October 1, 2025 Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:05:33] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of October 1st, 2025. I will call the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio and video presentations can no longer be shared from the lectern.

[00:05:54] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a meeting should be directed to EPC@mountainview.gov by 4:30 PM on the meeting date. Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item.

[00:06:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Anyone wishing to address the EPC in person must complete a yellow speaker card. Please indicate the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak.

[00:06:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC Clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on. Instructions for addressing the Commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Now I will ask the EPC Clerk to proceed with the roll call.

[00:06:48] EPC Clerk: Thank you. Commissioner Pham?

[00:06:51] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:06:52] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Donahue?

[00:06:54] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:06:55] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Nuñez?

[00:06:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:06:57] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:06:59] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:07:00] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Yin?

[00:07:02] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:07:03] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:07:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:07:05] EPC Clerk: Six commissioners present with the exception of Chair Gutierrez, who is absent.

[00:07:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Okay, we will now proceed to Item 3.1, Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 4th, 2024. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk.

[00:07:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Miss Clerk, do we have any speakers lined up in the Zoom queue or in person?

[00:07:52] EPC Clerk: No speakers online or in person.

[00:07:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Sounds good. Seeing no speakers, we will proceed to Commission action. Do we have a motion on the floor to approve the Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 4th, 2024?

[00:08:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Any motions? I think Commissioner Cranston, are you looking to speak on these contentious minutes?

[00:08:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm happy to make a motion, but the button's not on for me to make a motion, so I will verbally say I will move that we approve the minutes.

[00:08:51] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And I will second it.

[00:08:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. Okay. Looks like we have a motion from Commissioner Cranston and a second from Commissioner Yin. We will take this to a vote.

[00:10:28] EPC Clerk: Six commissioners yea, with one absent.

[00:10:37] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. Having passed that, we're moving on to Item Number 4, Oral Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda.

[00:10:51] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Commission from acting on non-agenda items. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk.

[00:11:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on non-agenda items, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Miss Clerk, do we have any speakers in the Zoom queue or in person?

[00:11:31] EPC Clerk: No speakers online or in person on this item.

[00:11:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Seeing no speakers, we will close Item 4. And we will now proceed to Item 5.1, Historic Preservation Ordinance Update and Historic Register Update.

[00:11:49] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We will take this item through a special deliberation process due to commissioner conflicts of interest. First, we will have a staff presentation, then public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will ask general questions, then discuss individual topics, including any questions about those topics.

[00:12:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And before that, I'm just going to double check in with our staff about the order in which recusals need to take place. Or we allowed to proceed with the presentation?

[00:12:22] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, you can proceed with the presentation.

[00:12:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. We will now proceed with the presentation, then public comment.

[00:12:37] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Good evening, Vice Chair Nuñez and Commission. This item is regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register. My name is Ela Karapetian, I'm the project manager and I'm joined tonight by Eric Anderson, the Planning Manager. The city has had a Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register since 2004.

[00:12:58] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: 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 the screen shows an overview of the project process.

[00:13:17] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: This project started in 2022 and has three major deliverables: a historic context statement, an intensive survey of properties that may be eligible for listing, and lastly, an update to the ordinance. The register and ordinance are expected to be adopted by 2026.

[00:13:38] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: A City Council meeting was held in 2023 to clarify the project goals and scope. Project goals were identified as: reflect preservation priorities, provide clarity about historic status, streamline the process, provide incentives, and create local district criteria for the downtown district.

[00:13:59] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: In addition, City Council directed staff to evaluate and conduct an intensive survey for the following properties: all properties currently listed on MV Register, California, or National Registers; all properties within Area H of downtown precise plan; single-family properties that were previously identified as eligible for California or National Register or those located in precise plan areas; and commercial, institutional, civic, and multifamily properties.

[00:14:35] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: A number of virtual, hybrid, and in-person outreach events have been held regarding this project to hear from the community about the project goals as well as to inform them about the key process issues and also the historic context statement. 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 hear feedback on this process improvement.

[00:15:05] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The first main topic for this meeting is regarding resource eligibility. Eligibility of historic resources is composed of two different types of analysis: significance criteria and integrity thresholds. The city's ordinance currently includes significant criteria that are similar to those established at the state and national levels.

[00:15:32] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Integrity thresholds are focused on seven characteristics including location, design, settings, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The city does not currently have integrity thresholds, though other cities have them, as well as the state and national review processes.

[00:15:54] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The project team has conducted an intensive survey of these properties as directed by City Council. Based on the significance criteria and integrity thresholds, a draft list of 100 privately owned properties have been identified as eligible for listing in the local register. These properties are mostly clustered in Old Mountain View and Shoreline West neighborhoods, and more than half of them are single-family houses.

[00:16:24] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Staff have the following recommendations regarding the eligibility and draft list of resources: continue to utilize the city's significance criteria, adopt integrity thresholds consistent with state and national historic preservation best practices, and include the draft list of eligible properties in the Mountain View Register.

[00:16:49] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: While most of these properties currently on the register are still eligible, five may not be eligible if integrity thresholds are applied. If these properties remain on the register, future review of application at these sites could be challenging. Staff recommends not immediately removing them from the register to allow property owners to adjust.

[00:17:14] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The staff recommendation is to develop a process where the property owners have an opportunity to improve their integrity within five years before being removed from the Mountain View Register. The property owners need to submit an application with analysis showing that the improvements would return sufficient integrity to be eligible for continued listing on the MV Register.

[00:17:38] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: And if they have not met the deadline, they would be automatically removed from the Mountain View Register and any Mills Act contracts would be canceled. Staff recommends that this balanced approach to minimize impacts to individual property owners from loss of any incentives associated with their properties, such as Mills Act.

[00:18:02] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The next topic is regarding nomination, listing, and delisting processes in the code. Currently, nomination of a property may be carried out either by the property owner or by City Council. If City Council nominates a property, the following steps will only be carried out with approval from the property owner.

[00:18:24] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Then there is a staff review process and after that formal listing action. Once the materials have been reviewed, the formal action to list a property on MV Register requires public hearings before both the ZA and City Council. The current code also identifies one formal delisting process: the property owner may opt off on the fifth anniversary of their designation, and there is going to be no public process or formal findings that must be met for this action.

[00:18:57] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: There are several limitations to this process to add or remove properties from the Mountain View Register. Opt-off process is not transparent to the public and may not eliminate obligations. National and/or California Register properties not automatically included on MV Register.

[00:19:19] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: California/National Register eligibility determined without property owner knowledge. And there is no process for nomination of local historic districts and no process for delisting a property.

[00:19:33] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The following are the staff recommendation for nomination, listing, and removal processes in the code. First, remove the owner opt-off provision and the required owner approval within the City 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.

[00:19:58] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Create a process for neighborhoods and districts to nominate themselves subject to City Council approval. List properties on MV Register if an official determination of eligibility is made by the California Office of Historic Preservation or the National Park Services. Provide delisting procedures that consider findings such as if there is an overriding consideration through CEQA or reassessment of eligibility through further analysis.

[00:20:29] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The next topic is regarding the development review process. The ordinance currently have three levels of development review for projects that would alter a historic resource listed in the MV Register or eligible for listing in California or National Registers. There's no additional planning permits for various improvements that have limited potential to affect the character-defining features of a historic resource.

[00:20:56] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The ZA reviews HP permits applications for alterations to properties on the MV Register if the property is not eligible for California/State registers. And the City Council reviews HP permits applications for alterations to the properties that are eligible for listing on California or National Register.

[00:21:20] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Staff has identified several limitations with the current ordinance. Limited list of exempt alterations and not objective. No differentiation between major and minor projects. Projects on properties eligible for state and national required to go to City Council for review and approval.

[00:21:42] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: And there is no clear process for demolition or other modifications that impact the integrity or eligibility of the resource. And there is no enforcement provisions at this time.

[00:21:53] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The following are staff recommendation regarding the development review process: clarify and adopt a comprehensive list of exempt alteration, define minor alterations, define major alterations, create a process for delisting a property from MV Register, and incorporate enforcement measures.

[00:22:14] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: The City Council meeting is tentatively scheduled to review these items on December 9, 2025. Once the City Council provides direction, staff will prepare a draft ordinance and the project will return to City Council for final action in Q2 2026. In addition, the project team is continuing to work on the following items and will provide an update when the project returns to EPC following City Council direction.

[00:22:48] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Due to commissioner conflict of interest, staff recommends this deliberation process: first public comments, then general questions from the Commission, then the EPC would ask questions and deliberate on individual topics starting with the eligibility criteria. Individual votes may be held on each of the topics, and finally, the Chair would provide a summary of the EPC recommendation.

[00:23:18] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: In conclusion, staff is requesting that EPC make a recommendation to City Council on the draft list of properties eligible for the MV Register of Historic Resources and draft strategies for ordinance updates and the development review process for historic structures. We are happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[00:23:42] Project Manager Ela Karapetian: Also, we have Christian Murdock, the Community Development Director, and Amber Blizinski, and members of our consulting Page & Turnbull here to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

[00:24:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. We will proceed with public comment. If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC Clerk. If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone having submitted a yellow speaker card or on the Zoom attendee list?

[00:24:41] EPC Clerk: We have two speakers on Zoom, uh, three. Four, sorry. We'll start with Louise Katz followed by Robert Cox. Louise, you should be able to speak now.

[00:24:59] Louise Katz: Thank you very much, members of the EPC. I participated in some of the meetings that were discussed regarding the city outreach, and I wanted to bring up a very specific topic that I think is relevant and is of great concern. I realized that you mentioned that at some point in time in the future, there would be a discussion of incentives.

[00:25:24] Louise Katz: Incentives, I'm not sure exactly incentives for what. But I'm very concerned that there seems to be a problem that we have a great disconnect between the issues of conservation and preservation, as if simply putting down all these words on paper is actually going to give us the result that we want.

[00:25:42] Louise Katz: An example being the Rogers building that you talked about, the Mills Act, and I think perhaps the Scarpa Meat Market, is that these buildings have been altered to the point where they don't meet the various criteria that's being used. But at some of the meetings, there was a discussion with our consultants as to why is the city not creating a program to assist property owners to restore their buildings so that they would be historic again and they would qualify.

[00:26:52] Louise Katz: Because one of the problems is that if we start taking buildings here and there on Castro Street and allowing them to be destroyed because they're not quote-unquote historic during this snapshot in time where we're doing this ordinance, then basically we lose the chance, the one chance, to actually keep our street integrity intact.

[00:27:14] Louise Katz: So the consultants said, 'Oh, we provide resources and assistance all the time to our clients.' In other words, no property owner can just hire a contractor and say, go to Home Depot and go get some 19th-century windows to put back in my building. So that seems to be missing from this kind of evaluation.

[00:28:22] Louise Katz: And if we're not going to discuss incentives until way far into the future, as the city, as the state laws kind of bear down on our historic buildings and our limited ability to preserve them, I think we're missing a critical opportunity to tell owners of buildings, whether family homes or Downtown Castro Street, to actually, that the city has a program to help you find the resources to figure out how to make your old building up to new codes to preserve the streetscape and the integrity of our city streets, our historic streets.

[00:29:02] Louise Katz: So that's the one thing I would hope the EPC can recognize, that our consultants can do and they do do, but our system is such that nobody is in charge it seems and nobody is asking them to do it. Even though this was part of a meeting. And the other thing I wanted to mention very quickly...

[00:29:17] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Miss Katz. Your time is up. We really appreciate your comment. We will proceed to the next speaker.

[00:29:26] EPC Clerk: Next we have Robert Cox followed by Kenneth Sukahara. Robert, you should be able to speak now.

[00:29:35] Robert Cox: Okay, can you hear me?

[00:29:38] EPC Clerk: Yes.

[00:29:38] Robert Cox: Vice Chair Nuñez and members of the EPC, thanks for the opportunity to speak for Livable Mountain View on historic preservation ordinance and the historic register update. While we do support most of the recommendations in the staff report, we do differ on two key points, and we ask you to consider our perspective carefully as you deliberate this item.

[00:29:57] Robert Cox: We support the establishment of a formal historic district, which would include the downtown precise plan District H, called in the document Historic Retail District, and buildings with similar businesses on Villa and West Dana Street. This area tells a specific story of the commercial growth of Mountain View around the Southern Pacific Railroad established in 1864, and deserves recognition and formal status.

[00:30:27] Robert Cox: Formal status is essential because current and pending state legislation provides no protections at all for historic properties and districts that are not designated such formally by the local government. We also do not support delisting five properties described as ineligible properties on pages 13 to 15 of the staff report, at least not right now.

[00:30:49] Robert Cox: The staff report suggests that architectural integrity is the overriding consideration when evaluating the historic authenticity of a building. We believe the events which took place at the site and the building's context also matter. Furthermore, the Rogers building at 124 to 156 Castro Street, which served as the city's first post office, is already under a Mills Act grant.

[00:31:12] Robert Cox: Voiding out the grant could be viewed as a taking, subjecting the city to lawsuits. We urge deeper evaluation of the buildings and consequences of voiding out Mills Act grants before taking the action recommended in the staff report on these five properties. Thank you for listening to our concerns. I yield my time.

[00:31:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Cox.

[00:31:37] EPC Clerk: Next we have Kenneth Sukahara followed by Nancy Adelster. Kenneth, you should be able to talk now.

[00:31:46] Kenneth Sukahara: Right, thank you. Thank you to the EPC and the staff members who put together this report. I'm speaking on behalf of the Mountain View Buddhist Temple, which is one of the properties that are designated to be on this list.

[00:32:05] Kenneth Sukahara: The property consists of a campus setting with four or five buildings on it, all of different vintage. I think the property that's been listed is primarily the main temple building for its maybe historical significance of a house of worship. But that being the case, questions that come up in our analysis is whether or not one building or all five buildings should be designated on these lists when in fact some may be much newer than the 50-year threshold and or the historical significance.

[00:32:45] Kenneth Sukahara: I think that's one big question. The second thing also is the removal, the potential removal from the registry. We're reading various sections of the potential code, I don't know if this is a current or not, but it says within six months of adoption of the ordinance, we could submit a request in writing to be removed.

[00:33:09] Kenneth Sukahara: We have probably less interest in being on the registry and would like to control our own future here. And yet it says that the director shall determine whether the request of removal is in compliance. Why is it up to the director to make sure if whether or not the ownership can delist their property or not?

[00:33:33] Kenneth Sukahara: It should be truly in the owner's property hands, is what I think hasn't been really truly detailed in here. And we brought it up two times now in both of the public hearings that I've gone and attended. That is I think the main two items that we want to state here to the EPC. Thank you.

[00:33:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[00:34:01] EPC Clerk: Next speaker is Nancy Adelster.

[00:34:08] Nancy Adelster: Hi, can you hear me?

[00:34:10] EPC Clerk: Yes, we can.

[00:34:11] Nancy Adelster: Okay. I never get that right. So thank you for hearing us this evening. I would like to echo Louise and Robert's thoughts that, and I would like to encourage you to establish a formal historic district in downtown.

[00:34:28] Nancy Adelster: I also think it's a mistake to delist the five properties in the staff report without further, you know, and broader and more careful consideration and analysis. So I truly hope that you will reconsider, reconsider them and give them a chance. That's the bulk of what I had to say. Thank you.

[00:34:59] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[00:35:02] EPC Clerk: There are no further speakers online or in person.

[00:35:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. So we will proceed to EPC questions and discussion. Are there any general questions regarding this topic from the EPC? Questions focused on individual recommendations should be held until later in the meeting. Commissioner Pham?

[00:35:32] Commissioner Tina Pham: Hi, I had a few questions. First question, I'm generally curious to see what other cities do for their historic preservation ordinances or programs, especially our neighbors.

[00:35:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, and thank you for providing this question ahead of time. Our consultant, Ms. Dikas is here with Page & Turnbull and can I think start with that and then if we have anything to add we will.

[00:36:02] Consultant Christina Dikas: Hello, good evening. Christina Dikas from Page & Turnbull. The answer to that, and we looked at about 16 other cities throughout the state, including some that are here locally, for a few different comparative items for some of the recommendations that we're looking at, and every city is a little bit different and tailored to their city.

[00:36:27] Consultant Christina Dikas: So it's not really an easy answer. In general, at a high level, every historic preservation ordinance includes a process for nomination and designation to the local inventory or register, some kind of process of review of projects for properties that are on the register, and then some benefits or incentives for properties to be, for owners of properties who are on the register.

[00:37:05] Consultant Christina Dikas: Whether those are some tax benefits through the Mills Act, which Mountain View has, not every city has that program, or leniencies with different permit processes and other things like that. So it's a bit of a difficult question to answer without getting into some of the specifics of each of those items, but we have done a lot of comparative study for this.

[00:37:33] Commissioner Tina Pham: What about just Mountain View's neighbors? Any specific information you can share about our direct neighbors?

[00:37:41] Consultant Christina Dikas: Palo Alto is one of the cities that we looked at, and they have a different kind of local register that has four different tiers, which is complex. So here in Mountain View, you already have criteria that are aligned with the National Register and the California Register, and we recommend keeping that.

[00:38:08] Consultant Christina Dikas: They have a number of incentives, of which I can't remember all of them off the top of my head, but they include transfer of development rights for downtown historic properties and I think something with flag lots that have some leniency. But Mountain View already has a number of similar kinds of incentives and then we're exploring other ones and incentives that would be most of interest and of benefit to the members of the community in Mountain View.

[00:38:42] Consultant Christina Dikas: I know that's not very specific.

[00:38:44] Commissioner Tina Pham: That was very helpful though. I wanted to switch to a different question. I've heard discussion of eight buildings on Castro mentioned on the Council meeting in December 2023. Can you give an update on those buildings?

[00:39:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'll summarize them. There were eight properties that were seen as maybe potentially eligible for national listing. Page & Turnbull looked into them and found five of them that actually, in their analysis, met the criteria for national listing.

[00:39:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So three of them were the Ames building, 169-175 Castro, that was one that was probably not enough integrity to qualify for national listing. The 275 to 277 Castro and 292 Castro, probably not enough integrity to qualify for national listing.

[00:39:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: But the remaining five were the Weilheimer Store, 124 to 126 Castro; 191 Castro, the Mockbee building, that's the one with Eureka in it; 194 Castro, the Jurian building, that's the one with Agave in it; 201 Castro, that's the Red Rock building; and 301 Castro, that's the one-story building that used to have the bookstore, now it has a flower shop.

[00:40:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And those properties, we've actually completed our draft nomination packages and we are planning on submitting them to the National Park Service later this year or early next year.

[00:40:40] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, thanks for that update. Just a few more questions. For the five ineligible properties mentioned in the staff report, can you provide some discussion regarding how a property owner could improve their integrity within the next five years, as recommended as the five-year period to keep some of their benefits?

[00:41:05] Commissioner Tina Pham: For example, are there known resources, connections with architects or information that can be shared with these property owners regarding how to restore their buildings?

[00:41:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we could provide, and we are working on a list of architects and consultants that are qualified for the city, and so that could be a resource that people could use to find architects or qualified architectural historians to help them in this process.

[00:41:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Ultimately, they would need to hire contractors and architects and everything to study the old photographs, to identify materials and modifications to the building that would kind of restore how the building looked per those old photographs, especially oriented to visible public rights of way.

[00:42:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And then those modifications would have to be reviewed by somebody like Page & Turnbull to determine whether those modifications then meet the criteria for integrity for continued eligibility. Then they would need to actually construct those improvements.

[00:42:45] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, so it sounds like the process, if they were interested, they would be able to get some sort of information feedback before they would have to commit to actually doing the construction.

[00:42:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh absolutely. Yeah, no, we would not go through a process of forcing them to do something that then ultimately doesn't meet the eligibility. Yes.

[00:43:08] Commissioner Tina Pham: Got it. My last question has to do with historic marker program. Any update on that?

[00:43:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that's not a formal part of the ordinance. It is perhaps an implementation item coming out of this project, and we can identify some next steps to the City Council once we adopt this ordinance and register.

[00:43:36] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. Thank you.

[00:43:39] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Commissioner Yin.

[00:43:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. I think Commissioner Pham asked a couple of my questions and answered them. But tagging on to one of hers regarding bringing some of the historic homes back to their historic integrity. If they have the results of the process that you've already gone through in evaluating them and you guys are providing a resource list for them to take action if they so choose, is there also something in local funding that allows them to kind of give them a little boost to get them there if that's something, you know, Council would...

[00:44:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We don't have any funding sources identified. I will note that part of the purpose of Mills Act contracts is to provide relief to property owners for improvements like this. Director Murdock or Assistant Director Blizinski, I don't know if you could talk a little bit about the process for identifying funding sources or if that is even realistic.

[00:44:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. As Eric mentioned, that would require an authorization of funding from the City Council as part of the budget process. It occurs from time to time where there are public priorities and Council is able to resource them. I don't have an ability to sort of add a likelihood or percentage to that occurring in this instance.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Our interest is to make these property owners aware of the resources that are already available to them and also the opportunity to influence the City Council for potentially additional opportunities and resources that the City Council could provide.

Segment 1

[00:45:15] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Typically these kinds of improvements are owner-funded and would likely to continue to remain owner-funded. And the Mills Act contracts, depending on an individual tax basis on a property, can provide pretty sizable amounts of indirect fiscal support for maintenance, preservation, restoration, and so forth.

Segment 2

[00:45:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you. Um, just uh, let's see I have another question. Uh, regarding the historic districts, there wasn't a ton on how that process moves forward and what the difference is because if you're talking about a district that's very different than a property and a a solid structure there. So I don't know if it's possible to sort of illuminate what that looks like.

Segment 1

[00:45:33] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. And I would assume that those who already have a Mills Act contract know those benefits. But for the ones that do not, are they then given and are they aware of the benefits that they could reap if they were to move forward in restoring the historic integrity of their properties?

Segment 2

[00:45:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. The staff report uh does include some potential direction for how districts could be nominated and listed. So I the staff report identifies a threshold for number of property owners that would need to be on an application. Uh in addition, there would need to be uh we we have yet to establish a threshold for um for number of contributing properties within a district. Typically, I believe that it's it's on the order of two-thirds, so you set up a boundary and as as long as as, you know, two-thirds or 75% of the properties in that boundary can be considered contributing to the um to the uh significant time period and and significance criteria for that district, uh then it would qualify as a historic district.

Segment 1

[00:45:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we did reach out to all five of the property owners. We've so far only had direct correspondence with one of them. It is certainly...

Segment 2

[00:46:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um and then there would need to be a formal listing process by the City Council, and I believe the staff report mentions a a ballot measure, or not a ballot measure, but a ballot uh to be mailed to properties that would be affected, just to see what the comment are comments are from those properties um uh before Council deliberation. Ultimately, we believe it should be up to the City Council whether uh a district is formally created or not. Um and then the ongoing development review of a district would focus on the contributing properties, and those contributing properties would be treated as individually historic properties for the purpose of development review.

[00:47:39] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. And uh just to clarify, um when you're looking at a historic district, in the staff report it mentioned sort of a time period, but the time period alone doesn't always dictate um the arc of categorizing the district as historic. There are other factors that can go into it other than just time period, correct? Or is time period the sole determination, and I think I think I read somewhere, I'm sorry I don't have it underlined exactly, but it said you could look at it not necessarily from X year to Y year, but it could extend further in time to something like uh, I didn't give an actual year, but said into the 20th century.

[00:48:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So um typically, and there are exceptions to this, but but typically 50 years is the age at which um any structure or resource is evaluated for historic significance. Uh there there, like I said, there are exceptions uh for uh properties kind of approaching that threshold as well as um kind of special case properties. But typically 50 years is is a good rule of thumb. So that means that um uh contributing properties to a historic district would generally need to be at least about 50 years old.

[00:49:15] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you.

[00:49:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have a couple of questions that pertain to cost and money. And the first pertains to the Mills Act, which admittedly is something I don't know a whole heck of a lot about. And we've already heard a little bit from the Director that there's a lot of variation I think in in what you can get from a bit of... Sort of a two-part question about Mills Act. One, if you could tell us a little bit more about what how how the incentive is determined and and how big of an incentive are we talking about? I understand it's going to depend on the value of the property, but is it like 2% of the... How do they decide?

[00:50:07] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Hi, Amber Bluzinski, Assistant Community Development Director. Um so the percentage um that they get off of their uh tax bill, um I think that's based on valuation, but I may not I'm I'm not an expert on that particular piece. However, um it is typically high and maybe Christine actually knows, but I think it's higher than it's it's higher than 2%. Um but it I think one of the things hasn't been mentioned about the Mills Act yet is that it's um a program that's supposed to uh they're, you know, the homeowner is receiving a benefit in that tax break and then what they're doing is providing the city with um a list of improvements that they're going to make over that time period.

[00:50:49] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So the Mills Act contract gets renewed every 10 years, and um it's automatically renewed unless, you know, the the jurisdiction does something about it or the homeowner does something about it. And within that those 10-year time periods, they're supposed to provide us with information on the improvements that they're also going to make. So I do want to mention that because I think it's important. You're not just getting the tax break. You're also you're getting the tax break in order to improve to maintain the historical integrity of the house.

[00:51:22] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So if no further improvements are made, do you get the rebate anymore? Or does it go away?

[00:51:26] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: You would. Um there it's not going to go away unless, you know, either party, you know, um uh you know gets rid of that contract, but um you know if if cities are supposed to put forth a good faith effort in like getting the information from the property owner that they're on the thing the projects like they're going to take on in the next 10 years. And so it it doesn't have to be substantial if the house is in like immaculate condition, but these are older homes so they're typically not and there's typically work there's typically a lot of projects that have to happen and they don't all have to happen in 10 years so you kind of break them up.

[00:52:04] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And those rebates are moneys that are not coming to the city.

[00:52:09] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Um correct. That's a it's a property tax uh cred like um deduc... what is the right word? Decrease.

[00:52:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: A decrease. Do you know how much it costs the city per year? Even ballpark it. I'm just curious.

[00:52:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: No, I don't think we have that cumulative data. I think we do have an example where it's upwards of $40,000 for one property that submitted a public comment letter. So it can be quite sizable particularly if the property is newer and potentially has a much higher assessed value. Um or should was purchased more recently I should clarify.

[00:52:40] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: How many Mills Act contracts do does the city have outstanding right now?

[00:52:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh we have the list. We'll we'll get that information for you as soon as we can. Yeah, uh just um, you know, the uh... I believe there was a a uh comment uh in the comment packages from the um 660 Mariposa or 336 Mariposa Avenue owners uh that said losing the Mills Act contract would increase their cost of home ownership by 35 to 40%. So their their Mills Act contract is very significant.

[00:53:29] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yikes. Okay. Well, the the reason why I ask, and it's probably obvious, that um I'm very curious about the adequacy of the incentives, um because I would imagine most property owners would want to use it if the incentives were strong, and I I don't get the impression that it's heavily heavily utilized amongst all the registered uh houses uh properties that we have here. So I think to me that's actually really important if the incentives aren't adequate to get people to do it and people are trying really hard to be de-listed, that tells us something important that we don't quite have our incentive structure built right. The um other question that I wanted to ask also pertaining to cost, and it's really just uh these the analyses that we do or that we contract out for for these houses, say you were going to do an integrity analysis of the Rogers building or something like that, ballpark, how long does that take and how much does it cost? Is it quick and easy, you can do it for 500 bucks in a day? Does it take three weeks? Does it cost 10,000 bucks? These analyses I would imagine could be expensive, so I'm very curious to know what they're costing the city.

[00:54:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, the the city doesn't typically pay for them on a project-by-project basis. Uh we do um uh have um uh a, you know, through the CEQA process, we have a kind of a peer review uh of what's submitted and then, you know, the the analysis of, for example, you know, um proposed modifications, would they impact the resource. Uh you know as part of a an overall CEQA review process, uh yeah that's that's, you know, I I think on the order of $10,000, $10 to $15,000 as part of a CEQA review process. Um of course we have our consultant with Page & Turnbull here who probably knows more about how much it might cost like a single-family homeowner to do an analysis of their property, which is something that the city wouldn't um be involved in.

[00:55:35] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So it's largely a cost borne by the property owners.

[00:55:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh well like I said, there are there are several steps to the process. There's the initial evaluation, which is something that the city is trying to take care of now on behalf of a lot of the prop these prop all of these properties, right? We have conducted this analysis of, you know, almost 200 properties, potentially eligible properties across the city. Uh and so that's analysis now that property property owners don't have to bear. In the future though, um we did, you know, we did not study every single-family home in the city, that was Council direction. So in the future, there may be single-family homes who may want to nominate themselves to the register, and they would need to prepare analysis like what the city did for commercial properties in order to do so. Um I don't have a sense of how much that costs. Another but but we can ask um Ms. Dikas. Um I will say that there are other steps in the process. If you are trying to do a modification to a structure, then you will need to analyze those modifications to see whether they will impact those character-defining features and that's an additional analysis that has to happen. Typically, that analysis is also prepared by the by a project applicant and it's peer-reviewed by the city as part of like a California Environmental Quality Act process. Um so we do have a number for how many Mills Act contracts we have?

[00:57:10] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So we have about like 20 which is not...

[00:57:15] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: 20 out of... we have what is it 46?

[00:57:17] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: 46 on the register right now. So a little less than half. Yeah. Exactly.

[00:57:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um and then Ms. Dikas if you want to talk a little bit about costs like how much it costs to do one of these studies.

[00:57:30] Consultant Christina Dikas: Uh so are we we're talking about like a project analysis if somebody has a project and we're analyzing it for potential compatibility or impacts?

[00:57:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um maybe first just like a DPR form...

[00:57:40] Consultant Christina Dikas: Okay. So first with a historic evaluation, which is um what we have done for this historic resources survey uh where we conduct uh historic research on the property and evaluate it using the criteria for the National, California, and Mountain View registers. Um I would say that runs, it kind of depends on the consultant, but it could be anywhere between about $3,000 and six or $7,000 um depending on the consultant and the complexity of the property. Uh you know if you have one single-family house versus maybe a property with multiple buildings on it or some other kind of complexity. Uh and then um I think as Eric was talking about, we do a project analysis if somebody has a historic resource. Uh we use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation typically. This is um National Park Service uh federal guidance on how to analyze a proposed project for its um sensitivity to the historic building. Um and this kind of analysis uh often runs um I would say between $3,000 and $5,000 uh for for one of those. Um and the conclusion is that the the design of the project uh you know whether it balances the um the preservation and retention of important historic features while also making changes, that's typically what we're looking at. So how's that balance? Um are you able to retain enough integrity for that property to remain listed uh eligible for its listing on the register. Um and if not then um you know what are the potential project improvement measures that you might be able to make to to get there. And that's a lot of what the uh consultants like us um undertake.

[00:59:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And I'll just say my quote is probably biased towards long-range planning projects which are larger in geography and multiple multiple sites.

[00:59:45] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

[00:59:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I was hoping more of my questions would be asked by other people before they got to me. Um but we get made a small dent. Um so on Mills Act. Um you said something like $40,000 as the ex as a contract. Is the expect expectation that they're going to put $40,000 back into the property? If they if they the savings on their taxes is $40,000, does that mean they have to put that much in? Or what is what's the nature of the contract?

[01:00:25] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So my experience um not in Mountain View but in other cities um has been that it is a it's not typically the exact amount. Um and you don't actually usually get all the valuation information because that can vary based on their contractor or who's doing this work. So you're typically looking for reasonable projects that they are, you know, going to undertake in that 10-year period that um you know would enhance the integrity of the house or maintain the integrity of the house. Um so there's no like there's no exact answer, it's not in the Mills Act what exactly that looks like. I'm sure there's some cities that maybe do look for, you know, exact valuations with if they're very serious about historic preservation. Um I I don't think that that has not been the case in Mountain View and it hasn't been the case in some of the cities that I've worked for that um have robust you know historic uh ordinances.

[01:01:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Then the other thing you said is at the end of the 10 years, it's kind of automatic and are they... so if at the end of the 10 years they didn't meet the things that they set out to do, it's still automatically renewed?

[01:01:30] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Uh that would be a s... I mean that, you know, I I don't know of any I I've never worked for a jurisdiction that has just been like, oh you didn't do it so you're you're out, you know, we're canceling this contract. Um I've I one of the jurisdictions I worked for um in Marin, we would work with the applicant to either, you know, uh put those items on their next 10-year list or um you know have them tell us timelines for when they were going to do that work um so that, you know, we had a little bit more uh we could go on in to ensure that it was done. But um I've never I've never worked anywhere where the Mills Act is like a really stringent contract where you are kind of sitting there and going through it every year and making sure that everyone's, you know, doing all of their projects. I think it's more of a good faith contract where, you know, you're working with somebody, you're getting their you're getting their list of improvements and um I've had pretty positive success with them in in other jurisdictions. Um you know so it hasn't really come to, you know, what do you do if if someone isn't doing any of the things.

[01:02:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then also related, if say it's a 10-year period, I I start the 10-year period, I sell my house two years in. Is that transferred to the new buyer?

[01:02:50] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah, it's a con it's it uh it... Yeah I'm not I I don't know enough about the Mountain View contracts to know, you know, how they transfer. I don't I don't know the wording enough. Um we haven't actually done any very recently. Um so but in other jurisdictions I've worked for, you just it's a part of your um real estate documents that you transfer um and the contract's built into that because it's with your pro it's like a property tax um component.

[01:03:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um that was all part of one question. Next question. Um if someone opts out on the current program, are they able to opt back in?

[01:03:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh yes. In fact, that did happen uh quite a bit earlier on in the um the current iteration of the ordinance. Um it it has not happened recently uh but yes they would be able to opt back in.

[01:03:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um kind of a follow up to Commissioner Yin. I'm trying to figure out this neighborhood. So I'm I know my neighborhood so I'm going to use my neighborhood as an example, okay, and see if you can help me understand how this would work. I live in Monta Loma. All right? All the houses in Monta Loma kind of look alike but they're not. Okay? There's Eichlers, which is one builder, there are Mardells, and there are Mackays. Okay? I don't really know what a Mackay is other than that they look like a Mardell and a and an Eichler. Okay? There there are notice there are some noticeable differences on the inside. I don't have radiant heating in my Mardell, but I still have the the my my roof is my is my ceiling. Um I still have sloped roofs and things. So if I wanted to do the neighborhood thing, would I have to do only Mardells? Or could I do all of Monta Loma? I mean what does in what you're envisioning here, what does that mean? If they look kind of alike, can you do a thousand residences in Monta Loma all at once? Or do we have to do them as three different neighborhoods that all have to be done separately? I'm just I'm just trying to understand how this might work, and I'm not then answer to her question didn't answer my question so that's can you help me in that context?

[01:04:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I mean we haven't uh figured out quite all the details of the program to to fully answer this question like, you know, maximum neighborhood size or district size or anything like that. Um so, you know, I I can't answer that question. What is important to mention is that for a historic district, the properties should generally share a reason why they are historic. Uh in some cases, that's the developer. In some cases, that's the architect. In some cases, it is it is something relevant to the question that you're asking. In other cases, it's not, right? Like there could be uh properties that are significant because they're associated with some event or some um uh you know some some activity or something like that in in the neighborhood. Uh in which case the builder or the architect really wouldn't matter. Um so we would need to establish that in the review of the application for listing. Uh and so uh there would need to be materials provided with the the nomination process that would give us a head start on that to to understand why is this a cohesive neighborhood for listing. What what do these properties share in their significance that uh qualifies them for listing.

[01:05:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um and last one on this kind of topic. You said that you mentioned 50%. Is that 50% of the people have to say yes? Or 50% of the people who respond have to say yes?

[01:05:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that is a nominating threshold. So that is you the the uh the the properties that want to become a district have to get that many people to say we want to become a district. And then there's the whole review process. And then there is a mailed ballot that, you know, will get an idea of is it 50%, is it 70%, is it 90%. And then ultimately the decision is up to Council. Even if Council wants, you know, even if it's only 50%, Council could still say yes or no. Um the other option is Council nomination, right? Council can always nominate districts, and in that case, you know, maybe only 40% of people want to be in that district. So it really it's it's the process whereby the application starts to go through the staff review process.

[01:06:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. I'm gonna ask the question a slightly different way. I've seen cases where a non-response is effectively a no vote. Is that what you're envisioning?

[01:07:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Go ahead. So I don't think that we've gotten that far...

[01:07:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If you ask 100 people and 80 respond and and 47 say yes, that's not 50% of the neighborhood. Does that mean it's not 50%? That's what I'm trying to is what is 50%? Is a is a non-response a no vote?

[01:07:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. We haven't gotten that far in our recommendation. I I have to presume we were imagining that it would be 50% of the overall property owners, not simply of those responding. So those not responding, I guess in your scenario would be no votes. But I think that's relevant for the Commission's recommendation if you want to clarify it should be one way or the other or some other way that perhaps I haven't thought of yet. But um that has merit or bearing on your recommendation in my opinion.

[01:07:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And I'll just add that uh, you know, we already have process in our zoning code for this. We have a neighborhood design district and we have a height overlay district, and this is essentially the process that we've already established for incorporating these districts into a neighborhood.

[01:08:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Maybe you could share that with us later so we can find it. Um next question. Uh Table 1. It wasn't clear to me whether the items in the Mountain View column are additions to the the National/California Register column? Because it I thought one of the comments was that we basically we're following the National one but when I look at the Mountain View column, it doesn't have everything that I see in the National and California Register. So does that mean that the Mountain View column are additions to the National/California column?

[01:09:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it's just verbatim what's in each of those criteria. Um the Mountain View Register has some slightly different text but it's getting at the same idea. Uh you know and we are seeking Council support for uh maybe updating the text a little bit to better align with the um meaning and the the intent and language of those other lists.

[01:09:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And so a 60-year-old house on Diablo in Monta Loma that had a person of significance who lived there after the 50 years, do they count? Steve Jobs' home? Does it have to be before the 50 years? Is it only historic people? Or how... so I'm trying what does that mean when it has these like things of significance? I is that can something current be considered part of that criteria or not?

[01:10:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I will have to defer to our in-house expert on that specific question.

[01:10:30] Consultant Christina Dikas: Uh there can be historic significance uh within 50 years. It's more challenging for an association with a person. Um one thing with the criteria for association with people is that um that property needs to represent the reason that the person is significant. So if Steve Jobs is significant for his contributions to Apple, then um his place of work would better represent that significance than his home. So that's one thing to keep in mind just in general for that criterion. Um the other thing is that it can get tricky with people who are still alive, which is not Steve Jobs, but uh for other folks who may uh, you know, may be important within the last 50 years. Um we like to uh the the reason why we have this 50-year threshold is there's a certain amount of historical distance um to be able to understand the historic significance of a place or the context with some perspective. So um while so something could have exceptional significance that we already recognize as very important to history within 50 years, but it's less likely.

[01:12:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, may I ask a follow-up question to the consultant? Um so in this scenario of Steve Jobs or a hypothetical tech entrepreneur, um if they developed some key piece of technology or software in their garage for example, could that then bring it back to the residential context in this scenario as opposed to a corporate office location someplace else?

[01:13:30] Consultant Christina Dikas: Yes, I think in Palo Alto there's a garage that is a historic resource for that reason. Uh so that is possible.

[01:14:00] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um next question. Um in the text it said if somebody opted out or they removed from the register, they had to pay the money back that was part of the Mills Act grant? On the five that you're proposing to remove, are they gonna owe money?

[01:14:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, actually that's not the Mills Act. It's the City's property tax rebate program. So there are actually two different programs that are available to to property owners. There's the Mills Act which is a state program and there's a City's property tax rebate program. The property tax rebate program has to be repaid.

[01:14:35] Commissioner Bill Cranston: From the city?

[01:14:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, if if somebody opts off of the register, they would have to repay the property tax rebate program.

[01:14:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: But if we take them off...

[01:14:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If if we take them off... well, none of the five properties that we identified as ineligible are using the property tax rebate program.

[01:14:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. That's what I... okay. Um maybe misunderstood the answer to Commissioner Di's or Commissioner Dempsey's question. Um I'm troubled by demolition. So if I go in with a bulldozer and I knock it down, I no longer I don't have to worry about it, I just I can knock it down and no big deal? I this that the the fact that it doesn't take into it says well we have to account for the fact that some was demolished seemed to be a remarkably easy way to get around a historic designation by just, you know, driving a bulldozer or driving a car into a building to demolish it. Can you clarify on what you mean by demolition?

[01:15:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Uh I mean so we're not saying that somebody could just demolish a building, right? You need to get permits in order to demolish any building. Um and so there would need to be a a permit process to get approval to demolish a historic building. Uh that would obviously impact the historic resource, right? And that would be something that would be an impact under the California Environmental Quality Act, and it would need to be something that the City Council would need to approve. Um so we are not proposing that, in fact to to the contrary, we're proposing to include more enforcement measures in the code which would actually the intent would be to be able to enforce uh, you know, some kind of deliberate action of defacing a property or demolishing a property, we would be be able to um apply some kind of uh uh punishment or remedy on that.

[01:16:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And are you envisioning that that would be greater than the that would be more than what they would lose by being able to redevelop it?

[01:16:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We we haven't done that analysis yet but that's uh, you know, something to consider.

[01:17:05] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. Um all right I'm getting close. I'm... Um so one of the things that came up last time in the last meeting was this uh hazard due to negligence and it's not kind of discuss... it's you mention in here that um it can be de-listed because it's it's now a hazard. If somebody decides they want to get it removed from the list so they decide well I'm just not gonna take care of it and let it run down to nothing, um that would seem like that would it's a hazard and so it's now needs to be demolished because but it was because of their own negligence. How do you deal with that?

[01:17:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Again, that's something that's a detail that we have not um uh uh analyzed or identified a policy approach for. Uh but I wonder if our consultant might provide some examples of how maybe it's done in other communities?

[01:18:00] Consultant Christina Dikas: Oh, not off the top of my head. I'm sorry. I think we'd have to look back at um some of our um the analysis that we did and we could get back to you about that.

[01:18:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um so the one of the comments was that minor changes would be things that are not essentially not visible from the street. I found that kind of curious. Um if it's a if the building looks historic on the front and then they put a super, you know, avant-garde building attached to the back of it, does that not that doesn't count? Or I if it's not vis if it I guess I was the the exclusion of something is not visible from the street seemed odd to me and I'm can you explain why that's why that should be there?

[01:18:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The the one of the purposes of historic preservation is to maintain the the character of the building for the benefit of the public. Um now it is entirely possible that a garish avant-garde addition to a property could impact its integrity. But that would have to be something that's analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Um and so that is why it's not exempt. It's why it's something that we would need to review, but the um the the tendency is for things like rear additions and uh other improvements that are not visible from the public uh the tendency is that those would tend not to be impacts. And that's why we feel we can call them minor alterations.

[01:18:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Is there an expectation that they are consistent with the design integrity of the building that they're attaching it to?

[01:19:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Not not usually actually. There's a um and I I'm sure our uh consultant can speak more to this, but there's often an intent to um make it clear what is the historic part of the building. And so we don't want to keep somebody from being able to do an addition, but we also want to make it clear what is the historic part of the building. Uh and part of doing that is uh constructing an addition that um kind of fits some characteristics of the building but also is kind of obviously not historic. Um I'm sure our consultant can provide more detail about kind of how that's done and and how it's assessed.

[01:20:00] Consultant Christina Dikas: Yeah, I think what Eric said is the the overall gist of um of what we analyze and what we recommend. Uh this goes back to again the the federal guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. And they recommend um uh new uh construction like additions to be compatible yet differentiated. And uh there's another standard that um speaks to making sure that uh the proposed changes um can't be confused for the the original building. So um, you know, th there's kind of a range of what a design could be. It could be more on the modern side or a little bit more traditional, uh but typically the recommendations are to have some kind of um uh compatible but slightly different windows or siding, you know, similar but different, that type of thing. Um as well as massing that it, you know, doesn't overwhelm the original building while still being able to have some kind of uh addition or change. Um we also don't typically look at interiors. So, you know, changes to kitchens and bathrooms and all of that are um are not not typically under historic resource purview re uh design purview.

[01:20:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. That relates answers my next question which was so an interior ADU would not necessarily be affected. A standalone ADU in the back wouldn't be affecting the integrity.

[01:20:55] Consultant Christina Dikas: Yeah, correct. So interior if it's just a, you know, changing interior spaces then um that would not be seen to affect the historic integrity of the building which is really focused on exterior features. Um we we again we kind of go back to what is the historic significance of the property whether it's architecture or another association for those criteria of significance in each of the uh registers: events, people, or or architecture design. Um and the period of significance which you might have been trying to get at earlier, I wasn't sure if that's what you were talking about. Um period of significance is the era in which that historic significance can be represented in time. So for a building that is significant for its architecture, it might have been its year of construction. Um but if it was associated with some kind of event that spanned a period, you may have a a range of dates. And that's for true for an individual property as well as a historic district. Um so we we look at those things and and make recommendations for alterations um that, you know, retain the ability of somebody, a member of the public to be able to see that this building is from that era even though it has some of these changes occurring.

[01:21:25] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um the last two are kind of related. So the you mention Area H, but I know I mean when you look at the little map there's lots of dots just outside of Area H. Um what did Council specifically say not to look at? And I can't remember what they are in downtown. Um A, Z, D, whatever the the ones that are like along Villa and Dana. Is there a reason? Did Council say not to look at those? Or or was that... I I just was...

[01:22:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, I I think we we looked at every property in Area H, so you'll uh, you know, in in our files we have, you know, analysis of newer buildings in Area H and everything like that. But everywhere else we looked at properties that that um were identified during the consultant's reconnaissance survey. So we we didn't really talk a lot about this in the presentation, but leading up to the intensive survey, the uh Page & Turnbull basically drove by practically every building in the city to determine whether just at face value that building could meet eligibility criteria for listing. Uh and so they did that with all the other parts of downtown, all the neighborhoods around Old Mountain View and Shoreline West and everything. And so um we are uh our um list of eligible properties is a uh filtering down from a comprehensive citywide reconnaissance survey that was conducted.

[01:22:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. And then I guess so in the recommendations here you talk about this Downtown Preservation District, but you don't want to do a historic overlay. So I'm I I would admit I came away like not getting what is the difference between what you're looking at doing for downtown which are the precise plans and why isn't it a historic overlay and help me understand because I don't get it.

[01:23:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, we're unfortunately we're really not there at this stage in the process and we're going to have to report back to you on the overlap with downtown. No, no, I mean we're so in the last section of the report, you'll see, you know, kind of as our next steps, we're going to be continuing to work with the Downtown Precise Plan update process. We're we are actually going to be bringing forward to the EPC and Council um, you know, the the community visioning reports and uh recommendations for kind of goals and next steps for the Downtown Precise Plan update. And so the timing of that works with kind of informing what how what is the community really interested in preserving in this area. And what are the most effective ways for us to implement preservation. And are there uh tools that we need to bake into the ordinance in order to make that happen in the Downtown Precise Plan. So that's something that's going to be happening over the next few months and then we're going to report back on those findings and how the two projects intersect uh when we come back to the EPC and Council um for adoption in uh 2026.

[01:23:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. But that's not going to include a historic overlay zone? It specifically says staff does not recommend historic overlay zone and that's why I'm I'm not clear on what...

[01:23:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, a historic overlay zone is a specific regulatory tool. It's not the same as say a historic district which is something that's included on a register. Uh that reference to historic overlay zone is um, you know, there are some cities that use overlay zones for their whole register. They put every historic property on the zoning map as something that is is applies through the zoning map. And that's not something that uh we think is um the most uh streamlined and effective tool for the City of Mountain View. It has little to do with the question about downtown. Downtown already has a special zoning designation, the Downtown Precise Plan, in which we can implement area specific policies.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: ...similar to an overlay zone. So we don't really need an overlay zone in downtown, we just describe those policies in the Downtown Precise Plan.

[01:30:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Donahue.

[01:30:36] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Some of the answers to the questions left me a little bit more confused. The... so, um, there was a lot of talk, okay, so there are various incentives to be on this, um, register. Um, things like variances, FAR exceptions and setbacks, things like that. There's, then there's Mills Act contracts. And now I see... I didn't notice this before because it kind of, the way it printed, it's on a separate page. Or the way it came out in the PDF, it's like on a separate page, it's weird. But there's a rebate of the City of Mountain View portion of the property tax. I thought that the Mills Act was the rebate of the Mountain View property tax. Yeah, it's apparently a different thing. They're two separate programs? Yeah, well, can you explain the difference a little bit? Like what is the Mills Act contract then? Um, like where does that money come from?

[01:32:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It also comes out of the City's property tax. It comes from the same place, but the, um, the process for creating the, um, the agreement is different. And, um, the Mills Act is a state program and the local property tax rebate is a local program.

[01:32:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And maybe to provide a little more context. So, um, we may want to think of property tax as a largely, you know, local focus revenue source, but in fact, communities get varying percentages. I think Mountain View is around 16% of the property tax that's assessed, um, is actually, uh, remitted to the City for local purposes. And so, uh, you can see just mathematically that under the Mills Act context to achieve the, uh, extent of property tax savings that we're talking about, somewhere from 20% to 70% according to the County Assessor's office, clearly that's pulling in from non-City share of property tax. Now Mountain View has its own program to say, "Well, we're going to take that 16% of, we'll call it that, of our local share and make some amount of that available for rebate under certain conditions." So, separate programs, talking about, um, largely separate but maybe slightly overlapping components of property taxes. So it's a little confusing, but, um, they're coming from property tax, but they're different components of the property tax that's collected.

[01:34:15] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, so if the City enters into a contract with this property owner, the, that contract can affect the property taxes that would have gone to the county, the school district and all the other special districts and things up to this 70% or whatever the number is?

[01:34:43] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I don't want to... I don't want to acknowledge that exactly. I don't know specifically all of the non-City or non-county property tax recipients that might be affected. I think the potential exists, but I don't want to confirm that. I don't have that information. But non-City entities, at minimum the county for instance, uh, is potentially affected. And also potentially other non-county and non-City recipients, which we would have to confirm.

[01:35:07] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, sure. I just want to get a sense of it. I don't need specific...

[01:35:12] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think maybe the heart of your question is: could the City's decision affect non-City entities and reduce their property tax receipts? And the answer is yes, um, under this program provided in state law.

[01:35:23] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, that's interesting. Um, sure. Um, but, so can somebody have a Mills Act contract and get the City, uh, property tax rebate as these separate line items in the incentives? Or do they implicitly get the, by having a Mills Act contract, do they get this rebate as kind of as part of that?

[01:35:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, it doesn't appear that anybody has both. I'm not aware of any legislation that says that they can't, but it appears that they... nobody has both.

[01:36:04] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, yeah, I was curious because earlier you said that 20 out of the 46 people have Mills Act contracts. And I thought, well, the other 26, what benefit are they getting other than these, you know, FAR waivers and things like that? Which if they're not actually developing didn't seem important, but maybe... are those other 26 getting... Like why are people on this list, is my basic question. Or why are they choosing to be on the list? I mean, I think it's great. The list is great and I want to preserve these historic resources, but I just am curious about kind of how it works in practice.

[01:36:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it looks like there are about five or six recipients of the City's tax rebate program.

[01:37:04] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Hmm. Okay, well that still leaves 20 or 21 who...

[01:37:09] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So I think maybe to that second part of the question that you just asked, I think, you know, there are, I'm sure, many factors why people, you know, want to or why a city would like a certain property on a list. And so, um, you know, I will say I think Mountain View's opt-off process is pretty unusual. I've never encountered that in other jurisdictions. Um, and so most of the time, you know, it's the city wanted to wanting to preserve their heritage. And so they're, you know, the city is kind of usually the one like directing staff to, you know, create the lists and and do the analysis to, you know, ensure that the right properties are going onto the list. Um, I've worked in cities where people, like, they are obsessed with being on the list. Um, because it's a source of pride and they're excited that they live in a historic home and they would do it regardless of incentives. Um, and I think it's really kind of depends on how the city looks at these historic homes and makes it a part of our like, you know, heritage and that we're proud that we have these, um, lists. And that's kind of, you know, what a marker program can do for for property owners too, give them that, like display that. Um, but I think, you know, there's there's so many reasons why something could be put onto this list. And there's reasons why people may not want to not be on the list. Um, and then I will say firsthand that there are lots of people who, you know, have a historic home and or a property and probably don't want to be on the list. And I don't think there's an easy answer to that really.

[01:38:57] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Hmm. Okay. Yeah, no, I can see where people might have a kind of a pride thing too. Um, so yeah, I guess as you said, it's kind of each case is different. So. Um, okay. Um, uh, so with respect to SB 79, uh, and downtown proximity to, uh, you know, transit, um, how how do those things interact? And, um... Well, that's my question.

[01:39:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. So, uh, SB 79 as of right now, I don't believe is yet signed by the Governor. So it may be a moot point. Um, but, uh, certainly SB 79 does quite a bit to affect the City's, uh, land use authority in areas around major transit like downtown. Um, we have not had a whole lot of opportunity to really understand this statute at this point. So I can't really give a whole lot of information. It is a very complex law and it was changed a lot in the months, uh, and weeks before the legislature adopted it. Uh, so, um, I'll... seems like the Director wants to say something and I'll defer to him.

[01:40:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you. Um, I think the key takeaway, um, as SB 79 stands today, uh, assuming the governor ultimately signs the bill, um, is this issue of whether a property is a potential historic resource or is it a listed historic resource in a local register. And so SB 79 makes an important distinction related to listed resources and has some some provisions related to that. So there's greater opportunity to protect those resources from some of the mandated land use elements of SB 79. And I think that theme is carrying forward in more and more state legislation related to land use, development, housing and so forth, where simply, um, some communities using the potential historic nature of buildings to try to frustrate the purposes of state laws is not, um, not going to work any longer. And a city actually has to take the affirmative step to list a property in order to, uh, provide whatever protections are in the statute from, uh, the provisions of state law. And so this question is important, which we'll get to later in the discussion about, you know, taking forward the identified list of properties to put them forward for listing. And it will have ramifications, um, under state law whether or not a property is listed.

[01:41:56] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Um, yep. That's all my questions. Thanks.

[01:42:07] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[01:42:10] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. Through all that, I think a lot of my questions started getting answered. Um, but following on Commissioner Donahue's question about SB 79. I know it hasn't passed yet, but I was just wondering if you had ideas about timing considering what we're doing, uh, with Downtown Precise Plan and this ordinance and how that might converge?

[01:42:37] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh, the timing is very challenging. I'll put it that way. So if SB 79 becomes law, um, it would take effect in July of 2026. And a number of our processes will either not yet be finished or will have, uh, been just finished. And so, um, we don't really have the opportunity in the intervening, you know, six to nine months, uh, to really, um, meaningfully incorporate, um, the potential impacts. And so we're doing a lot of thinking right now about how to account for this and whether and when to alter, uh, our planning processes that are underway. But I don't have more to share than that right now other than we're bracing for impact to some extent because of the significant, uh, changes that are likely to come.

[01:43:22] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you. Oh, yes.

[01:43:26] Consultant Christina Dikas: I have a little bit more information about SB 79 if it does pass, uh, regarding historic resources. Um, what I've read is that, uh, only historic resources that are listed locally as of January 1st, 2025, um, are, uh, included. And so the work that we're doing now may not apply if that is how the bill would pass. Um, there's also some provision for 10% of historic properties within the transit area, um, that are historic, um, being protected. So there's some what seem to be arbitrary limitations on the protection of historic resources. So I just wanted to, um, clarify that since it may, uh, affect this conversation.

[01:44:11] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, no that's helpful. Okay. So, um, another question I had. Um, I know in the packet you guys had talked about providing clarity for people. And, um, I think it's just a little bit of an example that we didn't quite understand that about the Mountain View rebate program versus the Mills Act. And I'm sure as you move along in preparing documents that it becomes abundantly clear what is available to people who are on the list and what they can gain from being listed. Um, tax rebates, so on and so forth, whether it's state, city, both. I think that would be, you know, speaking to what, um, Commissioner Dempsey had said earlier, which is, you know, balancing the incentives. Um, and if the incentives are high enough then people would opt on it. And if, you know, I guess we're talking about Ms. Bluzinski had mentioned that, um, you know, it depends on where you are. There's a cultural aspect to whether or not a city locally cares about its history. Um, I found that to be true. And, um, I'm from Maryland and there is, um, there are three neighborhoods that have been registered, I believe, nationally. And they're all mid-century modern by the same developer. Um, and it's unusual to have so many, but I was just curious and I took a look briefly and all of them had higher sale values than their neighbors. So I was like, oh, okay. There are, you know, benefits. But, um, that would be something also to add in that I don't know if there's data on that. But if there is, that would be something else to add. Um, what was my other question? Ah, yes. Back to the historic district. Yes, thank you. Um, Christina from Page & Turnbull, you had mentioned about the period of significance. So if we're looking at the historic district for downtown Mountain View, let's say, just as an example. If that were a probability, if council decided ultimately to go forward with that in the right amount of time. Are we looking at a certain period of significance? Or are we looking for things... that can be, um, a little bit outside of that? I believe you had said usually you're looking at timing. But in this regard, are we just looking at a period of significance historically? Or can we say, well, this is the seat and living room and heart of the city and has been for since, you know, from 18-whatever it was. I'm sorry, I don't... I'm not great with dates. To today. And obviously today doesn't count, 50 years don't count, but it has been that case up until 1975, maybe. Would that then allow for that period to be the period of significance? Because it is the heart of the city and where the community comes together. Is that a valid reason for being historic?

[01:46:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I, uh, you know, I... We don't have the analysis to support that answer right now. But I don't know if Ms. Dikas can speak to that. Maybe kind of a longer period of significance for a place like Castro Street, Downtown Castro Street from, you know, 1875 to 1975, you know, something like that.

[01:47:19] Consultant Christina Dikas: Yeah, we haven't done the... we didn't evaluate any historic, um, districts. Uh, I can say that, um, that, uh, we did put together a map, um, of the ages or different kind of periods of development. And, um, there are about 42% of the properties, um, along Castro Street, the 100 to 300 blocks, so not necessarily on some of the side streets, just those facing Castro Street, um, that are from circa 1874 to the 1940s, um, or 1930s really. Um, it seems like there was a slowdown in development during the late '30s and through World War II. And then it picked up again a lot in the '50s and '60s. And there's actually more buildings in on those blocks from the postwar period than the early period. Um, so, you know, I think there's either the potential for, uh, identifying an earlier period, um, up to the 1940s because of that gap in development. Or some kind of more lenient understanding of downtown in order to encapsulate more, particularly if the postwar period is, um, you know, found to be significant. Um, I think there's also potential tools to consider, uh, that we've talked a little bit with planning staff about, which have to do, um, less with using the kind of, um, best practices, uh, historic register criteria and more with other types of planning tools to recognize character, um, which, you know, can have to do with the kind of scale and the massing of those, uh, 20th-century properties through a later period. So those are things that we haven't fully, um, hashed out yet, but that we've started to talk about.

[01:48:39] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Okay. I'm good for now for questions.

[01:48:44] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham.

[01:48:46] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just had one more question, um, kind of after Commissioner Cranston's, uh, questions related to neighborhoods and districts nominating themselves. Um, I just wanted to get an idea of the size and scale of folks who are interested in doing this. I know it's great that a process is being developed and maybe staff won't need to mention exact neighborhoods or number of people, but I just wanted to get an idea of the interest.

[01:49:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We've certainly heard, you know, a few people bringing it up at outreach meetings. Um, you know, I I won't say that it it's more than a a handful of people who have come up to out come to outreach meetings, but it's it's possible that they could be speaking for larger conversations that they're having in their neighborhood and we just don't, we don't know about all of those conversations.

[01:49:40] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[01:49:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. I'll go ahead and make some questions of my own. Um... For that staff recommendation. I guess like, just at a very high level, um, because there's a lot of, um, items if you will, or like, um, areas, touch points if you will, of, um, potential policy and discussion making that we could have here. Um, but in terms of that, uh, recommendation, draft criteria and list of properties, an approach for properties already listed, like those four bullet points, um, whoever on staff feels most, um, appropriate or positioned for responding here. I guess I'm just curious, um, which ones of these does staff view as more kind of like simple housekeeping type of, um, items versus the maybe more complex, contentious, uh, meatier ones. Um, can we just get a sense of that?

[01:50:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Yeah, I mean, I think that there's there are policy consequences to to all the recommendations for sure. Um, you know, the, uh, listing question and removing the opt-off option I think would be a major change for the City of Mountain View and a major change for perspective to how we how we see our historic resources. Um, the, um, uh, the, uh, identifying, um, kind of delisting processes, you know, kind of replacing that opt-off process with a council approval process, I think has a lot of potential, um, kind of policy consequences and questions that, you know, the the, uh, EPC and council will have to, um, uh, kind of work with in order to to provide feedback to the city or to staff. And then, uh, the, um, the, uh, eligibility, the the ineligible properties, uh, that's actually an issue that is, um, not something that comes up very often. And so because it's such a, uh, kind of a special case that that other cities really haven't had to deal with, uh, this is, it's something that we are trying to chart a path on. And so we're, um, uh, I think that has kind of significant, uh, um, weight to it as well. Um, so ultimately coming out of this, we would like to know, you know, should we be including all of these eligible properties on our register? Uh, and that would be a big a big change from how we've done things in the past where where property owners have been able to to opt off.

[01:52:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So, um, there's been a lot of discussion around the Mills Act, um, component as well. Um, one thing I'm curious about, uh, is, uh, as may regard to, um, or I guess I'll ask it this way: to what extent does delisting potentially, uh, open up, lead, create risk of, um, anything that might be constituted as a taking?

[01:53:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I I don't think we're prepared to to answer that in this setting. Um, you know, it's certainly something we can look into more. Uh, Director?

[01:53:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I I guess I I haven't heard that issue come up in the Mills Act context. Um, these are contracts entered into, uh, on mutual agreement between the city and a property owner and there are parameters in the contract for, um, terminating it under certain conditions. And so, um, it's likely very, very much outside of the takings context and more in the contract law context, providing, um, that the city act within, uh, the allowable parameters of the contract and the terms of the contract as opposed to a constitutional takings, um, line of thinking.

[01:54:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, that's a helpful distinction. Um, not because I want to harp on this taking context, um, but is there any element of this where taking does, um, come into play? If if no then that's fine too. I just want to make sure I'm covering bases.

[01:54:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, takings is always there when you're talking about zoning, right? It's it's always something that we have to be cautious about. Um, especially with if you are enacting regulations that significantly limit what somebody can do with their property. Uh, and that is actually one reason why we're recommending the, uh, economic hardship delisting, which is something that's actually fairly common in other jurisdictions because it allows for that, um, takings, uh, kind of relief valve. Uh, and when we say economic hardship, we don't mean, oh, they could do something better. We mean that calling it a historic resource literally takes all value out of the property, uh, and there's nothing that they can do with it, um, as as a historic resource. And so if they can make that argument, uh, then under the Constitution we would be forced to, um, uh, you know, uh, either buy the property from them or or, uh, you know, give them the value of the property, um, or, uh, give them relief from those that requirement.

[01:55:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, cool. So then sounds like there's no relevance of like a loss of incentive or a loss of like a tax, um, you know, benefit that would then constitute that taking is what I'm hearing. So then, um, along those lines even within the contract law context, um, in terms of like standing, that means it sounds like only the property owner, uh, for any relevant property, um, as may be delisted or listed or what have you, where the property owner feels like or or actually did lose some level of material value. Um, it sounds like only those property owners would have any kind of like standing for recourse and like a interest groups or, um, you know, other kind of like parties wouldn't be really able to get involved in in that, right? Like if we were to just go ahead and proceed with the delisting, um, it sounds like only property owners themselves for specific properties would have some like ability to to challenge that or or or try to get something for that, right? Am I, is that right?

[01:57:28] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I think we're we're talking about a couple of different things if I understand the question. So, um, in the Mills Act context and and and entering into or terminating a Mills Act contract, I think it's most likely that the property owner who's party to the contract would have the greatest potential to have a claim, uh, and standing to pursue litigation against the city. But it's hard to say that nobody else would have standing under some some theory. Um, same thing applies to the permitting context or the listing or delisting context that's outside of the Mills Act realm, but in the standard city, uh, sort of due process realm. And so certainly, uh, people could participate and think that the city erred in its judgment or abused its discretion related to listing or delisting or permitting or not permitting, uh, an alteration to a historic resource and could pursue a claim against the city, uh, for, you know, abuse of discretion or other sort of standard theories under land use. So it's really difficult to say who may or may not be able to, um, have a grievance and pursue that grievance, um, through the the court system.

[01:58:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, thank you very much. Um, I'm going to shift gears a little bit back to the, um, downtown core. Uh, I'm going to try to keep it very high level though. Um, unless I missed it somewhere, it sounds like, um, the the potent that H or whatever, the the historic core stuff, um, didn't factor much into, um, at least from my reading, like the staff report as would, um, lead to the recommendations, uh, put forward, um, and or kind of like delistings. I guess I'm just curious within that context, um, kind of like from staff's perspective, um, because my understanding is there is, um, other areas of work that the council has undertaken as pertains to that, um, downtown, uh, area. And so, um, I'm just curious from staff's perspective, in what ways does the other, uh, ongoing kind of work items that council have going on, um, in what ways do they or do they not kind of like, um, have like, you know, like tentacles reaching into it if that makes sense. And and to be clear, what I'm trying to like, um, understand a little bit more is like how valid or or what like like that that historic core, that district kind of like, um, ask that we're hearing from the public, um, I know I have feelings and thoughts about that, but I guess I'm trying to hear from staff like, um, how that did or didn't factor in, um, less specifically about this ask, but like even going into the motion of of this whole process.

[01:59:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the focus of this meeting is on, you know, the city-wide policies. Uh, you know, we're focused on our kind of the the city-wide nomination and listing process and and everything. We all recognize as staff, as the community, as, you know, the city council, that Castro Street is special. Right? It is a definitely a special case for not just the historic character of the city as well as the, um, kind of what it means to the history of of Mountain View. Um, so the the information that we're presenting here is a little bit sidestepped from that question of how, um, kind of how are we considering Area H or Castro Street in this process. Um, we will bring back more information at a later date about how this process and the Downtown Precise Plan process intersect. I think it's clear that, um, there needs to be some historic preservation policy language in the Downtown Precise Plan itself because that is the tool for regulating zoning in that very special part of town. That process is moving forward on its own timeline with the Downtown Precise Plan update process. Um, we as I said, we are, um, thinking critically about what the city ordinance needs to include in order to give the Downtown Precise Plan, uh, um, the every opportunity it has to execute the community's vision for that stretch of Castro Street. Um, but we're just not quite there yet now to get the EPC and council direction on it.

[02:01:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, so then, um, thank you for that. Uh, so then, for example, as pertains to, for example, the Rogers building. Um, if we were to make some recommendation saying, yep, let's, uh, proceed with the delisting and then the council, uh, were to, let's just say theoretically, um, approve that next week, right? They call like a special session just to get this going or whatever. Um, that would just be then this would be like the last opportunity to to, uh, affect the status of that building's, uh, like preservat the the preservation status of that building. Um, the ongoing, uh, work items that council have that may in the future, uh, you know, come to fruition would not, um, go back and touch this again. Am I, am I, is that understanding correct?

[02:03:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that's not our recommendation. Our recommendation is to give the property owner an opportunity to bring some integrity back to that building over time. Uh, and so if the council agrees, then they they won't be delisted immediately. They will have some time to make the building look a little more like it did during its periods period of significance. Um, if they don't take that opportunity, then yes, they would be delisted. Of course, there is the opportunity for Downtown Precise Plan updates as I said that may have other policies related to historic preservation, which could affect that building. Um, and then, um, the so I I think there are still opportunities to be had in this discussion. Um, not to mention the fact that what we have put out about that building is a draft analysis. So we are still seeking and accepting, uh, public comments on that analysis, which could ultimately affect, uh, the official finding of eligibility.

[02:04:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. And, um, just to make sure I'm I am being mindful of of uh of these concerns as well. Um, say for example, we proceed with the recommendation and you know, especially as clarified, hey, this is like a five-year window, right? We want to help get this up to speed. Um, is there any way, like I I'm just trying to think very, um, I know it's theoretical right now so bear with me. Um, in these like, uh, work items that the council have going on, if there was some, you know, pot of money attached to that where there was an allocated resource that the city was putting aside for, um, re-integrity-izing, um, you know, buildings in this in this district or what have you. Um, and the property owner says, no, I you know what, actually I want I want the historicness to decay and I don't care. I'm just going to let this like, um, I'm going to turn it modern. I don't know, whatever it looks, what whatever that was. Is there any way where those, um, future council work items could, I don't know, like like be more than encouraging of the property owner making these, um, restorative improvements to the historical character? Do you get do you hear what I'm getting at?

[02:05:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it sounds like you're you're asking what the possibility is for the city to mandate in some way the the, uh, return to integrity.

[02:05:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Do more than encourage, maybe.

[02:05:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. Um, yeah, you know, uh, I think if the EPC wants to, um, recommend to the city council for us to look into that, we could look into that as an option and study it.

[02:05:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Cranston.

[02:05:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Uh, just a question that occurred after we talking here. A, we lost a building on San Antonio that was the first basically semiconductor facility in the world, okay? It probably didn't meet the significance criteria. I I guess I'm, it's not, um, it's not a a building that's 100 years old, but it had other things. And as I look through this list of the significance criteria, can it or items where part of the birth of Silicon Valley, which to me would seem to be something that's historically significant. Um, I I'm I I I just want to clarify is how much can that dominate the decision to be on the list as opposed to the building design to be on the list? I just, we've talked a lot about the building design and, you know, I think one of Intel's first fabs is is on California Street, but it's doesn't look like a freaking historic building. But that's a big deal I think. So I'd, how does that kind of thing fit into this, the criteria as as it is today? If something was identified as significant part of the history of the of Mountain View, of the Bay Area, of Silicon Valley, how does that fit into this if the building doesn't look like a 100-year-old building?

[02:07:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'll I'll start and then maybe I'll uh kick it to Ms. Dikas for um any additional detail. But, you know, one of the one of the purposes of a historic preservation ordinance is to communicate the character of the city's history to the community. Um, and so that's the purpose of integrity, you know, would somebody from 1968 Intel going up to that building recognize it? You know, would somebody from 1955 Shockley going up to that building recognize it? Um, and if they don't, then it's not communicating the history of that event or the the his the, you know, the, um, it's not communicating its significance. And so the purpose of the the ordinance and the historic protection then uh becomes questionable. Uh, further, I think it's important to recognize that one of the reasons we have this ordinance is because we want to review modifications to buildings. And if a building doesn't have any integrity, it becomes very difficult to know what we can allow to be changed and what we cannot. So the whole foundation of the review process becomes more challenging if a building doesn't look anything like it did during its period of of significance. So I'll see if uh our consultant has anything to add on those issues.

[02:08:35] Consultant Christina Dikas: Yeah, I'll just add a little bit, I think that's a really good explanation. Even if a property is uh significant for an a reason that's not related to its architecture or design. So the the Shockley Lab is a great example. Um, I documented that building before it was torn down about 10 years ago. Um, and it was like a fruit packing shed before, you know, so a very simple building, important history. Um, but uh in within the historic preservation framework, we still want to identify the physical features of the building that looked like it did during its period of significance regardless of the reason for significance. Whether it's, so you you know certainly if it was significant for its architecture, but even if it's significant for its association with Shockley during that period of the 1950s or so. Uh, you you still want to have that building look uh more or less like it did during that period of time to connect to that history. So I think that's what Eric was saying just to support that. And and to add one more thing, when we're documenting um properties for their historic significance and you'd see this in the DPR forms that we filled out as part of the survey, if we found properties to be significant, we create a list of what we call character-defining features. And those are the physical features that you can see that help convey that the appearance and that significance. So if you have a property that is so changed that it doesn't have those character-defining features, that's the baseline that we use for understanding the potential impacts of a project that could change that property further. So if you don't have those character-defining features to start with, then how do you know where to go with approving a a prop a project. So um I think that's what Eric was trying to say and just to add a little bit more detail to that.

[02:09:55] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: You good?

[02:09:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I think we'll move on to Commissioner Yin.

[02:10:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I know I said it was my last question, my last question. Okay. So I just want to gain a little bit of clarity. I'm really appreciative of the discussion because with all the little parts bouncing back and forth, I think it's like coming together in my brain. Okay. So... Oh. Sorry, the microphone cushion just flew off, but we'll we'll get to that later. Um, regarding downtown. I understand you were saying that, you know, you're we're this as a city we're going through the process right now of determining the process for how we regulate our historic ordinance, or how we implement it. Just putting down the regulations and how we're modifying it. However, the language of SB 79 is very definitive. Um, where there is specific language stating that you need to be listed or registered locally. Now I understand there are great reasons why SB 79 is, you know, moving forward, transit-oriented development and all that. But we all know as we said earlier that we as a community understand that Castro Street in the historic area is special and different. So are you saying that the January 2025 deadline, if properties are not listed locally as being historic, that when SB 79 hits, if it does, that it doesn't matter anymore what's historic and that we're in the process of determining that it's historic. If January 2025 was the date, that's it?

[02:12:05] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So there are a couple different provisions in SB 79 related to historic resources. Um, the one with the earlier deadline that predates our uh discussion tonight, um my understanding of that provision is that's sort of the immediate impact on properties and those properties listed prior to that date may have uh a more limited effect. I think there's still an opportunity for local listing that would occur sometime after today to have uh relevance under SB 79, but only in the local alternative plan context. So there's an opportunity where um locally listed historic resources, and there's no date limitation in the law on those resources, could be identified in a local alternative plan to be exempted from the mandatory densities of SB 79. But there are some other requirements about shifting those densities to other properties and so um I think there there remains importance and relevance to local listing.

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I'm not in context to listing actions that may be taken after today. But there are other provisions in SB 79 that do prevent us from retroactively, um, well, let me rephrase that. That would prevent any listings from today onward of uh limiting the application of SB 79.

[02:15:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay.

[02:15:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So it's it's confusing in the law and it's confusing in the explanation. Uh I think the simple version is in the absence of an alternative local plan that will require a lot of work and adoption by the City Council and approval by the state, um we do not have an ability to protect properties through listings after today um under SB 79.

[02:15:55] Commissioner Joyce Yin: But that's when the January 2025 went into effect.

[02:15:58] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct.

[02:15:59] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you.

[02:16:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston, did you think about it? Did you have a follow up or no?

[02:16:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: No I I think I understand what she's saying. So if it if it doesn't look like it did at the time that Shockley was in there or that Noise and those guys were in there, then that impacts whether it could be something that's considered historic. If they looked at it and it has that then so it's so the appearance is if it looks absolutely nothing like what it did then and it's now a pink bubblegum shop or something then then that would be so I I think I I get that but it's doesn't preclude it if it if it's been radically altered then it then that's then that would make it more difficult to argue that it's historic. So I think I get that.

[02:16:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. All right. I have one last question. Um just with regard to registering or having something get on on the list or um even on the delisting is there an and sorry if I missed this is there any kind of element for like a a future or ongoing need so for example like I don't know um if there was a really historic gas station or something and it's like the world's oldest gas station but it's our only place to have a gas station and do you know what I mean like is there some delisting um thought or criteria um or even going into like potential listing like hey you know it would be great that you know this historic farm want this property owner for this historic farm really wants to include it but it's our only farm land and the climate shifted and we need to grow tomatoes versus corn. I don't do you do you know what I'm getting at like for actual present value and future value resource?

[02:17:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, absolutely. Um, and so we we thought a little bit about that um and of course the CEQA process has the statement of overriding considerations which I think is getting to what your your asking about which is you know giving the policy makers in a community the path to make the policy decision that something is more important or more needed in the community than this historic resource. And so we've identified that as a process in this in this ordinance.

[02:18:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sweet. All right. I have to get back to the uh I'm assuming no more questions. So yep uh I think we need to maybe do I'm looking to staff here for the situation. Yep. Okay.

[02:18:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh I believe the next item is to discuss eligibility criteria and um uh provide a recommendation on the first two bullet points for uh the the eligibility criteria. If you could show it on the screen.

[02:19:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Perfect. So then the next one is the one where we'll miss you.

[02:19:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, if I could perhaps help tee this up since it's been a little while since we talked about it. Um so Advanced Planning Manager Anderson can speak in greater detail but we really have um an existing component um that we're looking to validate that we will continue to have uh with the significance criteria with some minor adjustments to better align with the state and federal uh standards and uh update to to modern best practice in terminology. And then there's a second part here that we're suggesting we add to the local ordinance um related to integrity thresholds which we do not currently have in our ordinance. And so um you know validate what we have, confirm that we want to add this second part that provides a a framework for determining how much significance remains in a given structure. So um if there's more to qualify that you know Eric can can describe but sort of two parts to this, confirming existing and confirming an addition to the ordinance.

[02:20:44] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Confirming existing and confirming in relation to the ordinance. Okay. All right. Then we will go ahead and take deliberation on those. Commissioner Donahue.

[02:21:18] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I have just hopefully a quick question. What what is feeling?

[02:21:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, what is feeling? Um... I'll take a stab and then I think uh our consultant can probably provide a more technical answer. But um I think feeling is a uh the the emotional response that you get to looking at a building, the um the uh the uh subjective experience um so I don't know Ms. Dikas wants to add anything.

[02:22:10] Consultant Christina Dikas: Yeah, the last two feeling and association are a little squishier um of these these are uh in the National Register of Historic Places guidance uh just to um provide a little extra information uh for um how to evaluate a property for um for the National Register and we use these for uh for the state and many jurisdictions use these as well. Um so yes feeling is is kind of related to um that that idea that we were talking about earlier about being able to see a property and understand the era in which it was significant the era in which it comes from and it has that feeling. Um and then association relates to uh I know that wasn't the question but since it's the other kind of squishy one um uh let's say it's a uh you know it's a residence from the 1910s you can still tell that it's a residence where people live from the 1910s it has that association with its use or its association with its reason for significance that you can still um perceive that uh in the in the when looking at the building.

[02:23:23] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, thanks. I think actually having the the tie in to the national standard kind of makes it seem less arbitrary. Okay.

[02:23:39] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.

[02:23:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I kind of translated it into the character of the building is that not right? I mean that my my brain translated into the into more the you know it kind of feels you know that's the kind of character of the building is that not a good definition or is it? Okay.

[02:24:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, just curious like as we move through this and as time goes on, um is Page & Turnbull going to be available to assess properties um someone who has more knowledge you know about architectural history and things like that?

[02:24:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, for I mean this is not um something that that staff is going to be doing on our own. You know we we have some expertise with this but we're not we're not professionals. So there are um quite a few firms that are fully qualified to be doing these assessments on an ongoing basis and um you know one of the tasks that we're working on is is pulling together that list of qualified um historic consultants that we can share with the community and uh use for our own purposes like I said for um CEQA peer review and and other processes. So um yes Page & Turnbull is very very qualified and we we expect they will you know meet those qualifications to be on that ongoing list. Uh but we also want to make sure that it there are other options available.

[02:25:14] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Yes. Sorry. It wasn't trying to say Page & Turnbull specifically just that it was not going to be staff decision and there would be consultant who was available. Okay. Thank you.

[02:25:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston.

[02:25:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I guess my answer to the question is I'm I'm I'm interpreting this as bullets one and two on page 13 of the staff report. That's what we're talking about and if that's what I think it is then yes I'm okay with this. Okay. It doesn't say the way it says it here but I think that's what you're doing. So I had yeses by those in my in my notes.

[02:25:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that's what we're asking.

[02:26:05] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Move the bill?

[02:26:09] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Uh sorry, move the move the what do we call this the recommendation?

[02:26:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: No, just a couple hundred miles away from that one. But, yeah, I uh I'm would you do you want to say anything? Yep. Okay. All right. Sounds good. So uh and just to confirm uh then from my end with what Commissioner Cranston said...

[02:26:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So those would be the um like associated with events, lives of persons, distinctive characteristics, is is that am I recalling that?

[02:27:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes. Yes, you're absolutely right.

[02:27:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: The continuation... and then the integrity thresholds being as listed. Um that sounds like we feel good about those. Um so uh yeah I am happy to entertain do we need straw poll for this one or like a formal motion?

[02:27:33] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think for now we can work through with the consensus you've gathered here um and then at the end we can wrap up summarize and get the motion on the the bulk of the recommendation.

[02:27:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, Mr. Murdock. It sounds like we have consensus on that one.

[02:27:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. So this next item is where we need to do the recusal.

[02:28:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: At this point we will segment the EPC discussion. May the commissioner uh with a conflict of interest relating to the individual sites please make your recusal statement now.

[02:28:25] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. I am recusing myself from discussion on this agenda item due to proximity of my personal residence to one of the sites recommended for inclusion.

[02:28:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Chair, just quick I'm kind of lost where we are in the agenda. Could they put that thing back up that said what how we're going through this because I'm like where are we? What's in the...

[02:29:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It's the third bullet on page 13, Commissioner Cranston, the um Exhibit 5 properties discussion.

[02:29:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That's number 5. Okay.

[02:29:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So for anyone watching on Zoom, we are on that yep on that second item. Uh I believe that we might need to put the similar kind of like slide for the next one, right? There was I'm assuming there's a similar slide for what the commission is discussing.

[02:29:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay.

[02:29:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So we are going to take this one by one. Sounds like, right?

[02:29:54] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well no we're going to for this one property with the conflict of interest recusal we need to talk about this specifically and then Commissioner Donahue can come back and we can discuss generally and we don't have to go through every property individually.

[02:30:11] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. Thank you for clarifying. Uh anyone want to take a stab at this one first?

[02:30:29] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm just going to say in general I don't feel qualified to really judge this list at all on this one or the next part. Okay? I didn't go through and drive through every single property in the entire City of Mountain View and assess every building like she did or somebody else did. So I'm quite frankly okay with these and others but I'm not don't interpret that as Bill's looked at all the properties around this list and said that's a good one that's a good one that's a good one. It's I'm like okay I kind of get what you did. It kind of makes sense to me. We put it out there people will talk about it. And if they've got some concerns they'll raise the questions. But I don't I don't feel personally qualified to assess 1181 Bonita okay whether it belongs on the register or any of the others. So I mean I'd be inclined to include it because it's not a done deal yet, okay? And people will have the opportunity to to question it but that's my comment here applies to this and I can repeat it when uh the commissioner returns but I I don't I don't personally feel I'm the person that should be assessing this because that's not my area of expertise and I didn't review how many residences are there in the City of Mountain View to to know whether there's something missing or should be added. Okay? So.

[02:32:07] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair if I may, um I think Commissioner Cranston makes a number of good points. Um you know we need to rely on expert assistance to understand these properties and and what they mean in a historical context. I think what the the process provides tonight is an opportunity for commissioners to say I noticed a really glaring error, there's a factual inconsistency, or if members of the public had provided additional information for the commission to sort through that and get insight and information from staff and from our expert uh in historic preservation to sort that out in relation to the recommendation to the council. And so if there's confidence uh in the work that's been done uh and we don't hear evidence to the contrary um it's fine to move through it relatively efficiently. If there are questions or areas of that are unclear uh we can dig into that and and provide the information for the commission.

[02:33:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh thank you Mr. Murdock. Yes. Uh I'm on the precipice of uh volunteering myself but I would rather hear from Commissioner Dempsey.

[02:33:25] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I too am on uh on the precipice of wanting to get this moving. So um I think Commissioner Cranston said it exactly right. I trust the experts here. It's not a final decision. It's merely just keeping that process going. Y'all know more than me. And just because you know I love time checks we're two and a half hours in and we got a lot to cover. So.

[02:33:51] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So shall we jump off the stoop and just say yes? Consensus? Looks like it. Yep. Consensus. All right. We have consensus on that.

[02:34:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: While our legal minds uh work through uh their questions. Yeah um Commissioner Cranston for my thinking is similar. I mean I looked at that and I said I guess. But also um but also uh I think what we're here at least the way I felt about it in that moment is you know we have large uh corpus of investment of time uh staff resourcing and expertise that um you know we can lean on here. Um and so I feel you.

[02:34:35] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And yes. I appreciate that.

[02:34:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin?

[02:34:40] Commissioner Joyce Yin: One quick thing. Um I agree. I'm not an architectural historian. I don't know. So I'm with you on that. However I just did want to note that since you guys have already done some work in determining what is eligible or not um is it possible to provide the owners with the information and how far they are away from being eligible? Is that something that's packet ready to go?

[02:35:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: How far they're away meaning like if they missed one criteria?

[02:35:20] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah exactly. Right.

[02:35:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I don't know that we've contemplated following up with property owners in that in that manner.

[02:35:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh okay. Okay. Just a thought.

[02:35:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We Yeah I mean I I think we've moved on from the site specific?

[02:35:43] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Right? I mean your your question isn't about...

[02:35:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's general. Yeah it's a general question.

[02:35:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Commissioner Yin can you ask your question again?

[02:35:55] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sure. Um since work has been done to determine if sites are eligible or ineligible is it possible to follow up with those properties and let them know how far away they are?

[02:36:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Far away they are from eligibility. So we'll talk about this more in the next uh item which is about the five properties that we've found ineligible. We did send them the analysis that supported that finding. Uh and so um they have that information. Uh we do have a number of other um analyses that uh are uh that show the finding of ineligibility um that uh we can share with property owners. Uh we did not feel it was imperative to do so by this meeting because it's not one of the topics that we're going over at this meeting about like um kind of the in the future if if you wanted to get on the the the register. Um but uh this uh that is something that we can share with property owners before we do final adoption.

[02:37:08] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay thanks. Sorry for jumping the gun a little bit. Go for it.

[02:37:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you. Um Commissioner Pham.

[02:37:18] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um I had a question along the lines of Commissioner Yin's question. Um I noticed that in the staff report um describes the list very extensive list seems like a lot of work that staff um collected to put into this list. Um is there a deadline for folks who may have more information or may want to revise or um you know discuss with staff in order to uh before the the list is final?

[02:37:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we're we're taking comments until December 1st on these uh these draft materials that we've put out. However it does not preclude somebody coming to the dais on the adoption date in 2026 and saying I have more information. I mean I think that's a reality that we're going to have to accept as part of this process. Uh but we're hoping that people can get back to us by December 1st uh to inform the development of the formal register which would be adopted by the City Council in 2026.

[02:38:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And no one's precluded even after ordinance adoption from nominating a property and so there is an ongoing opportunity to add properties to the list and so um this is just sort of this process but there's an ongoing process or opportunity if you'd like to think of it that way.

[02:38:40] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[02:38:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So briefly for the person who missed my speech before. I I looked at this list as a whole and said they went through this I didn't visit every property in all of the City of Mountain View so I don't necessarily feel qualified to go through and and judge the merits of every single one of the properties on this list. I think hopefully they've done a diligence and we there's an ongoing process. One of the things that I will add kind of related to what uh Commissioner Yin has said is one of the things I was struck by in the in the kind of the current state was the lack of communication with people on whether they are or not on the list. So if it's not already a plan every single property that is on the candidate list should receive a communication that says hey you're on the candidate list okay? That's not something that we they should just find out later oh I'm on the list what the hell happened okay? I think a this is a as part of my acceptance of this list of sites it is an I feedback that staff needs to reach out to every single one of these property owners and say yo you're on the list okay? And do you you know if you want more information here's where you find it. So that's I would view that as kind of a a condition of my number item number 3 here approval of the list is I'm expecting that you're communicating with these people.

[02:40:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh staff is that um is that possible within this item specifically if it says 'Yo you're on the list'?

[02:40:39] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah perhaps we can discuss the notification and engagement that we've already done and intend to continue to do.

[02:40:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh yes we've we have um sent not just letters to people but also their draft uh analysis to every property owner who's been identified. Uh so they should have hard copies they should have um you know the links to to all of the documentation for the whole city that's online. Um we haven't heard from everybody so we can't confirm that it's gotten to the right person but um we've we've done everything that we uh can do to notify them.

[02:41:25] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. I'm also inclined to support this. Yeah? Okay. All right. Mr. Murdock we have consensus on that one. Thank you. Commissioner Cranston? Um all right. We are proceeding to ineligible properties.

[02:41:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So that would be as a process. Yep. Integrity. Um and it would be that top bullet point there is as pertains to those um those buildings uh cited in the staff report I'm presuming. Or on the five year...

[02:42:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah this this is regarding the five properties that uh we have identified that do not meet the integrity thresholds for continued listing.

[02:42:40] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Um I might do the chair privilege thing and just say I would like to support this but only um if staff can do some of that exploration especially around the downtown properties around um any kind of um capability that uh council may be able to put forward um to uh be a little bit more uh hands on with how these uh properties are managed as a and resourced as a historic site.

[02:43:55] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair Nuñez are you um are you saying that you think uh the recommendation should include um a suggestion to council to identify resources to help rehabilitate these properties or something else um being more specific?

[02:44:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: This was as pertains to the discussion in particular around the Rogers building and um I mean it's it's in particular to that but um at a more generalized level it would be um I know that the City Council has uh body of work going on as pertains to the downtown I think Precise Plan District H all of that stuff. Um my thinking is if we can have some assurance or um making a recommendation to council whatever that looks like whereby we say hey um we know this is an important building and uh we would uh support this five year uh path to um delisting in this current moment here but um we recommend beseech ask you council or staff if we have that ability here um to go explore ways that um these may be more relevant opportunities that the City Council has teed up on their work do- on their work docket uh for um how we're going to handle the downtown uh whether through that Precise Plan or District H item um whereby they can uh direct you guys to explore ways where we can require property owners to make use of maybe like allocated resourcing um or you know just opportunities to do that it doesn't have to be limited to that. Um but it's it's obviously an important building you know the feel thing you know I I take that seriously like I love that buil- right that um and so um yeah that I think do you get what I'm getting at?

[02:45:44] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think we have enough to work with. Um you know active not passive and focus that on the 100 200 and 300 blocks I guess or even just the 100 and 200 blocks and maybe good to get a little clarity on the geographic extent. The more limited the better for staff so that we're putting whatever energy or resources council supports into a finite area. Um but maybe if you could just define some geography for clarity.

[02:46:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yep. Yep. Um Commissioner Yin I'm just going to look to you if that's okay real quick. How do you feel about something like that?

[02:46:39] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh I think that sounds good. I think um especially if they were already there and now they have to come off because they were found to not be historically significant or the integrity isn't quite there then we've got willing partners with the city if the city feels like you know if coun- we're offering council the abil- not offering council has the ability to make these decisions then we're just making the recommendation perhaps if we get all six of us to say can we just have you know more communication and perhaps find some funding that we already have, make it available, make it known, maybe see if there's extra funding if council deems that these properties are worthy. Um if we're looking at region I would say downtown uh we don't have the map of the Precise Plan portions but I I think wherever there are clusters of other structures with historical significance if you can find that there's continuity let's say if there's H but is south of California part of H? No but then you have like California street which is this node huge node connecting and you have the circle it's an extremely from an urban design point um or framework very significant that the buildings around the circle also are significant because it's sort of the commercial area and then maybe even for the I don't know it's very hard to say but my feeling if we're going for personal feeling is downtown and then whatever commercial areas go off of downtown. But I don't know which sub categories those are.

[02:48:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston?

[02:48:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So just to make sure I'm clear. So the three that don't have Mills Act they have no financial incentive right now on their properties correct?

[02:48:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh yes that's correct but there there may be you know uncertain financial incentives that um you know could apply to future zoning actions or something like that that that they just haven't taken advantage of yet. But no yeah they don't have any any property tax reductions.

[02:48:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So I am I'm actually more troubled by the five year arbit- what I feels like a five year arbitrary for the two that have contracts in place already. Um I would be more inclined and and you haven't said they have two years left or ten years left or how long is left on the various property ones but I think we need honor what was in place. So if they've got two years left or eight years left they should have two years left or eight years left. It's not an arbitrary you know five years and oh by the way we need to make it very clear that you need to show progress during that time. That doesn't necessarily mean you're done in five years if we if you signed up to make changes within two years within ten years and there's two years left and you haven't made those you need to get those done okay to con- so basically we honor what was put in place. Okay? And then if they make progress we can give them a follow on that they you know maybe ano- a mini five year Mills Act for after that to get the rest of the way. Okay? So I'm I don't like changing the rules on people. So on for on the other three I would be more inclined to say okay then you give them the five year option okay do you want it or not and if they don't then just say okay fine but I don't know about you but I can't I didn't look at the Scarpa building very closely but it doesn't look anything like what it did back in the earlier pictures so I don't know how you ever get back to what it was before so they may just say forget about it. Um but I'm I'm I'm troubled by the two that have Mills Act agreements. I think we as a city need to honor what was in place. We also need to to my question part of my questions earlier were what happens if they don't do it and this is one of those where if you said you're going to make these improvements in this amount of time in two years or three years or five years or whatever you're going to be done and if you haven't then guess what we're not going to renew it. If you do make progress then we can give you another time to make it the rest of the way but I don't like this hard cut off uh for the two that are there. I agree that you know if you go into the other ones say okay Rogers building you got this facade thing make you we absolutely communicate those things but I'm not I'm not inclined to cut off something that I view as a essentially an agreement with the city for those property owners that we should continue to honor through the per- at least for the two that have contracts in place and then and give them the opportunity if they need it you know if they haven't if they have made progress that extend a little bit beyond that. So that's more my inclination rather than just the five years and and you're done. So.

[02:51:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Can we get staff's thoughts on that?

[02:51:26] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah I think part of the challenge is um I think we've encountered inconsistent Mills Act contract administration and what I mean by that is um we don't have a clear program of improvements for uh a number if not most or all of our Mills Act properties. And so um to follow along with Commissioner Cranston's recommendation whatever remaining term one year two years seven years um we need to engage with these property owners and in most cases I suspect they won't have a program of improvements to even undertake. And so they would be starting from scratch determining whether they want to or not exploring it with an architect um exploring permitting construction costs. All of that takes time and so if they had one or two years left that may not be enough time for them to really um go through this process and undertake um you know improvements uh in a project.

[02:52:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I would view that as a shame on us. Not a shame on them.

[02:52:37] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Be that as it may um I think the broader issue here as we discussed earlier is that even if it's shame on us as a city how do we administer our ordinance for properties that don't have sufficient historic integrity. What do we measure against for future changes to those properties. It presents a number of practical complications with our ordinance that we're trying to reconcile but in a responsible way by putting forth this five year recommended transition period where we can engage with the owners the owners can engage responsibly to figure out what makes the most sense for them to pursue projects or to anticipate and phase out the Mills Act contract.

[02:53:25] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um I just want to say that this is a really unique uh issue. I was it Eric Anderson that said that not many cities have to chart down this path of delisting and so um I I think that we should do this very carefully. I like a lot of the ideas that have been brought up including you know exploring funding exploring how the city could be more involved in getting these properties back to um integrity. Um I liked the discussion that um Commissioner Cranston had to think about the timing in regard to the current Mills Act uh contracts in place. Um I'm just thinking about how long it takes generally for projects with permitting and construction for a normal project this one you would have to try to find an architect that knows about historic buildings especially during the time where that building was built so that might be more challenging. Um so for me five years seems like a really tight period of time. I'm wondering if my colleagues would support something like seven or eight years to give these property owners a little bit more time to um think about whether they'd want to embark on getting their buildings back to integrity or or not and if they did they would have a little bit more time to make it happen.

[02:54:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Is there any thinking from staff on the five versus seven versus like where does it stop?

[02:54:12] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think we don't have a strong opinion. I think five we felt like would be a minimum but responsible and feasible amount of time. Ten years I think is beginning to push the boundaries of reconciling our ordinance and allowing us to just carry forward as a city systematically. Something between five and ten I think we can we can work with that.

[02:54:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: What do you think Commissioner Pham? Do you have a preferred number?

[02:54:42] Commissioner Tina Pham: I guess seven.

[02:54:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Donahue.

[02:54:50] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So the existing ordinance talks about the one of the benefits is the historic building rehabilitation loan fund. Is that used like is that funded or like?

[02:55:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh I don't believe that was ever established.

[02:55:12] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. That that like kind of suspected that might be the answer. Um so the um Commissioner Cranston said something about the uh only two of the properties have Mills Act contracts in place so the others have no incentives but there is that incentive of city tax refund that's 16% so do do any of the others have that? No. Okay. I see a a shaking head. So okay. Um so then it truly is that they don't have any at least financial incentive there's these other uh zoning ordinance uh exemptions and things. Okay. Um as far as our uh non enforcement of the Mills Act contract uh requirements to to continuously improve the the the property um I assume that that the contract still requires that so technically they would be in breach of contract for for not doing that even if the city isn't enforcing it. So um though of course you don't want the city to come in and just lay down the hammer all of a sudden so there there you know you'd want to have a a good faith effort to try to to give them some time to come into conformance.

[02:56:50] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's right. I think the issue is you know there's more than one way to terminate the contract. There's the just non renewal at the end of the period there's a termination for cause if we'll call it that for failure to abide by the contract which potentially has penalties which we are desiring to avoid in this case where we don't have evidence to suggest this is the fault of any of the current property owners but we are where we are with these properties and we're trying to figure out the best way forward. And so that's where the third option which is to um terminate the contracts if if the city determines the properties are no longer eligible for listing um comes into play and the city actually takes the step to delist the property. The contract just ends. So we're trying to use that part where the city has some discretion as to the timing and nature of the action to allow this to occur on the seven year timeline if that's where the commission and the council end up to say okay end of year seven city delists and so the Mills Act contract sunsets at that point. No penalty everyone just moves on property taxes adjust.

[02:57:40] Commissioner Paul Donahue: And that that's in the contract? That the city is allowed to to go through that that process.

[02:57:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I can't say it's in every contract but a contract we've looked at for this specific purpose has that and I imagine something similar if not the same provisions are in the other contracts in question.

[02:58:00] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay. Um... Yeah what you said makes a lot of sense to me. I I don't want to like I said just lay down a hammer all of a sudden out of nowhere and penalize people for not doing that even if the city isn't enforcing it. So um...

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Kind of not engaging in behavior that they were never expected to engage in previously. So, um, yeah, I think some comments here. I think seven years sounds reasonable to me. Um, I think that will, you know, there's only two contracts in place anyway. I don't know when they would expire anyway, but there's kind of a 70% chance they'd expire within seven years. Um, so, uh, I think that that's kind of a reasonable thing. I don't expect all of these properties, as somebody pointed out, the Scarpa's Meat Market is unlikely to be rehabilitated to the original state and I don't think that somebody's going to add a second story back onto the Eaton-Manfredi house. So, um, but, you know, maybe some of the others could be adjusted. But I think a seven-year period is a good amount of time to do that.

[03:01:15] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[03:01:18] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So, um, I very much agree with what I just heard from Commissioner Donahue and I think I'm going to associate myself pretty heavily with those comments. For me, most of these buildings just looking at the picture, I don't know how they're going to remediate this back into their old historic form. I can only assume that because that's such a long shot, that's why you put them on the delisting list. Uh, so just as a general philosophy or approach to this, you know, I don't, I would not want to see hammers dropped on people, but I also don't want to see the city throw property tax money away on contracts that aren't doing anything for us. If they're not getting us better historical buildings, then we're just burning it in a pile. And I can, you know, if this is costing us a hundred thousand bucks a year, I can imagine things that we'd really much rather spend that money on. So for what it's worth, no hammers. And in fact, if there's ways to do incentives to get people to build buildings that we actually want, cool. Um, but I have zero problem with the city working to back out of contracts that aren't doing anything that's really of any value to us.

[03:02:30] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin, do you have some further reference?

[03:02:35] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah, sure. Uh, ditto on that. However, um, I was curious if there ends up being a historic district, these would just be non-conforming. Is that correct? But if there's a district, what happens in that case? If they give the feels, even if they're not historically significant to that period.

[03:02:58] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: This is one of the challenges with creating the kind of downtown specific policies. Um, if we were to adopt downtown specific preservation policies, I think there would need to be downtown specific incentives. Um, because the whole fundamental challenge here is that the Mills Act contract is impossible to carry out because there aren't character defining features to the building to preserve and maintain. So if, um, if we were to carry out a downtown specific district that acknowledges a building like the Rogers Building or the Scarpa's Building, it would have to have some specific incentives as well.

[03:03:58] Commissioner Joyce Yin: You would have incentives. Okay, but regarding, I mean, um, okay. How about regarding what they would need to do to be a participant? The other side of it. Incentives good. But what would they need to do?

[03:04:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So again, it's getting pretty hypothetical at this point, especially since we haven't looked at all sides of this issue. We're in the weeds. I'm just highlighting a fundamental challenge with maintaining these properties on the Mills Act.

[03:04:30] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Okay. I understand. So if we're specific to what we're just looking at right now in terms of the process. Um, if we're talking about, just going back to what Commissioner Cranston and Commissioner Pham were talking about, timing. Everyone's saying let's not drop the hammer. I agree, especially for those who are already under the Mills Act. Um, I was going to make a suggestion that perhaps the five years is to, um, do a check and see if they've engaged with an architect, have they talked with them, are they starting on the design process. It does take a long time. I mean, I have clients who, you know, will wait several months before even starting. So it takes time to find someone, get going, design takes a while. Then just the whole process is long and, you know, permitting can take long. Unless there is a permitting expediency that can be had as part of a perk, that's something else to consider. But um, maybe five years is the check and then there's additional number of years to ensure some aspect of construction. In the permit process, there is anyways where it expires after a certain amount, if you don't get another inspection. You know what I'm talking about. So maybe there's something similar without being overly complicated. But maybe the five years is just, have you made progress.

[03:05:58] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think a key milestone would maybe be at year four having submitted, you know, the historic preservation permit application to the city to evaluate, right? And then you're showing good faith, you're investing some effort and money and you're working through the city process which is a prerequisite to the building permit process. Um, but by year four if you don't even have the concept and the conceptual approach for the restoration and rehabilitation, you know, you're delisted at that point rather than waiting another three years to find out.

[03:06:33] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So then we can do the seven years total as suggested, by Commissioner Pham, with the like four year check being the earning of those additional three to completion. Okay. Um, Commissioner Pham? Is that okay with you?

[03:06:42] Commissioner Tina Pham: Sure. Yeah.

[03:06:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: No? Commissioner Dempsey?

[03:06:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. So it sounds like we have... generated consensus on that last item and through Commissioner Pham, thank you. Um, for the, uh, develop the process for those five properties. Um, I would like to see us, uh, proceed with the staff recommendation with the added direction, guidance, ask, whatever we, however, you know, we want to frame that, um, or I leave to staff to maybe clarify that. Uh, to Council for, um, again I think as, uh, Mr. Murdock cited, there is downtown specific work that the City Council has in their pipeline. That would be an ideal vehicle and the most relevant, uh, for, um, incentives, requirements, regulation, resourcing, all of that to kick into gear with regard to some of these historic buildings downtown, or at least those perceived as such, listed, delisted, what have you. Um, so that's the suggestion I'm throwing out to be able to proceed with the staff recommendation, with this additional ask to Council for direction to staff to explore, um, opportunities for us as a city to be more hands-on, active and involved with how we preserve and handle our downtown historic resources rather than just passive. Um, so that's what I have on the floor if we want to proceed with that. I'd be happy, Commissioner Cranston.

[03:08:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'm a little confused by the... I thought what I heard was seven years and four years in, you have to submit a package to, you know, for what you're gonna do. And that would replace the five year and you're done option. Yeah, and I think that was still making, sharing, you know, here is the facade improvement things and all these other things that we communicate with them. But it wasn't the staff report as is, it was the four year seven year thing. I think there's merit to that to me and I would prefer that over the five year you're out.

[03:09:11] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I'll defer to staff on this. My view on it was we the... we kind of just handled the easier part which is the how of the delisting might happen. And now we're trying to just get back to those top two around the... the who, the what properties is being put forward. Am I getting that?

[03:09:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah. I think the earlier discussion on this subject was recommending to Council the city craft, um, some sort of affirmative mechanism to go beyond the passive mechanisms of just incentives for property owners to at minimum engage through active communication and persistent communication during this period. Um, if not bringing to bear financial resources if the city is in a position and Council desires to do that, to really push a proactive approach to these properties, to encourage them to do the restoration and rehabilitation before that four year or seven year milestone triggers.

[03:10:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: As pertains to the downtown.

[03:10:05] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, and I think...

[03:10:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah. Yeah.

[03:10:07] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We didn't talk specifically where in the downtown. I don't know if that really got more specific than the 100, 200, 300 block, but...

[03:10:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Not yet. That's the... I guess that's an open question. Um, I'm trying to, uh, proceed with like the properties delisted, um, or being proposed as delisted, but also trying to weave the thread of like, um, in particular some... like the Rogers building in particular being within the downtown and also the work that's going on concurrently from Council, uh, with regard to the downtown precise plan. That we can potentially have an opportunity to proceed with the staff recommendation right now, but also with an adjoining, um, recommendation or ask to Council to please take advantage of this other work item for the downtown precise plan whereby you might do something like open up a budget pool, some, you know, like special circumstance where we're able to, to Mr. Murdock's point, like be more proactive in how we push, um, the use of that resourcing, right? Because we can't just tell people hey go fix it at your own dime and, right? Like we have to be able to like put forward something. Like we want to say hey we actively want to protect this building, here's our historic preservation ordinance, here's how we're going to take advantage of the downtown precise plan work item to push that. Um, that's kind of what, um, I'm thinking. I know I'm not communicating it in the most clear way here. I'm looking at staff certainly, but um, you know, that Rogers building in particular is what I'm trying to get at.

[03:11:52] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. I'll just offer for your consideration. It may be better to be more general on this point than specifying downtown precise plan update. That process is tracking separate from the historic preservation ordinance and is on a multi-year timeline and so it could be two or three years from now before that plan is adopted and that could eat into the four year checkpoint. So having something independent of that, but I think focusing on a geography will allow us to identify the right tools, whether it's downtown precise plan update or some other mechanism.

[03:12:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Do you have any recommendation on the generalization that can help us get there? Any idea?

[03:12:46] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I'm sorry, was that a question or a confirmation?

[03:12:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah it was. Do you have any kind of like recommendation?

[03:12:50] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I think the more general language about, um, recommending to Council proactive measures rather than the passive measures. I think from my perspective is specific enough but not overly specific.

[03:13:05] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[03:13:07] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Did you need more specificity on the area?

[03:13:13] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Right. I think if there's a geographic bound regardless of the mention of the downtown precise plan, that would be helpful for us. And, you know, the narrower the better given the scarcity of fiscal as well as staff resources.

[03:13:25] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sure. Okay. I don't think we can go all the way up to the... like core core of it.

[03:13:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I mean we really are only talking about five properties, right? So it's either the Rogers building or the Rogers building and Scarpa's or, you know, another building that's fairly close to downtown there is the 1076 Wright Avenue is just north of downtown. So is there, like what, thinking about in terms of the properties that you want to apply that proactive action on may be more useful than thinking about an arbitrary geography.

[03:14:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I guess I would just offer that, you know, the city is putting a lot of resources in a number of dimensions into the downtown. I think we've heard from the public as well that the downtown has particular importance and significance. So, you know, a mention of the downtown specifically at minimum would be helpful. From my perspective that really limits us I think to the two resources we've been talking about. Um, that's probably appropriate from my perspective to really put that concerted effort into that focused geography and the finite number of properties.

[03:14:25] Commissioner Joyce Yin: For purposes of tonight you're really just looking at the five, so they all fall in that zone. Yes.

[03:14:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The ones that are in downtown. Uh, no, so the three residential properties, 336 Mariposa Avenue is in Shoreline West, 1643 Villa is also in Shoreline West, and then 1076 Wright Avenue is north of downtown. So it's in the kind of Stierlin, uh, actually on the other side of Shoreline from Stierlin, so it's on the kind of near closer to Rex Manor neighborhood.

[03:15:05] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. I'm okay with downtown.

[03:15:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: That would work for me too. Commissioner Cranston, how does that work for you?

[03:15:13] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'm a little confused by... so we're agreeing here? So it's the... we're going to put try to encourage active measures to make sure that help the folks that are downtown. And everybody gets the four year seven year thing?

[03:15:32] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, the time frame applies to everyone. What we're saying is that we, um, are cool with what staff is putting forward and also, um, asking Council to as part of this process consider ways to be more active in ensuring that the downtown properties can make use of or somehow kind of like move forward with the... with the, um, rest... I don't know, restoration isn't the right word, but do you get do you hear what we're saying? Like just take spotlighting downtown. We're basically saying downtown is more important to like obviously more important to our community and we'd like properties in this area to have extra consideration.

[03:16:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I might call my lawyer. Uh, alright. So I guess I'm... I'm uncomfortable with suggesting that we would do something over and above what is already being looked at for downtown. If it's within the context of what we're doing downtown to try to develop downtown, I get that. Okay. But doing something special outside of that makes me uncomfortable. Okay. So I'm that's my my line if you will, okay? I'm I like the four seven. If it's something that is consistent with what we're doing in the downtown area for the two that are in on Castro, I'm okay with that but I'm not comfortable suggesting that they would go beyond what's being offered to other businesses regardless of whether they're part of this as part of continuing improving and making downtown great.

[03:17:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Well that makes sense. Um, if there's other discussion on this, um, we don't necessarily... I think we could probably put that to a vote then, um, on proceeding with that as well. Um, it would be nice to have consensus for sure. Um, I think what we're saying is, um, the community values the downtown and the properties downtown as historic resources to such an extent that the City Council ought to consider this as a direction to really make sure these resources that people drive from, you know, like Waverly Park to go downtown have a coffee because they enjoy that so much that this can continue being something people enjoy in the future as a public resource. Um, I think that's what we're saying is we'd like Council to make that consideration, um, and we'd like staff to explore that if possible. That's all that we're saying.

[03:17:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yeah, yeah. Do you want a...

[03:17:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Are you going to say you want to take a straw poll on on that?

[03:18:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right. Uh, so the uh the third bullet point is settled, uh, which would be the four and the seven. And now we're uh on the top two which is around including um the properties uh that staff has put forward for um delisting within that four and seven um year time frame. In such a manner where we're also um packaging with that a uh recommendation uh to City Council that they um uh that they direct staff to explore ways that um you know any historic resourcing uh you know could be made available and or um you know more actively um engaged with for properties in the downtown area. Did I capture that correctly? Yep.

[03:18:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, and to focus the city's resources on those two properties in the 100 and 200 block.

[03:18:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good. Um, let us take a straw poll. Um, all in favor of proceeding with that? Okay. All against? All right. We have consensus unless I need to call abstains. Okay. All right. Proceeding. Nomination, listing and delisting process. Um, any Commissioner commentary, deliberation?

[03:37:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So we're looking at the list... So this matches up with the list on page 17, is that what I'm talking about here? Okay. Right? This doesn't read quite the same. Right? So this would be for like removing the owner opt-out provision, the one with the 50% of property owner kind of situation. The only thing that I'm I guess unclear or questioning and it's kind of related to the last one as well is the is the the um delisting process for safety, you know, I I'm I'm I'm I'm just like we had in the discussion about uh um the ordinance the last time um I don't like the I don't like the idea that negligence could be a reason where that something becomes delisted. And so it's not um I would like that language what what staff comes up with to be more clear that it's if they're if it's a result of a negligence on the negligence on the negligence on the part of the of the proper property owner then that's not a that's not a way to automatically get off the list. That's where the incentives that come up in the um the um the enforcement process wherever that was um should definitely be strong enough to address that. So uh that's my only I mean the other pieces made sense to me but I I don't want negligence to be the the excuse for getting delisted.

[03:40:25] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[03:40:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I agree. I think uh the preceding vote we just took just showcases, you know, enforcement has to go hand in hand. And so if we're doing checks or whatever it is to ensure that those are not the reasons. I'm I'm good with what you've got as staff recommendation.

[03:40:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Staff, do you have some thoughts on that? As viable is that?

[03:40:50] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, if you provide that recommendation, we'll forward it to the City Council.

[03:40:59] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Commissioner Donahue.

[03:41:02] Commissioner Paul Donahue: What, what was the recommendation again?

[03:41:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Would you like to repeat that Commissioner Cranston?

[03:41:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It's just to that as as worded the fourth bullet on page 17 that it needs to be it needs to if for delisting negligence can't be a can't has to be can't be one of those reasons for it. So it needs to be it's not just the property stinks. It's if it stinks because they were intentionally doing something to let it go bad then that's not a reason to delist it. So that's all I'm saying is that that needs to be incorporated into as they work on these procedures that that has to be taken into account.

[03:41:46] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Got it. Yeah. That um kind of reminds me of the heritage tree ordinance having been on the previous on the PRC/Urban Forestry Board. And um sometimes tree appeals or came in where basically the owner improperly pruned the tree and then, you know, waited a couple years and then came to the city and said hey I want to take this heritage tree out. And the the city arborist would go out and say, well, that tree is eligible to be removed because of bad past pruning practices. And which seems like bad pruning practices can happen, right? But you know if it happened 30 years ago from two owners ago or something that's that's one thing. But if if the current owner is like actively trying to do something. And and the ordinance actually does require proper pruning but I don't know that it's always enforced because it's hard to necessarily notice that that a uh uh that that's happening. Anyway that that's obviously a completely separate ordinance but it's kind of I think analogous. Um I do agree because of that I do agree uh that there should be some sort of a kind of a a penalty for you know improperly maintaining the the a uh historic uh uh property. Um one other question that I had. Oh. The so there's this thing about 50% of contributing owners and we had some questions about that earlier. Um if there's a I just I think it was answered before but I just want to hear it again. Um if there's an an area that's designated as a historic um uh district and there are non-contributing properties. Those properties are not subject to to any of this historic preservation ordinance.

[03:43:57] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, that's correct.

[03:43:58] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay good. That's that's what I thought. Um okay. Then then that all makes sense.

[03:44:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey.

[03:44:06] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um I just would say that I'm generally okay with the staff recommendation. I will say I am mildly uncomfortable with removing the unilateral owner opt-out provision. And that's mostly because I keep coming back to this question of incentives and balancing sort of you know risk and reward for homeowners. If there's so many people that want to opt off that we have to prohibit it, that means the incentives are out of alignment. And that's what concerns me. Um this should not be a this should not be a compulsive thing or not compulsive but this should not be a an avenue of compulsion for for property owners. I don't that it shouldn't be a drag to end up having your building named a historic uh or being put on a historic list. So anyway uh I can go with this. I just want to flag for everybody that if we're taking the opt-out away, it must be because we're concerned about excessive use. And if there's excessive demand for this, it's probably because the incentives are misaligned.

Segment 6

[03:45:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So they... so they would have an opportunity to look at it and say, if it's... if... what is a major item that we would want to see? If it's a... if they don't want to see it, then they would remove that into the minors. So the concern that Commissioner Dempsey has is something that I think will be resolved through the process of review... of developing this list of items. And so it's only those items that are considered major alterations, relocation, moving, visible additions, that would alter the defining characteristics of something that is on the California State Registry or the National Registry that would ever go to Council.

Segment 5

[03:45:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Might jump in on that. Um I think uh that is a very impactful idea. I think that makes a lot of sense. Um I guess I'm curious like in that context then we would probably have to increase the incentives uh that would make it more likely that folks wouldn't want to delist unilaterally or otherwise. Which then would also potentially maybe even increase the desire, the need, the if like like for enforcement if that like if we're going to increase incentivization or incentives um to points where people are no longer kind of like rushing to the door to delist, then that would also mean that we would maybe have more of a stake or desire to make sure people are actually using those appropriately and therefore maybe increase like monitoring or compliance or check costs. I guess I'm curious um Commissioner Dempsey because I do like the idea but I'm curious what you have to say.

Segment 6

[03:45:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So if the... if the list is well developed to start with, then the risk that Commissioner Dempsey is flagging in theory should not occur because those kind of things will have been... the vast majority of things will pass through... uh, will go through the either Staff level or through the ZA. If it's a Mountain View only list, it'll never go to Council. Okay? Even if it's a major revision. It'll only go to the ZA. It's just those items that are on the National or California that's... that I'm... that I'm talking about.

Segment 5

[03:46:03] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Let me be clear. Um you can balance the incentives by either increasing the incentives or decreasing the burden. And so one of the things that I note I was planning on saving this till the very end that if we're going to start creating more enforcement powers with enforcement costs and penalties and things of that nature, I don't know exactly how that's going to work but that if I you know I was a homeowner who doesn't have a historic home, um I would be worried about that. That's one way that the costs might actually become higher, more scarier. I don't know if there's going to be prune police who are going to come by and you know check and see exactly how did I cut my tree and stuff that there's got to be better things for the City of Mountain View to do than that. So um I just want to be clear that it's not just about increasing incentives. It could be and I'm not prejudging this reducing the burden on the homeowner. Just so long as it balances.

Segment 6

[03:46:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, it... I'm... I'm counting on bullets two and three to be worked through as we see again in this process to make sure that what hap... what Commissioner Dempsey is concerned about doesn't occur.

[03:46:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: That's helpful. Um, can Staff clarify what the current situation is now for major alterations in terms of approvals versus... especially for California and National listed properties?

[03:46:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Um, and I'll... uh, first off, we don't have this three level process right now. We have exempt and not exempt. And if it's not exempt, there's two separate processes. One process is always Council, if you are State or National eligible. And there's an issue there, which is that this term 'eligible' is often not agreed upon between consultants. It's something that can be determined without the property owner knowing. And it's... um, you know, it adds a lot of complexity and uncertainty to the process.

Segment 5

[03:47:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Right. Chair, I think um some of what Commissioner Dempsey is touching on is covered in uh topic 6 the development review process. And so I think there are perceptions about the burden of undertaking projects um for a listed property that may be made less burdensome or more flexible um and be a part and parcel to that package of incentives and disincentives um that Commissioner Dempsey was touching on.

Segment 6

[03:47:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So simply using this term 'State or National eligible' is kind of part of the problem. Um, the... uh... so that process... those projects always go to Council. Um, and then the... uh, everybody else always goes to ZA. Um, so we have, uh, in our... in the previous section, we've recommended a different process for identifying State or National eligible. It's not just if some consultant says so, it's if the, um, National Park Service or the State Office of Historic Preservation makes unofficial determination of eligibility, which is not always the same as actual listing. Uh, there... there are slightly different processes there, but they're both public processes.

Segment 5

[03:47:33] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Yin.

[03:47:35] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um I'm of like mind. I think um what staff has proposed is is fine with me.

[03:47:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham.

[03:47:47] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just had a question for Commissioner Cranston. Um so what you mentioned with the California and National um listed properties, could you re-explain that? And is it does that align with staff recommendations?

[03:48:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the earlier bullets on this are that staff that staff is going to go back define what's a minor alteration what's a major alteration and make it far more clear. That will be something that will go through this whole process and will go in front of council. Minor changes I'm okay with that that can go to the ZA. It's major changes that I'm concerned about. Not minor changes. So that's that's not the same as what we have today. Sorry.

Segment 6

[03:48:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so, uh, we could keep the State... we could keep that, um, kind of State or National determination and have that go to Council for the major modifications. Or it could be State or National listed, of which there are very few. Um, and that could go to Council. Um, or the Staff recommendation is to just have, um, it be solely based on what the type of improvement is.

[03:48:49] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So follow up question. You said there are very few. How many roughly in the entire city?

[03:48:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so on State or National, I believe it's just four. And two of them are City owned.

Segment 5

[03:48:55] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So that sounded good from staff. Is that context to hold?

[03:49:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think I I understand the recommendation I think. Yeah I understand whether or not it aligns with our perceived council direction I think you know is for council to decide.

Segment 6

[03:49:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. With that context, I generally am in favor of, um, Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Yin?

[03:49:10] Commissioner Joyce Yin: No... other way around. Thank you. Um, maybe this is getting too far out there right now, but I... I understand that major and minor definitions will be flushed out, um, in regards to downtown. I am... I'm wondering if... I know design is one of the categories of integrity. If we're not just talking about facades, 'cause so far from the example I've seen... or examples we've talked about... major or minor just means whether or not it can be seen from the outside.

Segment 5

[03:49:13] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other thoughts from the Commission? Commissioner Fam haven't heard from you in a while. Do you want to any thoughts?

[03:49:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: No. Commissioner Cranston.

[03:49:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So in general I that it worked. The one thing I was a little uncomfortable with was the inclusion of items that were on the National and California Historic Register as something that was approved by the ZA. I would probably keep that with City Council. Um major major revisions that touch on you know that that uh that effect properties that are in either the California or National Register I think still should go to council. Not just the ZA. Other than that that's uh the third paragraph of table 5 it removes the uh it removes the the the council from that and it also reflected on the first line item on page 21 of the of the staff report. So I would rather have council when it's state or national council should still see it.

Segment 6

[03:49:57] Commissioner Joyce Yin: But there's one particular aspect of the downtown three blocks that makes it quite unique from anything else is also that you get like seven to twelve businesses in one block... on one side of the block even. So like in one block on both sides, you... you could have like 14, 15 businesses. If you're just keeping the facades, and there... there are some places that have done this where we just have the facade that look old and then we do one whole building of the block and there is like one giant store behind all those fake facades. I think that takes away from the crux of what our downtown is. And I... I don't know how that plays in major or minor because it can't be seen in theory.

Segment 5

[03:50:17] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other thoughts on that?

[03:50:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair can I ask a clarifying question of Mr. Cranston? Um do you mean uh state and national listed or state and national eligible?

[03:50:32] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Listed.

[03:50:33] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Listed. Okay. So that would be a change from our current. Uh our current is state or national eligible goes to council. Whether listed or not.

[03:50:43] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I mean I'd keep it the same because it's I the current code I I I wanted to keep for I'm okay for Mountain View list only but for I guess I didn't I didn't catch the difference between there. So I would keep the current code for for council review of of California and National Register items. Both eligible and listed.

[03:51:04] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So then does that mean you agree with the staff recommendation in essence?

Segment 6

[03:51:05] Commissioner Joyce Yin: So I just want to be very specific in my request that that is a criteria to examine. Um, I mean, honestly, you know, if you look at... I don't want to be pick... uh, nitpick on anybody, but the Wells Fargo... the new one, that and the Kaiser... that's like 400 and... I don't know, 550 feet that block. You get two... two shops, so to speak. If you look at how many people are actually there on the sidewalk and how active it is and how much of a community it makes on that part of the sidewalk, it is so small compared to, let's say, you know, the apartments that have One Ounce Coffee, Starbucks, and, um, the UPS Store, all those... the Mediterranean house. That is an example of one building that has multiple shops versus, you know... in one block versus one block that has three. And so that's an illustration of what I mean. It... it doesn't have to be necessarily... this is... I know we're going a little off historic, but I feel like today's examples of development, I don't see anyone dividing up their ground floor into smaller chunks. I'm not saying it has to be exactly the way it is now, but there needs to be some consideration for that type of design in what makes our downtown so active. Because if you were to just move Kaiser and Wells Fargo and just stamp that out into three, you know, and just choose a different business, I don't think it would be that active anymore and it would no longer be downtown regardless of whether or not everything looked exactly the same.

Segment 5

[03:51:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm saying that for on City Council public hearing actions it would that would not go to the ZA for city if for state and national items it would have to go to still have to go to council. That's that seems like if you're doing something that's on the California Registry or the National Registry, it feels like more than just a ZA item to me. That's why.

[03:51:38] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, I'll maybe just add some context. Um I think what we've seen as of late is very minor projects, um very small additions going to City Council and providing a significant burden uh to property owners trying to do pretty routine uh projects on their homes. And so I think we've sensed some interest on the council you know to have a more streamlined process for those kinds of projects. So I think there's kind of two dimensions here. There's figuring out you know is it state or national eligible or state or national listed and the other component is is there a distinction between minor or major alterations in this recommendation. Um but I think in general we were trying to respond to what we perceived as a council desire to make projects uh simpler for homeowners.

[03:52:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So what I said earlier is actually wrong. I'm I'm not advocating that minor items go to council. It's the major items. If staff looks at it and says it's a major change, that still goes to council. Minor changes I'm okay with that. That can go to the ZA. Okay. It's major changes that I'm concerned about. Not minor changes. So that's it's not the same as what we have today. Sorry.

Segment 6

[03:52:31] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. Um, I am in agreement with that. Um, and also agree with the Staff recommendation. Um, was Commissioner Yin's commentary... I... I... that... I mean that... that is meaningful. I... I happen to like the little break that you get from people walking past Kaiser and Wells Fargo, but the rest of the point stands. I get where you're getting at. Um, is that... is there enough here or can Staff just kind of like speak to how if... are we okay with...

[03:53:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, on that specific point from Commissioner Yin, I think I understand the intent. We'll have to do some work to figure out whether and how we can define, you know, a change in the floor plate, right, some sort of consolidation in this historic context as a major alteration, but I understood that was the intent of the recommendation. And so we can carry that forward and if Council supports it, we can... we can work to see if we can achieve it.

Segment 5

[03:53:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So does that sound good from staff? Is that context to hold? I think I understand the recommendation. I think whether or not it aligns with our perceived council direction I think you know is for council to decide.

[03:53:32] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other thoughts from the Commission?

Segment 6

[03:53:33] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Would... would like, um... it would be like just added guidance around like consideration of floor plate, floor plan, um, fit for purpose language, kind of something like that?

Segment 5

[03:53:39] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So my recollection is that there was an item on the City Council agenda six months ago for a house like the corner of Velarde and um Bush or View or something. I don't I get a little confused about the geography there. Where they wanted to add like 50 square feet to their kitchen or something like that and that had to go to the Council. So that's the type of thing that the proposal would just go through the ZA.

Segment 6

[03:53:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's how I understood Commissioner Yin's comments. Yes.

[03:53:50] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Right. And I... I know that there... you have a lot of things going on with the Precise Plan and the economic development strategies and, you know, some people are wanting to do a little bit larger, but I... I know you're flushing this out. You're not there yet, but I just wanted to make that a point that we... there needs to be some consideration of that in terms of what is minor and what is major, especially for that area.

Segment 5

[03:54:11] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh that type of project could under this proposal could actually be a staff level approval. Um and uh but it would be something more more significant with the potential to affect character defining features that would go to ZA or in Commissioner Cranston's recommendation to Council if it's state or national eligible.

Segment 6

[03:54:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Cool. Well, um, I'm... I'd be inclined to support that as we move toward, um, the... uh, getting like a decision on this, but, uh, Commissioner Donahue, do you have any...?

[03:54:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So, having one big store, um, would involve, uh, merging or whatever... uh, consolidating lots. I assume, right? That... that... there... there would have to be one big parcel. Unless you're talking about like just punching a door through or something like that. Um, but... but if... if it involves, you know, maybe, um, consolidating parcels would be a major alteration. Or is that an alteration? I mean it certainly would be something the City would have to be, you know, go through an approval process, right? So...

Segment 5

[03:54:33] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. So if if they want to redo the facade of the Rogers building to be from the original photo to the new photo, that kind of thing would clearly be a a major alteration.

[03:54:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I want to make the distinction here between what would actually um impair the integrity to the point of being ineligible which would go to Council under any circumstance. Okay. Versus what would um simply have the the potential to affect character defining features and then that would be at the ZA level. Um and we would uh set up specific criteria in the ordinance. But that's that's roughly the the rubric.

Segment 6

[03:55:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I... I don't know that the property lines themselves would necessarily have a potential impact on a historic resource. I think it's really what you do with the building relative to that property, um, or the interior floor plans. If you consolidate multiple lots into a single lot scenario, considering redevelopment, uh, of the sort that Commissioner Yin was describing, that could then change the historic integrity if the whole function of that building or its surroundings, the context, were to change.

Segment 5

[03:55:24] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Thanks.

Segment 6

[03:55:38] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I'm just... I'm just thinking that if you keep just the one wall and you knock down all the interior walls between buildings and... and make it one big parcel and one big thing, that maybe to address her concern, maybe that should just be considered a major alteration or a... you know something like that. So.

[03:55:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, I think you're touching on all the things we need to work on. Uh, I think the intent is clear. I think implementation requires a fair amount of analysis.

[03:56:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So I think, uh, we should probably take this to a vote. I know, um... I know I'm in agreement with that with the, um, conditions put forward that I think Staff is captured. Are we comfortable with checking for agreement? All in favor? Thumbs up? We got... yeah, meager waves... thumbs up. Okay, cool. I think there is enough affirmative, um, yes's there. And I think that is the last one. I guess, um, Staff, there's a line here in the, uh, Chair notes around providing a summary. Do we need to do that or have we picked that up along the way?

[03:56:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, sure. Why don't I go through and provide the summary of what I've captured and the Commission can confirm if that's accurate and complete.

[03:56:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So moved.

[03:56:48] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I have a question though. Because I had to recuse on that that little narrow thing, can I vote on, you know, because whatever I didn't participate in is kind of implicitly part of that motion? Is that...?

[03:56:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So for eligibility criteria, I noted, um, the Commission was okay with bullets one and two. Um, for the listing of the properties, um, the Commission was okay with all of the listings. Um, for managing, um, and taking action on the invel... uh, ineligible properties that we've identified, um, the Commission supports the approach. Um, for downtown properties in the... I guess 100 and 200 block, um, those two properties that were specifically identified in that location, um, recommend, uh, very proactive measures, not simple reliance on the passive incentives to bring property owners, um, to come forward with projects to restore and rehabilitate those properties. Um, as it pertains to the phase out period, if we'll call it that, there's a four year period in which to submit a historic preservation permit application with the restoration plan. Uh, failure to do that would result in the delisting at that time. For those that submit at that four year threshold, they have up to the full seven years to complete the work in order to remain on the list and eligible for their Mills Act contracts. And then in terms of delisting, um, the Commission was okay with Staff's recommendation plus Commissioner Cranston's recommendation related to, um, excluding property owner negligence, um, as a basis for delisting. And development review process, uh, the Commission supported the Staff's recommendation, um, with the addition from Commissioner Yin about considering how to define changes to floor, uh, area, uh, consolidation or otherwise, um, as a major alteration.

[03:58:53] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Well, I have a question. Are... are we going to have a motion? Is that what's going to happen?

[03:58:57] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I think... Do we need a motion for that?

[03:58:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, please. So someone could move my summary or amend it in some way.

[03:59:02] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So moved.

[03:59:03] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I have a question though. Because I had to recuse on that that little narrow thing, can I vote on, you know, because whatever I didn't participate in is kind of implicitly part of that motion? Is that...?

[03:59:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right. I think we were imagining, um, two parts to this. Uh, the first motion, everything but the property you were excluded from. And then the second motion, just that property and you would just abstain from that vote.

[03:59:26] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, so I don't need to leave the room for that vote? Or... I mean I'm... I'm happy to do that. I don't know.

[03:59:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think you can abstain from that.

[03:59:39] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Yeah. I just want to be super ethical, so. Okay.

[03:59:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. I heard, uh, Commissioner Dempsey make a motion. And then anyone? Second? Okay so we've got a second from Commissioner Yin. And that being for Commissioner Murdoch's wonderful summary.

[04:00:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Everything but 1181 Bonita.

[04:00:07] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: With the whole 1181 exception? Yes. Okay. It was Commissioner Dempsey moved it and then Commissioner Yin. Are we good to vote? Yeah? Okay. All in favor? Are we going to use the vote machine or do we want to do a roll call vote?

[04:00:28] EPC Clerk: Uh, I believe it's set up right now.

[04:00:32] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: All right.

[04:00:40] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Motion failed. No! Well that worked. I must have screwed up the motion. Do we need to just do a roll call vote?

[04:01:04] EPC Clerk: Yeah. Um, Commissioner Pham? Commissioner Donahue? Commissioner Nuñez? Commissioner Dempsey? Commissioner Yin? Commissioner Cranston?

[04:01:29] EPC Clerk: Uh, the motion passes, uh, six yay, um, and one absent.

[04:01:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, Chair, now we'll just have a second motion, um, for, uh, inclusion of the 1181 Bonita property for which, um, Commissioner Donahue will abstain.

[04:01:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I make a motion to move the 1181 to include the 1181 Bonita Avenue, uh, property on the listings register, uh, with Commissioner Donahue having not been present here for the discussion. As, uh, recused. Have a seconder? Commissioner Cranston seconds. Have the motion on the floor.

[04:02:16] EPC Clerk: Uh, Commissioner Pham? Vice Chair Nuñez? Commissioner Dempsey? Commissioner Yin? Commissioner Cranston? Uh, we have five... the motion passes five yes, um, one abstention, and one absent.

[04:02:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, Commissioner Donahue abstained from that vote. He was the abstention. For the record.

[04:02:58] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We will now proceed to, uh, item number six. Commission Staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Um, first being that, uh, quite, um, relevantly actually, the City is recruiting applications for appointments to the Board of Library... Library Trustees, Environmental Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions, the Downtown Performing Arts and Senior Advisory Committees. And the EPC application deadline is 5:00 PM on October 8th. All other applications are due 5:00 PM on October 15th. Um, and I will say that 'tree appeal' was the most heartbreaking term I've heard all day. Um, and so I think that's a technical term like a tree appeal and that really kind of wore on me. Um, now, uh, yeah, anyone else have any kind of commission, uh, announcements, updates, etcetera? Any from Staff?

[04:03:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Nothing from Staff, Chair. Thank you.

[04:04:02] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Wahoo. Okay. Uh, I hereby declare this meeting adjourned... Oh, just confirmation on the next meeting?

[04:04:06] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I think one got pushed and I think the date was for the next meeting in two weeks. Just want to confirm.

[04:04:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Checking our calendar right now. Right. So this time, um, we're anticipating the next EPC meeting will be October 15th.

[04:04:54] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: October 15th. All right. I hereby declare this meeting adjourned at 11:00 PM on the dot. Thank you everyone.

• ← Previous
• Next →