty sure if I tried to look at the site in person, you know, I might be accused of trespassing or scoping for a burglary, who knows? But it doesn't really feel that inviting to actually learn the history without, you know, looking at the study which the staff have taken quite the effort to compile, which is great. You know, it's nice to read about what's happened, but I'm looking at the, you know, the costs and benefits of what the city has done and it's a little bit questionable if we as a citizenry are getting really that much benefit. Right? One of, a few commenters have brought up, you know, about the, you know, the significance of some of these sites. Like, if we're being honest, I don't think we're bringing in anyone from even our neighboring towns to see some of these sites because they're not really that interesting. Sure, they might indicate a history long gone, you know, history when El Camino Real was bas-, was an actual highway or back to our pioneer roots, but it's not the greatest demonstration of that, I'd say. You know, if anything, it might seem a little bit hoarding because, you know, like so for all the council members, would you visit these sites on your own? I, I don't know about that. Um, people have brought up, you know, concerns about development. Right? You know, all of these site, all these sites, uh, proposed for register were developed at their time at their desires and it's a bit tricky to say whether we should foreclose our future on these sites because actions of the past, right? Back to the old, whose, whose history are we trying to preserve? Is that the right one? I don't know. Um, I will say perhaps a rejoinder for some of the members who are trying to use the historic designation for downtown to prevent state laws like SB 79 coming into effect. Uh, those laws are beginning to distinguish between historic sites and historic registers, uh, historic districts where, you know, like laws like SB, SB 9 have been modified to specifically point out *sites* in particular. So you can't just dress up an entire area and call it a district and call it a day. So, I would like to see the preservation to be done in good faith and actually something that can provide greater education to the community rather than, you know, trying to prevent the future from happening. Thank you.

[01:24:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: James Barrett?

[01:24:34] James Barrett: Yes, good evening. Um, Mayor Kamei, Council. I'm here on behalf of Yu-Ju Kao, the owner of the property at 895 Villa Street. And Miss Kao presented this letter to me and I actually went to the website and reviewed the ordinance, the old ordinance and the designations. And what I realized was there were some things that were still vague. Miss, Miss Kao has owned this property for nearly 40 years. She put her life and blood into having a business there for 30 plus years. Having her children recognize the property. And what we have here is an ordinance that is a very good intent, but it just needs to be clarified. When you have a business that you put your heart and soul in as an investment for your future and your children and grandchildren, you're hoping that you can benefit it from some at some point. And at this point the ordinance doesn't define how the historical designation is going to allow her to be able to utilize the property for what she invested for nearly 40 years ago. So what I recommend is that this ordinance be designed to allow a specific ability to opt out, a de-listing condition that you can set the rules to but I believe that what I've heard the speakers tonight, that has not been clearly defined. And I believe that the citizens of Mountain View really want an historical preservation, but the cost, as was brought up previously, has to be shared equally. And if the property owners that are part of the Mountain View fabric can't see a benefit from a historical preservation, they should be allowed the opportunity to opt out. Thank you Council for your time tonight.

[01:26:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Louise Katz?

[01:26:52] Louise Katz: Thank you, Mayor. Yes, um, as a member of Livable Mountain View there's a couple points I wanted to add to Robert Cox's presentation. First of all, um, we're glad that the staff acknowledged that the, um, issue of a historic district, that at the rate we're going and with all the other projects that we have our staff committed to, that it could take a year to get this historic district. And in fact, as we've pointed out, we don't have a year. We have basically six months, if that. And so we wanted to emphasize again, of not only the need for, um, to move forward but how to assist staff with the burden that the SB 79 has placed upon us. Um, you know, we like to try to come up with, um, suggestions and solutions and not just identify problems. So we noted that under the hous— uh, property issues, we would recommend that we put on hold and delay for six months the R3 zoning district development standards because that is not part of the housing elements. There is no requirement and no state mandate to have this done at this time. That the whole concept is that we can move forward, but first we need to do what the state has mandated we do quickly. We'd also like to indicate the idea that the citywide objective design standards could also be delayed for six months to free up staff time and energy to work on the, uh, SB 79. Again, there is no deadline and, um, we believe that the time to address that is certainly coming up but not in lieu of preparing for SB 79. We'd also like to mention the dark skies ordinance, which again, to free up the work of, um, um, Diane Pacholi, which we unders— who we understand would be instrumental in doing in working on SB 79. We would very much like to see her be able to devote her time and talent to this. And also the question of, um, using consultants to take care of the various kinds of technical issues that the staff either has is not prepared or has does not have the time to do. It really needs to be very much a team effort. And also just like to mention that for those who were speaking, that there seems to be some confusion between the ordinance and SB 79. SB 79 and using the historic, um, exception in the alternate plan is *not* going to stop housing. Senator Wiener would never have put it in the bill if that was going to happen. It is in fact going to ensure that housing *will* be built, perhaps even in excess of what could have been built on Castro Street. It just moves it and it moves it within areas that have...

[01:29:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thank you. Your time is up. All right. Uh, the next...

[01:30:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: ...is phone number 209 and then ends in 227.

[01:30:06] Marie Silvera: Hi, yes. My name is Marie Silvera. I'm calling on behalf of IFES Hall at 432 Stierlin Road. Um, we would like to opt out and be removed from this list. We are an active religious organization that continues to use its property for community gatherings, cultural events, and religious related activities. Assigning a historical designation to a functioning religious facility may impose significant restrictions with us and administrative burdens that may interfere with ability to operate and maintain its... our building, adapt to its space, or meet the involving needs of the congregation. Um, that's all I wanted to say and uh I hope that um, it goes um, that we opt out and we could move forward. Thank you.

[01:31:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Einny Yu?

[01:31:10] Einny Yu: Hi. Uh, my name is Einny and I was born and raised in the area. I went to Mountain View High School, spent a lot of my childhood in downtown Mountain View. And I'm here to speak on behalf of 134 Castro Street. My family opened a restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, um, the same year I was born. So while this building will always have a special place to me, the evidence that's presented and gathered doesn't support elevating its status to a protected historic landmark. I'm a first-generation Chinese American. I've experienced firsthand the importance of for kids growing up in Mountain View to have accurate representation they can relate to. And because of this, I strongly believe this building doesn't fully represent the contributions of our community and what it means to be a Chinese American in Mountain View today. The city's evaluation clearly states that the property does not meet any criteria to be listed in the National Register or California Register. The architectural features that are listed...

[01:32:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, did she... Hello?

[01:32:18] Einny Yu: Yes. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. Um, the architectural features that are listed are common and fairly cliché examples that are found in almost any city that has a Chinese restaurant. So it doesn't necessarily represent what a modern view of that would look like. So landmarking a building that lacks individual historical significance would also introduce avoidable constraints on our and the city's ability in the future to revitalize the property, which is a pretty big block, chunk of this block. Um, it wouldn't have the ability to adapt to the space in ways that would better serve today's community needs or to support the evolving needs of our people or the downtown um, community serving purposes. And we absolutely should honor the Chinese American community contributions, but we should do it in an accurate and appropriate way that elevates truly significant sites or promotes accurate context and not simply stretch the definition of landmark to include buildings that don't meet the standard. Thank you so much.

[01:33:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Jerry Steach?

[01:33:45] Jerry Steach: Hello.

[01:33:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hello.

[01:33:49] Jerry Steach: Hi, can you hear me okay?

[01:33:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, we can.

[01:33:51] Jerry Steach: Hi. Thank you very much for your time uh ladies and gentlemen of the Council and Mayor Kamei. Uh, this is Jerry Steach. I'm with the uh... associated with a number of things with the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association, I'm the sub-committee chair there. I'm part of Livable Mountain View. Uh, I'm on the board of the Mountain View Historical Association. Uh, primary reason I moved to Old Mountain View uh years ago was uh how the city embraced its past uh historically and architecturally. Um, now tonight most, much of the opposition we've heard uh to establishing a historic district is based on personal interest, whereas those in favor are uh altruistically focused on preserving the character, history, and vibrancy at the core of downtown. Overlooked, however, is some very basic math. The first three blocks of Castro Street uh continue to draw visitors in droves to restaurants, retail stores, coffee shops, and bars. Any economics 101 course will teach you that the greater the customer base, the greater the revenues. The greater the revenues, the greater the general public good for residents. So do we really want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs? Property owners, whether of commercial buildings or of nearby homes, can only gain from our not disrupting the vitality of downtown for shortsighted personal gain. I have two requests. Let's be clear and forthright with property owners what they gain being on historic registry. And two, let's please not conflate housing needs with issues facing commercial... commercially zoned properties. It's within your grasp, Mountain View City Council, to preserve what served the city so well for so long. Thank you.

[01:35:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Erica Yu?

[01:36:00] Erica Yu: Hello?

[01:36:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hello.

[01:36:02] Erica Yu: Hi. Uh, my name is Erica. I grew up, worked, and lived in the Mountain View Los Altos community for most of my life. Um, I'm here to speak on behalf of 134 Castro Street tonight, which was previously a Hong Ning Restaurant for over two decades. Um, I recently read that this historical um, registry project has been in the works for many years. Um, but my family and I were pretty surprised to hear about it only just recently. Uh, we got a letter um, I believe like in October of 2025 about our owner being placed, or our building being placed um, on the list of potential historic buildings. The owners had no prior knowledge of this project before this letter and so they were all kind of just taken aback a little bit. Um, as previously mentioned by others, the current owners of this building are in their late 60s, 70s, and almost 80s. And they're all hoping to retire sooner than later. Um, they've worked really hard to maintain this property through their lives um, and even pulling from their retirement savings to ensure this building remains up to code and active in this community. And just as they're feeling some stability since the pandemic, they find out they've been placed on this list and it's a lot of new information and like new potentials of what may or may not happen with the building. Um, the addition, the addition of their building to the registry will bring kind of like another big hurdle to their future plans of selling, remodeling, or any visions that they may have for it. While I respect the diverse roots of our community, I feel as this building is solely placed on the list because of its age. Um, there's not too many other significant um, historical aspects to this building. Uh, the outside attached décor is basically like an attached decoration. Like it looks ethnic when you look at it, but it's not actually culturally accurate or a part of the building itself. Um, the owners would kindly ask to opt off of this list. I believe ultimately it is important to preserve our history, but in an accurate and meaningful way that actually benefits our community. And ultimately the choice should be added onto the historic registry should be up to the owners of each building in our community. Thank you so much for your time.

[01:38:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right. Uh, last call for any in-person or virtual public comment for those who haven't spoken. Hello, David.

[01:38:36] David Watson: Want on Zoom in line, but uh...

[01:38:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Your hand went up and then it was down, so I thought, he's here, he doesn't have anything to say.

[01:38:46] David Watson: So, uh, Mayor Kamei and Council. Uh, I'm David Watson. I've been a resident here of Mountain View my entire life. Uh, and I don't have any financial interest in uh, in the uh historic preservation. I live in a new house that I I built here. Um, uh, I value that Mountain View is a place of innovation and change. When people ask me if the city has changed my lifetime, I say yes, proudly. Um, that is why I oppose creating a historic district without property owner uh consent. You just heard from uh, Mr. Aviet... uh...

[01:39:27] David Watson: Nice.

[01:39:28] David Watson: Uh, uh, his story shows exactly what forced historic designation does to real people. Uh, you're considering doing this to a whole district of property owners. The definition of historic resource here is uh too broad. Under this framework, essentially any 50-year-old building without substantial alterations can qualify. This approach doesn't preserve unique historical treasures, it just freezes old ordinary old buildings in place. Livable Mountain View's own materials admit this is about circumventing SB 9's uh requirements. But do not mistake current loopholes for permanent shields. The legislature is essentially responding in real time to cities that uh try to use loopholes. Every time a city weaponizes historic status to block uh new homes, uh the state responds with stricter enforcement and new legislation to close that path. Um, you're uh inviting the legislature to further uh override local control. Uh, the uh, when cities use pretextual tactics to block housing, HCD and the Attorney General have sued and won. Uh, pursuing a transparently pretextual designation is a waste of staff time and taxpayer money on a legal battle the city will lose. The only thing you will succeed in doing is eroding the financial security of long-time owners like George, turning their assets into liabilities in the name of preservation. If we want to honor Mountain View's history, we should commemorate it. Plaques, signs, heritage trails. The story of Castro Street can be told even as the buildings evolve. What matters is the history itself, not freezing structures in amber. If the city wants to preserve specific buildings, we should, we the city, should bear the cost, as we do with Rengstorff House. I really like Rengstorff House, I got married there. Uh, but uh, the we should not force property owners to subsidize the community's aesthetic preferences. It's the people, not the buildings, that make Mountain View the city that it is. Thank you.

[01:41:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And you'll submit your blue card. Thank you very much. All right. All right, so that concludes public comment, both in-person and virtual. So we'll take the item back for Council questions and deliberations. The Council members with a conflict of interest will make their recusals now. Councilmember Hicks, do you have an announcement to make?

[01:41:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I do have an announcement to make. I am recusing myself from any discussion concerning 12 properties for inclusion in the historic register, due to the proximity of my personal residence to these properties.

[01:42:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, Mayor, may I just briefly for the public, um, for those of you who are not able to see, staff will be placing the 12 properties momentarily in a presentation. However, for the minutes, the addresses are: 537 Bush Street, 444 Castro Street, 501 Castro Street, 655 Castro Street, 799 Castro Street, 334 Church Street, 595 Church Street, 624 West El Camino Real, 425 Hope Street, 782 Hope Street, 472 View Street, and 680 Yosemite Avenue.

[01:42:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I'll turn it back to staff.

[01:42:54] City Staff: Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, so the purpose of this uh portion of the meeting is to hear if the City Council has any questions or concerns about individual properties that may be uh affected by um Councilmember recusal.

[01:43:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember McAllister.

[01:43:34] Councilmember John McAlister: 444 Castro. It was an albatross when it came up, so does that make it an historical site? There's a lot of people have long memories out here.

[01:43:50] City Staff: Um, what makes it a a historical building I believe is is its uh architecture, the fact that it is uh of a um particular modernist style that isn't constructed anymore. Um, we do have our consultants here that may be able to speak uh more about some of the details about why that property is uh included in this list.

[01:44:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Are those consultants virtual or in person?

[01:44:17] City Staff: They are in person.

[01:44:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Would they like to approach the lectern? Provide comment to Councilmember McAllister's question? Thank you. And if you don't mind yeah introducing. Thanks.

[01:44:33] Christina Dikas: Hello, good evening. Uh, Christina Dikas from Page & Turnbull. Um, I have the um evaluation right here, so I'm gonna take a quick look at it and refresh my memory on this particular property. Excuse me. Um, this building is significant as the first and only high-rise in Mountain View and as a notable work of innovative structural engineering and Late Modern design. The property is eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register um for its uh construction date of 1971 when the property was completed. Um, before that there's some historic context about when it was completed. Um, I believe that it was um an unusual uh construction method uh from the top down, which uh for those who were here probably remember that. Um, and we did consider, you know, mid-century uh architecture. We evaluated properties that could have been built up through um 1980. So.

[01:45:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Happy to ask for any kind of opt out on this one?

[01:45:39] Christina Dikas: I don't believe so.

[01:45:41] City Staff: No, we haven't received any comments from them.

[01:45:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh, that's it for this one.

[01:45:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Clark.

[01:45:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just have a couple of broader questions as we consider these properties. So first, just confirming, nothing we're doing tonight is a final action. We're not we're not formally adding anyone to the historic register tonight. This is just a preliminary list and then there will be additional opportunities for members of the public to kind of challenge that list or or the criteria that were, not the criteria, the the findings that the report had. So this is just a preliminary look at what might qualify under...

[01:46:27] City Staff: Exactly. In addition, we're also checking in with Council about whether the criteria are the right path. Uh, and so the direction that we receive tonight from the City Council could affect uh the what properties are ultimately listed. But yes, you're right, no no final decision tonight.

[01:46:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, which could include if we wanted to have a a broader discussion when all of our colleagues are back about listings more generally, you know, whether whether there is an opt-out process or whether or or some sort of... Okay. Exactly. Uh, and then the second question is is somewhat related. The, because there's the inclusion of some based on the there's an automatic proposed automatic inclusion of those on the California register. My understanding, I originally heard that you can end up on the California register um even if you don't want to be, but then I did a little bit more research and there's uh uh you can object, right? There's a period during which you can object. So you they don't require owner consent, but you can, but you also have a period during which you can object, and if you object, you don't necessarily end up on the California register.

[01:47:43] City Staff: My understanding, and uh perhaps our consultants can can confirm, but my understanding is that uh if somebody other than the owner nominates you to the National Register, they will not list you over owner objection. If you are nominated to the California Register, they will not list you over owner objection. But if you are deemed eligible for the National Register, you are automatically included in the California Register over owner objection. So it's that one specific path of... Is there a... Go ahead.

[01:48:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, please.

[01:48:26] Stacy Kozakavich: Hi, I'm Stacy Kozakavich, I'm with Page & Turnbull. And the one clarification to the um eligibility for the National Register leading to automatic listing on the California Register is that that eligibility needs to be um concurred with at the state level. And so it isn't just a finding by a consultant or a finding by a city. Um, how this can happen is if a property is nominated to the National Register and the State Historical Resources Commission agrees with the finding of eligibility, but there is an owner objection, and so the property is not listed on the National Register. In that case, the property might be automatically listed on the California Register. Um, properties also which are reviewed under certain uh federal review processes, the Section 106 process for example, which are then reviewed um by the State Historic Preservation Officer, those properties can automatically be listed on the California Register through their finding of eligibility for the National Register through that federal review process. And in those cases there is often very little notification of that eligibility.

[01:49:44] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. And then the um the prior Council direction, since I wasn't here when my last question procedurally, um the there was some direction around not looking necessarily at residential and duplexes, but I think a colleague confirmed to me that that was that was those already on the register, the the prior register? I'm just trying to figure out what the prior direction around duplexes and residential was.

[01:50:11] City Staff: Sure. Uh, so the only single-family and duplex properties that we did look at were basically three categories. First, uh properties that were on the existing register. Uh, properties that had uh opted off but were found to be state or national eligible through a uh City commissioned study back in 2008, 2009. Uh, and then there were also some additional single-family homes that had never been on the register that were found to be state or national eligible back in 2008, 2009. Those properties were included in this analysis because they were already known to be state or national eligible and would already be subject to review during uh under our current ordinance. Um, the uh the properties that had opted off but had not been determined to be state or national eligible in that 2008 study, the City Council said let them be, but um uh but uh do some outreach to try to give them some incentive to to opt on to the register.

[01:51:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: So the some of the residential properties that we're seeing up here now are are up there because, for example, they probably would already have to go through a special, you know, a that special CEQA analysis because they're eligible for the California or Federal register.

[01:51:53] City Staff: Exactly.

[01:51:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: They're just they just haven't been added to ours because we don't currently... Okay. Thank you.

[01:52:00] City Staff: Yes, and would also require a historic preservation permit already, yes.

[01:52:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Ramirez.

[01:52:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I think Councilmember Clark asked questions that are substantially similar to the ones I was going to ask, but um I'm uh not as smart as he is so I'm going to ask them again but using different words. Uh, so the the uh, all of these or some of these uh the residential, not 444, um would can you can you sort of uh break down the categories that you just shared with Councilmember Clark? Who uh which of these opted out? Which of these were uh never um considered for placement in a local register? Can you help us sort of break down where each of these properties would fall?

[01:52:51] City Staff: Uh sure. Uh, so 537 Bush Street was an opt-off property previously. Um, so you said you you did not want to hear about the commercial properties, so 444 Castro and 501 Castro, those are new properties, but they're they're an um uh 655 Castro uh was not previously identified, but that is a commercial property. Uh, 799 Castro was not previously identified, uh also a commercial property. Uh, 334 Church Street uh was previously opted off. 595 Church Street was is already on the register. Uh, that's the one with the very visible staircase, uh the Spanish style with the palm tree in front. Um, 624 El Camino was not previously identified, that's a commercial property. 425 Hope Street uh is already on the register. Uh, 782 Hope Street is uh uh was not previously identified. Uh, 472 View Street uh was not previously identified. And 680 Yosemite is currently on the register.

[01:54:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful, thank you. And then you shared that, again to clarify, um all of these would need to go through some environmental review for substantial redevelopment, but um for uh those that are not on the register, they still require um a historical preservation permit for smaller scale work?

[01:54:53] City Staff: Because they are uh our current uh ordinance has language that says uh that if a property is determined eligible for state or national listing, a historic preservation permit is required. And so when we did this study back in 2008, we found a number of properties where the um the uh the consultant had determined that they could be state or national eligible. And so subject to that study, had they come in for a permit, we would have required a historic preservation permit from that property.

[01:55:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So moving forward, right? We know that they're eligible. Um, do all of these require historic preservation permits whether or not we include them in this draft list?

[01:55:46] City Staff: The the single-family homes, yes. But the commercial properties not necessarily today, because they may not be state or national eligible. They would need some kind of development review permit which would trigger CEQA.

[01:56:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, so for for the the single-family homes, the residential, is what's the functional distinction then for them between being on in this draft list and if the council had you know uh if if we decided to keep them off the list.

Item 6 (Public Hearing)

[01:56:22] City Staff: So currently we have uh one level of historic preservation permit. And if a property is deemed eligible for state or national listing, if they wanted to do an addition or even a minor modification, they would have to go to the City Council for that. We are proposing that for these properties we create a range of uh historic preservation permit processes that reflect the level of work that they want to do. And so if they uh do come in uh for minor modifications, that could be a very minor permit that wouldn't even need a public hearing. Or it could be uh you know if they wanted to do major modifications, that could be um a permit that could go to the ZA instead of the City Council. Uh now if they wanted to come in and request some kind of delisting or some kind of uh improvement that would demolish the site or rebuild something new, they would still have to go to the City Council. But that would be the the uh a similar process even to what they would be required to do today.

[01:57:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I think that speaks to the the proposed process changes contemplated for the the new ordinance, but but I'm not certain I captured the difference to a property owner between being in the local register and not being in the local register if they're state or national eligible. Is there is there a difference?

[01:58:05] City Staff: Um, for the properties that we are currently aware of, no.

[01:58:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There's no difference.

[01:58:10] City Staff: No.

[01:58:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, so I I um I...

Item 6 (Public Comment)

[01:58:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Ex... Excuse me, thank you. We're just going to continue with Council questions and would just ask the audience that this is the listening portion of the meeting. We had the public comment. So, um you're welcome to email us again. Um, nothing we're doing today is final action. And thank you very much.

[01:58:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I um...

[01:58:37] City Staff: Let me, can I can I just clarify your question. Are you asking about the difference if we if we decide to list them or decide not to list them? Or if you are you asking about the difference between today's conditions versus if we decide to list them?

[01:58:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Let's see if I have a strong enough understanding of what we're doing to respond to your question. So I guess the the it would be for, so there are property owners clearly, right? I think we've um we're hearing from property owners who are uncertain about the implications of the decision decisions that we're making. Um, not necessarily today but we're providing direction and you will come back with an ordinance and some real regulations that may affect what they're able to do with their properties. Um and I think what I'm having trouble understanding is uh for we're being this decision right now has to do with the draft list of properties that we're putting together for the local register, right? Um now you what the properties that you had uh shown on the screen earlier are properties excluding the commercial ones, for the the single-family homes, the residential, those are properties that are uh eligible for the state and national register, not for the most part, right, not in our local register. And what you've shared is because they're eligible for the state and national registers, they're required to go through some additional level of review, right, and get a historic preservation permit. So I guess the question is, if we say, you know we're we're hearing the property owners, we don't want to include them in the local register, we take them off this draft list, what does that actually mean for the property owner?

[02:00:26] City Staff: Yes, okay, I understand the question now. Um, single-family homes uh with with our draft ordinance, if they are not on our register, single-family homes would be subject to ministerial approval and they would be allowed to do anything with their property under the R1 zone. If they are not listed, if if the um if the Council goes in the direction that we are recommending for our code and the Council directs us to not list those single-family homes.

[02:01:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So they would not be preserved.

[02:01:11] City Staff: They...

[02:01:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So it's it's advantageous to the property owners not to be included in this list.

[02:01:17] City Staff: I am not making any statement about advantage or not. I am saying that if they are not listed, then um well maybe Christian Murdock might want to say it a different way.

[02:01:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you, Eric. Good evening Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. I think part of the challenge in answering the question is that multiple variables are involved. So to try to tease them out. Um as the Planning Manager noted a moment ago, um for single-family residential properties, typically zoned R1, most projects you would want to do um including demolition are ministerial permits only. Meaning they would not be subject to the city's historic preservation permit process, um which currently is tied to uh in part either listing on the local register or state or national register eligibility even if not listed. So for a single-family project that would otherwise only have ministerial permits under the current ordinance, state or national register eligibility is a determining factor of needing a historic preservation permit or being a local a property listed in the the Mountain View register. What we're proposing is to change that dynamic away from including consideration of whether it's a state or national eligible property so that we're focusing our historic preservation permit requirements on listed properties in the local register. And so I think to make that function properly properly, the staff's recommendation is let's list all of the properties we know have historic significance, right, including those that are state or national register eligible. But fundamentally that's a policy decision for the Council. So as we're recommending for the new ordinance, if Council decides not to list some or all of the properties that are state or national register eligible, um I think the likelihood if the ordinance is developed the way staff's thinking and recommending, they would not be subject to historic preservation permit requirement. Now if some other requirement required a discretionary action by the city, as we've touched on, that state or national register eligibility would again become relevant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. But that's a very unlikely scenario for these types of properties that are in the R1 zone and that would typically be subject to ministerial only uh review and approval.

[02:03:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Last question, Mayor. Uh do we have to can we finish the ordinance so everyone has a clear and uh accurate understanding of what the regulations would mean to them before we complete the the list?

[02:03:57] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I believe that's possible. Currently we are anticipating a a process that's concurrent. So effectively we would have the Council agree on all of the ordinance parameters and then simultaneously decide, you know at the same meeting or a meeting to follow very shortly thereafter, which properties to list. It's very much possible to break those apart and to provide more time and space between them. There would be other, you know, staff resource and work plan management challenges to work through if in that scenario, but functionally it's possible to do that.

[02:04:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful. Thank you.

[02:04:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[02:04:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um just with our questions um focused on this list. I just wanted to know, has anybody on this list requested to opt out?

[02:04:45] City Staff: Uh, yes. Well, you you've heard from 799 Castro, for example, tonight. Um there may have been other property owners on this uh list uh on this particular slide who you may have even heard from tonight. Um so yes uh I don't know exactly which properties, but it it's possible that you you've you've heard from people on this slide uh and that we've received public comment.

[02:05:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then and then the other thing um is that basically all of these listings um they are related to um architectural style and age. None of them are related to what's happened here. Is that correct?

[02:05:32] City Staff: Uh they are uh there is a broad range of um of significance criteria. There are four four major criteria but they they can apply in multiple ways to individual properties. Uh and the definition of significant event can also be fairly broad. Um so uh um for example uh it's not it's not necessarily just the architecture for which these these buildings are significant.

[02:06:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I mean, for instance, I look at um 624 El Camino Real, which is a garage that is currently being used as a gym. Great reuse of the property, I really appreciate that, very very um uh inventive. Uh, but that garage wasn't where um you know Steve Jobs created Apple or you know some other thing like that happened. It was just a garage, right?

[02:06:36] City Staff: Uh yes, I believe that one is uh um mostly for its architecture. I'm yeah I'm confirming from from Page & Turnbull. Um there are uh for for some downtown sites, for example, the significance is being kind of a critical part of the growth of downtown.

[02:07:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah.

[02:07:02] City Staff: You know, and that's the significant event that happened there. Not necessarily that um you know some major invention was created there or some document was signed there, for example.

[02:07:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: It's kind of how they were part of the community.

[02:07:13] City Staff: Exactly, yeah.

[02:07:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[02:07:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Vice Mayor Ramos.

[02:07:17] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Mayor. This is more of a a general question and it it it's similar to the nature of of Councilmember Clark's and Councilmember Ramirez's questions, except uh as Councilmember Ramirez mentioned, um I am actually I have more difficulty understanding a lot of this than they do at this point. Um, so um in terms of breaking down the delisting process. Can you go over as as some of the public commenters mentioned, they wanted to already delist. When but they couldn't because we were going...

[02:07:54] City Staff: Uh yes because one of the proper one of the property owners says is like his property is like there and he's like I wanted to delist. How do I delist? And you said you couldn't until we start. So at what point what is the earliest point they would be able to delist um based on what the staff's recommendation is going to be.

[02:08:15] City Staff: Um I I will just say Councilmember that this does sound like a general question that Councilmember Hicks may want...

[02:08:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: That's what I was trying to ask if it was specific to these individual sites or not. Um because right now we're talking about individual these individual sites on this slide and then Councilmember Hicks will come back and we have other Council members that need to recuse themselves so that we can talk about those items. And then we're going to have a general overall opportunity for people to ask questions about general things which um that's why I was trying to ask you if it's about a specific property here.

[02:08:44] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Oh okay. Are we supposed to be making a decision about this now without those general questions though?

[02:08:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The process as outlined tonight was that because of recusals we need to go um portion by portion through all of the implications of what we're doing. So in addition to Councilmember Hicks, um we have Councilmember Clark and Councilmember McAllister who all separately need to recuse. So we're only on one of three that we of and so the process will continue. So if we do not have any further questions on this slide per se, we may want to continue on the recusal process and save some of those questions for our general um opportunity to ask. Looking to staff. Is that...

[02:09:25] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. And we do have a slide that will get us back after the individual property discussions to the criteria and that's a good time to talk about, you know, how much of that do you need to be significant enough? Is it just design? Should it be design plus some other character?

[02:09:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Correct. So this is all the question portion. So if any does anyone have any further questions on this uh slide two individual sites?

[02:09:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: I have I have a question.

[02:09:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So there's other people in the queue so before we get to you, Councilmember Clark, do you have more about this site?

[02:09:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, it's it's whether um whether any of these properties listed on the slide are are not currently in our opinion uh eligible for the State and Federal registers. Is the finding from the consultant that these these would be most likely eligible for State and Federal register listing?

[02:10:20] City Staff: We we have that information. Um I think it might take a second to look up for the commercial properties.

[02:10:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: If it's in that report, I can go read it again.

[02:10:28] City Staff: Yeah. I will say that for the single-family properties, yes, that for all of these single-family properties the consultants confirmed that they would be eligible for State or National.

[02:10:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Okay. And then um and then just process wise, if we wanted to have a treatment, is the segre the segregation of the of the decisions, that that's just property by property. If we want to talk later about how we globally treat the properties on the list that don't that don't target specific properties, we can do that later with everyone including me.

[02:11:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, that's right Councilmember Clark.

[02:11:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Thanks.

[02:11:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Okay. Councilmember McAllister, did you want to ask your question about the slide?

[02:11:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'd like to take uh Councilmember Showalter's question and reverse it. How many people asked to be on the list?

[02:11:21] City Staff: Uh we we had a number of people showing up at public meetings uh you know happy that they are listed and happy that they are uh being their build their property is being recognized. Um I don't know that they necessarily asked to be on the list but we have a number of people who've who've we inter who we have interacted with uh that um are happy to be on the list.

[02:11:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. How many people up here asked to be on the list?

[02:11:51] City Staff: Oh I I don't have that information. Um do uh we may um you know we we may be able to do some research from our public outreach to be able to answer that question about these 12 properties. But that would that would take some time.

[02:12:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[02:12:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay great. Councilmember Showalter, did you want to ask your question?

[02:12:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I just wondered when we were gonna get make comments about what's on this list. Um are we going to get to do that specifically to say we we think they should continue on the list or we don't? On our um...

[02:12:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh Councilmember Showalter, down now is the time for comments related to these specific properties.

[02:12:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I I I think that um I would like to see 444 Castro and 624 El Camino removed. I um I do not concur that they have uh historic um uh value and we should give their owners any extra restrictions.

[02:12:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Council... Yes, I believe that was staff's direction if there were any of these 12 listed that Council is uh curious about I think not having on this list, then that's now is the time. Okay. Uh Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:13:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Right oops right now I'm I'm able to be persuaded but I'm I'm actually per I would prefer to suspend work on the local register until we've completed the ordinance. So that way we have an opportunity, what everyone will understand what the new regulations will be and we will have an opportunity to work more closely with the community and the the property owners. Uh so we can avoid I think some of the level of um frustration and and and angst. Uh so I I I think I don't feel comfortable with arbitrarily picking and choosing what's in the list, right? Either we have a set of criteria and they apply or they don't. It doesn't feel good to just say you didn't show up to the council meeting so you're on the list, but you showed up and so you're not on the list, right? That doesn't feel right.

[02:15:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: ...equitable. So I could not support any determination about the list at all until we've completed work on the ordinance.

[02:15:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember McAllister.

[02:15:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I agree with Councilmember Ramirez. Uh, that it is we should—I mean, this is a whole big pie of confusion. But just for the sake that I got the mic, any of the commercials, Castro Street, the BMO Bank, and the garage don't qualify to me. If we wanted to—I guess I could do that later on the general comments—but if we wanted to recognize any of these, we could do like in Salt Lake City that has plaques on the walls or plaques in the ground to say this particular part, this something happened here and it's a point of interest. And that could be used for all the other properties that we see going on. So I'll come out later on those.

[02:15:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so I'm hearing at least two council members saying that they would like to focus on the individual sites after we've crafted the ordinance. So, Councilmember Clark.

[02:16:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, slightly different version of that. I'm not—I'm not comfortable sort of picking and choosing properties here tonight, but I will have a suggestion later when we're all back as to how to handle the register that isn't quite suspending work, but is a hybrid of that.

[02:16:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Any others like to make comments? Okay. So, um, I'll—I'll comment. I haven't had a chance yet. Um, so I think that I'd be curious to hear Councilmember Clark's idea of how we might handle the individual sites. I do find it difficult to move forward picking and choosing. I think particularly because, I guess it's twofold. One, um, you know, unfortunate that not everyone got the notice, but I guess good that people did eventually get the notice. Um, but we would love to hear their input. And so before moving forward with sites, I just want to make sure that all of those who might have implications would be able to have the opportunity to comment one way or the other. Um, and it sounds like perhaps that we haven't had that opportunity. So I am not hearing consensus on moving forward with this list of 12 sites. So if staff is okay, perhaps we can move forward and hear the general recommendation maybe on how we might be able to handle this. Um, maybe I can do a quick straw poll or something. Um...

[02:17:43] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Mayor, just so I understand, you would not like to continue with segmentation because those individual properties will not be discussed, and instead you're going to fast forward to the general discussion?

[02:17:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think it's more of a table than a fast forward.

[02:17:57] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Okay.

[02:17:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Is that... I mean, I didn't hear any consensus on any of the sites. Um, I heard at least two, um, feeling a little bit reticent on moving forward on this list. And then I—well, two and a half. Um, I'm going to put Councilmember Clark as the half. Um, and then I count myself. So maybe that's—maybe that's almost majority. It's three and a half, four-ish. Um, so I looking to staff on how we might be able to power forward. What—what might be a way?

[02:18:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I think what I heard amidst the discussion was a lot of questions and ideas on different approaches for the individual properties. I think there seems to be interest from the Council to move forward with discussing the ordinance and the criteria that would inform future listing decisions. So I think for now we can sort of break apart and segment the ordinance discussion from the register discussion. Perhaps the ordinance discussion will then make you feel more comfortable on coming back and we may have to segment, you know, conflicts of interest at that time, or we just push off the decision on the property listings in the register until a future date. Um, there will be timeline impacts to conclusion of this work plan item as a consequence. We can talk more when the Council's ready, but the discussion tonight can continue just on the ordinance.

[02:19:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, um, 'cause is the segmentation all about sites?

[02:19:17] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes, Mayor. All segmentation is about different sites.

[02:19:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, so then, um, are Councilmembers comfortable with that? So then that would mean we would bring Councilmember Hicks back. We would not have recusal of Councilmember Clark or Councilmember McAllister and we would go into our more general discussion on questions, um, about ordinance criteria. I think if we—if the conversation moves to talking about sites, then maybe that's when we would have the segmentation of recusal and we would circle back towards the end before summarizing the general recommendation of where we'd like to go so the public is clear about the next steps. Does that sound like an accurate summary? Okay. All right. So... City Attorney McCarthy.

[02:20:08] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, so I just want to also add that I am hearing a lot of discussion about Councilmembers being interested in the non-technical aspects of whether a property would be historic. So whether it's an event or a person or, um, essentially looking at something beyond what you have up here, which would mean maybe these properties or others don't make the list at all. So you have a much narrower, smaller, shorter list of historic properties. Um, so that, you know, would be something that I think you should think about or at least discuss once the full Council is here, because honestly, in terms of timing-wise, if we are not to consider a local register this evening—and it sounds like there might be interest in that in doing a more phased approach—um, it will just take some time to do that because of all the other projects slated this year, and we're probably likely looking at 2027. I just want to get that on the record now. And then if Council is interested in narrowing the list and not having a lot of properties on the list now, um, it would just be good to get that feedback tonight. Um, that will help staff because right now I think there's six—is it 60 some properties on the list now? Can you clarify how many—what's the number on the list?

[02:21:40] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, I believe currently on the register there are between 40 and 50. Uh, the proposed list, uh, minus the religious sites, would be about 90.

[02:21:53] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Okay. So that—that's where I was maybe getting the smaller number. So that—that would be something for Council to consider. Maybe the historic residence that the city has or the ordinance is just a very small list, if that's something that Council's interested in. So I just want to put that out there for you all.

[02:22:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And Mayor, if I could briefly just add on to the City Manager's remarks. Um, based on the other public comment we've heard tonight, one of the implications, however, is that SB 79 affords certain protections to properties that are included in a local register, and so delaying work on the local register could limit the number of properties the city, um, could potentially exclude through a local alternative plan.

[02:22:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think what I would say about the site list that I struggle with is—maybe we can have this as a general question—but just like the delisting process or the opt-out. So I think I would be comfortable creating a site list, but there—it's a bit nebulous right now on what that delisting or opt-out process is. And that's where my discomfort is, where we need to provide clarity to the public on what that is. So if the idea is we need to decide about a local register or not, there needs to be, I think, an opportunity for conversation on opt-out and delisting. So—but that has to happen with the full Council. So perhaps looking to our City Attorney, we can have that conversation and then maybe try to circle back and do recusals. I mean, I—I...

[02:23:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: It seems to me, Mayor, that what you're suggesting is that Councilmember Hicks return to the dais, and, um, based on how your conversation unfolds, you can then decide if you would like to revisit the list or provide direction to staff to draft a new list based on your discussion.

[02:23:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. Does that sound okay? I know you had your hand up, Councilmember Showalter.

[02:23:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I—I think that—that, um, there's really two things going on tonight. At least. Maybe—maybe three or four. But, um, but one is we're looking at the update to this historic, um, ordinance. And then the other is that we're, you know, we're dealing with, um, how do we meet the requirements for SB 79 and—and what, uh, you know, an alternative plan might be. And, um, having things on the local register is one of the ways you can—you know, one of the steps toward that. So I—I think, um, I would really like to understand better how we can tease out, um, an area for, um, uh, the, um, SB 79, whether it's as a historic district or an alternative plan. I personally am very, very, um, uh, interested in protecting the economic vitality, um, and, uh, aesthetics of—of the downtown. But that's not necessarily a historic district. So, um, we haven't really talked about that yet, but I think those two—I don't think these two subjects rip apart very easily. So I'm—I'm very confused about how we're going to make progress if we just talk about the ordinance and we don't talk about SB 79 and what we need to do, um, pretty much right now at the same time. So that's where my personal confusion is.

[02:25:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, Councilmember Hicks, welcome back.

[02:25:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. Sorry, trying to figure out what point we're at, but TV didn't work in there.

[02:25:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, okay. So we the—the Council—let's see if I can accurately summarize this. The Council had discussion about 12 individual sites with which you had to recuse. I think in that conversation, um, we had more questions and we wanted to get into general questions, but you were not here to have those general questions. So I think what we're talking about is allowing this opportunity for the full Council to ask questions, and then if we'd like to go into site specifics, then we can break into the individual recusals of the three Council members who have implications of needing to recuse themselves. So, um, does that—does that sound right, colleagues? Is that a good, accurate... Okay. Nodding heads is good. Okay. So, um, I don't know if you have any general questions that you'd like to start out with since we've been going for a little bit here?

[02:26:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Give me a moment to refocus.

[02:26:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Anyone else like to ask any questions? Generally. Councilmember Clark.

[02:26:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I have general questions. And just to—to frame everything, I'm—I'm very much comfortable with moving forward with a lot of the—the ordinance framework. I have some—a question—some questions about that and maybe a few tweaks, but I think if we're comfortable kind of moving in that direction, then maybe we can circle back to the—the sites list and any—and if we need to do recusals because we get into specifics, then that's fine. But, um, the—the questions I had about the overall ordinance framework were, um, uh, there's kind of different sections. So in the, um—so first of all, do we—I know it—it might change tonight based on direction, but do we have a general sense of when the ordinance itself might come back to us for a first reading? Are we talking like Q1, Q2-ish next year? Assuming we don't make major changes to it.

[02:27:32] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, we're targeting Q2.

[02:27:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Um, and then, uh, and then part of—part of actually what you're suggesting is because we're not adopting a—a site list tonight, we'll be able to, if we want, to consider owner sentiment as part of including or not including properties, um, at the time that we adopt the formal list, um, for the—for the new register.

[02:28:03] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes, absolutely. And, um, the—the primary change that we are recommending is, uh, giving Council the authority to allow individual property owners to opt off. Giving Council that, um, that discretion rather than giving a property owner the unlimited right to opt off.

[02:28:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right. That makes sense. Okay. Um, so most of my questions, um, for the ordinance—in the ordinance framework, um, there's a couple different sections. So one is the—the community nominated districts process. And I'm just personally confused around, um, contributing versus non-contributing property owners and the proposed 50% threshold. So I think what would be really helpful for me is just to understand sort of the process flow for, let's say, a group of community members or property owners wants to nominate a—a district. Um, is—is the 50% threshold just, um, contributing property owners? Can it be non-contributing property owners? And then does that change in the actual like petitioning and voting process? Um, what—what's being proposed?

[02:29:25] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um, so we—we actually talked about this a little bit with the consultants, um, a while ago, and I think there is a cart before the horse issue where you really don't know what properties are contributing until you've had a chance to start analyzing and—and studying and, um, you know, creating that—that eligibility. So our proposed approach is to have 50% just be the threshold of properties that can apply. So the properties apply, they draw some lines on a map and—and if 50% of the owners, uh, are included in that lines on the map, then it goes to the City Council to decide whether the, um, the—the—uh, district is actually created. So the—the power is still 100% with the City Council to—to define and, uh, and adopt the district. Uh, but the nomination process, the—the process of actually applying for this designation would be, um, uh, through the—the 50% of property owners.

[02:30:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right. I think the—I'm okay with that. I think the heart of my question is what happens between those two points. So let's say, I think some other jurisdictions have you can do 50% of property owners can kind of nominate and then—and draw some lines. And then those lines go to professionals to kind of validate, you know, what would be reasonable under the ordinance and the criteria. And then I think some jurisdictions then actually go to—then you—then you don't have the cart before the horse, then they go to the contributing property owners to make sure that they meet the threshold, and then it goes to the City Council to decide. Is—is that what you're envisioning? Or are you kind of leaving out the contributing property owners and just saying that those contributing property owners can address us at the Council meeting if they want or some...

[02:31:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, so the latter. We are not proposing a second vote in this process. Um, you know, they, uh, property owners have the opportunity to—to petition Council and then it's ultimately up to the Council's judgment to decide.

[02:31:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: But there would be some sort of validation phase where like someone who—someone who knows more than we do looks at those boundaries and says this is reasonable or this is unreasonable.

[02:31:43] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Exactly. There would be a whole staff review process, a consultant review process to determine that the district itself meets eligibility criteria.

[02:31:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. And then, um...

[02:31:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: ...ask a clarifying question on that?

[02:32:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, go ahead.

[02:32:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Sorry. Through the Mayor. Um, so a quick follow-up to Councilmember Clark's question. So if, uh, the technical experts determine that a historic district is not eligible, does the Council still have an override or does the process stop there and it would not go to Council for consideration?

[02:32:23] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, that would, uh, depend probably on the applicants. Um, you know, there's—there's always an opportunity once, uh, the—the applicants hear like the—you know, it's a—this is a—a DOA, uh, proposal, uh, they—they may wish to withdraw the application.

[02:32:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But it sounds like they could decide not to withdraw, and then the Council could create a historic district even if technical experts determine that it doesn't meet the criteria.

[02:32:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think that's a process mechanic we haven't worked out yet. If there is Council direction to consider how we would ensure all of these nominations that have 50% in our studied come to Council for determination, that's helpful feedback. I think it's important whether it's individual property listings or districts, you know, the staff recommends that we ensure that there's sufficient, you know, technical evidence, um, substantial evidence to support a district, right? So that it's not an arbitrary use of this district tool. Um, but ultimately Council interprets that evidence and that information and weighs it as the Council sees fit. So as long as something's there to describe, you know, historic substance to a district, I think the Council likely has a lot of broad latitude and discretion to form the district or to reject the district.

[02:33:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Councilmember Clark.

[02:33:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I think the—my assumption is that how it would play out is, you know, there's a nomination, there's a review process, the—the lines are kind of refined based on the criteria, justifiable criteria, and then, you know, the Council would then say, okay, yeah, those—those boundaries in that district and the petition make sense. Or if the community wants to make an argument that the—you know, there really is a legitimate reason to have the lines expanded, then they could make that argument. But it'll ultimately be our decision, I think. But, um, and then the last question, which is kind of a slightly different—it was about an EPC recommendation on considering interior floor area as a major alteration. Um, I didn't have a chance to watch that EPC meeting, or at least that portion of it. Um, and I was... I'm trying to figure out, so—so one example, um, the LGBT community in—um, in loving form, you know, ripped itself apart over the Castro Theatre in San Francisco when they wanted to redo the seats. Um, so not the exterior of the building, but the seats. And so that gets into like interior alterations. And I—I don't want to be in that world. So I—I'm trying to figure out if their recommendation was interior alter—major interior alterations generally, or if they were really just cared about the, um, uh, consolidation of interior floor areas. Um, and it sounds like that was a recommendation they made that wasn't staff's recommendation. Like your—your recommendation at the time was just to maybe not take into account the—the interior stuff.

[02:35:18] Housing Director Wayne Chen: No, that—that was a new—new direction from the EPC, new—new recommendation from the EPC. Um, we would have to take a look at that and see whether there are, um, kind of, uh, whether there's a foundation for that in historic review. Uh, I think their primary concern is really about the rhythm of downtown and the, um, the kind of frequency of different businesses along Castro Street. And, um, that's certainly something that we can draft standards for in the downtown precise plan. I believe there may already be standards for that in the downtown precise plan. Um, but we would have to look a little more closely to see whether there's a nexus there and—and the historic preservation ordinance.

[02:36:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right. And I think as—as mentioned, uh, perhaps in the response to the Council questions, um, you know, the concern from EPC seemed to be focused on the downtown and possibly even Castro Street specifically. And that would be the only area that sort of has a relationship in this process to interior, uh, modifications. Um, and so it would be a unique twist in our standards to just look at those properties given none of the properties we've identified have the historic character tied to interior uses or aspects of the buildings. And so it would be an anomaly, uh, but it's something we can look into further if there's Council interest.

[02:36:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. That's all the questions I have about the ordinance overall. I have comments later, but I'll let everyone...

[02:36:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Yes, we are still in questions. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[02:36:55] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um, this is more of like trying to really grasp how—how this is actually getting done. So imagine I made smarter decisions in life and I own a historic property that I did not want to be listed on. And what happens now? Like, they—they got the—we—hypothetically, my—the smarter version of me got the notice, um, and I wanted to delist. Um, I understand I was not—I would not be able to delist until this—this—this whole thing is over—the—the—until we determine what the process to delist now is over. What would be the earliest time I would be able to delist?

[02:37:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So I think the terminology here is important. And so there are different categories of properties. So let's try to sort them out. There are properties that are already on the list that are proposed to continue on the list. There is currently a delisting mechanism in the City's code. Um, it's limiting, uh, and it's tied to every five years from the date of their initial listing, right, the anniversary every five years. So those properties have a mechanism, however limited it is today. I think we're using the term generally about delisting for those properties that perhaps are not currently on the Mountain View register. They're on the list currently proposed to be added to the register as part of this process. And they're wanting to be removed from the list of consideration. Technically, it's not delisting in my opinion, but we're using that term loosely here. So, um, I think what—what we've told the community is we're not in a position as staff to remove you from this list of consideration yet. That will be up to the Council, including tonight's consideration and future action by Council. If the criteria change and you ask us to scrub the list, for example, some properties may be removed. So there hasn't been a mechanism because those properties aren't listed. They've been identified for study and analysis and consideration by the Council and it's up to you at this point to tell us what to do with these properties.

[02:38:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. Um, and also for clarification, in the—in the attachment two where it has the Mountain View register of historic places, you have off register and on register. So basically if you are off register, you're essentially already delisted, but then they're—you're under consideration to be put onto it. Is that correct?

[02:38:55] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So we, uh, uh, a feature of our current ordinance is that even if you opted off the register, there are still, um, aspects of your property that still require listing. Um, there's a requirement that you meet with city staff prior to requesting demolition. There—uh, there are CEQA obligations. Um, there may be other aspects of the city code that require that you—we—we keep you on a list, you're just not on the register, even if you opted off. That's what that opted off means. It's just the fact that we've—we've kept track over time of all of the folks who have requested, uh, the opt off.

[02:39:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So with the changes we're going to do, there will no longer be off register and on register. Is that...

[02:40:11] Housing Director Wayne Chen: That's right. With—with the changes we—it's just going to be clean. There will be just a Mountain View register and, uh, we will not need to, um, keep track of off register for the purpose of the ordinance. We may need to hold on to some of these studies, uh, for the purpose of CEQA.

[02:40:34] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So hypothetically, in my imagined scenario where I have a single-family historic home that is not currently registered as historic, but I don't want it to be, then if I don't want it to be deemed historic and presuming that it's also not national—actually, in this hypothetical situation, and I'm sorry, I'm doing hypothetical because it's the only way I'm really understanding how it's like going. Um, so in this hypothetical situation, it is eligible for state and national. Um, is that still a decision for the Council to—to make whether they're on the—whether my hypothetical single-family home is on this property? Or on this list?

[02:41:23] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah. So again, presuming that the Council follows the staff recommendation for how the ordinance would be structured, um, we are recommending that the Council be the ultimate authority of whether a property is listed or not, uh, on the Mountain View register. Um, that does not preclude potential CEQA consequences of that decision. So if, um, if a property is currently subject to protective permit requirements and Council is—adopts an ordinance that would effectively strip those protective permit requirements away, there may be CEQA, um, there—there may be CEQA, uh, analysis that we might have to do to—prior to approval of that.

[02:42:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. So as we go through this process, and for some reason, I—I—and I—I recall the—the—the concern that, uh, um, some of the Council members had about like if—if you showed up here and said I don't want it, then—and—and we go through the—the site inventory and we're like, okay, we'll just remove that. Um, somehow, I don't know, in my hypothetical property, um, I did not pay attention to my mail, did not know about this, and then suddenly, um, we pass our thing and then my—my hypothetical property is—is on there. Um, based on that, what is the first moment essentially I can actually say I don't want this here and what would be those next steps?

[02:42:59] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh, under—oh, did you want to take...? Um, under our recommended ordinance, uh, you would be able to apply for delisting. Uh, in all likelihood, that application would be associated with a specific request, like I want to modify my building in a way that would be inconsistent with the integrity or I want to demolish it or whatever. Um, the, uh, and then that application process would need to go to the City Council.

[02:43:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And if I could just briefly add, I think the main issue here on the listing, delisting question, right, once a property's on the list is, does a property owner have unilateral ability to request delisting and to achieve delisting? Our ordinance currently provides them the ability to do that. It's limited, as I noted earlier, every five years. Um, what we're suggesting is take away that unilateral option for property owners, require a process where the Council is the ultimate decision maker in the delisting, um, to provide some balance, broader public input. Currently, it's a letter to the city. I've reviewed one already in the time I've worked in Mountain View and had no discretion. They filed the request timely and I approved it and it was removed from the list. So it's just figuring out the right balance as a public policy question for the Council.

[02:44:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And are we—what kind of staff time are we taking into account in the—when—when, uh, someone wants to delist their property? I—I—I—I'm kind of scared that like it be—becomes like another gatekeeper process where, um, peop—we—we lack the staff capacity to do it quickly enough. Um, so what is—what...

[02:45:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I mean, I think much of that—the answer to that question hinges on the—the criteria and the circumstances under which Council will allow those requests to be filed. If there doesn't need to be any reason and it can be filed at any time, there could be a large number, but ultimately we're only talking about 90 properties at this point, right? So it won't be a deluge, but there could be unexpected work for staff. Um, it's very similar to other permitting processes, right? We don't know when people will want to file for a building permit or other zoning permit. So we don't have the ability to meter that work very well. Um, but ultimately it's not a very large number of properties if Council proceeds with the—the register roughly along the lines that we've proposed.

[02:45:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right. Thank you. That's all my questions, Mayor.

[02:45:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks. Councilmember Hicks.

[02:45:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So following up on the Vice Mayor's question first, still with her hypothetical home, I suppose when—and I'm hesitant to use some of the language because there's various lists—but she removes herself, she's no longer on the register, but you have her on a—a list, I imagine that's to keep her up with news such as that might be relevant to her, changes in state and federal law maybe, um, or changes in incentives so that she might—she might want to opt on? Is that the reason that you—you keep her name and address?

[02:46:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, you—we haven't envisioned this as a continuing relationship with the property owners in quite that way. Um, the issue is really for upholding the city's other obligations under state law, notably the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. Such that if we know based on evidence that a property has state or national register eligibility and they come in for some discretionary action from the city, we're bound by law to consider that in the environmental review process and undergo a CEQA process. Um, I think the circumstances are slightly different if that hypothetical property was not state or national register eligible, but was considered for local listing in the register for other reasons, right, unique to Mountain View. Um, then there may not be any sort of ongoing burden or need to have them on a list for any purpose because the Council's decided they're not on the local register and so they're not relevant for historic, uh, preservation purposes.

[02:46:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So my next question, I'm going to tease out a little bit more the question that Councilmember Showalter was—was asking. Um, so we—well, actually, I'm going to go back. Yeah, I'm interested in the previous question I asked because unlike most of what we've heard tonight, we've gotten a lot of email from people who—who, um, either want to be and you've gotten messages too, people who want to be on or want to take advantage of, uh, of various incentives mostly the Mills Act. So, moving on from that, I want to tease out a little more the question that Councilmember Showalter was asking. We've gotten a high volume of email from, uh, people who are concerned about the downtown. And I think they're concerned about multiple kind of, as Councilmember Showalter was saying, interlocking, um, characteristics of the downtown. Um, one—one is the placemaking and historic nature. Another is the—the heart of one part of our economic vitality plan. Um, so, uh, the fact that there's continuous public uses on the ground floor. Um, and then a third thing is the—the design guidelines that are currently in the precise plan. Those—those are three things that I feel, when I talk to them, that people are concerned about. And there've been—so it's unclear to me how we, given new legislation like SB 79 and other legislation, how we preserve that collection of things. Um, and maybe there are multiple tools. You know, maybe a—a downtown district and an SB 79 alternative plan. Um, and then there's our downtown precise plan. What mixture of tools do you think, because this could really—if we don't have public uses on the ground floor, it could really gut our one of our main public places in town. So what of those three tools, what mixture of those do you think would work to preserve that important place?

[02:49:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think you hit on the relevant ones that are currently on my mind, um, Councilmember Hicks. I think what you also hit on is just the complexity of thinking through this SB 79 circumstance and why it's taking time for staff to prepare a thoughtful approach and options for Council consideration. Um, you know, I think there's a—an understandable concern, uh, from the community about the impacts of SB 79 on the downtown in particular. Um, and a local alternative approach is one option for the Council to consider to try to restore some extent of local control. I think in my mind, there are different variations of that and thinking about how historic, uh, resource listing in—in the local register, um, is one of the tools that can advance that planning. Um, I just we need to be clear that there may already be other state laws, state density bonus law among them where, um, developers could use concessions potentially to reduce or eliminate ground floor commercial space. So it may already be a situation where we don't have the ability to always mandate. Um, but what we can do is set clear requirements and plans and vision and urge developers to follow those and remove incentives to disregard those requirements. And so rebalancing through a local alternative plan could be one way to do that with or without using historic resource listing as—as one of the mechanisms for the local alternative planning process.

[02:50:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So am I understanding your answer to be—and I might not be understanding it—do—am I understanding that you—you're saying we may have to use multiple tools and kind of layer them and see where things go?

[02:50:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think so. Um, you know, I haven't read SB 79 in a little while for this purpose, but my recollection is there is reference to meeting other objective standards that are locally adopted. Uh, and it's not solely come in and build to the densities allowed in the law and that's all you have to do. So having thoughtful planning, including an updated downtown precise plan or other relevant zoning standards, is a critical instrument, uh, as one of many layered tools as you put it to—to achieve the city's objectives.

[02:51:24] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Um, just a couple—that was really my main question, but—oh, no, here's my other main question. I'm interested in streamlining and I'm glad that that's a part of—of, um, your the staff recommendation, but I'm actually interested in more streamlining. How streamlined can we get with things like—I'm thinking of—I—I could name any number of types of properties, but let me say single-family homes. So I—you know, there's—there has been talk at Council in the past about homes and additions they're doing in the back that no one can see. Um, I wish those had never come to Council. Are there even—and—and I think they may not in the future—can we streamline even more like things where you can't—you can do a—I want people to be able to do rear additions. That's super common. And in a neighborhood—in neighborhoods like those in Mountain View single-family neighborhoods, those are going to happen. Um, are there ways to streamline it to allow that and to allow more us an incentive like more discretion for ADUs? That's another thing that there's been some talk of in my community that maybe instead of knocking down homes and putting up monster homes, there—it's easier to do an ADU if you're a historic property.

Item 6 (Public Hearing)

[02:52:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right. I think the Council has discretion to be very, you know, forward-leaning or very aggressive in—in streamlining. Um, I think we're envisioning doing that in large part through the exempt alterations definition. And so describing those types of projects that can be undertaken on properties that are on the register that by definition are not going to run afoul of the historic preservation objectives. And I think finding where that line is is an interesting, you know, space to explore with the community and with the Council. Um, I think it's important not to violate the integrity of the ordinance and the intent, right, which is to preserve those character-defining features that are the essence of the historic structures. But getting up to that line without crossing it is—is where the Council can streamline. From that point forward where perhaps a character-defining feature would be altered, the Council also can set the level of review, right? From a public hearing at the Zoning Administrator or requiring Council review. Um, those are different levels of—of effort, time, money for applicants that, you know, arguably are—are different ways of streamlining.

[02:53:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So you're saying I or we should suggest some more exempt alterations if that—if we want further streamlining?

[02:54:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If you have key ideas, tonight would be a good night to hear them. I think we're not expecting to define those tonight. That's work that we'll do if the—the framework in the approach is is one that aligns with Council.

[02:54:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. I think that is all of—well, I have one small question. What's the border for districts? Does it have to be on a street? Often there will be some of the most—sometimes some of the more remarkable buildings, both commercial and—and housing, are on the corners of blocks. Can you draw a border that crosses streets and goes, you know, picks all four corners—say homes, if those four residents want to do it. How are you envisioning allowing and disallowing borders?

[02:54:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, looking to our consultants for confirmation. I think there's a lot of discretion. I think being contiguous is probably a good principle. But, you know, including corners and crossing streets and what have you, um, doesn't need to be split by a centerline or anything like that.

[02:54:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[02:54:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:54:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. This is one of the most challenging topics I think we've covered in a long time. So, um, I appreciate staff's, um, uh, patience and persevering and responding to all of these questions. Um, I wanted to, uh, ask about some things we haven't yet talked about. Uh, we have a couple—we have there are five properties that are, um, ineligible, uh, but, uh, and—and—and two in particular that have Mills Act contracts that, um, may—may not be justifiable, right? So I think the staff report characterized them potentially as a—as a public subsidy, uh, for—for properties that—that, um, for which there is no good public policy rationale, right, to—to enjoy a public subsidy. Uh, so I—I wanted to, uh, seek clarity on, uh, a staff response to one of the questions submitted in advance. And that has to do with the disclosure, um, when one of those ineligible properties is transferred and in particular, uh, if—if one of the properties with a Mills Act contract is—is transferred. So it sounds like the seller would merely have to disclose that it has a Mills Act contract and not necessarily that that Mills Act contract is likely to be terminated after the conclusion of the grace period—uh, if—if the Council approves a grace period. Is that right?

[02:56:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I don't know if we can answer that very detailed nuanced aspect of the disclosure requirement. I think disclosure, um, tends to involve, you know, risk mitigation. And so it's typically a good practice to disclose, um, as much as you know about a circumstance, right, and not to withhold material information. Um, fundamentally that's a decision for the property owner in relation to meeting the minimum legal obligation and then deciding if there's more to disclose to ensure that nothing's been, uh, inadvertently or inappropriately omitted.

[02:57:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, I'm gonna mull that over. Uh, related to that, one of the things I was interested in understanding is whether, uh, as part of this, uh, grace period process, we can, um, require the, uh, property owners upfront to, uh, basically elect into that process, right? So if they have no intention of getting into compliance, of—of renovating the property to restore the character-defining features, then a very lengthy, uh, grace period doesn't really make sense, right? That's—that's a public subsidy. I'm sure, um, every owner of an ineligible property would also love to have that property tax relief. So it—it—it's hard for me to justify that. Is there any way we can, uh, devise a process where we—we say you—you must, you know, you—you have to let us know upfront whether you intend to submit an application? And if they say yes, um, is there a way to—to sort of enforce that, right? So if at the conclusion of that grace period, uh, where they've told the Council we—we intend to go through this process in good faith, right, then is there anything that we can do if—if, uh, if they ultimately determine—if they don't follow through?

[02:58:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So I think the Council can set the process and the requirements and the timelines for this, you know, off-ramp, if we'll call it that, from listed properties to being delisted properties in this case. Um, I think, you know, when you're considering, uh, putting yourself in the property owner's perspective, considering undertaking a—a sizable project that would restore historical integrity, it's a major investment and one that you probably, you know, won't be able to—to come around to understand and make a decision within a few months. You know, just deciding whether you're interested and then engaging an architect, having them do their work, come up with cost estimates, refinements, what have you. I mean, easily that could take a year or more in my mind, uh, from sort of initial idea conception to, you know, a valid potential proposal. And so, um, the Council can make it as short as it would like, but I would recommend not making it so short that the sort of default answer in most cases is going to be it's not worth it or it's too risky.

[02:59:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Uh, fair enough. Um, I also wanted to ask about incentives. I think one of the, uh, the most challenging aspects of this, uh, work for property owners who, um, may be subject to these regulations is it's not clear what the incentives are. And that was, uh, on the list of additional topics for future discussion. So I was curious to know when would be the appropriate time for the Council to weigh in on appropriate incentives.

[03:00:00] City Staff: We're not prepared at this time to give Council something to respond to. However, we do anticipate that when we come back with the ordinance next year, that we will have a draft list with, you know, some analysis to support a Council decision on that draft list. There are certainly ways that we can create better certainty around our current incentives, and I think that may be one low-hanging fruit that we can provide, and then certainly a lot of folks are really interested in those financial incentives such as the Mills Act and providing a little bit more education in the community about what that might entail and how that might benefit property owners.

[03:00:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. And then last question is about process. So the staff presentation helpfully breaks out what I think are four discrete elements in the feedback that staff is seeking from the Council tonight. Is it staff's preference, just for clarity—that we make a motion for each one of those four? Or how would you like us to communicate this input effectively and with the clarity that you need to move forward?

[03:01:45] City Staff: I think the EPC was a helpful model for this. They spoke generally about the topic, and then if there were additional comments about the general topic—so we have four topics that we presented to the City Council—if they had additional comments that there was consensus on in the EPC, that direction was provided rather than necessarily needing to focus on each individual recommendation within the topic, if there's already broad agreement by the Council with that individual piece of the puzzle.

[03:02:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you.

[03:02:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember McAllister.

[03:02:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. I'm going to go on procedure. I wish you'd stick with the one thing that was mentioned earlier. My question is—and what we talked about is SB 79, which we haven't heard about too much. And people here, they say there's this July deadline. Do you feel comfortable that something's going to have to come off the table? If you're going to be jumping on this SB 79, can you accomplish a goal of getting SB 79 back to a recommendation to Council on a historical downtown which a lot of people feel are very important in this timeline?

[03:03:20] City Staff: So, I think the simple answer is no, on a historic district. That will require a great deal of additional time beyond July 1st, even if we were to start tomorrow. I think what's relevant in my mind for SB 79 to this discussion tonight is the addition to the register of specific properties that could then serve as a basis for a local alternative plan to remove them from the SB 79 development potential. I think one of the issues we need to research related to the district versus property approach is the language used in SB 79 when it's talking about historic resources that can be exempted through a local alternative plan. The law says "historic resource," and I think it's clear that that would apply to an individual property that's on the register. It's not immediately clear whether that would also include a historic district as an example, and so there's further legal research we need to do on that point to understand if a district is even a mechanism that's relevant for purposes of SB 79. If it isn't, then it's irrelevant to the July 1st deadline anyways.

[03:04:30] City Staff: I think just as we're, you know, trying to help the Council from the staff perspective navigate tonight, it would be helpful at minimum to get some direction on properties in the downtown as it relates to potential future inclusion in the register, so that we are teed up and able to give that action for Council to take in the second quarter of next year, so that that can be in place if and when we do a local alternative process.

[03:04:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Could we potentially say—and this is what I'd like to see us do—could we potentially finish the ordinance, defer the properties for whatever time it takes, and allow you to concentrate on some properties downtown to help get that ball rolling for the historic district? Would that be something that would still accomplish the ordinance, still get us able to get the business owners or property owners to think about SB 79? And that way, I think Councilmember Ramirez said something like, oh, this would just sort of clear the air a little bit to get actually what's going on, because we sort of woke the sleeping dragon here tonight. So that people were just going, "Whoa, let's get this thing resolved." So should we—can we just get the ordinance, let things settle down a little bit, and then you can take, okay, the people downtown, if we want that direction from Council to say, "Let's look at SB 79 and those properties and concentrate on those people," to say here's what we got, and then go back to 2027 for the rest of the properties?

[03:06:13] City Staff: So I think certainly staff can continue work on the ordinance with separating out the register update. That work was already going to be done if we get Council direction tonight; second quarter of next year is when we anticipate bringing that for final action. I think we can continue to have a list of properties that could be added and maybe get some direction from Council tonight on the register and maybe different options for that. Whether it's ensuring that architectural design is paired with some other characteristic as an example, that really maybe more holistically reflects Mountain View's history. And just maybe give some direction to staff on how you would like to see that register, either more inclusive or a much shorter list as the City Manager described. And then have the option to act on that register but not necessarily be obligated to do that in second quarter of next year with the ordinance.

[03:07:08] City Staff: Reason being, as we've discussed, listing these properties will give maximum flexibility to protect them from SB 79. Not having the register in a position to act on it in the second quarter of next year would potentially put a number of properties in—would allow them to remain subject to SB 79.

[03:07:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. If we're still—I mean, this is a pretty comprehensive ordinance revision from Chris's and my time. Shouldn't we allow it to—if we defer the properties like was mentioned, that would give time for the public, the property owners, and staff to, okay, let's filter everything down and tighten it up? And then will it—the question is, will that be coming back to Council after—and you're saying that would be the second quarter of '26?

[03:08:05] City Staff: Correct.

[03:08:06] Councilmember John McAlister: And would it be a detriment for those property owners potentially that if we do defer putting the list on there, that it would put them in limbo for a while? Or what would—those who want to come forward and do something, but otherwise the other people could keep it as status quo until we got it buttoned up?

[03:08:28] City Staff: So I think what you would see happen is the properties that are on the Mountain View register today would remain on the register, subject to the existing every five-year delisting opportunity. New properties would not be added until Council takes action on the register update, either in second quarter of 2026 or at some later date in 2027 if Council wanted further work on the register. I think that does potentially leave property owners in limbo as to whether they will or will not be delisted. The other factor here, right, is what is that delisting process? You know, if the Council adds them in second quarter of 2026, under what circumstances can they pursue removal from the register? So there are a number of important considerations. It's weighing the longer process to allow the dust to settle and for property owners to understand the process versus getting more properties on the register to potentially protect them from SB 79 redevelopment. That's a fundamental policy question for the Council. Staff can support either approach just on different timelines.

[03:09:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[03:09:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So my questions. A couple different things. So for—just to highlight once again, cause hopefully we'll get to a place where we're going to be moving on a recommendation. So process. So the next steps in this process is we're going to have some sort of recommendation to staff and that something for Council action will come back in Q2 of 2026.

[03:10:05] City Staff: Correct.

[03:10:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So and we're at this point able to provide feedback between now and then. So I just wanted to ask the question. So when this item comes back to us in Q2 of 2026, the religious sites will be removed from the recommendation?

[03:10:25] City Staff: Correct.

[03:10:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. All right, just all these clarifying questions. All right. Next is, there was discussion of a historic district. However, my understanding is that we do not have that designation yet?

[03:10:40] City Staff: Correct.

[03:10:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. So if we want to have a historic district designation, would we need to ask staff to do that? Would that be a separate work plan item?

[03:10:54] City Staff: So the process would be, tonight you would provide direction to us to create in the ordinance a procedure to create a historic district and criteria for historic district. And then at that point, once that's adopted, Council could direct staff to actually craft a specific district of your choice, or a neighborhood could come in and apply for a district.

[03:11:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Because I wonder—I asked that question because I guess there's two ways we could do it. One: think of all the different places we deem historic in downtown and give you addresses. Or we could maybe direct staff to take steps to create a historic district, and then staff could come back and, you know, per our direction be able to—Council can say in Q2 2026 how we feel about that. I guess chicken, egg, right? I don't know.

[03:11:52] City Staff: Or, Mayor, if the Council includes an opportunity for property owners to petition for a district, the third option is to just wait until organically 50% or more of the property owners define a district and propose that to the city.

[03:12:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. Just wanted to put that out there for colleagues. All right. And then a question about the sites. So we had—we may or may not have an opportunity to talk about sites tonight. I was curious if we could keep the sites that are currently on the list but allow for those that are listed as potential sites to have now until this comes back to Council to provide their input on whether or not they want to—I'm just going to call it—be included or not? Because I think that might help Council make that decision and not have it feel like there's any information missing. Can we move forward—could we move forward with staff recommendation, keep the sites, but also use this as an educational and communication opportunity between now and next year to have that? Or are we wedded to—we need to decide the site list tonight?

[03:13:18] City Staff: No, no, you don't need to decide the site list tonight. I think what we're looking for tonight is a discussion of criteria and process. And so if Council directs us to say, well, these types of sites, take another look. Or if Council directs us to say, hey, we really want to prioritize property owner sentiment, go out and find more information about property owner sentiment. That's the type of direction that we are looking for from Council tonight, and we'll come back with a recommended register—if Council's looking for that—with a recommended register in Q2.

[03:14:00] City Staff: Yeah, and just to add, I think it is a process issue, right? Since a lot of this is process-driven. I think the recusals maybe complicated the narrative by overly focusing the Council on specific properties. Really think of this as 100 properties; we have them available to discuss if Council wants to understand how these criteria are operating on the properties and why they've been identified for listing. The intent in this is not to hyper-focus on individual property decisions so much as, as the planning manager said, agree on criteria and understand how those criteria translate to individual properties so you feel comfortable that moving forward, as we're periodically updating the register, these criteria are functioning the way the Council wants.

[03:14:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So maybe as a way to move forward rather than doing the recusals, we can talk about if colleagues are interested in moving forward with a site list and then coming up with criteria for when this comes back in Q2 2026. Right? Okay. All right. And a last question about disclosures. So my understanding is that typically when—or how about this—when purchasing a commercial property, is there typically a disclosure related to if it is historic or not?

[03:15:25] City Staff: You know, I am not an expert on this by any means. If there's more detailed information that you need then we can provide it. As the Director said earlier, there's some element of liability and risk about what constitutes information that a subsequent owner might need to know. However, many commercial property owners may not know themselves that they are subject to CEQA or eligible for historic listing, and in those cases, I doubt they would be required to notify buyers.

[03:16:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. I guess maybe a question for the consultant. I just feel like this is a topic that has come up in multiple jurisdictions related to, particularly, commercial property where someone purchased a commercial property, they go out for their permit, and through the permitting process find out that it has been deemed historic. There's one example that's coming top of mind. I'm sure my colleagues who work in San Jose know what I'm talking about. So I'm just curious, because it feels like on the one end we're being told that it was included when the commercial property was purchased. So I don't know if you're seeing that in other jurisdictions or not. I mean, is it that it would have been deemed historic via the city or coming from the state or national? I'm not sure. I just don't know.

[03:17:08] City Staff: So I'll just note that we did consult with the City's Real Property Program Manager on this point. In her expert judgment, she characterized historic status and Mills Act contract status as material facts under California law that are necessarily disclosed in a real property transaction. So I think you should assume that in an ordinary, above-board transaction, a seller would disclose those facts should they know them, right? It's difficult to disclose what you don't know. But if the seller knows, they would disclose it. And potentially even if they should know, they would need to disclose it. So you should expect that that would be a disclosure for a real property transaction.

[03:17:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Clark.

[03:17:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: Are we ready for discussion and moving things forward? Maybe? Or do we have more questions?

[03:18:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Those were my questions and I'm usually last.

[03:18:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh no, I wasn't asking you. I just wanted to make sure everyone else... sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you had more questions. I was trying to ask if we were just ready for discussion generally.

[03:18:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: It's okay. I just attend the meeting, yeah.

[03:18:25] City Staff: And Mayor, we do have slides to help the Council work through the discrete items if that would be helpful.

[03:18:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Why don't we see what Councilmember Clark says and then if necessary I can turn to you. Is that all right? Okay. Because I think he has a creative solution that will get a quick second from colleagues.

[03:18:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Maybe. The easy part for me, I'm fine with the ordinance and everything that's been drafted with a couple minor things. I don't want to mess with interior remodels. I appreciate the EPC's comments on that and their sentiment, but I just don't want to go there. I think that figuring out those criteria are going to be very difficult. So on the ordinance overall and those points, I'm fine with. I would just not mess with the interior alterations piece that the EPC recommended.

[03:19:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: For the tweak to the criteria, and this gets into the lists. So I think what would be really helpful—I'll describe what I would like and then you can tell me what's feasible and not feasible. What would be really helpful is to take the list that we've developed so far and understand kind of in matrix form which of those properties are highly likely to already be eligible under the state or federal guidelines for being listed. Because what I think is really important here—I know everyone's getting really worked up about being on this list or that list or not on a list. What's really important for me is transparency. Because the risk that—really one of the things that we're trying to fix tonight with this update is that right now you might be subject to all sorts of historic analysis and things that you don't know your subject to, and that's not fair to you. It's not fair to someone who might purchase your property in the future. There should be a single, fairly reliable source that says you either are subject or not subject to these things. And we're trying to do that work for you. Like, we're trying to use your taxpayer dollars to help add additional clarity and transparency here.

[03:21:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I think taking the existing list that we have, understanding which of those properties would be highly likely to be eligible for listing under the federal or state registries today. And then the tweak that the Community Development Director suggested of—the design criteria alone don't really... some of the controversy that came up tonight was just, you know, if someone just is under the design criteria alone. I think design criteria needs to be paired with one of the other three. So a person, an event, or information potential. So I'm not saying remove anyone from the draft list, but in that matrix, understanding who's most likely already eligible to be registered and would probably have to go through CEQA whether they like it or not, whether they're on a list or not. Two would be which of these were design-only additions, and then which of those likely qualify for one of the other three? Because in my mind I'm thinking we're probably going to weed out some of the ones that just meet the design criteria. There might be a few exceptions, I don't know. But knowing that would be really helpful.

[03:22:37] City Staff: We've done that.

[03:22:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. Yeah, it's already been done, it's just not in a nice matrix. It's that 200-something page report that I didn't have time to go through and pick out everything. So knowing that... and then between now and when this comes back to us, if we can send a notice to those folks or—I'm open to any process that you suggest. But what would be helpful for me to know is if anyone out there who's on this potential list disagrees with those findings or criteria, or they just don't want to be on the list for whatever reason, and they want to submit a short letter explaining that. So we can take owner sentiment into account at that meeting. That would be helpful too.

[03:23:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: And what I'm trying to avoid here is tweaking the criteria or tweaking the list in a way where it's going to add three or six months because we have to go back and kind of redo everything, because there is kind of the ticking clock of SB 79 here too. So I'm trying to work with the original list that we have today and not kind of reinvent the wheel, but understanding the context and the criteria of other things that might help us narrow down the list and also take owner sentiment into account when we get to that point.

[03:24:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: For those—I think most people who are concerned about SB 79 know this, but we are moving very quickly on that. I just want to point out that our very first meeting in January is our ceremonial meeting where we reorganize, but the meeting immediately after that, a week or two after that, is the study session on the impacts of SB 79 and all of this. So we are moving pretty quickly on that. I just want to make sure folks knew the date and the timeline as to when we're next discussing that.

[03:24:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then we talked about paring the architectural piece. But all of this—I realize this is asking a lot—but ideally we would adopt the ordinance and at least an initial list prior to January 1st. And if for some reason we can't, staff needs more time, we can't do all the filtering that we want to do, maybe there's a path forward where we preliminarily adopt a list but then have some sort of—I don't want to call it an opt-out period—but like a period where we can accept that information that I talked about, the owner sentiment information, and then we could consider that later. That way we have an adopted list going into July 1, but we also... I guess it depends on what your timing allows. But does that make sense? Or is that feasible or doable? Or am I not paring architectural design with other things correctly? What would help?

[03:25:54] City Staff: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. I feel like I understand the proposal. And I think our ability to break down based on the different criteria, right—already recognize as state and national register eligible; not state and national register eligible but identified as locally important, and for these reasons: here are design only, here are design plus one or more other characteristics. We can certainly come up with that matrix to support the Council's decision-making and weighing sort of the different level of burden if you will, or I guess richness is maybe another way to think of the local listings. And we can certainly do another notice that has a ready-made feedback opportunity, whether it's a half-sheet that they can just cut off and check a few boxes and send back to us or a QR code that they can readily send an email, to give us or the Council a better gauge of owner sentiment on this subject.

[03:26:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: And also there's some additional certainty at this point even though we haven't adopted the ordinance. After tonight we'll kind of know which direction that's heading, and any interested property owners will understand sort of what their new—including rights to streamlined historic permit features that didn't exist before—might be part of that too. So maybe some of that could be included or just a link to kind of a—we may not have a draft ordinance at that point but just some information about it.

Item 6 (Public Comment)

[03:27:20] City Staff: Right. I think the timing will be important to your point. What I heard from a number of the public commenters was lack of clarity, uncertainty about what this really means, what are the incentives, what's the process, what's the burden. So I think timing this outreach or this mailer to the property owners with a point in time when we have something like, or actually a draft ordinance, maybe as a lead up to the EPC consideration of the draft ordinance, might be a relevant time point.

[03:27:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. And then just the last two brief comments. Councilmember Hicks had mentioned—I mean if there are suggestions for further ways of streamlining things in the ordinance, I am very open to those ideas. When I say I'm fine with the ordinance as is, you know, I'm open to other tweaks to it too. If those come up. But yeah, overall I think that at least from my perspective might be a good path forward, so we're at least moving the ordinance forward. And I am personally just so folks know, I am interested in looking at a historic district downtown. I just don't know exactly how to draw that right now, and I know that dovetails with the precise plan. And then I will be one of the people lobbying our state lawmakers to hopefully extend that deadline for those who are working in good faith to try and do something before July 1 but who I think will most likely need additional time but are working in good faith. So those are my comments.

[03:28:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, I thought I was going to get a motion. No?

[03:28:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm shocked.

[03:28:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Councilmember Ramirez.

[03:28:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I appreciate Councilmember Clark's efforts to try and find a compromise on the sites issue. My preference would be for the Council to provide direction on the ordinance, and then after that, everyone will have a little bit more clarity at least about the direction that the ordinance is likely to go, and then we can deliberate sites at the high level that Councilmember Clark was providing. I still remain uncomfortable with providing direction on sites because I think the direction we're likely to go is picking and choosing, right? Not necessarily adhering to any consistently applied criteria, and I just could not support that.

[03:29:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But I am going to make an attempt at a motion that addresses everything else and leaves the sites discussion—or the list, the register discussion—for afterwards. So I will move to support the staff recommendations for the treatment of properties already listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources that do not meet the draft criteria for eligibility. Those are the five ineligible properties, two of which have Mills Act contracts. And I will include a variation of... there was a modification proposed to limit the grace period to four years for an application. That was an EPC suggestion. And then if an application is submitted within those four years, then there would be an additional three years to achieve the improvement. I think that provides some reasonable parameters. It's not the property owners' fault that their properties are ineligible, but I do think just as a matter of public policy...

[03:30:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Is there a conflict? They made modifications on that.

[03:30:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well Councilmember Clark has a difference of opinion. But I don't think we're interested in being punitive. I actually came in with a much more robust proposal, but I think just because this is not an issue that I think most of us are spending a great deal of time on, the staff recommendation for the treatment with those parameters—four years to submit an application and three years to achieve the improvement—seems reasonable. So that would be the first part of the motion.

[03:31:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The second part would be to support the staff recommendations for updates to the development review process for historic resources. Again, I think those are reasonable and they achieve the Council's goal of making it easier for most types of improvements. A property owner would not have to go to Council the way that several property owners recently have had to go to Council for very minor modifications. From what I understand, the only time a property owner would have to go to Council is for delisting, right? So demolition. The rest of the modifications would be addressed either at the staff level or at the ZA level. And I think that's reasonable. There were some Council suggestions for further streamlining. We didn't hear any, so I'm not proposing any, but I would love to hear what members of the Council suggest for specific adjustments. But the staff recommendation is in the motion so far.

[03:32:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then the last part is the staff recommendations for process updates related to nominations, listing, and delisting of historic resources. And the only request, the only adjustment I would make is, while I think I generally support the staff recommendations, I would request that staff return to the Council with some additional options for the historic district approval process. I think it sounds like staff is still thinking through that. You know, personally, I would not be comfortable with a Council override in the event that a technical expert determined that a proposed historic district didn't meet criteria. That doesn't feel like good public policy to me. So thinking through that process.

[03:33:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm also uncomfortable with the notion that there may not be robust community engagement for every property owner within the boundary. So I would love for staff to think through how do we make sure that there's ample noticing and participation from everyone who would be impacted by the establishing of a district. So it's the staff recommendation for process updates related to nominations, listing, and delisting of historic resources, but with the recommendation or request that staff provide multiple options to the Council for the establishing of a historic district. So that's the motion on the floor.

[03:34:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[03:34:14] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I think that's the motion I would have made. But I have... somebody's making a face over there. It wasn't you, was it? [Laughter] So we'll just proceed. Okay. So, but I'm wondering... the thing I was unclear on, two things. One is the providing options. Was it for a district process in general or for a downtown district specifically?

[03:34:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Staff recommendation I think is broader, right? I don't want to speak for staff. It sounds like if a dozen property owners who own property in Monta Loma determine "we are a historic district," they could submit an application. So I think the parameters that staff are returning to Council with are city-wide, they're not geographically limited.

[03:35:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So yours was a possible districting process, is what you'd like them to come back with.

[03:35:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I would prefer that we exempt single-family homes and just stick with the historic core, but I didn't incorporate that into the motion because no one brought it up. If there are suggestions for modifying the motion, part of the reason why I wanted to make the motion was so that way I can do my best to try and incorporate recommendations from the Council. If we want to say the historic district process only can be done in the downtown area, I would support that personally if a majority of the Council supports that.

[03:36:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. No, I would rather allow people... since this is largely what we're coming up with is a voluntary ordinance. I would like if, you know, we already have a set of Eichlers who, they haven't done... they have a, some type of overlay, I forget what it's called. But basically to recognize, keep their Eichlers the way they are. And so yeah, I would prefer since it's a largely voluntary ordinance, I would like to give them the option to do that.

[03:36:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Seven's pretty small, but I think this is where staff's help would be helpful.

[03:36:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Anyway, yeah. So a districting process is what you were saying in general. I'm just trying to clarify and make sure. And then you're saying you're also open regarding the bullet point "updates to the development review process for historic resources," you said you're open to making them more lenient. Do you want us to say how tonight, or...?

[03:37:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think that would be helpful for staff, but I don't want to speak for staff.

[03:37:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah. I mean my only two are particularly front facades that I'm most concerned about. So any suggestions you would have for allowing rear additions with a little... certainly no insides. Rear additions and maybe things that show to some degree from the front but they don't alter the front facade, which is a fairly common thing to do, to go up two stories in the back. So anything around in that area that you can think of. And then I would also like a process that is easier for ADUs for single-family homes because that are historic. In Old Mountain View, it's common that the driveway... first there were horses and carriages and then they would have either a carriage house or a garage in the back and you have a driveway that goes the whole way back. Those are often quite narrow. And I think what we've stipulated when we went through the ADU process, they... that was one of the things I was like, make the requirement more narrow, more narrow, but I'm not sure it's narrow enough. So I would just... it's kind of like the exceptions you... you know, things get grandfathered in, or the historic building code. Something that allows you to keep your house intact in the front and build an ADU that you may not be able to do at this point. Those are my suggestions for more streamlining. I would love to hear others. Okay. And then so you're not putting anything like the Mayor said about providing direction to create a historic downtown historic district.

[03:39:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: From what I understand from staff, we could not do that.

[03:39:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. I forgot that part.

[03:39:34] City Staff: So I think there's two issues in my mind. One, we don't have any criteria or process for the establishment of a district, and so I think working on the ordinance and understanding what those are so that this district formation process in the downtown could follow that. The second piece is just work planning and timing and resource management. That it will take time, you know, beyond July 1st certainly to even put that together. Assuming the ordinance is adopted by Council in second quarter, you could imagine several months, if not six months or more, to form a district.

[03:40:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then my last... okay. I think there may be a different process for the downtown than for homes, but maybe you can tell us that. And then my last thing is that Councilmember Clark said something about finding... the draft criterion list of properties, you made some comments on that. But that's not a part of this motion? I just want to be clear.

[03:40:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: My motion does not touch the local register list.

[03:40:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, got it. Then I like it, with those comments.

[03:40:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sorry Mayor, just to clarify. So Councilmember Hicks suggested two additional streamlining elements. Are those acceptable to staff?

[03:41:00] City Staff: Just to confirm, one was around kind of focusing just on the front facades and the other was about supporting ADUs. I think there's already a great deal of streamlining for ADUs under state law, and so I think that would take some analysis to really understand what we could carve out in a historic ordinance that would supersede or provide additional streamlining. But it's certainly things that we could study. There is the possibility for the front facade direction that certainly a building's integrity could include its massing, its... I've got this right in front of me... you know, the feeling of the building from a scale and massing perspective. So for example, doing a two-story rear addition may not meet integrity thresholds, but that's something that we can look into and try to put a finer point on what an applicant might be able to expect through that process.

[03:42:20] City Staff: So I think the specific aspects I heard were streamlining rear additions, those that don't make significant changes even if they're visible from some portion of the front, and then trying to find further streamlining opportunities for accessory dwelling units.

[03:42:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm comfortable incorporating into the motion staff exploring those additions if the seconder is comfortable with that.

[03:42:45] Councilmember John McAlister: I don't think ADUs is pertinent to the historic district discussion. I think that should be a standalone discussion. So if we're trying to focus on getting an ordinance on the historical, ADUs is just adding more timeline to something. So I like the idea, but I don't think it's appropriate for being installed in this ordinance. Because if you're going to do a speedy... that's trying to get what the historical aspect is, if somebody says, well, I got an ADU. So I don't feel supporting putting ADUs and streamlining that in itself right now. I think it's a standalone idea.

[03:43:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, I'm going to proceed through the comments and then we can go back and we can clarify the motion as more people comment if that's okay, Councilmember Ramirez? Okay, great. Councilmember Showalter.

[03:43:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. So, I want to go back to—I think basically it's Attachment 2, the existing Mountain View Register. And Councilmember Clark as I understand it had basically the concept that we would add two more columns to this attachment. One would be one that explained kind of whether or not it was eligible for the state and national registers. And then the other one would be if the criteria was primarily that an event had happened there or architecture or whatever. Is that correct, sir?

[03:44:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think it's more like three columns. One is likely eligible for state registry, likely eligible for federal, because it could be one or the other. And then the third would be... we're talking about the proposed list of properties. If it was proposed solely because of design, I want to know which would qualify for more than both design plus any of the others. So that we know which ones are just design, and if we want to tweak those we can.

[03:44:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I think we're talking about the same thing. Great, yeah. Okay, so I...

[03:45:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um, I personally think that would be very useful from a clarity point of view. And um, I think it would be really useful for moving this process forward. Um, but you don't want to include it at this time, Councilmember Ramirez?

[03:45:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, not in this motion. But there could be more than one motion.

[03:45:22] Councilmember Pat Showalter: There could be more than one motion. Okay. Well, I really think that it's a vital component of the process. So, um, I uh, I wouldn't be able to support this um, unless we had the understanding we were going to have a second motion. I really think we need to add this too.

[03:45:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Vice Mayor?

[03:45:49] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, I am—I'm okay with, should this motion pass, to make a second motion to—so that we could understand that with the sites. I think that would be um, it would help with the transparency. I, as we take it back, it's really interesting with this process, I feel like a round peg in a square hole trying to navigate through it.

[03:46:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, so going back to almost like the beginning and as we determine this historic preservation ordinance and the process and the sites. Um, I believe when we first started giving direction to it, at least during my time on Council, which is um, more recently than most, but there was talk about having clarity first. So like that's like the overall goal, so that um, people understand like what's on this register, why is it on this register, and what does that mean for the register. Those are like the clear things.

[03:46:50] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, I was very fortunate to serve on the Historic Association before I was on Council, and I remember having long and good discussions with um, with Nick Perry. And he talked about when the list was initially created, and it was unsatisfying. Like, he really felt it was unsatisfying. And um, because of—it's not necessarily that the work itself, but there were criteria that weren't clear, there were um, mismatched criteria at times. There were cases where there were homes that were on the register and then right next to it that looked identical was not, kind of thing.

[03:47:32] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And so that's why we casted a broad net. Like, and that's why we're starting to get these um—because by clear criteria, like we wanted—this is why we paid professionals to look through pretty much everything and say, based on this criteria, this is historic. And now we kind of have that list now. And now it's up to us to determine like, looking at it, is this, as a historic resource, a community resource? And we will, as we go by site by site eventually, that's—we will eventually narrow it down.

[03:48:07] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So that's why there was an initial wide net, and we're really sorry that a lot of um, homeowners um, felt blindsided or shocked when they suddenly saw themselves on this list. Um, and it's really just so that, one, we can get rid of the two lists. Because we had this historic register where we were like "on register register" and "off register register," which no one understood. Um, and so we narrow things down to what actually matters.

[03:48:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, another uh, factor uh, in these discussions is obviously we've heard um, was the impacts of SB 79. And I am a strong supporter of SB 79. Um, and I was quoted because we can create alternative plans to mitigate what we wanted to actually save about our downtown and what we actually wanted to plan about our downtown.

[03:49:05] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, and I know that many members of the community thought that plan was a historic designation district. And I don't think that's actually the tool we are looking for to do that kind of save. It—there's aspects to it. Like there's preserving certain historical properties and there's a look and feel generally. But it's not actually just replacing the SB 79 area with a historic district, because I will be very upset if we have to deal with historic parking lots. I know other cities have dealt with that conundrum, and I never want that ever to touch Mountain View.

[03:49:40] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, so what—when that discussion about alternative um, plans came through, I thought it was just a modification to our downtown precise plan, which we were already working on. Um, that has since then, I've learned that was a slightly more complicated, and that's how things go with me. Um, things are a lot more complicated than I always initially thought. But my understanding is as we do this uh, historical preservation ordinance update, portions of it are leading to that eventual goal of preserving certain parts of our downtown. So I'm happy with generally the recommendation of staff. Thank you so much for this work that we threw so much stuff at you in a very comprehensive way, and now we'll nitpick out um, exactly what we want from it.

[03:50:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I include—I agree with Councilmember Clark of not including interiors. Um, and also like I agree with the creation of the process of a historic district. I think uh, what Councilmember Hicks was talking about is how certain Eichler neighborhoods have a single-story overlay. Um, then you could do a historic overlay um, as they figure out how to do that because I know like some of them were even upset with the single-story overlay and how they connect that all together.

[03:50:58] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, as we um, as we look at the design guidelines, I agree with Councilmember Clark that I do want—it's not just the design guidelines that determines something historical. Something is just like, not designed interestingly, well, granted I do not have the skill set to really kind of view that. It's like when I talk to Councilmember Ramirez about music, I really don't know the difference between Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. They all sound nice and fancy to me. Um, he's dying inside, it's fine.

[03:51:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, but uh, so, but what I also want to think about as we think about this design conundrum, I know that there are some properties that were like, are going to be removed from the register because of the design changes. And I had this conversation with Councilmember Hicks about like how history is layered sometimes. And I don't know how you would incorporate that concept because there are certain properties that were um, that are no longer deemed historic, but like to the general population like, yeah, that's an historic building. But because it added a third floor, it's no longer historic. Um, and I don't know how to solve that.

[03:52:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, I guess because like we can add a third floor to it or something like that, that means um, that like you could change it and it could still deemed as an important community resource, um, but maybe not historic. Um, so that is like my overall thoughts. I am inclined to support the general motion and eventually make a second motion so that we could have some clarity when the sites come back to us. Um, I'm not entirely sure if I'm gifted enough to draft the motion, but I will give it my best shot. So um, that is all my comments. Thank you again, staff, for um, fitting all this chaos of the historical preservation ordinance, which really is a work of over several years, like maybe even decades, um, to move us forward. Thank you.

[03:52:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember McAllister.

[03:52:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, yeah. As the seconder of the motion, um, I would—if the motion maker would entertain—I'm still concerned about the um, downtown historic district and SB 79. And that when I mentioned my comments earlier, I was asking, is it possible to start the process of identifying properties in the downtown, if you're going through the list, but just spend time on identifying the properties downtown, talking to the people that are downtown, and at least getting that started so that when you do come along, the consequences... what are exactly the consequences if we don't get SB 79 properties identified or an area? I mean, could we identify properties without having to say an area? And that sort of gets the ball rolling.

[03:53:45] City Staff: I think related to SB 79, there are a number of important considerations. I think just to sort of fact check quickly, I think there may be a perception that, you know, without SB 79 the downtown's safe and with SB 79, you know, everything's going to be destroyed. It's not quite the case. Um, there's already a lot of development potential in the downtown precise plan, even along Castro Street.

[03:54:08] City Staff: So I think it's helpful to frame the way that the Council is considering a local alternative and whether or not a historic district is a mechanism that's relevant to this discussion. In my mind anyways, we're probably thinking about just sort of keeping the development capacity at what it already is today. The historic component of SB 79 where it allows you to exempt it, would allow you to take away all of that SB 79 development potential. And in some communities, maybe only, you know, one or two units could be built on a site and that's why they want to use the historic mechanism to basically strip out all of the SB 79 development.

[03:54:42] City Staff: We already have, you know, 30, 40, 50% of that intensity potentially of SB 79 already baked into the downtown precise plan in many areas. And so it's not an all or nothing proposition, I think is important to keep in mind. And the historic district or individual property designations as historic resources is really best understood in my mind in that all or nothing conversation. So the Council could strip out a lot of development potential from a listed property, but I don't think the Council is proposing changing the downtown precise plan fundamentally as part of this.

[03:55:15] City Staff: So, hoping not to add complexity, but I think it's being teed up as a little uh, over simplistic as a, you know, black and white, binary, all or nothing proposition. It's really trying to keep us with what the downtown precise plan has already and using the right tools for the right purpose. And I don't think a historic district is necessary. Could it be one of several options? Potentially.

[03:55:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I'm saying not to worry about a downtown district, but just start identifying properties that could be in that area. So you have an idea, and by identifying those properties, then that start—may start defining the area. I'm concerned about—there are some people who would like to take uh, SB 79 and build downtown. And even though we're only a 10% area, some people would want to say, hey, let's build really large buildings down there. And if we don't start identifying certain properties, then that—things happen and we may end up with some taller buildings downtown or whatever. And so that's why I say if we start identifying the properties without having to say a historic district, that in itself might define a boundary.

[03:56:25] City Staff: Right. I think there's certainly value to um, completing—adding to the register those properties that are known to be historically significant in the downtown. And each time that that action is taken and that information is built, it forms the thinking and the analysis of a potential district in the downtown. So there's certainly value added by completing this register update process. Um, it's not the only path to get to a potential historic district in the future.

[03:56:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Well that's why I'm saying, I was just saying, I would like to see part of our motion is that you identify—finish the register for downtown. Everything else, 2027 for all, you know, because this is important. So is that a—something that—if you're going to do the register, we're just sort of saying, okay, reducing staff time, I mean it's still going to take some time but, you know, we only got three blocks and you already have a lot of that done.

[03:57:25] City Staff: Right. So just as we could separate the ordinance overall from the register update overall, we could attach a subset of the register—properties that have been identified—with the ordinance and carry that through to second quarter of next year. And if there's Council interest in completing the register update, doing it on some other timeline that resources permit. Yes, that's an option.

[03:57:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I would like to add that we direct staff to concentrate on finishing the register for the downtown area.

[03:57:52] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: So, I don't think we legally can because there are probably properties within the—conflict range?

[03:57:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: I believe that's correct because of the nature of segmentation. Um, so we can't create an artificial instruction that would replicate the slides from earlier.

[03:58:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Well no, we're just concentrating on—

[03:58:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: But Councilmember Hicks would have to recuse.

[03:58:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Does what he's saying?

[03:58:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: And potentially one other Councilmember may also have to recuse.

[03:58:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Because of the locations when we talk about the downtown historic district. So that's why I think—

[03:58:35] Councilmember John McAlister: So, is that something that the straw vote would say, have those people recuse themselves and bring back if people are interested in just completing the register for downtown?

[03:58:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm looking at the City Attorney. I—how about this? Is—May I give my comments and then we can see how we'd like to go forward? Is that okay, City Attorney?

[03:59:03] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Uh, Senior Assistant Attorney Bhakta.

[03:59:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Oh yeah, Acting.

[03:59:09] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Too many—all the titles in front. Um, so I think uh, after your remarks, um, what I—I think all the Councilmembers have provided um, fairly clear direction. If we could just a brief summary of the motion that's on the table and then we can um, we can see about whether Councilmember McAllister's friendly amendment has majority support?

[03:59:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. Okay, great. Um, first things first, I just want to say thank you. Thank you to the public who is still with us at 10:30. Um, and to City staff for working—for working on this. I think that my—my thinking is when Council originally started talking about this was that this could be a, a good—a good thing. Um, and I will say that I still think that it can be a good thing because we're tackling a really thorny issue that we haven't um, updated in quite some time. And so, um, that's how I'm couching all of my um, um, thoughts and all the feedback I've received over the last seven years I've been on Council and seven on EPC that we need to update the, the process. So um, the, the silver lining is and the good news is that um, we'll be able to move forward um, this evening.

[04:00:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I think given that, um, I, I understand the point of view that Councilmember Ramirez is bringing forward. However, I feel that if we don't go forward with updating our local registrar that we will not get that—get to it in a timely fashion. And I'm concerned that the issue will continue to persist, and the entire I think reason why we've been working on this um, is that we, we want to get rid of all of those things in our um, historical ordinance that do not work.

[04:01:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I—my ears perked up with Councilmember Clark's um, kind of revision. And I do feel like it's important—it would allow both the, our local, you know, registry and the ordinance to move forward, come back to us Q2 2026, and provide the next three to four to five months for the public to weigh in on whether or not they would like to be on the list or not. And I think we can make um, uh, make sure and work with staff that we have that direct outreach with those that may be on the, on the sites list, um, so that we can get their input should they not have already provided it. I do think that's quite important.

[04:02:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I think that it touches on the nuances of SB 79. I think that um, staff also mentioned that it may be difficult to um, do all of the, the updates. And so if those who have historic um, sites, they may be able to benefit should they voluntarily decide—voluntarily decide to choose to um, have some benefits with the um, SB 79 protections. But if they're not on the site list tonight, um, they may not be able to have that benefit is how I was understanding the legislation.

[04:02:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think as the motion stands, I couldn't support it if we weren't able to put in um, what Councilmember Clark put in. And I think if there was openness to amending the motion to include that, then we wouldn't have to bifurcate our dais and have a vote on a downtown historic district. So I just wanted to put that out there. Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:03:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I want to check in with, with staff. Even with Councilmember Clark's uh, compromise, if any of the properties where there is a conflict of interest is included in that, it still has to be segmented out, right?

[04:03:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: My understanding of Councilmember Clark's proposal—and please Councilmember Clark fill me in if I've missed something—is that you are articulating a general rule statement as opposed to articulating an area or particular—

[04:03:38] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: That is my understanding, correct.

[04:03:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: And this would be applicable citywide?

[04:03:42] Senior Assistant City Attorney Mitesh Bhakta: Correct.

[04:03:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, then recusal is not required in that instance.

[04:03:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Councilmember Clark, can you uh, share once more—my apologies—the, the proposal?

[04:03:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes. And then I have questions about your um, your proposal too. Uh, my proposal is to bring the—take the list that was provided—the preliminary list that was provided tonight—bring it back to us with some additional context. Because my intent, what I think what I will likely end up doing is not picking and choosing properties but applying a broad—applying certain criteria to the entire set of that list. And what would be really helpful for me to know, which is difficult for me to figure out now is, from that list that exists today and that was presented to us tonight, which properties are likely already eligible for the California and Federal registries? And which are there solely—and this is going to be a tweak later—but which are there solely because of design and/or age?

[04:04:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: And for the ones that are solely there for design and/or age, which of those qualify or um, which um—I just want to know which would, which tick some of the other boxes besides design and age. Because the ones that I'm likely, if I were to pick and choose, the ones that I'm least likely to add to the registry are those that are solely on there because of the design criteria or their age. If there's additional criteria then I'm more likely to move those forward. And I don't care about where they're at in the city, I care about whether or not—And so it would be broadly applying that framework to all of them as opposed to picking and choosing. Not that we can't pick and choose at that meeting.

[04:05:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I, I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like we're—we're not making a determination about what is or isn't included in the list. So we're asking staff to come back later with basically the same question but with more information.

[04:05:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: Exactly. With that information that I just described plus owner sentiment. And to clarify, just because someone says I don't want to be on the list doesn't mean I'm not going to vote to put you on the list. I would just like to know you don't want to be on the list and why. And why you feel you don't meet the criteria—why you feel you don't meet the criteria that we might apply. And then at least we have all that information to either adopt the list as is, narrow it down, do whatever. But we can do that, to Councilmember McAllister's point, we can do it before July 1st. Because while we might not be able to do a historic district by July 1st, we might be able to deem some sites downtown historic and give them some additional protections.

[04:06:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So if, if the request is to have staff come back with essentially the same question uh, the draft criteria and list of properties eligible for the Mountain View register of historic resources plus the additional information that you're seeking, I am comfortable including that in the motion. Because I am a masochist like you and I want the property owners to come back and share substantially in some way.

[04:07:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: I don't look forward to that meeting but it's essentially—we're not picking and choosing tonight. We're, we're basically gathering additional information.

[04:07:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: But while you're at the mic, if you could clarify the, the other part of it, the ordinance. Because you said some things and I'm trying to figure out where you're—where you want to deviate from the staff recommendation. Because I heard the—I heard Councilmember Hicks's um, ideas for how we can streamline things, I'm fine with those. To give you an example of something that I'm extremely uncomfortable with, you said that we should not be the final arbiters of what a historic district is and we have local control being stripped away from us by the day and I'm not willing to give that up. And just because the consultant we hired says we aren't the final—I, you know, we might hire the wrong consultant for this—Page & Turnbull is wonderful by the way—but we might um, you know, I think we should be the ultimate decision makers of what isn't, isn't historic in our city.

[04:08:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I um, I'll clarify the motion. So it includes the pain and suffering that you wish to inflict on us. Plus updates to the development review process for historic resources as recommended by staff. There were no adjustments because the seconder declined to include the suggestions from Councilmember Hicks. And then it was the treatment of properties uh, sorry, um, so I think you weren't asking about the Mills Act stuff. Um, the uh, staff recommendations for process updates related to nominations, listing, and delisting of historic resources. Requesting options uh, from City staff for the historic district um, uh, creation.

[04:08:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I would be un—so I'm not providing a particular process request. I would share I am uncomfortable with the notion that the Council could approve a historic district potentially over the objection of many property owners, even when it's wildly inconsistent with our own established criteria. So I don't like that. You're welcome to do that. Good luck with that, friends. But that—so that's what I'm suggesting is staff should come back with some options to provide safeguards to ensure, you know, uh, proper noticing and participation from property owners. And my preference would be an option that says, look, if we're—if we deviate so substantially from our own criteria, it's really not appropriate to take it to the Council for consideration.

[04:09:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think I understand your sentiment. I'm struggling to think of a world where that would happen. If your um, if your concern is that someone could draw a historic district in a corner of Mountain View that doesn't have a lot of historic resources, then I would be fine directing staff to say, you know, is it—would it be reasonable for us to limit the application for historic districts to areas where there are concentrations of historic resources? That would be one thing. But I, I just don't—I don't want to limit our authority. I appreciate the sentiment, but I just don't think that we need to limit our—

[04:10:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: My suggestion is that, you know, the recommendation is—is going to um—staff has heard all of our concerns and perhaps we can leave it to staff when they bring it back to us to kind of take into account the nuances that you brought up, um, Councilmember Ramirez. I don't—since tonight is not a final action, I don't want to deviate too much into that yet. Um, if that's if that's all right. Because I think we don't know—I'd love to hear what the criteria might be for—before we get into that. And so just trying to bring it back to a little bit of a higher level. I think like the, the general recommendation with some additional information that they can bring back and perhaps that's something that they can look into. Just looking at staff. Um, I don't—if that's okay with you?

[04:11:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: I agree with you. So I, I, I—I don't. But I understand the concern. Yeah, I think the, the—what we heard today is staff is—has preliminary ideas for this, right? There were uh, questions about the process, right? Is there a technical expert who is consulted, right? And I think we have some ideas but there is no defined process. That makes me nervous. So I'm hoping that there, there are options provided to the Council and then we can deliberate once we have all of the information, you know, whatever makes the most sense to ensure, you know, substantial participation from the impacted property owners and noticing. Um, and it's, you know, I think uh, the Vice Mayor made an interesting um, uh, analogy to the, the gatekeeper process, right? Certainly we, we, we have some discretion but staff does not take every application to Council, right? Because within their, within the, you know, within our regulatory framework, there are clear standards, right? So it's not like someone wants to build a 30-story skyscraper in North Bayshore. Well, the Council is the final arbiter so it has to go to us. It never goes to us because it's a stupid idea. So I want to make sure that we don't adhere—

[04:12:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: We don't use the s-word. It's ridiculous, I guess. Thank you. Was—if I can just—the um, was there anything else that you were suggesting? I did ask the Mills Act question because you mentioned the, the staff slide says the EPC supported staff's recommendation for four years and three years.

[04:12:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No. That was the EPC recommended four years plus three years, right? That was not the staff's recommendation.

[04:12:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: Which was support staff recommendation for four years, three years. I guess it doesn't matter, right? I mean so if—But four, three is fine. Were there any other changes to the Mills Act piece?

[04:12:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No. Okay.

[04:13:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: And is there any other things in your motion that deviate from the staff recommendation?

[04:13:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Mayor, if I can read back what I've captured so far?

[04:13:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:13:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Wonderful. Great. Thank you. City Clerk, Kwok-Kweiser? Yes.

[03:54:20] City Staff: Here's what I've got. So Councilmember Ramirez's motion uh, supports the staff recommendations for the treatment of the five ineligible properties including the four years to apply for a permit plus three years to complete the improvements. Um, supports the development review updates. Supports the nomination, listing, and delisting uh, processes and criteria but return with additional options on the district process uh, including assessment of um, a process that does not require districts to come to Council if an expert says it should not be a district. And with a high touch engagement process to those affected in the proposed district.

[03:55:08] City Staff: Plus uh, Councilmember Hicks's streamlining points which include streamlining rear additions and those uh, that are not significant changes visible from the front. And also evaluating making accessory dwelling units easier uh, on historic sites. And then I think potentially also adding um, breaking out into a matrix form uh, as proposed by uh, Councilmember um, Clark. Uh, the matrix of the property characteristics of already eligible for state and national listing and those that might be a design only or a design plus other characteristic as an informational presentation to give Council options about which sites to advance onto the register and which ones maybe uh, fall off the list at that point.

[04:15:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: And owner sentiment.

[04:15:12] City Staff: And uh, the outreach to the owners to obtain their sentiment.

[04:15:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Can we just clarify the friendly amendment from Councilmember Hicks? I was under the impression that Councilmember McAllister did not accept the ADU portion only, correct? Or both?

[04:15:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so the front—You're fine with, but not the ADU.

[04:15:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. So are you going to withdraw your second or what are we doing?

[04:15:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I, I—I like Councilmember Hicks's recommendations.

[04:15:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. All right. taking you out of the queue. Councilmember Hicks and then Councilmember McAllister.

[04:16:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That was my point. It was the, the ADU. I actually have one, one other thing. I'm wondering about the nature of—I like that you, that Councilmember Clark wants to break out why properties are being suggested whether it's person, place, or event. But I believe that the events in, in Mountain View may be things like longest running commer—like what kind of—I don't know the, for me the strength of them is often more important than uh, than the—I like breaking it out and describing more clarity, but I think something could be just very—the design could be very outstanding. Maybe you'd give it two pluses for that. You're not saying that you need two out of three of these or something?

[04:17:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Absolutely not. I just want to know which ones are on there because of the design so that we can take a deeper dive into it. And if it's a truly like historic design that we want to preserve, then I'm fine with voting to keep something on the register solely for design.

[04:17:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. More clarity.

[04:17:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just want to know which are on there.

[04:17:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, and if there's more of a description who the person is, what the event is. Okay, great.

[04:17:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember McAllister.

[04:17:38] Councilmember John McAlister: So this is for the Acting Attorney, City Attorney. So my question is if I'm only asking them to focus on the list, completing the list, we're not picking properties, we're just picking the finishing that, the list for that area. Why would people have to recuse themselves because we're not—we're just saying complete the list in this area and then we'll keep going.

[04:18:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: I believe Councilmember McAllister, we have two Councilmembers who have uh, personal residences that are within 1,000 feet of at least some of the properties that are eligible for list inclusion. And so they would have to recuse themselves from that discussion right now.

[04:18:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Even though we're asking them to go—so the like the first example when we put up there those all those units, even though we were just saying complete the list, they could not vote on that particular—

[04:18:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: Because completing the list involves making a decision about one or

• ← Previous
• Next →