Oct. 1, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:00:19] 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. 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.

[00:00:50] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. 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.

[00:01:48] 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 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.

[00:02:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thank you. Commissioner Pham

[00:02:56] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:02:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Donahue

[00:02:58] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:02:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Nuñez

[00:03:00] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:03:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey

[00:03:02] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:03:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin

[00:03:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Here.

[00:03:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston

[00:03:06] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:03:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Six commissioners present with the exception of Chair Gutiérrez, who is absent.

[00:03:16] 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.

[00:03:34] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, please click the raise 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?

[00:03:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers online or in person.

[00:03:56] 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?

[00:04:25] 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.

[00:04:38] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And I will second it.

[00:04:41] 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.

[00:05:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Six commissioners yay, with one absent.

[00:05:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Alright, having passed that, we're moving on to item number four, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

[00:05:43] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: 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.

[00:05:57] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise 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?

[00:06:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: No speakers online or in person on this item.

[00:06:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Seeing no speakers, we will close item four and we will now proceed to item 5.1, historic preservation ordinance update and historic register update. We will take this item through a special deliberation process due to commissioner conflicts of interest.

[00:06:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: 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. And before that, I'm just going to double check in with our staff about the order in which recusals need to take place. Are we allowed to proceed with the presentation?

[00:07:09] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, you can proceed with the presentation.

[00:07:12] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. We will now proceed with the presentation, then public comment.

[00:07:22] Project Manager Ella Karachian: Good evening, Vice Chair Nuñez and commission. This item is regarding the historic preservation ordinance and register. My name is Ella Karachian, and I'm the project manager, and I'm joined tonight by Eric Anderson, the planning manager.

[00:07:37] Project Manager Ella Karachian: The city has had a historic preservation ordinance and register since 2004. Together, these tools help the city preserve historically and culturally significant buildings, as well as their character-defining features. There are several reasons to update the ordinance and register at this time that are shown on the screen.

[00:07:56] Project Manager Ella Karachian: The bottom of the screen shows an overview of the project process. 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.

[00:08:23] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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.

[00:08:47] Project Manager Ella Karachian: In addition, City Council directed staff to evaluate and conduct an intensive survey for the following properties: all properties currently listed on the 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 multi-family properties.

[00:09:24] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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 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.

[00:09:54] Project Manager Ella Karachian: The first main topic for this meeting is regarding resource eligibility. Eligibility of historic resources is composed of two different types of analyses: significance criteria and integrity thresholds. The city's ordinance currently includes significance criteria that are similar to those established at the state and national levels.

[00:10:19] Project Manager Ella Karachian: Integrity thresholds are focused on seven characteristics including location, design, settings, material, 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.

[00:10:43] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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.

[00:11:01] Project Manager Ella Karachian: These properties are mostly clustered in Old Mountain View and Shoreline West neighborhoods, and more than half of them are single-family houses.

[00:11:11] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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.

[00:11:36] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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 applications at these sites could be challenging.

[00:11:52] Project Manager Ella Karachian: Staff recommends not immediately removing them from the register to allow property owners to adjust. And 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.

[00:12:12] Project Manager Ella Karachian: The property owners need to submit an application with an analysis showing that the improvements would return sufficient integrity to be eligible for continued listing on the MV register. 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.

[00:12:34] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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.

[00:12:48] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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.

[00:13:09] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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 the MV register requires public hearings before both the ZA and City Council.

[00:13:26] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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.

[00:13:46] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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. 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.

[00:14:21] Project Manager Ella Karachian: The following are the staff recommendations 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.

[00:14:44] Project Manager Ella Karachian: Create a process for neighborhoods and districts to nominate themselves subject to City Council approval. List properties on the MV register if an official determination of eligibility is made by the California Office of Historic Preservation or the National Park Services.

[00:15:02] Project Manager Ella Karachian: Provide delisting procedures that consider findings such as if there is an overriding consideration through CEQA or reassessment of eligibility through further analysis.

[00:15:16] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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 on in the MV register or eligible for listing in California or national registers.

[00:15:34] Project Manager Ella Karachian: There is no additional planning permits for various improvements that have limited potential to affect the character-defining features of a historic resource. The ZA reviews HP permits applications for alterations to properties on the MV register if the property is not eligible for California or state registers.

[00:15:54] Project Manager Ella Karachian: And the City Council reviews HP permits applications for alterations to the properties that are eligible for listing on California or national register.

[00:16:07] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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 the state and national require to go to City Council for review and approval, 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.

[00:16:41] Project Manager Ella Karachian: The following are staff recommendations 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.

[00:17:03] Project Manager Ella Karachian: The City Council meeting is tentatively scheduled to review these items on December 9th, 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.

[00:17:35] Project Manager Ella Karachian: 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.

[00:18:05] Project Manager Ella Karachian: In conclusion, staff is requesting that EPC make a recommendation to the 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.

[00:18:24] Project Manager Ella Karachian: We are happy to answer any questions that you might have. 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.

[00:18:52] 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 raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

[00:19:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone having submitted a yellow speaker card or on the Zoom attendee list?

[00:19:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: 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.

[00:19:46] 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. And I realize that you mentioned that at some point in time in the future, there would be a discussion of incentives, uh incentives, I'm not sure exactly incentives for what.

[00:20:15] Louise Katz: 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.

[00:20:28] Louise Katz: An example being the Rogers building that you talked about, the Mills Act, and I think the 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.

[00:21:00] 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.

[00:21:23] Louise Katz: So our consultants said, 'Oh, we 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.

[00:21:41] Louise Katz: So that seems to be missing from this kind of evaluation. And if we're not going to discuss incentives until way far into the future as the city as the state's, you know, 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, to find the resources to figure out how to make your old building up to to code, um to preserve the streetscape and the integrity of our city streets, our historic streets.

[00:22:24] 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-

[00:22:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Ms. Katz, your time is up. We really appreciate your comment. We will proceed to the next speaker.

[00:22:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Next we have Robert Cox, followed by Kenneth Sugahara. Robert, you should be able to speak now.

[00:23:03] Robert Cox: Okay, can you hear me?

[00:23:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes.

[00:23:06] Robert Cox: Vice Chair Nuñez and members of the EPC, thanks for the opportunity to speak for Livable Mountain View on the 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.

[00:23:26] 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 in formal status.

[00:23:49] 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.

[00:24:03] Robert Cox: We also do not support delisting the five properties described as ineligible properties on pages 13 to 15 of the staff report, at least not right now. The staff report suggests that architectural integrity is the overriding consideration when evaluating the historic authenticity of a building.

[00:24:20] Robert Cox: 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.

[00:24:35] 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.

[00:24:54] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Cox.

[00:25:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Next we have Kenneth Sugahara, followed by Nancy Adelster. Kenneth, you should be able to talk now.

[00:25:11] Kenneth Sugahara: Hi, 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.

[00:25:29] Kenneth Sugahara: 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 is primarily the main temple building for its maybe historical significance as a house of worship.

[00:25:48] Kenneth Sugahara: 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. I think that's one big question.

[00:26:09] Kenneth Sugahara: 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 the current or not, but it says within six months of adoption of the ordinance we can submit a request in writing to be removed.

[00:26:29] Kenneth Sugahara: 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 for 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? It should be truly in the owners' 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 hearings, public hearings that I've gone and attended.

[00:27:06] Kenneth Sugahara: That is I think the main two items that we want to state here to the EPC. Thank you.

[00:27:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[00:27:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Next speaker is Nancy Adelster. Nancy, you should be able to speak now.

[00:27:36] Nancy Adelster: Can you, can you hear me?

[00:27:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, yes we can.

[00:27:40] 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. 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.

[00:28:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[00:28:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: There are no further speakers online or in person.

[00:28:37] 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.

[00:29:09] 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.

[00:29:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, and thank you for providing this question ahead of time. Our consultant, Ms. Dicus is is here with Page & Turnbull and can I think start with that and then if we have anything to add we will.

[00:29:42] Christina Dikas: Hello, good evening. Christina Dicus 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, so it's not really an easy answer.

[00:30:10] Christina Dikas: In general, the 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 for owners of properties who are on the register, 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.

[00:31:14] Commissioner Tina Pham: What about just Mountain View's neighbors? Any specific information you can share about our direct neighbors?

[00:31:22] 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. 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 and incentives that would be, you know, most of interest and of benefit to the members of the community in Mountain View. I know that's not very specific. That was very helpful though.

[00:32:35] Commissioner Tina Pham: I wanted to switch to a different question. I've heard discussion of eight buildings on Castro mentioned in the council meeting in December 2023. Can you give an update on those buildings?

[00:32:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'll 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 that actually in their analysis met the criteria for national listing. So three of them were the Ames building, 169-175 Castro, that was one that was probably not enough integrity to to qualify for national listing. 275 to 277 Castro and 292 Castro, probably not enough integrity to to qualify for national listing.

[00:33:40] 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 a one-story building that used to have the bookstore, now it has a flower shop. And those properties, we've we've actually completed our draft nomination packages and we are planning on submitting them to the National Park Service later this year, early next year.

[00:34:28] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, thanks for the update. I had 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? 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?

[00:35:07] 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 or qualified architectural historians to help them in this process.

[00:35:41] 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, you know, visible public rights of way. 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.

[00:36:33] 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.

[00:36:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. No, we we would not go through a a process of forcing them to do something that then ultimately doesn't meet the eligibility. Yes. Got it.

[00:36:57] Commissioner Tina Pham: My last question has to do with historic marker program. Any update on on that?

[00:37:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so that's not a a formal part of the ordinance. Uh, it is perhaps a um an implementation item coming out of this project and we can identify some next steps uh to the City Council once we uh you know once we adopt this ordinance and register.

[00:37:24] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[00:37:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks. I think Commissioner Pham absolutely sort of asked a couple, and of my questions and answered them. But uh, tagging on to one of hers regarding uh 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, um, 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 um that's something, you know, council would...?

[00:38:09] 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. Um, 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.

[00:38:37] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, good evening commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um, as Eric mentioned, uh, that would require an authorization of funding uh from the City Council as part of the budget process. Um, you know, it occurs from time to time where there are public priorities and and council is able to resource them. Uh, I don't have an ability to sort of uh add a likelihood or percentage to that occurring in this instance, typically these kinds of improvements are owner-funded uh and would be likely to continue to remain owner-funded. Um, and the Mills Act contracts uh depending on an individual tax basis on a property can provide pretty sizable amounts of uh indirect fiscal support for maintenance, preservation, restoration, and so forth.

[00:39:20] 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 an are they aware of the benefits that they could reap if they were to move forward in restoring the historic integrity of those of their properties?

[00:39:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we did reach out to all all five of the property owners. Uh, we've so far only had direct correspondence with one of them. Uh, it is certainly our interest 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.

[00:40:08] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. Thank you. Um, just uh let's see. I have another question 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 solid structure there, so I don't know if it's possible to sort of illuminate what that looks like.

[00:40:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh sure, the the staff report uh does include some potential direction for how districts could be nominated and listed. So the staff report identifies a threshold for a 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 number of contributing properties within a district.

[00:41:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Typically, I believe that it's it's on the order of two-thirds, so you set up a boundary and if 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.

[00:41:38] 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 ballot measure, or not a ballot measure, but a ballot to be mailed to properties that would be affected, just to see what the comment are, comments are from those properties, um, before council deliberation. Ultimately, we believe it should be up to the City Council whether 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.

[00:42:27] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And uh just to clarify, um when you're looking at a historic district, in the staff report it mentions sort of a time period, but the time period alone doesn't always dictate 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 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, I didn't give an actual year, but said into the 20th century.

[00:43:16] 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 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.

[00:43:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that means that um contributing properties to a historic district would generally need to be at least about 50 years old.

[00:44:01] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you.

[00:44:07] 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 is a lot of variation, I think, in what you can get from it, but if sort of a two-part question about Mills Act.

[00:44:33] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: One, if you could tell us a little bit more about what, how how the incentive is determined 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?

[00:44:53] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Hi, Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director. Um, so the percentage...

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: off of their tax bill. I think that's based on valuation, but I may not, I'm not an expert on that particular piece. However, it is typically high, and maybe Christina actually knows, but I think it's higher than 2%. But I think one of the things that hasn't been mentioned about the Mills Act yet is that it's a program that's supposed to... there, you know, the homeowner is receiving a benefit in that tax break and then what they're doing is providing the city with a list of improvements that they're going to make over that time period. So the Mills Act contract gets renewed every 10 years and it's automatically renewed unless, you know, 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 getting the tax break in order to improve, to maintain the historical integrity of the house.

[00:46:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: So if no further improvements are made, do you get the rebate anymore or does it go away?

[00:46:14] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: You would. They're, it's not going to go away unless, you know, either party, you know, gets rid of that contract. But, you know, if cities are supposed to put forth a good faith effort and, like, getting the information from the property owner that they're on the thing, the projects that 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.

[00:46:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: And those rebates are moneys that are not coming to the city.

[00:46:57] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Correct. It's a property tax, credit, like, deduction... what is the right word? Decrease.

[00:47:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: To decrease. Do you know how much it costs the city per year? You could even ballpark it, I'm just curious.

[00:47:12] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: 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's submitted in a public comment letter. So it could be quite sizable, particularly if the property is newer and potentially has a much higher assessed value, or purchased more recently, I should clarify.

[00:47:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: How many Mills Act contracts does the city have outstanding right now?

[00:47:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We have the list. We'll get that information to you as soon as you can. Yeah, just, you know, the... I believe there was a comment in the comment packages from the 660 Mariposa or 336 Mariposa Avenue owners that said losing the Mills Act contract would increase their cost of home ownership by 35 to 40%. So their Mills Act contract is very significant.

[00:48:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yikes. Okay. Well, the reason why I ask, and it's probably obvious, but I'm very curious about the adequacy of the incentives, because I would imagine most property owners would want to use it if the incentives were strong, and I don't get the impression that it's heavily, heavily utilized amongst all the registered 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 delisted, that tells us something important that we don't quite have our incentive structure built right. The other question that I wanted to ask, also pertaining to costs, and it's really just... these, the analyses that we do or that we contract out 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 could do it for 500 bucks, 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.

[00:49:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, the city doesn't typically pay for them on a project-by-project basis. We do have a, you know, through the CEQA process, we have a kind of a peer review of what's submitted and then, you know, the analysis of, for example, you know, proposed modifications, would they impact the resource. You know, as part of a overall CEQA review process, yeah, that's, that's, you know, I think on the order of 10,000, 10 to $15,000 is part of a CEQA review process. 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 be involved in.

[00:50:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: So it's largely a cost born by the property owners.

[00:50:27] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, like I said, 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 these prop-, all of these properties, right? We have conducted this analysis of, you know, almost 200 properties, potentially eligible properties across the city. And so that's analysis now that property owners don't have to bear. In the future, though, 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. I don't have a sense of how much that costs. Another, but, but we can ask Ms. Dicus. 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 the 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. So we do have a number for how many Mills Act contracts we have?

[00:51:57] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: So we have about, like, 20, which is not...

[00:52:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: 20 out of the, we have, what is it, 46?

[00:52:04] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: 46 on the register right now.

[00:52:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: So a little less than half.

[00:52:07] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Yeah.

[00:52:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Exactly. And then Ms. Dicus, if you want to talk a little bit about costs, like how much it costs to do one of these specific studies.

[00:52:17] Christina Dikas: So are we, we're talking about, like, a project analysis? If somebody has a project and we're evaluating it for potential compatibility or impacts?

[00:52:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Maybe first just a DPR form.

[00:52:31] Christina Dikas: Okay. So first with a historic evaluation, which is what we have done for this historic resources survey where we conduct historic research on the property and evaluate it using the criteria for the National, California, and Mountain View registers. 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, depending on the consultant and the complexity of the property. You know, if you have one single-family house versus maybe a property with multiple buildings on it or some other kind of complexity. And then, I think as Eric was talking about, we do a project analysis if somebody has a historic resource, we use the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Typically this is National Park Service federal guidance on how to analyze a proposed project for its sensitivity to the historic building. And this kind of analysis often runs, I would say, between $3,000 and $5,000 for one of those. And the conclusion is that the design of the project, you know, whether it balances 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? Are you able to retain enough integrity for that property to remain listed, eligible for its listing on the register. And if not, then, you know, what are the potential project improvement measures that you might be able to make to get there? And that's a lot of what the consultants like us undertake.

[00:54:26] 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.

[00:54:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

[00:54:38] Chair Jos<é Guti<érrez: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Cranston, I was hoping more of my questions would be answered by other people before they got to me. But we get many...

[00:54:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So on Mills Act, you said something like $40,000 is the expec-, is there an expectation that they're going to put $40,000 back into the property? If they, if 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?

[00:55:12] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So my experience, not in Mountain View, but in other cities, has been that it is not typically the exact amount. 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 would enhance the integrity of the house or maintain the integrity of the house. 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 exact valuations if they're very serious about historic preservation. I don't think 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 have robust, you know, historic ordinances.

[00:56:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Then the other thing you said is at the end of the 10 years, it's kind of auto-renewed. So at the end of the 10 years, they didn't meet the things that they set out to do. It's still automatically renewed?

[00:56:25] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: That would be up... I mean, you know, I don't know of any, I've never worked for a jurisdiction that has just been like, oh, you didn't do it, so you're out, you know, we're canceling this contract. I've, one of the jurisdictions I worked for in Marin, we would work with the applicant to either, you know, put those items on their next 10-year list or, you know, have them tell us timelines for when they were going to do that work so that, you know, we had a little bit more we could go on to ensure that it was done. But I've never actually, 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 list of improvements and, um, I've had pretty positive success with them in, in other jurisdictions. 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.

[00:57:34] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And then also related to the 10-year period, start of a 10-year period, I sell my house two years in. Is that transferred to the new owner?

[00:57:44] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Yeah, it's a con-, yeah, I'm not, I don't know enough about the Mountain View contracts to know, you know, how they transfer. I don't know the wording enough. We haven't actually done any very recently. So, but in other jurisdictions I've worked for, you just, it's a part of your real estate documents that you transfer and the contracts built into that because it's with your... it's like a property tax component.

[00:58:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That was all a part of one question. Next question. If someone opts out on the current program, are they able to opt back in?

[00:58:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, in fact that did happen quite a bit earlier on in the current iteration of the ordinance. It has not happened recently, but yes, they would be able to opt back in.

[00:58:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Kind of a follow-up to Commissioner Yin. I'm trying to figure out this neighborhood thing. So I know a 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 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 they look like a Mardell and an Eichler. Okay. There are noticeable differences on the inside. I don't have radiant heating in my Mardell, but I still have my roof is my ceiling. I still have slope 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? What does in what you're envisioning here, what does that mean? If they look kind of alike, can you do 1,000 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 trying to understand how this might work and I'm then answered, didn't answer to her question, didn't answer my question. So that's, can you help me in that context?

[00:59:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I mean, we haven't figured out quite all the details of the program to fully answer this question, like, you know, maximum neighborhood size or district size or anything like that. So, you know, 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. 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 properties that are significant because they're associated with some event or some some activity or something like that in the neighborhood. In which case the builder or the architect really wouldn't matter. So we would need to establish that in the review of the application for listing. And so there would need to be materials provided with the nomination process that would give us a head start on that, to understand why is this a cohesive neighborhood for listing? What, what do these properties share in their significance that qualifies them for listing?

[01:01:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Right. A related question. Use the term contributing. I don't know what that means.

[01:01:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It just means that there might be some buildings in a district, you know, missing teeth, as it were, right? Some buildings in the district that just don't fit the significance criteria. So, you know, maybe just take a single-family district, for example. Maybe, you know, five of the houses are from 1925, but one house got demolished and rebuilt in 1986. Well, that wouldn't be a contributor to the district, the other five would be.

[01:02:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: 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?

[01:02:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that is a nominating threshold. So that is you, the 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. 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 the process whereby the application starts to go through the staff review process.

[01:03:37] Commissioner Bill Cranston: 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?

[01:03:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So I don't think that we've gotten that far...

[01:03:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If you ask 100 people and 80 respond 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 a, is a non-response a no vote?

[01:04:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right, we haven't gotten that far in our recommendation. 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. And I'll just add that, 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.

[01:05:02] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Next question. Table one. It wasn't clear to me whether the items in the Mountain View column are additions to the the the National, California Register column, because I, one of the comments was that we basically were following the National, but when I look at the Mountain View column, it doesn't have everything that I see in the National and California column. So does that mean that the Mountain View column are additions to the National, California column?

[01:05:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it's just verbatim what's in each of those criteria. The Mountain View register has some slightly different text, but it's getting at the same idea. You know, and we are seeking council support for maybe updating the text a little bit to better align with the meaning and the intent and language of those other lists.

[01:06:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: 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 that's, 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?

[01:06:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I will have to defer to our in-house expert on that specific question.

[01:06:40] Christina Dikas: There can be historic significance within 50 years. It's more challenging for an association with a person. One thing with the criteria for association with people is that that property needs to represent the reason that the person is significant. So if Steve Jobs is significant for his contributions to Apple, then 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. The other thing is that it can get tricky with people who are still alive, which is not Steve Jobs, but for other folks who may be important within the last 50 years. We like to, the reason why we have this 50-year threshold is there's a certain amount of historical distance to be able to understand the historic significance of a place or the context with some perspective. So something could have exceptional significance that we already recognize as very important to history within 50 years, but it's less likely.

[01:07:56] Chair Jos<é Guti<érrez: Chair, may I ask a follow-up question to the consultant? So in this scenario of Steve Jobs or a hypothetical tech entrepreneur, 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?

[01:08:16] Christina Dikas: Yes, I think in Palo Alto there's a garage that is a historic resource for that reason. So that is possible.

[01:08:27] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Next question. In the text that said if somebody opted out or they removed from their 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 going to owe money?

[01:08:42] 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 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.

[01:09:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: If somebody opts off of the register, they would have to repay the Property Tax Rebate Program. If we take them off... Well none of the five properties that we identified as ineligible are using the Property Tax Rebate Program.

[01:09:44] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, maybe I misunderstood the answer to Commissioner Donahue, his question. Um, I'm troubled by demolition. So if I go in with a bulldozer and I knock it down, I'm no longer, I don't have to worry about it. I just can knock it down and no big deal. The fact that it doesn't take into, it says, well, we have to account for the fact that somehow it was demolished, seemed to be a remarkably easy way to get around a historic designation by just driving a bulldozer or driving a car into a building to demolish it. Can you clarify in what you mean by demolition?

[01:10:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. 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. And so there would need to be a permit process to get approval to demolish a historic building. 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 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, you know, some kind of deliberate action of defacing a property or demolishing a property, we would be able to apply some kind of punishment or remedy on that.

[01:11:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And are you envisioning that that would be greater than what they would lose by being able to redevelop it?

[01:11:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We, we haven't done that analysis yet, but that's, you know, something to consider.

[01:11:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Alright, getting close. One of the things that came up last time in the last meeting was this hazard due to negligence. And you mentioned in here that it can be delisted because 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 going to take care of it, and let it run down to nothing, 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?

[01:12:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Again, that's something, that's a detail that we have not analyzed or identified a policy approach for, but I wonder if our consultant might provide some examples of how maybe it's done in other communities.

[01:12:44] Christina Dikas: Oh, not off the top of my head, I'm sorry. I think we'd have to look back at some of our analysis that we did and we'll get back to you about that.

[01:13:01] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So one of the comments was that minor changes would be things that are essentially not visible from the street. I found that kind of curious. If it's a building that looks historic in the front and then they put a super avant-garde building attached to the back of it. Does that not... if it's not... I guess I was, the exclusion of something that's not visible from the street seemed odd to me. Can you explain why that's... why that should be there?

[01:13:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The purpose, one of the purposes of historic preservation is to maintain the character of the building for the benefit of the public. 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. And so that is why it's not exempt. It's why it's something that we would need to review. But the tendency is for things like rear additions and other improvements that are not visible from the public, the tendency is that those would tend not to be impacts, and that's why we feel we can call them minor alterations.

[01:14:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Is there an expectation that they are consistent with the design integrity of the building that they're attaching it to?

[01:14:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Not, not usually actually. There's a... and I'm sure our consultant can speak more to this, but there's often an intent to 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. And part of doing that is constructing an addition that kind of fits some characteristics of the building, but also is kind of obviously not historic. I'm sure our consultant can provide more detail about kind of how that's done and how it's assessed.

[01:15:44] Christina Dikas: Yeah, I think what Eric said is the overall gist of what we analyzed and what we recommend. This goes back to again the federal guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and they recommend new construction like additions to be compatible yet differentiated. And there's another standard that speaks to making sure that the proposed changes can't be confused for the original building. So, you know, 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, but typically the recommendations are to have some kind of compatible but slightly different windows or siding, you know, similar but different, that type of thing, as well as massing that doesn't overwhelm the original building while still being able to have some kind of addition or change. We also don't typically look at interiors, so, you know, changes to kitchens and bathrooms and all of that are not typically under historic resource purview, design purview.

[01:17:12] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So an interior ADU would not necessarily be affected? A standalone ADU in the back wouldn't be affecting the integrity of the...

[01:17:25] Christina Dikas: Correct. So interior, if it's just, you know, changing interior spaces, then that would not be seen to affect the historic integrity of the building, which is really focused on exterior features. 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 registers, events, people, or architecture/design, and the period of significance, which you might've been trying to get at earlier, I wasn't sure if that's what you were talking about. 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've been its year of construction. Um, but if it was associated with some kind of event that spanned a period, you might have 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 make recommendations for alterations 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.

[01:18:47] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So along that integrity question, so if a building is 100 years old but it was modified 70 years ago, how does that fit the integrity criteria? Are you judging that property based on what it was built 100 years ago or is when it was modified 70 years ago, does that count?

[01:19:03] Christina Dikas: Uh, it depends on its reason for significance again. If it was significant for, found significant for its architecture, I think if we, if we found it historically significant for its architecture, it probably has enough integrity even with some of those later changes. So it really kind of depends on the situation. Um, if you have a, an associated um event uh that has a longer period of time or even took place at a later time after that building already existed for a while, then those changes might be part of, you know, what it looked like during that time, and that's considered allowable. It really varies depending on the property and its reason for significance.

[01:19:52] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So you mention area H, but I know, I mean when you look at that little map there's lots of dots that's outside of area H. Did council specifically say not to look at, and I can never remember what they are in downtown, 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 was that... I just was...

[01:20:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, I think we, we looked at every property in area H, so you'll, you know, 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 were identified during the consultant's reconnaissance survey. So 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. 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 we are... our list of eligible properties is a filtering down from a comprehensive city-wide reconnaissance survey that was conducted.

[01:21:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: 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 commend, I came away like not getting, what is the difference between what you're looking at doing for downtown as part of the precise plans and why isn't it a historic overlay, and help me understand because I don't get it.

[01:22:09] 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 where we are actually going to be bringing forward to the EPC and Council, you know, the community visioning reports and 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 in this area? And what are the most effective ways for us to implement preservation? And are there 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 when we come back to the EPC and Council for adoption in 2026.

[01:23:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. But that's not going to include an historic overlay zone?

[01:23:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, it... staff does not recommend a historic overlay zone, and that's why I'm... I'm not clear on... 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 a 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 we think is the most 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 similar to an overlay zone. So we don't really need an overlay zone in downtown, we just described those policies in the Downtown Precise Plan.

[01:25:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I will admit I'm still somewhat confused but I'm not sure we're gonna get any clearing here so I will yield my fill the floor back to the rest of thank you.

[01:25:19] Chair Jos<é Guti<érrez: Thank you. Commissioner Donahue?

[01:25:23] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Some of the answers to the questions left me a little bit more confused the the ah. So um. There was a lot of talk ok so there are various incentives to be on this register 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 separate on a separate page or the way it came out the pdf it's like on a separate page it's weird but there's 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. There are two separate programs. Yeah. Can you explain the difference a little bit? Like, what is what is the Mills Act contract then? Like where does that money come from?

[01:26:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It also comes out of the city's property tax. It comes from the same place. But the process for creating the agreement is different. And the Mills Act is a state program, and the Local Property Tax Rebate is a local program.

[01:26:58] Police Chief Chris Hsiung: And maybe to provide a little more context. So we may want to think of property tax as a largely local focus revenue source, but in fact communities get varying percentages. I think Mountain View's is around 16% of the property tax that's assessed is actually remitted to the city for local purposes. And so you can see just mathematically that under the Mills Act context, to achieve the 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 largely separate but maybe slightly overlapping components of property taxes. So it's a little confusing but they're coming from property tax but they're different components of the property tax that's collected.

[01:28:02] 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 the 70% or whatever the number is?

[01:28:28] Police Chief Chris Hsiung: Yeah, I don't wanna, I don't wanna 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 that potential exists, but I don't wanna confirm that. I don't have that information. Okay, sure. But just inherently. But non-city entities, at minimum the county for instance, is potentially affected and also potentially other non-county and non-city recipients, which we would have to confirm. Okay. Sure. I just want to get a sense of, of it. I don't need, I think maybe the heart, 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, under this program provided in state law.

[01:29:13] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, that's that's interesting. Sure. Um, but so can somebody have a Mills Act contract and get the City, uh, property tax rebate? Does these separate line items in the in the incentives or do they explicitly get the implicitly get the... by getting having a Mills Act contract do they get this rebate as kind of as part of that?

[01:29:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh it doesn't appear that anybody has both. Okay I'm not aware of any legislation that says that they can't, but it it appears that they, nobody has both. Okay.

[01:29:49] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Um. Yeah I was I was curious because earlier you said that 20 out of the 46 people have Mills Act Contracts and then...

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Commissioner Paul Donahue: that contracts and I thought, well, the other 26, what benefit are they getting other, you know, other than these, you know, FAR waivers and things like that, which if you're they're not actually developing, didn't seem uh, important, but, but maybe are those other 26 getting why, why are people on on this list is is my basic question. Or why are they choosing to be on the list? I mean, I think it's great. I the list is great and I I want to, you know, um, uh, preserve these historic historic resources. But I just am curious about kind of how how it works in practice.

[01:30:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it looks like they're about five or six, uh, recipients, five or six recipients of the the city's tax rebate program.

[01:30:49] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Hmm. Okay, well that still leaves 20 or 21 who

[01:30:54] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So, I think we meet 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 uh, process is is pretty unusual. I've 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 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 owner owners too. Give them that pri- 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 and I don't think there's there's an easy answer to that, really.

[01:32:42] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Hmm. Okay, that yeah, no I can I can see where people might have a kind of a pride thing too. Um, so yeah, 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, you know, transit, um, how how do those things interact? And, um, well, that's that's my question.

[01:33:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. So, uh, well 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 the 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, it seems like the director wants to say something and I'll defer to him.

[01:34:14] 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 a 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, of buildings to try to frustrate the purposes of the 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.

[01:35:29] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay, um. Yep, that that's all my questions. Thanks.

[01:35:37] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin.

[01:35:40] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thanks for all that. I think a lot of my questions started getting answered. Um, but following on Commissioner Donahue's, uh, 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.

[01:36:06] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: 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, you know, six to nine months, uh, to really, um, meaningfully incorporate, um, the potential impacts. And so we are doing a lot of thinking right now about how to account for this and, and whether and when to alter, uh, our planning processes that are underway. But I don't, I don't have more to share than that right now other than we're bracing for impact to some extent, because of the, the significant, uh, changes that are likely to come.

[01:36:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thank you.

[01:36:51] 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.

[01:37:42] 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 this is just a little bit of an example that we didn't quite understand that about the Mountain View rebate, 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, the, I guess we were talking about, Miss Blizinski had mentioned that, um, you know, it depends on 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, say, just as an example, if that were a probability, if someone were to nominate, 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 are 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 doesn't count, but it has been that case up until 1975, 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?

[01:41:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I, you know, we don't have the analysis to support that answer right now, but I don't know if Ms. Dicus can speak to that, maybe a 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.

[01:41:45] Christina Dikas: Yeah, we haven't done the we didn't evaluate any historic, uh, 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, uh, 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 post-war 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 post-war 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 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.

[01:43:45] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Thank you. Okay, I'm good for now for questions.

[01:43:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Pham.

[01:43:52] 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.

[01:44:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We've certainly heard, you know, a few people bringing it up at outreach meetings. Um, you know, I won't say it it's more than a a handful of people who have come up to our 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.

[01:44:48] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[01:44:53] 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 really high level, um, because there's a lot of, um, items, if you will, or like, um, areas, touchpoints, if you will, of um, potential policy and decision-making that we could have here. Um, but in terms of that, uh, recommendation, draft criteria and list of properties and 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 a sense of that?

[01:46:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, 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 in perspective to how we how we see our historic resources. Um, the uh, the uh, 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 EPC and council will have to um, uh, kind of work with in order to to provide feedback uh, to the city or to staff. And then uh, the um, ineligible, 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.

[01:48:16] 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, I guess I'll ask it this way, uh, to what extent does delisting potentially uh, open up, lead, create risk of um, anything that might be constituted as a taking?

[01:48:48] 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. Um, director?

[01:49:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I guess I I haven't heard that issue come up in the Mills Act context. Um, these are contracts entered into a 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 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.

[01:49:30] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, thank you. That's a 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.

[01:49:46] 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, um, 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 give them the value of the property, um, or uh, give them relief from those that requirement.

[01:51:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, cool. So, then it 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, uh, 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 hear, is that right?

[01:52:18] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: 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 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 a an alteration to a historic resource and could pursue a claim against the city, um, 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 through the court system.

[01:53:20] 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 potential that that area 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, um, put forward, um, and or kind of like delistings. I guess I'm just curious, 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 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.

[01:54:58] 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 place for not just the historic character of the city as well as the, um, kind of what it means to 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 A 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.

[01:57:06] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, so then, um, thank you for that. Uh, so then for example as pertains to just, for example, the Rogers building, um, if we were to make some recommendation saying, yep, let's, uh, proceed with the uh, delisting and then the council, uh, were to let's just say, theoretically, um, approve that next week, right? Like have 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 preser- 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?

[01:58:11] 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, 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.

[01:59:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. And, um, just to make sure I'm, I am being mindful of of, uh, these concerns as well, um, say for example, we proceed with the recommendation and, you know, especially as clarified, hey, this is like a 5-year window, right, we want to help get this up to speed, um, is there any way, like, 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, reintegritizing, 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, 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?

[02:00:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it sounds like you're, you're asking what the possibility is for the city to mandate the uh, return to integrity. Do more than encourage maybe. Okay. Um, yeah, you know, I I think if the EPC wants to, um, uh, recommend to the city council for us to look into that, we could look into that as an option and study it.

[02:01:21] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, thank you. Um, Commissioner Cranston.

[02:01:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Uh, just a question that occurred after reading we, talking here. We lost a building on San Antonio that was the first basic semiconductor facility in the world. Okay. It probably didn't meet the significance criteria, it, I guess I, it's not, um, it's not a, a building that's a hundred years old. But it had other things. And as I looked through this list of the significance criteria, can it, are items, we're part of the birth of Silicon Valley, which to me would seem to be something that's historically significant. Um, I 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? It just, we've talked a lot about the building design. And, you know, I think when Intel's first fabs is is on California Street, but it doesn't look like a freakin' historic building. But that's a big deal, I think. So I, how does that kind of thing fit into this? The criteria is, is today, if something was identified as a 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?

[02:02:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'll I'll start and then maybe I'll um, kick it to Ms. Dicus 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, 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 the 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.

[02:04:41] 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 a a reason that's not related to its architecture or design, so 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 look 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, um, you still want to have that building look, um, more or less like it did during that period of time to connect to that history. So I think that's what Eric was trying to say and just to add a little bit more detail to 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 a project. So, um, I think that's what Eric was trying to say and just add a little bit more detail to that.

[02:06:42] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I think I understand what you're saying. So, if it if it doesn't look like it did at the time that Shockley was in there, or that Noyce 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, that it's it doesn't preclude it, if it if it's been radically altered, then it then it's then that would make it more difficult to target that it's historic. So I think I get that.

[02:07:44] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. All right, I have one last question. Um, just with regard to registering or having something get on the list, or um, even on the delisting, is there and sorry if I missed this, is there any kind of element for like 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 wants this property owner for this historic farm really wants to include it, but it's our only farmland and the climate shifted and we need to grow tomatoes versus corn. I don't know. Do you know what I'm getting at, like for actual present value and future value resource?

[02:08:45] 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 you're you're asking about, which is, you know, giving the policymakers 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.

[02:09:19] 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 at staff here for the... okay. Yep.

[02:09:40] 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, uh, for, uh, the, the eligibility criteria. If you could show it on the screen.

[02:09:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, perfect. So then the next one is...

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: modern best practice and 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 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 in addition to the ordinance.

[02:15:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Confirming existing and confirming in relation to the ordinance. So the first part the significance criteria confirming that we want to keep it and and continue on with largely the same provisions we have. And then the second part of this is um confirming that the commission supports staff's recommendation to add um integrity thresholds.

[02:15:52] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay. All right, then we will go ahead and take deliberation on those.

[02:16:03] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I have just hopefully a quick question. What is feeling?

[02:16:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh what is feeling? Um I mean there's that song Feelings but I you know. Uh I 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 emotional response that you get to looking at a building, the um the look and feel from a kind of a um a subjective experience. Um so I don't know Miss Hagen wants to add anything.

[02:16:54] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: 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 a um provide a little extra information uh for um how to evaluate a property for uh 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 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 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.

[02:18:10] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, thanks. I think actually having the tie into the national standard kind of makes it seem less arbitrary. Okay.

[02:18:24] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Cranston.

[02:18:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I kind of translated it into the character of the building, is that right? I mean that my my brain translated it 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.

[02:18:48] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes, 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?

[02:19:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, 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 the 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 there are other options available.

[02:20:00] 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 consultants who was available. Okay, thank you.

[02:20:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I guess to answer the question is I'm interpreting this as bullets one and two on page 13 of the staff report that that's what we're talking about and if that's whatever I think it is then yes I'm okay with this.

[02:20:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that's what we're asking.

[02:20:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: See the way it says it here but I think that's what you're doing. So I had yeses by those in my notes.

[02:20:54] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Move the bill... sorry, move the... what do we call this? The recommendation?

[02:21:01] Chair José Gutiérrez: Just a couple hundred miles away from that one. But yeah, I am... would you want to say anything? Yep. Okay, alright, sounds good.

[02:21:14] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And just to confirm then from my end with what Commissioner Cranston cited... those would be the associated with events, lives of persons, distinctive characteristics, is that am I recalling that correctly? Yes, yes you're absolutely right. To continuation. And then the integrity thresholds being as listed. Um it sounds like we feel good about those. Um so uh yeah I am happy to entertain, do we need a straw poll for this one or like a formal motion?

[02:21:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think for now we can work through with the consensus you've gathered here and then at the end we can wrap up, summarize and get the motion on the bulk of the recommendation.

[02:21:55] Chair José Gutiérrez: Alright Mr. Murdock, it sounds we have consensus on that one.

[02:22:03] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, so this next item is where we need to do the recusal.

[02:22:10] 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.

[02:22:22] 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.

[02:22:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Chair, just a quick... I'm kind of lost where we are in the agenda. Could they put that thing back up that said how we're going through this because I'm like where are we? What's in the...

[02:22:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's the third bullet on page 13, Commissioner Cranston, the exhibit 5 properties discussion.

[02:23:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: So for anyone watching on Zoom, we are on that second item. Uh I believe that we might need to put the similar kind of like slide for the next one, right? I'm assuming there's a similar slide for what the commission is discussing.

[02:23:28] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, so we are going to take this one by one. Sounds like, right?

[02:23:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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.

[02:23:43] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sounds good, thank you for clarifying. Uh anyone want to take a stab at this one first?

[02:23:57] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm just gonna 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 am quite frankly okay with these and others but I'm not... don't interpret that as Bill looked at all the properties on 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 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 in the register or any of the others. So I've been inclined to include it because it's not a done deal yet, okay? And people have the opportunity to question it, but that's my comment here applies to this and I can repeat it when the commissioner returns, but 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 know whether there's something missing or should be added. Okay? So that's my caveat.

[02:25:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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 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 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.

[02:26:13] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Mr. Murdock. Yes, uh I'm on the precipice of uh volunteering that myself, but I'd rather hear from Commissioner Dempsey.

[02:26:22] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: I too am 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.

[02:26:42] Chair José Gutiérrez: So shall we jump off the stoop and just say yes? Consensus? Looks like it. Yep. Consensus. Alright, we have consensus on that.

[02:26:46] 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 I think what we're here uh at least the way I felt about it in that moment is you know, we have large uh corpus of investment of time, staff, resourcing, and expertise that um you know we can lean on here. Um and so, I feel you and yes, appreciate that.

[02:27:28] 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 and what's not... 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?

[02:27:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: How far they're away meaning like if they missed one criteria?

[02:28:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yeah exactly. Right.

[02:28:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I don't know that we've contemplated following up with property owners in that manner.

[02:28:09] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, just a thought that if work is already done...

[02:28:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We... yeah, I mean I think we've moved on from the site-specific...

[02:28:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Right, I mean your your question isn't about... yeah it's a general question.

[02:29:23] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin, can you ask your question again?

[02:29:25] 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?

[02:29:38] Chair José Gutiérrez: Far away they are from eligibility?

[02:29:41] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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 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 in the future if you wanted to get on the the register... um but uh that is something that we can share with property owners before we do final adoption.

[02:30:40] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay, thanks. Sorry for jumping the gun a little bit.

[02:30:42] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Go for it. All right, thank you. Uh Commissioner Pham.

[02:30:46] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um, I had a question along the lines of Commissioner Yin's question. Um, I notice that in the staff report describes the list... very extensive list, seems like a lot of work that staff um collected to put into this list. Is there a deadline for folks who may have more information or may want to revise or um discuss with staff in order to, before the list is final?

[02:31:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we're taking comments until December 1st on these uh 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 gonna 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. 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.

[02:32:05] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[02:32:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So briefly, for the person who missed my speech before. 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 judge the merits of every single one of the properties on this list and think hopefully they've done their diligence and we... there's an ongoing process. One of the things that I will add kind of related to what Commissioner Yin has said is one of the things I was struck by in the kind of current state was the lack of communication with people on whether they are or are 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 did, they should just find out later 'Oh I'm on the list, what the hell happened?', okay? I think this is a... as part of my acceptance of this list of sites, it is a 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 if you want more information here's where you find it.' So that's... I would view that as kind of a condition of my item number three here, approval of the list is I'm expecting that you're communicating with these people.

[02:33:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Uh staff, is that... is that possible within this item specifically if it says 'yo you're on the list'?

[02:33:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, perhaps we can discuss the notification and engagement that we've already done and intend to continue to do.

[02:33:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Oh yes, we have um sent not just letters to people but also their draft analyses 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.

[02:34:30] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sounds good. I'm also inclined to support this. Yeah? Okay. Alright, Mr. Murdock, we have consensus on that one. Thank you. Commissioner Cranston. Alright, we are proceeding to ineligible properties.

[02:34:53] Chair José Gutiérrez: So that would be as to process, yep. Integrity. Um and it would be that top bullet point there is as pertains to those um those buildings cited in the staff report I'm presuming. Around the five year... the Rogers building?

[02:35:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, this is regarding the five properties that we have identified that do not meet the integrity thresholds uh for continued listing.

[02:35:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Um I might do the chair privilege thing and just say I would like to support this but only... 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 um hands-on with how these uh properties are managed as a and resourced as a historic site.

[02:36:02] Chair José Gutiérrez: 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 meaning more specific?

[02:36:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, did you want, did I hear someone... oh okay, maybe it was just the echo. Um 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 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 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 build, right? That um and so um yeah do you get what I'm getting at?

[02:37:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think so. Let me maybe provide a hypothetical that's a little more tangible for me. So um the city currently has a facade rehabilitation grant program for example. So perhaps this recommendation includes something to encourage the city to find ways such as but not limited to expanding the facade grant program for historic properties or those that need to restore or rehabilitate their historic character and provide additional funding for those kinds of properties. Is that that the sort of theme or example in the recommendation?

[02:38:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, that's definitely directionally there, but I think um I feel like Mr. Anderson had a beat on it earlier when um so I don't know if maybe he can kind of bridge the planning communication gap.

[02:38:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh it it sounds like the vice chair is looking for ways the city can exert more control. Um rather than simply providing incentives, are there ways that the city can um you know obviously within its power um uh apply some kind of maybe mandate is too strong a word but as you said kind of a hands-on approach. Uh maybe it's it's more communication, maybe it's more um uh kind of uh yeah I'm I'm having a hard time kind of seeing what's what's in our role uh in this um you know in as as regulators. Uh typically the city doesn't force improvements on on people. Um but it's something that we can um we can you're you're recommending that uh the city look for ways that we are not simply passive actors.

[02:39:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Right. Yeah, and that we would recommend that to council, right, because ultimately um we're kicking this back up to council. Um and you know, even if all of us, all six of us, you know agree on something, council can always just like say no, right. Um and so what I'm saying is um you know yeah we would like council, we say hey like we understand everything that's gone on to get this delisting and like right there's a lot of expertise that went into this. And also it's not like what community members are coming to us with isn't real. Um and that you know it's worth exploring some solution there, right? Like I know I think Commissioner um Yin brought up earlier like hey um what like do we make pots of money available for like helping property owners um you know bring their properties back up to integrity. Right? Um what if there's a way where it's like hey like this is definitely a historic resource like um we are going to provide the money and we're going to explore ways to ensure it gets used um to the best that we can. If we can't, we couldn't, but at least we didn't just sit there and just like yeah.

[02:41:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think we have enough to work with. 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.

[02:41:36] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yep. Yep. Commissioner Yin, I'm just going to look to you if that's okay really quick. How do you feel about something like that?

[02:41:42] 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 council we're offering council the ability... 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... oh yeah 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, 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 subcategories those are.

[02:43:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, and this would be an opportunity for us to um be able to proceed with um this uh building with the Rogers kind of like um the staff recommendation and also like um bring to council this that concern that we want the council to be a little bit more active with um their hands-on protection versus like passive. Um so uh Commissioner Cranston...

[02:44:03] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So to make sure I'm clear, so the three that don't have Mills Act, they have no financial incentive right now, correct?

[02:44:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh yes, that's correct, but there're 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.

[02:44:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I am I'm actually more troubled by the five-year arbitrary... what it feels like a five-year arbitrary for the two that have cut Mills Act contracts in place already. Um I would be more inclined and and you haven't said they have two years left or 10 years left or how long is left on the various projects, but I think we need to honor what was in place. 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. It doesn't necessarily mean you're done in 5 years. If we if you signed up to make changes within two years or within ten years and there's ten years left and you haven't made those you need to get those done okay. 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 an a mini 5-year Mills Act for after that to get the rest of the way okay. So I I don't like changing the rules on people so I'm for on the other three I would be more inclined to say okay then you give them the 5-year option okay, do you want it or not? And if they don't then just say okay fine right 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 picture 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 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 questions earlier of 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 2 years or 3 years or 5 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 for the two that are... I agree that you know if you go into the other ones and say okay Rogers building you got to the facade thing you know we absolutely communicate those things but I'm not I'm not inclined to cut off something that I view is essentially an agreement with the city for those property owners that we should continue to honor through the the at least for the two that have contracts in place and then and give them the opportunity if they need to you know if they have if they have made progress give it extended a little bit beyond that. So that's more my inclination rather than just a 5 years and you're done.

[02:47:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Can we get staff's thoughts on that?

[02:47:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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 um 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 to a project.

[02:48:20] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I would view that as a shame on us. Not a shame on them.

[02:48:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Be that as it may, um 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 5-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.

[02:49:14] Commissioner Tina Pham: Um I just want to say that this is a really unique uh issue. It wasn't Eric Anderson that said that not many cities have to chart down this path of delisting. And so um 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 like the discussion that um Commissioner Cranston had to think about the timing in regard to current Mills Act contracts in place. Um I'm just thinking about how long it takes generally for projects of 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 the building was built. So that might be more challenging. Um so for me 5 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 not and if they did they would have a little bit more time to make it happen.

[02:50:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Is there any thinking from staff on the 5 versus 7 versus like where does it stop?

[02:50:45] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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. 10 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 5 and 10 I think we can we can work with.

[02:51:06] Commissioner Tina Pham: Do you have a preferred number? I guess seven.

[02:51:16] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So um 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...

[02:51:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh I don't believe that was ever established.

[02:51:37] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. I kind of suspected that might be the answer. Um so the um Commissioner Cranston said something about the only two of the properties have Mills Act contracts so the others have no incentives but there is that incentive of city tax refund that's 16% so do any of the others have that? No. Okay. I see 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 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 property um I assume that the the contract still requires that. And 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 you know you'd want to have a good faith effort to try to give them some time to come into conformance. That's right.

[02:52:42] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So um I very much agree with what I just heard from Commissioner Donahue and I think I'm gonna associate myself pretty heavily with his 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 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.

[02:54:15] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Yin, do you have some furtherance?

[02:54:24] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Sure. Uh yeah, ditto on that. However, I was curious if 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.

[02:54:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This is one of the challenges with creating kind of downtown specific policies. Um if we were to adopt downtown specific preservation policies, I think there would need to be uh 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.

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: get going, design takes a while. Then just the whole process is long. And, you know, permitting can take long and unless there is a permitting you know, expediency that can be had as part of a perk, that's something else to consider. But um, maybe 5 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, right? It expires after a certain amount if you don't get another inspection and it expires what you know, what I'm talking about. So maybe there's something similar without being overly complicated. But maybe the 5 years is just, have you made progress?

[03:00:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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 and money and you're working through the city process which is a prerequisite to the building permit process. Uh 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.

[03:01:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: So then we can do the seven years total as suggested, sorry. Uh by Commissioner Pham with the like four year check deadline for submitting of those additional three to completion. Right. Okay. Um, Commissioner Pham, is that okay with you? Yeah? Commissioner Dempsey?

[03:01:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, so it sounds like we have uh, consensus on that last item and through Commissioner Pham, thank you. Um, for the uh, developed 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 we, you know, we want to frame that. Um, earlier to staff to maybe clarify that uh to council for um, again I think as uh, forgot if it was Mr. Murdock or Anderson, um citing there is downtown specific work that the City Council has in their pipeline that would be a 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, or what have you. Um, so that's 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 that's what I have on the um floor. If we want to proceed with that, I'd be happy to. Commissioner uh Cranston?

[03:04:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I think um the earlier discussion on this subject was um recommending to council that 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 uh 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.

[03:04:59] Chair José Gutiérrez: As pertains to the downtown.

[03:05:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, and I think 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 is that the area?

[03:05:09] Chair José Gutiérrez: That not yet. That's the um, I guess that's an open question. Um, I'm, 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 of 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? Cause 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 wanna say hey we actively want to protect this building. Here's our historic preservation ordinance, here's how we're gonna take advantage of the downtown precise plan work item to push that. Um, that's, that's, that's kind of what um I'm thinking. I know I'm not communicating it in the most clear way here, looking to staff certainly, but um that Rogers building in particular is what I'm trying to get at.

[03:06:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. I'll just, sure 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.

[03:07:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: Do you have any recommendation on the generalization that can help us get there? Any ideas?

[03:07:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I'm sorry, what was that a question or affirmation?

[03:07:31] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yeah it was, yeah. Do you have any kind of like um recommendation?

[03:07:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I think the 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.

[03:07:51] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Did you need more specificity on the area? For what you referred to generally.

[03:07:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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.

[03:08:13] Chair José Gutiérrez: Sure. Okay. I don't think we can go... I mean, I would suggest not going all the way up to the like circle, um, the like core core of it...

[03:08:23] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I mean we really are only talking about five properties, right? So is it either the Rogers building or the Rogers building and Scarpas? Or, you know, another building that's fairly close to downtown there is the 1076 Wright Avenue is just, just north of downtown... so is there like, what... thinking about it in terms of the properties that you want to apply that proactive action on maybe more useful than thinking about an arbitrary geography.

[03:08:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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, a mention of the downtown specifically at minimum would be helpful. From my perspective that really limits it 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.

[03:09:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: For purposes of tonight, you're really just looking at the five. So, they all fall in that zone. Yes? The ones that are in downtown?

[03:09:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, no. So the um the three residential properties... 336 Mariposa Avenue is in Shoreline West, 1643 Villa is also in Shoreline West... and then 1076 Wright Avenue is um north of downtown. So it's in the kind of um Sterlin, uh actually on the other side of Shoreline from Sterlin, so it's the on the um kind of near, closer to Rex Manor neighborhood.

[03:10:11] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Okay. I'm okay with downtown.

[03:10:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: That would work for me too. Commissioner Cranston, how does that work for you?

[03:10:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm still not clear on what we're agreeing here. So it's, what... 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?

[03:10:39] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yeah, the timeframe applies to everyone. What we're saying is that we are cool with what staff is putting forward and also 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 restoration. Just spot-lighting downtown. We're basically saying downtown is more important to our... obviously more important to our community and we'd like properties in this area to have extra consideration.

[03:11:29] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I am... I hear this and I'm one of those people that's not downtown. I'm like, you're going to give these people extra special treatment, you're not going to give, you're not going to give me? What the hell is that? So I'm, I'm, I'm not... if there's a program that is in existence for downtown that we're going to make them more aware of, then that's one thing. But offering something over and above that's not being offered to the other five, wow, just feels, I would be worried.

[03:12:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I'll offer that the city already does that, right, in a number of ways and in the past has had like facade furniture grants for the pedestrian mall or other programs focused on different geographies in the city. I think the key thing is what's the basis, do we have a rational basis to say some significant government interest is advanced by doing it in this focused way rather than a broad way. Right. I think it's fair to also recognize the city has limited resources and needs to have priorities uh to advance public policy. So I think we have ample evidence to show the downtown has a unique historic character and provides a central role for the entire community and it has those unique aspects that would justify um an investment of resources in this way. The question of fairness is is perhaps not a legal question as much as a a policy question.

[03:12:50] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess I'm... 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. Because 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, down 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.

[03:13:50] Chair José Gutiérrez: 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, you know, make sure these resources that people drive from, you know, like Waverley Park to go downtown to 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.

[03:14:45] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, I was just going to say, you want to take a straw poll on that?

[03:14:52] Chair José Gutiérrez: 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 timeframe in such a manner where we're also um packaging with that a uh recommendation uh to City Council that they um you know 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? Yes. And to focus the city's resources on those two properties in the 100 and 200 block. Sounds good. Um, shall we take a straw poll? Commissioner Donahue?

[03:15:47] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, I would, I'm just thinking that the downtown is the center of the community and as has been said, I agree that it versus kind of private residences that are sprinkled around town, uh which which lend character to the neighborhood and are I think are important and that's why we have historic uh you know we've identified things around town. But but yeah, trying to get the downtown up to that standard of, you know, to to be a historic area, uh I think is is important. I I think it's it's worth even if it is a special new program I I do think it's it's worthwhile.

[03:16:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Alright, sounds good. Let us take a straw poll. Um, all in favor of proceeding with that? Okay. All against?

[03:16:51] Chair José Gutiérrez: We have consensus, unless I need to call abstains. Okay. Alright. Proceeding...

[03:17:05] Chair José Gutiérrez: Nomination, listing and delisting process. Any commissioner commentary, deliberation?

[03:17:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So we're, we're looking at the list... this matches up with the list on page 17? Is that what I'm...

[03:17:41] Chair José Gutiérrez: So this would be for like removing the owner opt-out provision, the one with the 50% of property owner kind of situation.

[03:17:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes, the only thing that I'm I guess unclear on questioning and it's kind of related to the last one as well is the is the delisting process for safety... I don't like the idea that negligence could be a reason when that something becomes delisted. And so it's not, um, I would like that language what what staff comes up with is to make sure it's clear that it's if they're, if it's a result of negligence and negligence on the part of the of the owner then that's not a an essence, that's not a way to automatically get off the list. That's where the incentives that come up in the um or the enforcement process wherever that was um should definitely be strong enough to address that.

[03:18:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If I might respond to that, the way the ordinance would be drafted would be to be more clear that it's if there... if it's a result of a negligence on the part of the property owner then that's not an an necessary, that's not a way to automatically get off the list...

[03:19:12] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I agree. I think uh the preceding vote we just took to showcase, 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.

[03:19:33] Chair José Gutiérrez: Staff, do you have some thoughts on that? Is that viable?

[03:19:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh... if you provide that recommendation we'll forward it to the City Council.

[03:19:47] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Donahue?

[03:19:49] Commissioner Paul Donahue: What, what was the recommendation again? Would you like to repeat that Commissioner Cranston?

[03:19:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: It's just that as worded in the fourth bullet on page 17, that it needs to be, it needs to be read... for delisting, negligence can't be a part, 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.

[03:20:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Got it. Yeah. That um kind of reminds me of the heritage tree ordinance having been on the previous round of 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 because you know, 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 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 unnecessarily 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 a historic uh uh property.

[03:22:31] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: 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-off 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, I can go with this. I just wanted to flag for everybody that if we're taking the opt off 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.

[03:23:34] Commissioner Tina Pham: 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 that 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. I'm Commissioner Dempsey because I do like the idea but I'm curious what you have to say.

[03:24:10] 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, and I was planning on saving this till the very end, that if we're gonna start creating more enforcement powers with enforcement costs and penalties and things of that nature, I don't know exactly how that's gonna work, but that if I, you know, as a homeowner who doesn't have a historic home, um, I would be worried about that. That's one way that the cost might actually become higher, more scarier. I don't know if there's gonna be prune police who are gonna 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, 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.

[03:25:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Right. Chair, I think um some of what Commissioner Dempsey is touching on is covered in uh topic six, the development review process. And so I think there are perceptions about the burden of undertaking projects uh 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.

[03:25:31] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah the that initially bothered me as well about the the removing the ability to opt out. But in reading the staff report one thing that I noticed was this discussion that CEQA requires um potentially requires an analysis of of the historic nature of things anyway even if you're not on the register. So um

[03:26:01] Commissioner Paul Donahue: I guess maybe I have a question, can you characterize that... if you're not on the register, maybe because say you opted out, what burdens do you still have kind of either way?

[03:26:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, um, for sure and that's certainly one of the goals of this project is to better align our city policies with various state laws including CEQA. Uh so CEQA requires every discretionary action by the city to be analyzed for its impact on uh the environment and under CEQA, historic and cultural resources are included as part of the environment. So when you uh when the city has some discretion over a development project and that development project would require the demolition or the defacing or some impact to a property that meets these criteria that we are recommending, that property would need to go through the environmental impact report, that project would need to go through the environmental impact report process. And that process forces the city to make a decision around whether that removal of that resource is worth whatever the application is requesting. Um and so this project, you know these recommendations by staff would better align our city procedures with what already exists under CEQA. Now, as the director said earlier, there are some ways that the state is carving out uh of CEQA with um additional ministerial actions and some of those protections really do only apply to properties on the register. Um but uh in general still, most development applications are still discretionary actions by the city and need to go through this CEQA process.

[03:27:31] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, yeah, so it's... Yeah, I'm very sensitive to additional burdens, takings that were mentioned before. These kinds of things... um but I it sounds like there's kind of already that in place so um it makes sense to to have everything aligned kind of like aligning the um the eligibility requirements with the national and and state registers... just having because that kind of streamlines things which I think is is an important goal.

[03:28:11] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the reason I'm very comfortable with removing the opt out position is because there is a mechanism for removal from the list number one. That more importantly, if I buy a property that the City of Mountain View said is historic because it was founded in 1870s but I believe that history big you know, anything before you know, like 81 is is modern, I not gonna I don't agree that somebody can just arbitrarily say well that's not historical anymore. So I think it has to go I like the fact that there's a procedure. I don't like the arbitrary I just don't like it anymore I bought the building so I can change it um option. So if they follow through the procedures, they show that what they're trying to do it goes to front of City Council and it gets approved, they can get removed from the list. But not the automatic opt-out position. So I'm I'm very one of the things I flagged reading through the current process was, there's an automatic opt-out position? What the hell is that? So I was very glad to see that that was in here so I am very supportive of of number one.

[03:29:26] Chair José Gutiérrez: Well, um, that nudged my, that found that persuasive. I mean I'm happy to proceed with the four bullet points in addition to the negligence um recommendation uh that Commissioner Cranston put forward. Seeing nods from Commissioner Pham. Thumbs up. We've got three thumbs up. We've got four... alright. Um, Mr. Murdock, do you have the information you need for that one?

[03:30:15] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, thank you Chair.

[03:30:20] Chair José Gutiérrez: Okay, uh proceeding I think we have one more. The discussion development review process. Can we put that one on the screen?

[03:30:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Inviting any commissioner discussion. Commissioner Pham, haven't heard from you in a while, do you have any thoughts?

[03:30:47] Commissioner Tina Pham: No.

[03:30:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So in general I, that worked. The one thing I was a little uncomfortable with was the inclusion of items that were on the National or California Historic Register as something that was approved by the ZA. I would probably keep that with City Council. Major, major revisions that... that touch on, you know, that that affect properties that are in either the California or National Register, both eligible and listed... I think still should go to Council. Not just the ZA. Other than that, that's uh the third paragraph of table five. It removes the uh, it removes the the Council from that and it also reflected on the first line 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. Any other thoughts on that?

[03:31:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Chair, can I ask a clarifying question of Mr. Cranston?

[03:31:35] Chair José Gutiérrez: Yeah.

[03:31:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, do you mean uh state and national listed or state and national eligible?

[03:31:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Listed.

[03:31:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. So that would be a change from our current. Our current is state or national eligible goes to Council. Whether listed or not.

[03:31:51] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Keep it the same, cause it's... I want to keep the current code... I would keep the current code for council review of of California and National Registry. Both eligible and listed.

[03:32:12] Chair José Gutiérrez: So then does that mean you agree with the staff recommendation? In essence?

[03:32:18] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm saying the four on City Council public hearing and actions, that would not go to the ZA for state and national... that seems to doing something that is on the California registry or the national registry, it feels like more than just a ZA item.

[03:32:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Chair, I'll maybe just add some context... I think what we've seen as of late is very minor projects... very small additions going to City Council and providing a significant burden to property owners trying to do pretty routine 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 simpler for homeowners.

[03:33:30] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So what I said earlier is actually wrong... 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. It's major changes that I'm concerned with.

[03:34:00] Chair José Gutiérrez: That sounds good from staff. Is that context hold?

[03:34:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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.

[03:34:19] Chair José Gutiérrez: Any other thoughts from the Commission?

[03:34:29] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So my recollection is that there was an item on the City Council agenda 6 months ago for a house like the corner of Velarde and... Bush or View or something like that... 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 proposal would just go through the ZA?

[03:34:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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.

[03:35:23] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: 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, it would clearly be a major alteration.

[03:35:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I want to make the distinction here between what would actually 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 set up specific criteria in the ordinance but that's roughly the rubric.

[03:36:13] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay.

[03:36:14] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: So I'm in favor actually of the staff recommendation. I think trying to take decisions and push them as far down as we can is actually a smart and more efficient thing to do. Part of what I would be concerned about too is if Council, we're seeing things that they perhaps have already expressed that it's a little too picayune for them, what's gonna happen is they're gonna jam through it. Because they're gonna be like, put it on consent, right? Just move it, move it, move it. If it goes to the ZA, they're more likely to actually spend more time looking at it. And I think, getting the, I think getting the level right is how you get the most attention to it, and if we send it too high up, then it just gets flashed past. So I'd, I myself am actually fine with what staff have here.

[03:36:59] Chair José Gutiérrez: Thank you Commissioner Dempsey. Commissioner Yin.

[03:37:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Um, I'm of like mind. I think what staff has proposed is is fine with me.

[03:37:14] Chair José Gutiérrez: Commissioner Pham.

[03:37:16] Commissioner Tina Pham: I just had a question for Commissioner Cranston. Um, so what you mentioned with the California and National Listed Properties, could you re-explain that? And does that align with staff recommendations?

[03:37:33] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So the earlier bullets in this are 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 so they would have an opportunity to look at it and say, if it's a 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 minor. So the concern that Commissioner Dempsey has is something that I think would be resolved through the process of developing this list of items... 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... 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. So it I'm counting on bullets two and three to be worked through and we will see again in this process to make sure that what Commissioner Dempsey is concerned about doesn't occur.

[03:39:11] Commissioner Tina Pham: That's helpful. Um, can staff clarify what the current situation is now for major alterations in terms of approvals versus and especially for California and National Listed properties?

[03:39:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Um, and I 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... The... so that process those projects always go to council. And then everybody else always goes to ZA. So we have in our 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 National Park Service or the State Office of Historic Preservation makes an official determination of eligibility, which is not always the same as actual listing. There are slightly different processes there, but they're both public processes. So we could keep that 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, and that could go to council, or the staff recommendation is to just have it be solely based on what the type of improvement is.

[03:41:35] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you. Um, yeah I'm very sensitive to additional burdens, takings that that were mentioned before. These kinds of things... um but I it sounds like there's kind of already that in place so um it makes sense to to have everything aligned kind of like aligning the um the eligibility requirements with the national and and state registers... just having because that kind of streamlines things which I think is is an important goal.

Segment 6

[03:45:00] Commissioner Joyce Yin: even. So like in one block on both sides, you could have like 14, 15 businesses. If you're just keeping the facades, and there are some places that have done this, where we just have the facades that look old and then we do one whole building on the block, and there's 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. So I just want to be very specific in my request that that is a criteria to examine. I mean honestly, you know if you look at, I don't want to 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? Yeah. 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 1 oz coffee, Starbucks, and the UPS store, all those in 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.

[03:47:34] Commissioner Joyce Yin: And so that's an illustration of what I mean. 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 and 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.

[03:48:03] 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, I mean that, that is meaningful. 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 what you're getting at. Um, is that, is there enough here, or can staff just kind of like speak to, are we okay with...

[03:48:36] 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. This would be in a major...

[03:49:03] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Like, um, it would be like just added guidance around like consideration of floor plate or floor plan fit for purpose language, kind of something like that?

[03:49:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's how I understood Commissioner Yin's comments, yes.

[03:49:19] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Right, and I, I know that there, you have a lot of things going on with the precise plan and 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.

[03:49:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Cool. Well, um, I'm, I'd be inclined to support that as we move toward um, the, uh, getting a decision on this. But uh, Commissioner Donahue, do you have any...

[03:49:53] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So, having one big store, um, would involve, uh, merging or whatever it's called, uh, consolidating lots, I assume. Right? 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 something the city would have to, you know, go through an approval process, right? So...

[03:50:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well 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 and are considering redevelopment 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.

[03:51:05] 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.

[03:51:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I think you're touching on all the things we need to work on. I think the intent is clear. I think the implementation requires a fair amount of analysis.

[03:51:34] 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 has captured. Are we comfortable with checking for agreement? All in favor? Thumbs up? We got a meager waves, thumbs up. Okay, cool, I think there's enough affirmative um, yeses there. And I think that is the last one. I guess um, staff, there's a line in 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?

[03:52:14] 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. So for eligibility criteria, I noted um, the commission was okay with bullets 1 and 2. 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 in-eligible properties that we've identified, um, the commission supports the approach. Um, but 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.

[03:53:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: 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 a 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 the 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.

[03:54:21] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Uh yeah, I have a question. Are are we going to have a motion? Is that what's going to happen?

[03:54:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: I think do we need a motion for that?

[03:54:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, please. So someone could move my summary or amend it in some way.

[03:54:30] Commissioner Paul Donahue: So move. 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...?

[03:54:43] 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.

[03:54:54] 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.

[03:55:04] Commissioner Joyce Yin: I think you can abstain from that.

[03:55:07] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, yeah, I just want to be super, super ethical. So. Okay.

[03:55:13] 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 um, that being for Commissioner Murdock's wonderful summary. Yes, it was Commissioner Dempsey moved it and then Commissioner Yin. Are we good to vote? Okay, all in favor?

[03:55:53] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Are we going to use the vote machine or do we want to do a roll call vote?

[03:55:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh I do believe it's set up right now.

[03:56:08] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Motion fails.

[03:56:32] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Do we need to just do a roll call vote?

[03:56:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yeah. Um. Commissioner Pham. Commissioner Donahue.

[03:56:39] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[03:56:40] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Pham, can you um, state your vote into the microphone please?

[03:56:44] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yes.

[03:56:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Nuñez.

[03:56:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[03:56:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey.

[03:56:49] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[03:56:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin.

[03:56:51] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes.

[03:56:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston.

[03:56:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes.

[03:56:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh the motion passes uh six yea um and one absent.

[03:57:02] 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 uh Commissioner Donahue will abstain.

[03:57:15] 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?

[03:57:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Commissioner Cranston seconds.

[03:57:38] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Have a motion on the floor.

[03:57:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, Commissioner Pham.

[03:57:46] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yes.

[03:57:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Chair Nuñez.

[03:57:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[03:57:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Dempsey.

[03:57:51] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Aye.

[03:57:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Yin.

[03:57:53] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Yes.

[03:57:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Commissioner Cranston.

[03:57:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes.

[03:57:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh we have five, the motion passes. Five yes, um, one abstention, and one absent.

[03:58:13] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yeah, Commissioner Donahue abstained from that vote. It was the abstention, for the record.

[03:58:24] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We will now proceed to uh, item number 6, commission, staff, announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports. Uh, first being that uh quite uh, relevantly actually, the city is recruiting applications for appointments to the board of 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 p.m. on October 8th, all other applications are due 5:00 p.m. 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, etc.? Any from staff?

[03:59:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Nothing from staff, Chair. Thank you.

[03:59:29] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Wonderful. Okay, I hereby declare this meeting adjourned.

[03:59:35] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, just confirmation on the next meeting? I think one got pushed, and I think the date was for the next meeting in two weeks. Just wanted to confirm.

[03:59:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Checking our calendar right now. Right, so this time um we're anticipating the next EPC meeting will be October 15.

[04:00:21] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: October 15th. All right. I hereby declare this meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on the dot. Thank you everyone.

• ← Previous
• Next →