August 19, 2026, Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:02:07] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of August 19th, 2026. We will call the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

[00:02:20] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: 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.

[00:02:37] 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.

[00:02:52] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them in to the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on. Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda. And now I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with the roll call please.

[00:03:26] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Subramanian?

[00:03:27] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Here.

[00:03:28] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Gutierrez?

[00:03:32] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham?

[00:03:33] Commissioner Tina Pham: Here.

[00:03:34] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:03:37] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Here.

[00:03:38] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Cranston?

[00:03:40] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Here.

[00:03:42] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Donahue?

[00:03:44] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Here.

[00:03:45] EPC Clerk: Chair Nunez?

[00:03:46] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Here.

[00:03:57] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: What's the final roll, Mr. Clerk?

[00:04:01] EPC Clerk: All commissioners are present with the exceptions of Commissioner Gutierrez.

[00:04:08] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Okay. Having concluded item number two, we'll move on to number three, which is the minutes approval. So item 3.1 is the Environmental Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 4th, 2026 and April 15th, 2026.

[00:04:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Unless there's any commission discussion on the minutes, if anyone would like to make a public comment, then please provide, if you'd like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

[00:04:38] 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 *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6. Mr. Clerk, do we have any yellow speaker cards or speakers queued on Zoom for the minutes?

[00:04:57] EPC Clerk: No speakers on this item.

[00:05:01] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. No speakers being present. I would entertain a motion. Seems we've got one from our Vice Chair, and we've got a second from, I believe, Commissioner Dempsey. So, we may proceed to the vote.

[00:05:23] EPC Clerk: Can you please repeat who moved it and who seconded?

[00:05:28] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: It was moved by our Vice Chair Paul Donahue and seconded by Commissioner Dempsey.

[00:05:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Excuse me, Mr. Clerk. My screen does not show the ability to vote.

[00:06:07] EPC Clerk: I'll do roll call. Commissioner Subramanian?

[00:06:15] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yes.

[00:06:17] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham?

[00:06:19] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yes.

[00:06:20] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Gutierrez? Commissioner Cranston?

[00:06:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Yes. Yes. Is it on? Yes.

[00:06:39] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Dempsey?

[00:06:40] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Yes.

[00:06:42] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Donahue?

[00:06:44] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Yes.

[00:06:45] EPC Clerk: Chair Nunez?

[00:06:47] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[00:07:06] EPC Clerk: The vote carries with all in favor except Commissioner Gutierrez absent.

[00:07:18] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay, having concluded that, we'll move on to item number four, the 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.

[00:07:35] 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.

[00:07:45] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press *9 on your phone. Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with *6.

[00:07:56] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: And we'll go back to our commission clerk. Mr. Clerk, any speakers on Zoom or with a yellow speaker card?

[00:08:04] EPC Clerk: No speaker online or in person.

[00:08:09] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right. Looks like we'll have no speakers for item number four. So we'll proceed to our public hearing. We'll start with item 5.1, the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register update.

[00:08:23] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We will first have a staff presentation, then questions by the EPC, followed by public comment. At the closure of public comment, the commission will then deliberate and take action. We'll begin with a staff presentation from Senior Planner Elahe Karachian and Planning Manager Eric Anderson. Excuse me, Elahe. Yup. Thank you.

[00:08:48] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Good evening, Chair Nunez and Commission. This public hearing is regarding the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance update. My name is Elahe Karachian, and I'm here with our Planning Manager, Eric Anderson.

[00:09:07] Senior Planner Elahe 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 character-defining features.

[00:09:24] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: There are several reasons to update the ordinance and register at this time, which are shown on the screen. The bottom of the slide shows an overview of the project process. This project started in 2022 and has three major deliverables: a historic context statement, intensive survey, and update to the ordinance.

[00:09:38] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The project has had a robust outreach process, including four virtual and in-person workshops, a virtual question and answer session, meetings with individual stakeholders, EPC, and council meetings and letters.

[00:09:58] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Most recently, in July, a survey was prepared for property owners of properties included on the draft MV Register to solicit owner sentiment and feedback on the proposed designation. The City Council has weighed in on this project at three previous meetings summarized here.

[00:10:21] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: There are three recommended actions for EPC tonight. We will walk you through them in this presentation. The first staff recommendation is for the EPC to recommend to the City Council to accept the Historic Context Statement.

[00:10:35] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: This is a critical document that establishes the framework to identify historic resources in the city. It is the basis for the citywide survey that informed the current draft register and will continue to help support the identification of historic properties in the future.

[00:10:53] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The EPC and City Council previously reviewed this document late last year and did not have any comments. It has been updated for consistency with the draft city code updates.

[00:11:08] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The second recommendation tonight is regarding the ordinance. It has been drafted to respond to City Council direction from last December, which was largely taken from EPC's recommendation in October. This slide shows key elements of that council direction.

[00:11:28] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: This slide summarizes the overall organization of the updated code, which includes introductory sections, designation procedures, special case delisting procedures, permits for non-impactful modifications, demolition and impactful modifications, incentives and benefits, enforcement, SP79 exemption, and unlisted property HP permit requirements. Key changes are provided in the following slides.

[00:12:05] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Just a second.

[00:12:12] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Just give us one minute.

[00:13:14] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: We're back. Sorry. One major new element of the ordinance is the allowance for historic districts. Districts are made up of primary and limited contributors.

[00:13:26] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Primary contributors are those that directly support the district's significance. Limited contributors have the potential to impact the district if altered, but do not support the district's history.

[00:13:37] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: In December, City Council requested analysis supporting the delineation of council discretion versus technical expert recommendations, especially for owner-initiated districts.

[00:13:52] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: All historic districts require evaluation by a qualified professional with possible city peer review to show that the district meets the required findings of significance and concentration of primary contributors.

[00:14:06] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The draft ordinance includes detailed examples of the types of projects requiring four different levels of development review. Exempt alterations are those that are presumed no impact to the historic resource.

[00:14:20] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Minor HP permits are required for improvements that are not exempt, but do not affect visible character-defining features. Major HP permits are required for improvements that do affect visible character-defining features, but do not cause a substantial adverse change to the resource.

[00:14:41] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: And finally, demolition or substantial adverse change requires City Council approval and overriding considerations.

[00:14:53] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: This slide summarizes the key changes proposed for the incentives and benefits. Key new benefits include a historic plaque program, conditional use permits for historic uses, reduction in minimum parking, and new reductions to impact fees.

[00:15:10] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Staff recommends using a council policy to identify specifics such as fee reductions, contract procedures, and other details within the broad language of acceptable incentives categories to be included in the ordinance update.

[00:15:26] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: This will coordinate incentives across different departments and sections of the code, and may reduce the effort required to update the policy as compared to updating an ordinance.

[00:15:40] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The draft ordinance includes enforcement measures applicable specifically to historic resources, in addition to the standard criminal penalties applicable to unlawful work.

[00:15:53] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: These include the requirement to reconstruct as feasible, requirements for City Council to remove the property from the register (otherwise no reconstruction for a penalty period), and the requirement to repay any property tax incentives received.

[00:16:11] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The ordinance also includes a provision related to the recent state law, SB 79. This law overrides the city's density, height, and FAR standards for qualifying housing projects near major transit stops.

[00:16:33] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: It also allows the city to adopt a local temporary ordinance that would exclude historic resources if they were registered by the beginning of 2025.

[00:16:56] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Attachments 2 and 3 implement this provision. It would expire one year after the adoption of the next housing element, likely in 2031.

[00:17:13] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The project also includes a temporary provision related to HP permit review of state and national eligible single-family homes and duplexes. The previous code required these permits whether listed or not.

[00:17:26] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: This requirement should be removed because it is not transparent. However, this could be an impact to historic resources under CEQA, because single-family homes and duplexes have no other discretionary permit that triggers CEQA.

[00:17:46] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Staff recommends this language temporarily until the City Council can weigh in on the listing or CEQA pass for such sites.

[00:18:05] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: In summary, recommendations 2 and 3 would update the city code zoning map with the new historic preservation ordinance and SB 79 exclusion. These actions are consistent with CEQA because the ordinance assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, and protection of the environment through a regulatory process that includes procedures for environmental protection.

[00:18:26] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The SB 79 amendment is consistent with CEQA because of the common sense exemption, which provides that CEQA applies only to projects that have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

[00:18:47] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: The staff report included some updates regarding the draft register, but the EPC is not required to provide a recommendation related to this information. The draft register currently includes 99 resources.

[00:19:14] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: This includes the list of 101 resources the EPC reviewed last fall, minus seven religious properties that the City Council directed staff to exclude from further listing, plus five city-owned properties that have been deemed eligible for the register.

[00:19:47] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: In addition to the three city-owned resources already listed (including the Adobe building, Rengstorff building, and Immigrant House at Heritage Park), two new resources have been identified: the steel star windmill in Heritage Park and Cuesta Park.

[00:19:55] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: This table shows select data requested by the City Council regarding the sites.

[00:20:21] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Elahe.

[00:20:27] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, I guess we will proceed to commissioner questions. I'll open up the queue and open the floor for questions from the commission.

[00:20:48] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: We got Vice Chair Donahue first, I believe, and then Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:20:56] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, thank you. The last time that we heard this in October, I believe it was, the staff report said that CEQA already has requirements that buildings over 50 years old and that have historical significance have to go through a CEQA review process, and that property owners might not be aware of that, properties that are not on a historic register might not be aware of that.

[00:21:25] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Can you compare the process under CEQA versus the process through this proposed ordinance?

[00:21:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So yeah, we have modeled our ordinance closely with the CEQA requirements and process. So the findings and criteria under CEQA are similar to the findings and criteria under our ordinance.

[00:21:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: An applicant would still be required to prepare plans and conduct a historic resource evaluation under CEQA, and the city would need to provide independent review of those materials to ensure the project preserves the integrity of the resource under CEQA. So that's basically the fundamental framework of both the ordinance and CEQA, and they largely match each other.

[00:22:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: For projects that impact the resource, where there's a negative impact on the integrity of the resource, that would be an impact to the environment under CEQA. And under CEQA, you are required to do a statement of overriding considerations for that. And that was a close model for our ordinance process, which requires a statement of benefits and general plan consistency for demolition or other impacting proposed modifications.

[00:22:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: CEQA doesn't prescribe an approval process, but in general, city staff can refer approvals to the City Council if it wouldn't otherwise be a City Council action, if there is an impact to the historic resource.

[00:23:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So typically statements of overriding considerations are policy decisions where the council is best suited to make those calls.

[00:23:29] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. Um, on the rear addition and ADU streamlining process, there are permits and reviews for that, and of course then there's also the normal building permit process that you would have. Would those be an integrated process or would they be serialized and kind of take longer to get through the process with this ordinance?

[00:23:59] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: So the planning review is required for the rear additions, but currently there is no separate planning permit for ADUs, so there will not in future also we don't have a planning permit for ADUs, it's just it's going to be approved through the building permit process and planning will look at it.

[00:24:19] Commissioner Paul Donahue: That's for ADUs, but the rear additions also...

[00:24:23] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: They would require a planning permit.

[00:24:25] Commissioner Paul Donahue: They require a planning permit, and would that be serialized?

[00:24:31] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Yeah.

[00:24:33] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, so that adds some delays. Okay, interesting.

[00:24:40] Commissioner Paul Donahue: And the Police and Fire Administration Building at 1000 Villa would have been on, I think it says that it would have been on this list except that it's already been approved to be torn down. If it had been on this list, and then the City Council decided to tear it down, what would have happened, what would have been the process? Would it have had, would the council have had to take it off the list before doing that or something?

[00:25:10] Senior Planner Elahe Karachian: Yeah, the only difference is the council would need to adopt an additional resolution removing it from the register and then it can be demolished. And there is not going to be any significant difference.

[00:25:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, just to clarify, the council went through a CEQA process, they certified an EIR with a statement of overriding considerations for that project. And so, like I said before, that closely mirrors the process that they would have otherwise had to go through by removing it from the register.

[00:25:45] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

[00:25:47] Commissioner Paul Donahue: You also said that Cuesta Park is on the proposed list, and I know we're not weighing in on individual sites, but that is different than a house or an office building. It does have some structures, the tennis buildings and bathrooms. If does that mean that if somebody wants to make substantial modifications to the tennis building, that that would have to go through some extra process, or what is really covered when it's, when we say Cuesta Park?

[00:26:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I'll start, and then maybe I'll defer to our consultant who drafted the historic resource evaluation for that site. There are a number of structures at Cuesta Park that are considered character-defining features for the park, things like the bandstand and, you know, benches and lighting fixtures and things like that.

[00:26:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Those are laid out in the historic resource evaluation. So significant modifications to those features would need to go through an environmental review process.

[00:27:20] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay. And I think probably the last one, if looking through the ordinance, if there's an economic hardship, it looks like the property owner can apply to have the property removed from the register, but an economic hardship is not a reason to not have been included to start with. So, and there are fees associated with being removed because you have to pay for the peer review process. So what is the reason for not allowing economic hardship to be a reason to not be included to start with?

[00:28:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, we don't have enough information about the individual properties to evaluate every one of them from an economic hardship perspective. The economic hardship threshold or findings are actually pretty high. Like, the, you know, every regulation, you know, has some economic effect on every property, and so it's not simply a statement that this regulation is affecting the value of my property or affecting the outcome of my property. It really is an equation that the regulation is depriving the property of value.

[00:28:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In other words, in order to maintain the resource, I would need to expend more money than I would ever get in value or rent out of the property. Um, that's a fairly unlikely scenario and certainly wouldn't be the case for the vast majority of resources that we've looked at, given the fact that they tend to be of fairly high quality, fairly good maintenance, you know, they haven't been deteriorated extensively over time.

[00:29:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, they've been, you know, they've been maintained. Um, now the opportunity is there for a property owner to submit that analysis, uh, to meet that criteria and we would have to review that. Um, you know, the, the permit cost or the review cost of of such an application would probably be very, very small relative to the value that would come out of having a developable piece of land in Mountain View. So that, um, we expect the property owners would be willing to to pay that permit review cost.

[00:30:17] Commissioner Paul Donahue: Okay, thank you.

[00:30:19] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Subramanian.

[00:30:22] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you, Chair. Um, so following on the heels of my colleague's questions regarding the properties, I just wanted to walk through the timeline of the addition of, you know, the new properties to the register and understand, uh, just the sequence of how that's coming together.

[00:30:44] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Because I understand we're not as a commission making any recommendations on the properties list, but it, uh, please correct me if my understanding is incorrect here. Um, in terms of staff going through, um, and adding or proposing the additional list of properties to be added to the register, it seems pretty significant, right? There were 41 properties previously including city properties, and that's now almost getting doubled. And if I understand correctly, was the noticing to the property owners done this year in July?

[00:31:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we sent, um, letters to property owners in two different, two different sets of letters late last year. Um, and one of them was sent by certified mail which, you know, kind of made sure that they signed for it and recognized that they received it and recognized that it was important. Um, the notice that we sent in July was a follow-up request for information from them regarding their goals for the the project.

[00:31:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, we, uh, still have the opportunity to send out additional notices for the council meeting in December, which would be the final action date. And so we will, um, evaluate that, uh, as we get closer to that date.

[00:32:01] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Because looking at the list, I see that there's a large number of properties which don't have responses in either way from the, you know, the owners. And so what you're saying is there's still time for the owners to be notified and for them to respond in, you know, regarding their decision to be included or not, and that goes all the way till December?

[00:32:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, absolutely, it will. There will be an opportunity until December for them to comment to the City Council about this. We are, our goal for the meeting in September is for the council to give us direction about what, what properties they want ultimately to vote on in December. Um, obviously that doesn't mean that people can't come forward at the hearing in December and sway council on that issue.

[00:32:57] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, so in looking through the materials, you know, there's a lot of information in sort of the detailed register, the historic evaluation analysis that supports the listing in the register, um, but what would be helpful is to actually see it noted on a map.

[00:33:35] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Because one of the things that, uh, struck me was maybe the intent behind adding these significant number of properties to the register is to enable, um, the creation of a historic district based on a certain density of properties being identified, um, in this go around, right? So...

[00:33:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I would say that the intent of a historic district is to, uh, create a, um, a historic designation for properties whose significance comes from their relationship to their neighborhood and not necessarily from their, their, um, individual significance. So I wouldn't look to a map of historic resources to identify areas where we, we might be able to make findings for a historic district because there may be individual properties that only meet that significance in the context of their neighborhood or district.

[00:34:43] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. Um, then moving on to a slightly different topic, with regards to the SB 79 and delisting properties from the areas so they don't get included in the SB 79, I noticed that the map identified properties just around the downtown transit center. Is there a reason that there weren't, uh, others noted around other transit stops in Mountain View?

[00:35:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We didn't have any listed properties around any other stops, uh, as of 2025.

[00:35:22] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Got it. So then my next set of questions is around notes in the ordinance. Um, there's a couple of places where there's reference to enforcement measures and particularly regarding enforcement measures around the duty to maintain the property. And I was curious to understand how that's being envisioned.

[00:35:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so the duty to maintain is a typical part of historic, um, uh, ordinances. Uh, maybe I'll, I'll, uh, ask our consultant Page & Turnbull, who, who's seen a lot more of these ordinances, uh, Christina Dikas...

[00:36:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Maybe I'll ask a follow-up question which is, um, maybe if you can provide a little more detail in your question about what you're looking for, are you looking for kind of how it might be implemented, are you looking for how the, um, how the ordinance itself functions, like maybe a little more...?

[00:36:35] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So I am looking to understand how it will be implemented.

[00:36:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Okay. Well, maybe, maybe I'll start with that and if there's anything you can add, that, that's fine. Um, so, uh, we do have, uh, code enforcement procedures that are regulated through, um, the, um, other chapters of the city code. Uh, a case of, um, not maintaining a property would, would have to be quite egregious to, uh, for a code enforcement action to be taken on it. It would have to be something that's, like, uh, um, you know, considered a public nuisance, you know. Um, and so, uh, I haven't seen any of those happen in my experience here in the city of Mountain View, but uh, there are certainly uh, other examples of of how they've happened in other communities, uh, where the, the city has attempted to, um, uh, re- require a property owner to conduct basic maintenance on a building.

[00:37:31] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So let me ask with a specific example in mind. Um, there is a lot of ground settlement happening in and around Mountain View, and I'm sure that older properties are more impacted as a result of that. And, um, it could, it could present an, um, a reason for an owner to take more preventative measures to sort of bolster up older properties that, um, have cracking and, you know, damage to walls and foundations as a result of settlement.

[00:37:48] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So you could see that potentially that over time leads to a state that requires demolition of the property. And so it, it could start off as a pretty insignificant, um, action that, you know, has built up over time resulting in a situation where it warrants demolition. So in that type of situation, um, is the city capable of actually, um, enforcing oversight on the duty to maintain, or is it sort of required for the owner to demonstrate that they have taken more than the normal measures to bolster up the property?

[00:38:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, the, um, I think in in most cases it would depend on the specific facts of the case, so it's it's a little hard to make general statements. Uh, certainly we would want to make sure in any enforcement that there's a, um, a reasonable knowledge that the property owner has that they are required to maintain, otherwise it's it's difficult to, um, enforce criminally on that, that action. Um, uh, I think it would also probably be associated potentially with, um, you know, if if a property is is showing signs of deterioration that are considered a public nuisance, there are steps that the city would take, uh, to before, um, kind of taking it to a full enforcement, um, you know, criminal or otherwise enforcement measure. So I think it would really depend on the specific facts of the case, what steps have been taken by the city ahead of time, um, perhaps maybe some of the specifics around the resource itself, uh, and, um, and so it's it's a little hard to anticipate a general answer to that question.

[00:39:05] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And then my last question is around the section on incentives and benefits. So there is language in the proposed ordinance, but the staff report also talks about other language that could be part of council policy and sort of adding more detail to those incentives and benefits. In looking through the language that is proposed to be part of council policy, um, it seems like many of those sections could use more definition. So for instance, uh, in terms of reduced fees and in-lieu fees, there's talk about small buildings getting a certain percentage of reduction versus large buildings, and I wondered if there was going to be more definition added to what defines a small versus large, and you know, similar other points in the council policy section.

[00:39:46] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And then my last question is around the section on incentives and benefits. So there is language in the proposed ordinance, but the staff report also talks about other language that could be part of council policy and sort of adding more detail to those incentives and benefits. In looking through the language that is proposed to be part of council policy, um, it seems like many of those sections could use more definition. So for instance, uh, in terms of reduced fees and in-lieu fees, there's talk about small buildings getting a certain percentage of reduction versus large buildings, and I wondered if there was going to be more definition added to what defines a small versus large, and you know, similar other points in the council policy section.

[00:40:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, absolutely. We plan on making all of those criteria completely objective to, to provide, um, clarity and transparency and certainty to property owners.

[00:40:29] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay. And that would be done, uh, before it goes to council in September?

[00:40:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so, um, the, in order to adopt a council policy, the council does have to refer it to one of their policy subcommittees, and so that process may be in the new year. Uh, although we haven't put a, um, specific timeline on it.

[00:40:56] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: That's it. Thank you, Chair.

[00:40:59] Vice Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Subramanian. We'll move to Commissioner Pham.

[00:41:07] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you, Chair. So my first question has to do with, um, discussion back last October. I recall that there were a few properties that did not pass the integrity test. These are properties already on the list, and we spoke at length about the time frame it we would allow them, um, to remain on the list. And we talked about potentially four years to submit a plan and three years to complete the work. Um, what's been done, um, and I know council may have chimed in on this as well. Um, where did we land on that?

[00:41:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So council's direction was to closely follow the EPC's recommendation on that, which was to, um, uh, provide property owners with, uh, like you said, up to I believe it was four years or maybe it was three then four, I don't remember the exact numbers, but a total of seven years, but a kind of a check-in point, um, at which if they haven't submitted an application, then they're removed from the register.

[00:42:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Those, um, uh, those provisions we are planning on bringing with the register itself rather than as part of the ordinance, because we don't want those types of temporary provisions to be in the ordinance, you know, forever. You know, it's something that is, um, really very property specific and temporary, and, and so we will bring an update on those when we take the register in December.

[00:42:45] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, thanks. Um, so my next question has to do with historic districts. Um, there's more than two pages of that in the staff report, which is good. Um, and I remember back last October hearing from staff that...

Segment 2

[00:45:00] Commissioner Tina Pham: There were some interested residents kind of asking for a process to designate a historic district. I appreciate the staff's outreach to all these properties as listed in the staff report. There's a table showing who's responded. But not really anything related to creation of a historic district. Are you hearing similar feedback? And are you planning to do any specific outreach to potential historic districts?

[00:45:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We are not planning on doing any direct outreach to potential historic districts unless Council identifies a historic district that they want to initiate. So under the ordinance they're allowed to initiate a historic district. In that case we would do outreach to that district. But as you say, we have been hearing from interested stakeholders who are interested in designating their neighborhoods. We have not yet heard from them regarding our draft ordinance, but I know that they are closely watching this process and are on our email lists and the like. So they certainly have the opportunity to weigh in on the ordinance at this point with any input on how it works with their goals for district designation.

[00:46:44] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay, great. My next question has to do with the modification framework for historic resources. For example, there's some exempt alterations, some minor alterations, major alterations, and then major changes would require Council's input and a public hearing. So that's great that it's a tiered approach. My question is that can you describe at those levels what's the involvement of historical experts that you guys may have access to to kind of advise those bodies, whether it's staff level or whether it's Council. Is a peer review required at all those steps? Can you just kind of walk me through the different levels and how you guys will use experts in that decision-making process?

[00:47:39] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's a great question. So for the exempt, there really isn't a study required. That's kind of the threshold at which we think studies should be required for modifications to resources. An applicant will submit their own study, and we will in all likelihood have a list of consultants that we can have on call to do peer review that we know are reputable consultants. And in many cases if an applicant uses one of those consultants, we may not need to do a peer review because we already know that they're one of our on-call consultants to do the peer review. In other cases a peer review may still be warranted if, for example, the analysis questions findings in our historic resource evaluation for the property. So again it's going to be a fairly case-by-case process where we will identify any necessary information that we need to acquire as staff based on the application.

[00:49:14] Commissioner Tina Pham: Only two more questions. My next question has to do with enforcement. What caught my eye was the requirement to reconstruct. I was wondering how that would be carried forth. And kind of similar to my first question, knowing that construction is complicated, takes a lot of resources and time. Would there be any time frame on the requirement to reconstruct and how would that be enforced?

[00:49:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So similar to Commissioner Subramanian's question, it's very difficult to kind of anticipate the specific cases of a future code enforcement case, the specifics. The requirement to reconstruct is, you know, if feasible. And so there would need to be some analysis at the time to determine the feasibility of such a reconstruction. This could be economic feasibility, it could be structural feasibility, availability of materials, timeline, whatever. All those could go into the analysis of what makes reconstruction feasible. From there the applicant would have an opportunity to go through the right permit process, right? And so if that involves going to Council and providing additional benefits for whatever the modification was that they did, then that's what that process might entail. And from there there would be additional hearings that would be constrained by the reasonableness and constitutionality of what we can do as a city to enforce on these measures.

[00:51:12] Commissioner Tina Pham: A follow-up to that, who's on the hook to prove what's feasible? Would it be the property owner or would that be determined in conjunction with the city? I could see an instance where the property owner just may not have the economic feasibility or the funds to do so. How could they prove that or to what extent would they need to submit documentation if they wanted to make that case?

[00:51:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, again, it's difficult to know for all the possible cases out there. Ultimately there would be some officer or hearing officer that ultimately judges the reasonableness of a proposal or analysis, and that would have to be done in a public process with the ability for the applicant to voice their due process perspective.

[00:52:14] Commissioner Tina Pham: Okay. One last question. Incentives and benefits. I saw that the existing ordinance allows for opportunity for a loan fund. But the staff report said it had never been implemented. Any thoughts on that or is that an area where you'll be seeking additional input from Council going forth?

[00:52:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so there are probably a dozen implementation items coming out of this ordinance update, everything from creating brochures and public information documents to implementing some of these benefits programs, including a plaque program or all these other benefits programs. So that would be one item where we would be asking Council, do you want to implement this benefit program along with all the other programs and implementation items that are coming out of this project.

[00:53:15] Commissioner Tina Pham: Thank you.

[00:53:18] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Pham. Commissioner Cranston.

[00:53:24] Commissioner Bill Cranston: One question is kind of a follow-up to Commissioner Subramanian's question and your answer to it. Code enforcement is focused on the skin of the building, it sounds like. So if it's possible that the failure to maintain is in the interior portion of the building that's not visible from the street, water damage, whatever, you wouldn't know that something was going to happen until literally the roof collapsed. Is that am I hearing that correctly? Code enforcement is only looking at the skin?

[00:54:02] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Our ability to know anything about the building would be what we can see.

[00:54:14] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Next question is, I know we're not reviewing the list, but is there something that's out there visible for the people that are on the register that have questions to know clearly what they need to do before September 22nd and then after the 22nd up until the time in December, that if they have questions and how to proceed. Is there something clear that says step one, step two, step three, this is what you need to do. I mean we're not reviewing it, but if there's an answer at the end which kind of doesn't make me feel comfortable. So is there something that says this is how you get from today, August 19th, to being on or not on the list in December, that people can clearly look at and say I know what I need to do?

[00:55:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So that the process of going to the Council on these dates was laid out in the letter that we sent in July. And so if anybody has any questions about that process, we also provided our contact information.

[00:55:28] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And that says clearly what they need to do in that process?

[00:55:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It says that the... well, I don't have the text of the letter in front of me, but it certainly said that the decision-making process does include the ability to provide comments on the register and this information that we're providing, the historic resource evaluation and everything else.

[00:56:08] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And it points to where they would go to know what those items are clearly?

[00:56:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah.

[00:56:13] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: It is also noted on our website and it has been referenced in the notice as well that you can like all these dates of the meetings and how you can contact us if you have questions and how you can give us your feedback.

[00:56:26] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I guess my experience has generally been that knowing that the meetings are there doesn't mean you know how to get to the point where you're actually ready to be able to speak at those meetings. And that's my worry is that it's just like oh show up on the 22nd and object, but they don't know what they need to do. So if you think the website clearly lists those for people and will have additional information on that from the 22nd to the December list... I just want to make sure it's clear for people that if they have a question they know what they need to go do to get to... so they're not surprised in December, somebody comes in and says well, you're putting my name on a list and I don't know why I'm being put on the list. So I'm just is it clear out there someplace that someone can go to that's on the register right now that says here's what you need to go look at, step one, step two, step three, and if you have questions, here's what you do on those items, like a Q&A. They know who to go back to because I again I don't want I've seen more than one meeting in this commission where people come in and say you're making a decision and I didn't know anything about it. And I'm like well that's not a good thing. So I just want to make sure that there's some place that people can find these things and that would be a recommendation to the Council is make sure that you tell staff there needs to be something that they can go to to reference on that because we're not voting on what's on the list or not, but they will be. And they're going to get calls from people saying, "Whoa." So I just want to make sure it's clear for people there's a resource for people.

[00:58:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, absolutely. I mean there's FAQs, the list of properties, the dates, the expected items on those dates. The letter does include information about the process that we are going through here and I think that is sufficiently clear for a property owner to know that at the very least something is happening and that if they don't understand everything that they're reading they should reach out to us and we can answer those questions.

[00:58:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay.

[00:58:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Dempsey, would you like to...

[00:58:58] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Happy to. I saw the Vice Chair was above me, so...

[00:59:03] Chair Alex Nuñez: I think it's fair. I think you should definitely...

[00:59:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: All right. Thank you, Chairman. So three questions and they're mostly going to follow up on questions that some of my colleagues have already asked. So I've got three of them. And these are, treat these as relatively high level questions for staff. So on the expansion of the number of sites, I know we're not going to talk about any individual ones, but the increase from, I think it was like 40 something to about 100. That's over 100% increase. That's a big jump in the number of houses that would be included in this program. Why? And I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know what the thinking was. Like, did we, are we required to use a broader set of criteria so that we have to capture 100? Or was that a policy decision that we made at the staff level that we want to capture more? And I know it's eligible, not actually properly listed, so I get that distinction. But I'm noting that we made the circle a lot bigger and I would like to know the thinking why.

[01:00:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the biggest reason why the circle is bigger... well, there are... I won't say which one's bigger, but I'd say there are two main reasons why the circle is bigger. One is to correct the opt-off provision that we had in the previous ordinance. So there are lots of properties that were eligible where the property owner had opted off under the previous ordinance. That has, as we've said, inconsistency with CEQA issues. It has issues around kind of the predictability and transparency of what are the historic resources in the community. And it also doesn't reflect the City's and the Council's policy level role in identifying historic resources for preservation for the community. The other major effect that increases the number of resources is the age eligibility. So the last time we did an ordinance update was back in 2004. So that's over 20 years. And when you think about the time period between 50 years before 2004, which was the early 50s, and the 50 years before now, which was basically the late 60s, early 70s, a lot of buildings were built in Mountain View in that time and there's a lot, a lot, a lot of opportunity for historic, historically important things to have happened, like the founding of Intel, or major architectural styles to be developed and built. So a lot of properties are properties that we... that had opted off before and a lot of properties are just newly eligible.

[01:02:08] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. That makes sense. So shifting to a different topic, the question of incentives. Help me understand why staff chose to do the Council policy, which is a sort of a... I've not run into that before. I'm not familiar with that choice. So if you could help me understand why you made that choice, because it makes it difficult for us to discuss the details of that choice if the choice does not come before us. And I think it's highly material to being able to judge whether or not we think the overall policy makes sense. But that's, I'll save that for the comment period, but what was behind the decision to take incentives and sort of drop them in the Council policy box so that we don't see them, or so that we don't get to discuss them tonight?

[01:02:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, it wasn't so that the EPC doesn't get to discuss them. That wasn't the goal. What initially prompted the conversation was the finding that there are actually historic incentives in chapter 8, and chapter 40, and chapter 36, you know, all throughout the zoning code. And it took us quite a bit of time to go through the whole city code to find all the places where there are historic incentives, where some department has plopped in, other than Community Development, has plopped in a historic incentive for their particular process. You know, one example of this is green building exceptions in our building code. Another example is the parkland dedication exemption, which is in the parkland dedication code. So a big reason behind having a Council policy is to just put all of that information in one place, so there's one resource for a property owner to go to, Council, staff to understand the whole range of historic incentives. The other aspect of it is that there are potentially procedural instructions that may be more appropriate in the context of a Council policy rather than an ordinance, so you can get more into the procedural details around submittal requirements for contracts or other incentives, what the potential outcomes of those contracts should include, like some of the terms of those contracts. And then ultimately it reduces the potential to lower the kind of burden of review in amending the Council policy. So rather than going through a whole revised ordinance, which needs EPC and Council and second reading and has other elements of review, this is something that can be really just reviewed at different levels of the City Council.

[01:05:36] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: And just for the sake of clarity, the contents of that Council policy would never come before the EPC. Is that correct?

[01:05:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It would not, no.

[01:05:47] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay.

[01:05:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. One additional compelling reason from my perspective related to the policy and the incentives is that while some of them, as described in the ordinance, are land use and zoning related, and those are reasonably well articulated in the ordinance. A good number, if not potentially a majority, are financially related, which are not traditionally within the purview of the Environmental Planning Commission. And so trying to consolidate them, given the subject matter that spans land use, building, and fiscal, for example, aligning those in a way that the Council could singularly act on without piecemealing some of the changes through a zoning ordinance through the EPC and then public hearing, and putting them in a way where the financial role and the fiscal management role that the Council plays is carried out more efficiently through establishing those policy parameters outside of the zoning ordinance to me is a compelling reason as well.

[01:06:49] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Well, I have thoughts on that, but I'll save them for the end. So the last question just has to do with permitting. So if you could help me understand, if I'm a... say I got a Victorian, I live downtown and I'm going to be put on this list and I was not previously. Say I want to remodel my kitchen. How does my permitting burden change? And I would ask the same question for if I own a building that's down on Castro, the first block of Castro Street, and I run a restaurant and I want to remodel my kitchen. How does my permitting burden change?

[01:07:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So interior-only improvements are not affected by this ordinance at all. They are exempt, 100%. No difference. Now, that's not to say that some necessary interior improvements get a little harder if you can't touch the outside. We do have the tiered permitting requirements. So that, for example, improvements on the back of a building that aren't visible from the public right-of-way, those you get a lot more flexibility on, right, if you're not changing character-defining features. So if you're remodeling a kitchen on a single-family house and the kitchen's on the back of the building, probably pretty easy. Probably not a big difference between being on the register or not. But the more that you need to do to the outside of the building, the more potential there is for impacting character-defining features.

[01:08:38] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Okay. No more questions, Mr. Chair.

[01:08:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey. Vice Chair Donahue.

[01:08:47] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. I have another question. So the in looking through the proposed ordinance, the to get on the register, the definition says a resource is significant under one of these criteria: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, method of construction, etc., etc., or represents the work of an architect, design professional, or builder of merit. There's actually an extra 'of' there, so you might want to remove that. But anyway, an Eichler is associated with the work of an architect, design professional, or builder of merit. So does that mean that every Eichler in Monta Loma is eligible for, or is eligible to be put on the register even though it's not individually distinctive?

[01:09:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we haven't evaluated Eichlers. When we started this process, we went to the City Council to ask, what is the scope of properties that you want us to look at? And the Council said, don't look at single-family homes zoned in our districts that haven't already been identified. And so we have not evaluated Eichlers in this process.

[01:10:29] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. But under this definition it's possible at least that they would be, that all the Eichlers and maybe a large number of other homes in Mountain View would be...

[01:10:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's certainly possible that a large number of single-family homes in the City of Mountain View are eligible under these criteria.

[01:10:52] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: That haven't been identified yet.

[01:10:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And it would be up to the City Council to decide whether to put them on the register or not. Exactly.

[01:11:01] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: And would those single-family homes, would all those Eichlers be subject to this CEQA process already?

[01:11:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, because Mountain View's single-family development process is a non-discretionary, it's a ministerial, non-discretionary process. So there is no discretionary planning permit to demolish a single-family home and build a new single-family home in its place. And so under that process, CEQA does not happen. There is no evaluation under CEQA.

[01:11:48] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Okay, thanks.

[01:11:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright. Commissioner Subramanian.

[01:11:58] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: A quick follow-up question to the incentives and benefits. So I understand that the list of possible potential incentives and benefits are going to be included in the ordinance, but the details of the different levels of being administered will be a part of Council policy. Is that Council policy then visible to all? How is that accessed? And do people know the objective standards under which they can approach the incentives?

[01:12:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, ultimately every Council policy is published on the City's website. I will admit that if you're looking for a particular Council policy, it can be a little bit of a search. But as I said, there are a lot of implementation actions that come out of this. And one implementation action would be to create a website that includes and consolidates all of that information in one place.

[01:12:54] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

[01:12:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Any other questions? No? Okay. I'm gonna ask a few then. Just kind of like broadly speaking, this timeline is pretty helpful. I think this obviously has legs going back to 2022 in terms of when we started thinking about this. I guess I'm trying to characterize in my mind if staff might be willing to help with this. You know, going back to 2018 there's been some version of like a Scott Wiener bill for transit development, right? Like the conversation's all kind of been up in the air. But I think that obviously picked up a lot of steam last year with SB 79 and all of that. So obviously this project kind of starting three years before that. Nonetheless, I'm still just kind of curious if staff can just kind of characterize for us in what ways did the SB 79 legislation impact the trajectory of this proposal or of this project? If at all.

[01:14:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Yeah. I mean, the obvious is the addition of a paragraph regarding the historic exclusion that we are entitled to under SB 79. That was Council direction back at the beginning of the year that they wanted us to adopt such an ordinance. And so we're bringing that back per their direction. Other than that, the direction that we received to draft this ordinance was received from Council before anybody really knew that SB 79 was going to happen. I mean, we had an idea that it was happening, but we developed this staff report for EPC in October based on tons of work that we had been developing before then. Which was before SB 79 was actually adopted. And then we brought the same information to EPC in October that we did to Council in December. So I would say other than the SB 79 specific paragraph, SB 79 has not affected the development of this ordinance.

[01:15:40] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just because at least from just to contextualize that question, it kind of feels to me a little bit like maybe just in the zeitgeist some urgency kind of like did pick up around this especially in relation to the downtown. But shifting gears here. When it comes to some of the protections for natural disaster or you know kind of like I don't know what you might call it like force majeure or what have you. I just wanted to check is there any kind of like provision in there? I think disaster and accident are covered. But let's say there's like non-conspiratorial vandalism or something, right? Like is that part of the protection? Do you know what I mean? Like some random person comes and says I hate this house for no other reason than Queen Annes are the worst, and they burn it down. Like that's neither a natural disaster nor an accident. But I guess I'm just curious like if the current proposal addresses that. Obviously like non-conspiratorial.

[01:16:50] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Oh, I think I would just say at a high level, you know, provided the property owner restored the property and maintained it in a reasonable amount of time. If that was possible. You know, it's not likely... it's hard for me to imagine the City taking some sort of punitive action against the property owner, particularly given there's no culpability in that case that they contributed to that damage to the historic resource, which is one of the key characteristics in the enforcement provisions. Knowing violation, culpability, and so forth.

[01:17:20] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, cool. And then last question, since most of my colleagues took all the good ones. The Cuesta Park designation, does that include just I'm just wanting to confirm, does that include the Cuesta Park Annex?

[01:17:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it doesn't. It's just the improvements at Cuesta Park, so Cuesta Annex doesn't have any improvements.

[01:17:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, cool. Then in that case... I see Commissioner Cranston has got a question actually.

[01:17:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: One quick question. So you said that this doesn't affect single-family homes, but I thought there were single-family homes on the register. When you're answering the question. So I'm what is that wait wait I thought this single family homes are part of this.

[01:18:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Can you repeat the question?

[01:18:10] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Oh, sure. So the question was there are single-family homes zoned in our districts that are on the proposed register, the proposed draft register. And so where how does that align with the previous answer that we didn't study new single-family homes as part of this process? Well, the single-family homes that we did study were either previously on the register, previously opted off, or had been included in a previous Council study of a citywide survey of state and national eligible properties. So those were known historic resources of single-family homes that Council directed us to continue to study and evaluate through this process. Any previously unidentified single-family home was not included in this process.

[01:19:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Okay. So it's not that it something couldn't be later. It's just it wasn't part of that initial process.

[01:19:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Certainly any property owner that wants to come forward and initiate a designation process for their property, and if they are eligible, they are absolutely able to designate their own their property.

[01:19:44] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And I think maybe to provide a little more context, I think what you're getting at is it was a policy decision of the Council not to expand the scope of the survey. So to the extent that there is a mechanism in the proposed ordinance to have the City initiate a survey, that could be a decision of a future Council to broaden the scope and include these properties, and potentially bring more of them into the fold. But that was not the direction given by Council at the outset of this process, which is why only that subset of R1 or R zoned single-family residences were included in this process and advancing to the register phase potentially.

[01:20:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So if an army of Eichler owners came in and said we want to be designated as historic, we could still do that.

[01:20:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that process is available.

[01:20:35] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sorry, I might actually jump off that question. So you're saying that process currently exists today, the army of Eichlers?

[01:20:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it doesn't exist today. The draft ordinance would make that process available to a district interested in initiating that process subject to Council approval.

[01:20:56] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Then just one more quick question. And maybe I missed this. Is there like some projection of expected areas where... because the Monta Loma one is a pretty, I mean when I think about the history of like Eichler I think there's a case there, not giving anyone any ideas here, but there's a case to be made. So that's one I can think of off the top of my head, but was a projection of potential districts that could arise from the HCS and then the changes to the code, was some projection of expected or potential districts a part of that or did I miss that?

[01:21:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The HCS does have some discussion around identifying criteria for districts at different ages and land uses. Right, so that's how it's organized and it actually has some discussion around districts in that context. There's no analysis about specific districts in the HCS. It's really just saying here's how you would evaluate the significance of those districts. I will say that the City Council has in public meetings said that they are interested in looking at a potential historic district for area H of downtown. And so that is an example of not having done the analysis to know whether it is actually eligible, but that is an example of something that we've used to identify appropriate processes and criteria that could accommodate such an initiation and approval process.

[01:23:15] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Thank you, because that's actually kind of why I brought up that point earlier around the downtown and the kind of district H urgency kind of thing going on. I did see some discussion in the staff report, and this is not the word I think was in the report, just on the top of my head, for lack of better remembrance, is like protections against frivolous district claims or something like that. And then there was I think some analysis around like what Palmdale... other cities have actually like the bars they have to go through. So given that there's to the best of what I'm hearing isn't like a projection of expected almost like opportunity sites or opportunity areas for like historical district. How confident are we in in the kind of frivolous district claim protection, does that... am I making sense?

[01:24:19] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, I think there's two things going on here with respect to districts. There is a Council-initiated process which gives broad latitude to Council provided the evidence is there to substantiate a legitimate historic district. So that's the broader tool that's available. The second approach is a property owner-initiated district where there are the safeguards that you're describing to really ensure that whatever might be brought forward by the community is not meant to be misusing the tools right for exclusion or in a punitive way. And that's where there is a property owner test in terms of number of parcels and area covered within the proposed district. And then an additional component of ensuring that there's I think at least a two to one ratio of contributing versus non-contributing properties. So that between those two there is broad interest and also broad richness if you will in whatever proposed district is being initiated by the community. So I think those are the safeguards that you're describing to make sure that hopefully no one, not a sort of small minority of residents is able to misuse this to the detriment of other property owners.

[01:25:32] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Then last question for me. Outside of a majority or consensus vote... you know like 4 to 3 vote or what have you on the City Council, is there... are there any safeguards let's say seven historical society people get elected to Council or what have you... like is there any kind of like protections against the Council just like declaring everything historic?

[01:25:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: You know, I'll see if Senior Assistant Attorney Selena Chen has anything to add. I would say in general there still needs to be the facts to support that action by the Council and so substantial evidence, and those kinds of decisions of the Council if they lack evidence can be challenged in court. And so the City has to do a good job and make sure there are facts and evidence to support that action. The other part is typically actions like ordinances and resolutions are subject to referendum. So if somehow seven Council members that have been elected have gotten the will of the people so wrong, California does provide that mechanism for the community to potentially overturn that through a referendum.

[01:26:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: Less often high amounts of attrition from all involved in time and expense. But...

[01:26:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. And not to mention recall as well if they were so often affecting so many people in that decision. So those are of course extreme examples. I think the more common and useful example is the reasonableness and the substantial evidence component here.

[01:27:01] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. And unless our City Attorney wants to chime in I'll recall myself from more questions.

[01:27:08] City Attorney Selena Chen: I have nothing to add.

[01:27:09] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sweet. All right. Cool. Any other questions? Nope? Okay. Cool. Then in that case, 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 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. Madam Clerk?

[01:27:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We have one online speaker and three in-person speakers.

[01:27:49] Chair Alex Nuñez: Do you want to start... who do you want to start with? Online? Let's do online.

[01:27:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: The next speaker will be Jonathan Davis. Mr. Chair, how many minutes would you like me to set up?

[01:28:07] Chair Alex Nuñez: Let's do three.

[01:28:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Three.

[01:28:13] Jonathan Davis: Great. Chair Nuñez, members of the Environmental Planning Commission, thanks very much. As a commissioner in another advisory body I truly appreciate the time that you spend and the thoughtful way that you balance community values in your deliberations. My name is Jonathan Davis and we own a historic property, a house that we live in at Mariposa Avenue and Mercy. Regarding historic preservation I would like to request that the Commission add to your resolution tonight a recommendation that Council consider directing staff to evaluate a supplemental historic preservation fund for extraordinary situations. The Mills Act is great but is insufficient in some situations. Historic preservation succeeds because private property owners agree to become stewards of assets valued by the community. Property owners accept restrictions that do not apply to comparable non-historic properties. In some instances this can be a very significant forfeited economic opportunity. Nonetheless many owners such as us willingly accept this responsibility because we value preservation and appreciate the city's commitment to protecting its historic resources. That historic preservation partnership between homeowners and the community functions well so long as the responsibilities remain proportional. The Mills Act provides property tax relief that helps offset many of the higher costs associated with maintaining historic properties. However, the Mills Act was never intended to address every consequence of preserving older structures. Furthermore, the Mills Act doesn't...

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Jonathan Davis: differentiate between very old property, say a hundred years old or more, from the much newer structures of the 50s, 60s, and 70s that reflect very different construction standards, technology, and structural integrity. Historic homes that have stood for a century or more potentially face issues that newer homes seldom encounter. And these are not cosmetic improvements, nor are they discretionary upgrades. They may be essential investments necessary to preserve the structure itself. At some point, owners of designated historic properties may face repair costs that substantially exceed the tax reduction benefits provided through the Mills Act or the other fee reduction benefits. A preservation program should not place owners in a difficult position of choosing between preserving resources for others to enjoy and making prudent financial decisions for their families. Nor should preservation policies unintentionally discourage future owners from purchasing or maintaining historic homes because of concerns about unpredictable structural liabilities. Therefore, we respectfully ask the commission to add to your resolution to...

[01:31:16] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Davis. We, your time is up, but we appreciate the commentary. Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Clerk, I think we will proceed with our, unless there's some more, there's no more digital.

[01:31:33] EPC Clerk: No more online speaker, we can proceed with in-person speakers. The next speaker will be Massimo Prati.

[01:31:48] Massimo Prati: Chairman Nunez, commissioners, good evening. My name is Massimo Prati. I own 537 Bush Street, which has been identified for placement on the historic register. I'm sorry.

[01:32:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sorry, excuse me sir, I'm not sure that the clock is... my apologies.

[01:32:03] Massimo Prati: It's okay.

[01:32:04] Chair Alex Nuñez: Get a few bonus seconds. Let's reset the clock. All right, thank you.

[01:32:14] Massimo Prati: Okay. As you consider these amendments in support of the historic preservation ordinance, I would like to provide you with an owner's point of view. As you all know, the major change in this update of the ordinance is the identified properties will be forced to be placed on the register without owner's consent, thereby restricting the development potential of said properties, which under SB9 could be worth millions of dollars. By forcing us and other properties onto the register, the city, in my opinion, will be basically exercising eminent domain without offering proper compensation. The presumed benefits that are being offered to us property owners are still sketchy and frankly paltry vis-a-vis the value of the property, in addition to foregoing any potential development proceeds. Upkeeping a historic property is an expensive proposition. How do the benefits, incentives translate into dollars? Is the city ready to sit down with individual owners and go over the details? I don't know the answer to that. As a side note, all outreach to us by city staff has been via bulk mail. When we attempted to reach city staff in the past regarding the ordinance, we never received a return phone call or email. We have given up. Also, city staff did conduct an online survey last month, which we responded to along with 26 other property owners. Preliminary poll results are included in the attachments. There was one question on the survey, which I recall, which asked if the property owner would opt out of the register if still given a choice. I do not see the responses to that question were included in the city staff report. There was a report, what was received tonight. Moreover, based on our experience from about 10 years back, the city is ill-equipped to manage a historic register. The planning department at the time lacked specific expertise on historic properties. When we started a permit application process, the planner initially understood that our house was on the historic register. It never was, we had to explain. We opted off in 2004. And initially waved this at us as a limitation and impairment to our project until he realized that we were not on the register. I hope that is not what lies ahead. Finally, the city does not have an architectural code supporting historic preservation. Just look at the shoeboxes that are popping up around Old Mountain View. In summary, eminent domain by another name is not a solution to historic preservation. A city that truly believes in historic preservation should build a system from the ground up that supports that. This ordinance would only strip away property rights from their owners and cause serious financial harm. Thank you for your time.

[01:35:14] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:35:18] EPC Clerk: The next speaker will be John Martinez.

[01:35:26] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sorry, I think we've started the clock. Do you mind resetting it please, Mr. Clerk? Thank you.

[01:35:31] John Martinez: All right, thank you for this time. My name is John Martinez. My wife Julie and I own 252 Monroe Drive, and we were, have been put on the possibility of the registry. We are on the registry because of the age of the property and a partial building that looks like it used to be a tank house. There is no function, it's no longer any functioning as a tank house. There's no tank. And so now, because of the council being able to consider putting us on a registry without any input for us, am I gonna have to put a tank back up on the tank house? I mean, that's, that's asking a lot, that's going back to what that gentleman was talking about also. So, I misunderstood what this meeting was gonna be about, and I thought you guys actually had a choice of what goes on and what doesn't go on the registry. So it's basically all them and the council then is how that is. So I have to deal with the council on September. So, okay, but anyway, that's my concern also, is that now I might have to put a tank on it if I get stuck on the registry. And, you know, that's an expense that's ridiculous for a homeowner that, I mean, so anyway, that's my two cents worth. Thanks.

[01:37:35] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much.

[01:37:40] EPC Clerk: Next speaker is James.

[01:37:48] James Kuszmaul: James Kuzma, speaking for myself.

[01:37:49] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sorry, excuse me, sorry, thank you.

[01:37:50] James Kuszmaul: Oh, thank you.

[01:37:52] James Kuszmaul: James Kuzma, speaking for myself. I'm largely going to echo points that I made at the city council meeting in November when I authored a letter on behalf of MV YIMBY, although I'm only speaking for myself right now. The historic preservation is important to the city. However, as written, it is my impression that the ordinance will focus a lot of the burden on basically, I think, historically a large number of properties that happen to be well maintained 60 to 70 year old properties. And we are not in a situation where we only have one or two buildings from 70 years ago that happen to be well maintained. If the Loma Prieta earthquake had taken out 99% of the city, I might be saying yes, the city should impose strong historic preservation ordinances on the remaining buildings, but we aren't. And as has been called out, a lot of these buildings and properties are in the SB9 area, are near our existing services and transit services. And so if we impose significant historic preservation constraints on them, we are making it so that hundreds, if not thousands of people over the next decade or two, will not be able to live in the city. And we are focusing a lot of our city resources, and the resources of private citizens, as a couple of the commenters have called out, our focus on historic preservation of buildings that we do not need to be applying effort to preserve. When we could instead be trying to put resources towards more actively educating people about and preserving our actually historically significant buildings. I do appreciate some of the updates to the plan since December. It seems good to me that we are including more city-owned buildings that are historically significant in this and planning to work with them. It is good that for property owners that want to opt in, we are making some of the processes easier because if someone does have a building they want to be maintaining and they want to take advantage of the Mills Act, great. But this seems too onerous as is, this seems like this imposed too much cost on the city and its residents. And ultimately to me, the history of the city is important in so far as the people who used to live here and will live here and the stories that they tell. And if we prevent ourselves from building history for the future, we are not serving the city and its current and future residents. Thank you.

[01:40:13] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, any other speakers?

[01:40:18] EPC Clerk: No additional in-person speakers or online speakers.

[01:40:23] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right. Then we will go ahead and close the public comment and proceed to the deliberation portion of this. But before I do, I just want to make sure I just kind of get staff to confirm. That is correct, right? We are not discussing any of the specific sites to be included. Correct? And therefore, is there a recommendation for anyone who's in the public right now, either viewing online or here in person around the next or most meaningful opportunity for them to to have that discussion with the city?

[01:41:08] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question.

[01:41:15] Chair Alex Nuñez: The scope of this meeting is not to look at specific sites to be added or included potentially. And so to that extent, for anyone who has made the time to come out or is watching online, what's the next or the best meaningful opportunity that staff can recommend to them for engaging on this matter?

[01:41:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, I would suggest anybody that's interested and has a property where they have a concern about potential inclusion in the historic register is to reach out to our staff. We have tried to make ourselves available to anybody that wants to engage to ask questions, to get informed about the process. We can meet in person over the phone, via Zoom. So I would encourage them to reach out to the community development department. Beyond that, they can submit written comments to us via email or by US mail or hand delivery to the community development department. If they want to express their support or opposition to potential listing on the register. And then lastly, we've also been encouraging those that we have engaged with that maybe differ in their opinion about their property being included in the register to submit whatever information or evidence they have that might support a different conclusion. And so we have not finished the analysis if you will, so we are willing and still have the opportunity to consider any evidence that someone might submit from an expert in historic preservation that might support a different conclusion. So that opportunity remains available.

[01:42:38] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. And sorry, did I hear you say walk-in opportunities are available? Did I hear that correctly or...?

[01:42:43] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, so we have the public counter, I would encourage them to call ahead and make an appointment, but we do have planners that staff the counter that can provide general information and if our project team is available at that time, they can come to the counter and engage in a discussion as well.

[01:42:56] Chair Alex Nuñez: Right, thank you. And public comment time is closed so we will proceed with the EPC deliberation. Any commissioners want to open up the discussion for action? It's not going to be me. All right. Commissioner Cranston.

[01:43:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: In general, I'm pleased with the changes that were made since we saw this the last time. It seems like the overall approach is largely consistent with what I was hoping to see. If I have a concern, it's this next three, four months on getting the list done. That's not something we're gonna look at, but it doesn't seem as though at least certain members of the community are not necessarily satisfied with the process they've had access to. And so this doesn't affect the recommendation in this. Like some of my colleagues, I would rather see some of the details of like the incentives caught out a little more, but I do understand that the incentives kind of cross a lot of boundaries, so I get that and it's also then easier to make updates later than going through that process. So in general, I am, I think the changes that I was most concerned about have been incorporated in, and I don't necessarily see anything that's screaming at me that we can't do this other than the part of the process that's not on the table here. And that's getting to the final list. I am, I would admit that I'm not comfortable, I'm not coming away with this comfortable that if I were somebody on the outside that I would know what I needed to do to go through that process. So that's my, that's my reservation, but it's not something we're voting on here necessarily, but it's a message to staff and that's to the council that we need to make sure that that's, that that's very clear for people on what they need to do. And, you know, if the phone calls are getting answered and emails are getting answered, so that people do have the opportunity to do that. But there's no real nothing in here that I saw that was like, oh, we have to change this and the way the what I saw in the way that ordinance was has been rewritten is right now. So thanks.

[01:45:18] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right, thank you, Commissioner Cranston. And just to be clear, we are looking at three recommendations, right? It's the acceptance of the historical context statement, the adoption of the ordinance itself in terms of the updated standards and procedures, and then the zoning map. So those are the three different matters. Or recommendations. Commissioner Subramanian.

[01:45:42] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I echo Commissioner Cranston's statements about the thoroughness of the updates to the historic ordinance and just, you know, completing a years-long process to bring it to the stage. I think it's going to be a much improved clarification on the various code sections as it pertains to historic properties and the maintenance and processes required around that. So I commend staff for bringing the process to the conclusion stages at this point. I do also express concerns around specific properties being listed on the register, particularly with the large number of blanks that we see in terms of responses either in favor of being listed or against being listed. And I strongly recommend to both staff and council that we go through a very deliberate process in terms of making contact with property owners and, you know, putting in the extra effort to really refine the list instead of making it a reactive process and a very tedious and maybe cumbersome process of de-listing properties once that list is finalized. So I do think that more time is needed to get to that final list, but apart from that, I am in support of the three actions that we are recommending to council tonight.

[01:47:15] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Subramanian. Commissioner Dempsey.

[01:47:19] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I am perhaps a little bit surprised where I'm where I'm landing up, where I'm landing on this. I am very much a in general supportive of historic preservation. I grew up in a old farmhouse, and I very much support Mountain View having an ordinance and an updated ordinance. I'm also very cognizant how long and how hard staff has been working on trying to get something this complex right. As the finish line comes into view, however, I am feeling nervous. And I feel nervous on essentially two things. It's the size of the list, and sort of the scale and scope of the of the incentives. And I feel and I recognize that both of those topics have sort of taken off of any sort of detailed discussion tonight. But what I care about and what I do think is sort of incumbent upon at least me is balance. That how does the policy overall land on property owners, commercial and residential here in Mountain View? That matters to me a lot. I'd do think that is germane. And what I find in reading through the staff report and talking about it that the burdens of being listed are pretty clear. And they're pretty significant, near as I can tell. It's, you know, lost economic value, potentially additional permitting, there's constraints on use, there's the threat of enforcement, which I didn't know this, but includes criminal penalties, that was a surprise to me. The opt-out was taken away. If I was an owner of a of an eligible property downtown, I wouldn't want to be put on this list. I would not want to. And I would take very good care of my house. I understand that the city, I understand why the city has a process and I understand why they would even take the opt-out away. Because otherwise everybody would bail out. And what would happen to, like really, what if the owner of the you know the Locke museum down on Castro is like nah I want to build a I want to build a six story you know apartment tower I'd be like no that's a beautiful old building like that's why we have these things. But the burden is pretty clear to me on the property owners, the benefits are not at all clear to me. And I can't assess whether it's relatively in balance or not. And that's, that's really sticking in my craw about trying to say that I support this and this should and this should go to the council. I'm actually gonna abstain on it tonight because I don't feel like I can make a fully informed decision. What I will say though is, I wanna offer my general principle on how I wish it worked out. And the way I wish it worked out is, to the extent that we are going to have a broader, more inclusive list at the end, larger numbers of of properties listed, then the benefits, the incentives ought to be larger. That the more inclusive we are for edge cases, the more I think we owe it to the property owners to kind of make it worth their while to put up with the hassle. That is what I think. I wish I could measure that, but I can't, because of what I have in front of me. So, yeah, for that reason I am going to cheerfully abstain. But I definitely appreciate all the work staff put into this, and I hope that this sort of balancing question and if we're gonna impose it this new burden on property owners that we find a way to sort of take some of the sting out of it in a significant way. I really do hope that that is something that council considers strongly.

[01:51:05] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey. Vice Chair Donahue.

[01:51:09] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: I'm also actually thinking about the the costs and benefits of this proposed ordinance. And the the Eichler question is interesting. I can see how people might want to put their Eichlers on the registry. I've been speaking to some people who are concerned about SB9 and its impact on Monta Loma. But if you weren't on a registry at the beginning of last year, then that doesn't really have any impact. But then there's there's economic downsides as we just heard on the property owners as well. And the fact that it's we have this expanded list but the list could be vastly larger than than this in the end. And we've heard from some property owners who are concerned about being on the list at all. We've received emails over the last few days that there were emails in the in the packet also. I really want to preserve historic resources, going through some of the the resources in the that very large attachment, I thought, it was kind of fun to go through and say oh I know that house that's a great house I love that house. And then actually some others I said what's that doing there like the kind of the gas station thing that's a Hertz over on El Camino now. So I'm, it's interesting, I hadn't considered abstaining, um the I'm really torn on on this and I I'm interested in hearing more perspectives from from my fellow commissioners to get me one way or the other, because I think historic preservation is very important but property rights are important too.

[01:53:31] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Commissioner Pham.

[01:53:35] Commissioner Tina Pham: So I thank staff for doing all this work over multiple years to be able to get to this point. We are near the finish line and I appreciate the effort, the outreach, the working with consultants, identifying the properties, modifying the ordinance, it was all a lot of work. There are things I like here. I like the tiered approach to approving of modifications, I thought that was very nicely put together. I also like that for properties who, or neighbors who want to band together to create a historic district, there is now a process for that, or would be if this goes to council and passed. I am concerned about incentives and benefits. I actually had thought that was discussed a lot in October, and that I was hoping council would, when they saw it in December, give more thought to that and I thought that that section would be more defined here. And I do understand the general approach that we don't want everything in the ordinance, some of this may come later. It could be a council policy, which is a little bit more flexible, I understand that. But I still wanna see more specifics. I'm wondering if that could be brought forth to council as suggestions or in council deliberation in the next couple months, that'd be a huge focus. Because I do think that there's a lot of work here that really updates the existing ordinance, well defines a lot of things, and gets rid of a lot of issues that have been described in multiple staff reports. But it is something that the city is asking a lot more owners to be a part of and contribute to in terms of historic resources and preserving them. I'm wondering if the incentives are proportional to what they may have to live with by being on this list. So that's one of my concerns is, you know, there's a lot of, there's a lot of good work here. There's a lot of work that I am supportive of. And I do understand that getting to just the ordinance being adopted is a huge win. But how do we, how do we make sure that once, you know, we reach there, that the work that still needs to be done is still a big focus and that the policy will be, the policies will contain enough specifics where the incentives and benefits will be worth it.

[01:56:35] Chair Alex Nuñez: All right. I guess I'll make some commentary as well, but unfortunately I will start with a question because the public comment kind of did raise one potential thing in my mind. One of the gentlemen who spoke online did mention the ability or the potential individual improvement of the experience of being on the register as a property owner if and or to the extent that there is some accompanying city support, whether through some fund or some other avenue for additional support, whether due to some like disaster, basically I guess, and I'm hearing this from several of the commissioners as well, in terms of concern around, it's a lot more clear what the burden is of landing on this list than the benefits and or the support. I guess like in terms of our discretion here, are we able to, for example, say hey we would we would support the recommendations and in addition to that, we would want to recommend to the city council as well that greater avenues for support and, you know, like I don't know, making it more clear what the benefits are, right, and kind of having that be actually materially substantive in terms of additional avenues for helping people who land on the registry so they don't have to you know if they do have to put tanks on the roof or whatever that situation was, that you know like maybe it is a big burden on them right? What can staff kind of like speak to in terms of that train of thought?

[01:58:42] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, so I think it's absolutely fair game for the commission's recommendation. Incentives are addressed in section 36.55.60 of the draft ordinance, that's beginning on page 24 of attachment two. Specific to the public comment that suggested a supplemental historic preservation fund, which I think may be the one that you're referring to, I do want to call out that already listed is a historic building rehabilitation loan fund. And so that's very similar to at least my understanding of what the comment was describing. The key question always is what level of budgetary support can the council provide given the many needs of the city and the fiscal constraints, right, of our revenues. It may be part of the commission's recommendation to maybe expand that to historic building rehabilitation loan fund and or grants or something along those lines where at least it's showing an indication where legal allowances regulating gifts of public funds for example, you know if we can derive a program that is consistent with those legal limitations that if council can find the funding for that, that that would be a grant in addition to a loan opportunity. That's perhaps one avenue that the commission could explore.

[02:00:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. All right. Thank you. And yeah, my apologies. My read on table three I think of whatever talking about the same one was more about like changes to incentives and benefits rather than like an actual like listing of hey like here's the cool stuff you get. But we don't have to get I run to documentation versus clarity issues at work all the time. Okay, then I guess like in terms of like my commentary, and it might deviate into another question I hope it doesn't, but I guess I am concerned a little bit with this proposal, not in terms of like, I understand it started quite a few years back. And as someone who loves history, personally speaking for myself, I do understand and cherish and value having tangible representations of, you know, how the past got us to the present moment and carry us forward, you know, ancestors and events and stories, all that kind of stuff. But I guess for me, I can't put that forward at the expense of the future and like the resources that we steward as a community today for the community of tomorrow, and possibly one of if not the greatest resource we have right now is the land that we have. As Yogi Berra said, they're not making more of it. Well, the earth does very slowly, but not here, not right now. And so I'm very reticent around some of the historical district stuff. I guess like one thing I would like to see, and just to spare staff another question, I'm gonna frame this as an affirmative statement and then if you guys wanna chime in on that then ok. I guess one thing I'd like to see and maybe would kind of like temper that concern is if there was some additional I don't know if it's a criteria or means of assessing a property based on some like factors that people obviously care about, like for example, the area H in the downtown, you know when I was asking about the hey did SB 9 kind of like add urgency to this because of the historic core, I mean like I don't know, I'm sure if you ask select people who are very influential in our community it definitely added urgency to this item. And I would agree with them because I really like those buildings. It's, you know, it just adds something to the experience of being in Mountain View and the reason why is because it's a central place, it's a public space, but I can't really say that's the same for a really historically architecturally valuable place in the outskirts of town out in the periphery where you know, like only the mailman visits it, right? And so I guess like I'm just curious, I know there's a legal definition around like what constitutes deemed historical right, but I guess like and maybe I missed it, I just want to make sure I'm not missing it, was there some incorporation of criteria for like foot traffic, prominence on a public thoroughfare, or like contribution to the public sense of being in Mountain View versus just like being a really cool architectural building or something like that, or a single family home, or a pocket a pool of 50 single family homes, you know what I mean, like was there some incorporation of that into the current proposal? Sorry for asking another question, I'll try to make it the last one.

[02:03:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the criteria that we have include, you know, the design, persons, events. In some cases, for example, you can qualify for being associated with, you know, downtown Mountain View because, and being an important building to downtown Mountain View because downtown Mountain View is an important, essentially event, right? The development of downtown Mountain View is an important event. One of the reasons why we have these criteria is, these different criteria is because the city may want to make different decisions regarding listing based on these criteria. And so Council has asked that we separate out the design-only properties for special scrutiny for whether they really should be listed or not. So that is kind of an example of one of the points that you brought up, you know, is it an important part of the city's, the events of the city's history, or is it just a historic looking building? And so that is one of the criteria that Council will be looking at in the next couple of months.

[02:04:34] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, and pardon me Chair, I'd just like to invite our consultant Christina Dikas perhaps to maybe describe uh in the scope of her practice as a historic preservation expert what it means to convey significance. To me that terminology is maybe the closest thing that I can relate to as far as what you're describing, you know, a historic resource that's in a very publicly accessible well-trafficked place, does conveying significance have any relevance in that sense as compared to a very isolated private property that maybe very few people, the owner and the mailman, I think is what you put it, are the only ones regularly accessing that. I'm not sure there's relevance in typical historic preservation practice, but I'd like to get the expert to just inform the commission on that point.

[02:05:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Definitely, thank you.

[02:05:23] Consultant Christina Dikas: Oh, sorry. Uh, yeah, so the, the local criteria that are outlined in the ordinance, um, reflect uh and parallel the National Register of Historic Places criteria and the California Register. So these are, you know, well-established um frameworks for uh identifying potential significance. Um, and any property that is uh eligible for one of these registers, there's always two aspects that we're looking at. It's the the the significance within both the context of the individual property and its history and people involved and how it evolved and was um developed over time. And then within the broader context, which is outlined in the Historic Context Statement. So any of these individual properties, if they have the individual um historic evaluation forms, it's always important to kind of refer back to the Context Statement for that broader information that helps kind of situate it relative to others within the city. Um, so in terms of, you know, public view or something like that, it isn't typically uh part of the considerations um, because uh historic value is is as established by the National Park Service federally, is really about the that historic context and the information related to that and being able to identify significance. Um, so there could be other types of values that city council um wants to consider in terms of, you know, intangible uh aspects of what is valuable to the individual community. Um, but in terms of the uh kind of the historic preservation framework, um that's not necessarily a, you know, a key item. Um, I will say though that in terms of the ordinance and the different types of um projects with the major and the minor, there is an emphasis on what can be seen from the public right-of-way. Uh, so typically those uh physical character-defining features are um focused more at on the sides of what people can see and there's more flexibility towards the back of the property for change, uh which, you know, is um understood may happen on these properties.

[02:08:39] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you. Yeah, that that was really helpful. Um, I think your um explanation helped me understand that and contextualize for myself, I guess, that um what I'm really kind of trying to speak to is um historical preservation and and the historical registry um from the perspective of historical preservation as a resource for the future um and future appreciation um by uh our community rather than historical preservation as a um registry for preservation itself. And I'm not saying I'm not trying to cast judgment on on the work or the report in that manner yet, um but it did help contextualize that for me in that manner. Thank you. Um... Vice Chair Donahue.

[02:09:24] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: So... there's... one of the public comments was concerned about being forced to put a tank on the tank house. And my understanding is that no one would be required to restore a property to its condition that it was in when it was historically significant. Is that correct? They, you have to maintain it in the current condition, but you don't have to make it look like it did a hundred years ago.

[02:09:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, that's that's correct. Yeah.

[02:10:02] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay, good. Yeah, that's good. Um... couple of other comments. On the, something I forgot to mention earlier, the historic district says that you can petition if you have at least 50% of the parcels and the area... you know, the area of those those parcels. Uh generally in our democratic society, I would I would like to see a majority, like above 50% as opposed to 50% or larger. Because if there's eight parcels, I would like to see five instead of four. And... the thing that really concerned me earlier actually, I kept asking about the CEQA process and I asked about it in the previous meeting as well, that this is similar to the CEQA process and and there's generally it's not more burdensome. But then when I asked about the Eichlers, the answer that I heard was that it is more burdensome. And did I mishear that, or was that correct?

[02:11:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, um, yes, for single-family homes in our districts, the, uh, the there is more burden to being on the register if your interest is in redeveloping the property with a new single-family home. The, um, however, the current ordinance also has a permit requirement for properties that have been identified as state or national eligible. So that, um, uh, ministerial or non-discretionary process has already been taken away from many of the properties that we have uh that are already on the register, have been identified as uh have opted off the register and were in that survey that was specifically focused on state and national eligible properties. So, um, certainly there are some properties that are on the register and that opted off where they are not currently subject to, if they weren't on the register they would not be subject to that CEQA process because they're not state or national eligible.

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: say that again. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm confusing myself. So, there are some properties that are currently on the register that are not state or national eligible. But because they are currently on the register, they are subject to an HP permit, and so they would be subject to CEQA for whatever they were doing because they are subject to that discretionary permit.

[02:15:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There are some properties that opted out that are state or national eligible, so would still be subject to that HP permit process under our current code. And so we cannot... they would still be subject to CEQA under our current code even though they opted out.

[02:15:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There are some properties that opted out that would not be subject... that are not state or national eligible and would not be subject to CEQA, that are not currently subject to CEQA and would not be... and this would be a new requirement on them, but because Council told us to study them, they're on our draft list of resources.

[02:16:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, I would say it's that narrow group of properties that opted off, that are single-family homes, that are not state or national eligible, where there may be a difference at this point in Council designating them on the register. But again, Council has also asked for us to take a look at those properties that are not state or national eligible for them to look through and say whether or not to list them.

[02:16:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's a fairly small group of properties that opted off that are not state or national eligible and that are also single-family homes. The attachment to the exhibit to the ordinance of single-family homes that are state or national eligible, which I will say does include one of the properties of one of the public speakers tonight, that's an example of us needing to maintain that permit process because if we took away that permit process, because the permit process applies today, because CEQA applies today, if we took that away, that in itself would be a CEQA impact.

[02:17:38] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Oh. For, for this action?

[02:17:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: For this action, exactly.

[02:17:44] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Okay. Wow. Okay. The thing that I'm trying to do is think ahead, not just of what the current list is, because we're not supposed to be worried about what the current list is, but just thinking of potential impacts for the future list and what is generally eligible. And there's hundreds and hundreds of properties that I think... because there's... I don't remember how many houses are in Monta Loma, but it's got to be hundreds, and then there's Trophy and Eichler over here.

[02:18:25] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: So, and there's other builders, other architects, other people who are involved with these homes that would qualify them. So, yeah, that's where I have my reservations. Thanks.

[02:18:48] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you, Chair. I just want to provide one update. We looked further at the regulations governing the Commission's action tonight and we do need an affirmative motion and recommendation, whether that's to support, to modify, or not to adopt the proposed ordinance in order for this to carry forward to the City Council. So I would ask that in whatever event the recommendation to support this fails due to abstentions and no votes and the like, that an alternative motion that can gain majority support be explored by the Commission.

[02:19:25] Chair Alex Nuñez: The plot thickens. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Cranston.

[02:19:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So, how many properties are there in the city?

[02:19:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: More than 20,000 parcels in Mountain View.

[02:19:41] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I recognize that we're going, talking about going from 41 to 99, but we're talking about .01% of all the properties. It may sound like a big number, but it's actually not, okay. And so the... I understand there's this argument of okay we need to protect the future of the city, but we're not talking about taking a swath of the city that's 2, 3, 5, 10% of the city. This is a very small percentage of the city. I'm not saying that it's not important to the people that own those properties, but I want to make sure we're put it in context is this is not... this is not a major swath of the city that we're talking about here, number one. Okay.

[02:20:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Um, we keep joking about Eichlers, but, you know, we try to get a speed bump on a street and trying to get eight people on the block to agree to put in a speed bump and get a majority is like impossible. And so this historic district thing of trying to get 50% of the people of a district to go along with this, yeah it's kind of cool, but it's not happening, okay. It's there, but you're talking, yeah there's a thousand people in Monta Loma, okay. Trying to get 500 of them to agree to one thing? I just, it's...

[02:20:55] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I think the fear of this historic district being spread all over the place is, is, is quite frankly unrealistic. The place where there's some passion around it is downtown where you walk along and you sign the lock shop and those kind of things, it has a different meaning to it than walking around a neighborhood in other parts of the city. Okay.

[02:21:16] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The idea that a property is historic because you walk by it, I can't tell you how many times I've ever walked by the Rengstorff House, but it's a cool building. Okay, it's a cool building. I wouldn't, if you had asked me is there anything historic in Cuesta Park I'd be like what are you talking about. So this idea that you have to be near something, I understand the consultant's comment, being near it doesn't make any sense to me. It needs to be, there needs to be these criteria that are outside of that. So the kind of things that have been incorporated into this make sense to me.

[02:21:45] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I am, if somebody wants to propose a change, a language that we add on here that says an, oh by the way Council, doing something and getting this policy in place for the incentives has to be a priority and needs to be part of the adoption of the final resolution, I am all for supporting that because I agree, it's weak right now, it doesn't articulate it very well.

[02:22:07] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I don't know how and what we're allowed to incorporate into this, but I agree it needs to be, it needs to be more specific, it needs to be more clear. Because we're all, we agree, I agree you can see the downside but the upside is kind of like this fuzzy thing. So what I wouldn't want to happen is they agree to this and then nothing happens, okay. It may say it's in there under Section 36 or whatever it is, but action needs to take place.

[02:22:31] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And so I don't know that if it means incorporating something in this that says that action needs to be taken by Council within, you know, no more than six months from this to actually begin the process of putting in place a more detailed and explicit incentive process, I'm in, okay, because I agree with that. But in general, the thing that we have today, it reflects the concerns that we had.

[02:22:54] Commissioner Bill Cranston: We're not talking about a huge swath of the city. Yes, it's more than it is now, but it's not, it's a fraction of a small percent. And the reason I highlighted the need to make sure it's clear for people to know how to how to bring it forward is that they can bring these issues ahead of time, they shouldn't be calling in and not getting answers from people, okay. They should know how to do that.

[02:23:17] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I appreciate that the Assistant Director, when we talked to the speaker in the audience and said hey here's my name, give me a call, okay. That's what we should be doing, we need those kind of conversations. So I'm still supportive of this, but I would also support the idea of adding something that says specifically, and the EPC strongly, you know, part of our recommendation is that a very specific action plan be put in place to define more clearly the incentive programs and including looking at something like this, I don't know what I want to call it, loan program, as an option and what that's feasible, be done within a certain period of time after the approval of the ordinance. I would be all in favor of that. Okay.

[02:24:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you Commissioner Cranston. Commissioner Subramanian.

[02:24:03] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Um, as we heard more comments from staff about the breakdown of the list and the granularity of how decisions are being made to have eligible candidates being suggested to the registry, it struck me that, you know, not everything is a design criteria related candidate.

[02:24:24] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: So I think what would be helpful to also understand is by being nominated to this register, does it suggest that there are alternate means of recording sort of historic resource without just having a whole bunch of doll houses preserved across the city. Particularly if design is not the only criteria driving the nomination to the register.

[02:24:53] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And again to further what my colleagues have said, I think that further builds the case to really line up proportionate incentives and benefits that people can see in tandem with what is being called the extent of historic preservation that's being nominated to the register.

[02:25:17] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Commissioner Subramanian. I add myself on the list. Um, yeah. For me the concern is not the new list, it's the historical district stuff. And just to be clear, just because we can't imagine something won't happen doesn't mean it won't. Uh, that's what's an argumentative fallacy.

[02:25:44] Chair Alex Nuñez: But to that end, um, like real talk, it seems to me like the historical district thing is... like a lot of it to me feels like it's taking the problem of trying to solve preserving the historical downtown core and extrapolating it citywide. Um, and we don't currently have this historical district process. So clearly we're not like dying as a city or withering on the vine because we don't have the ability for... we don't have yet another mechanism for the preservation of a resource which in this case is like land and housing.

[02:26:27] Chair Alex Nuñez: And people to the best of my knowledge aren't like, you know, knocking down the doors of Council outside of, you know, the historic downtown core looking to have the ability for for the district. So I mean like, but hey, if we can't fathom or imagine that someone would want to do this anyway, then I don't think it, like for me personally, I don't really think it should be in this. Um, you know, add all the resources to the long list, that's fine with me. I don't care about the list.

[02:27:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Um, you know, I think if we want to preserve the downtown then shouldn't Council just solve that problem on its own merits. Maybe I'm just like not as like smart as a councilperson, but like shouldn't council just solve that problem on its own merits? Um, that's my big problem with this is the historical district piece. I love the HCS, um, but I don't know how to square the district thing, that's a big concern for me.

[02:27:26] Chair Alex Nuñez: Quick question on the process, um, do we have to vote on this in like just one giant ticket item, like all three thing, all three recommendations and vote on it once, or can we like, um, do vote for the number one, the number two, the number three and then like a potential number four in terms of what Commissioner Cranston um just mentioned around the recommendation, added recommendation to explore like more clear benefits and incentive structures, all that kind of stuff. Is that, is it like an omnibus or is it like are we able to like...

[02:27:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think if it's easier for the EPC to navigate we could separate out one, two, three based on staff's recommended itemization of the items.

[02:28:11] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, so that is possible. So then in that case I'll put forward right now, my big hang up with this is um you know taking a shotgun to like a sniper like you know like terrible analogies here but I think you get what I'm getting at. I just don't appreciate this historical district thing which we can't imagine anyone taking advantage of anyway so. Um I would probably right now as it stands probably um whatever part of it is the historical, yeah I, the historical number two I think is the one that contains the whole like historical district thing, I don't think I could support that.

[02:28:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: There's two mechanisms on the historic district, one is Council initiated, the other is community initiated. Is that correct?

[02:29:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There's also a survey initiated process. So if the Council directs us to conduct another citywide survey but this time with a focus on finding eligible districts, uh that is, that's a process that we could do.

[02:29:22] Commissioner Bill Cranston: But that's still Council initiated.

[02:29:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It's separate because the Council initiated district process is focused on a specific set of properties, but the survey initiated process needs to be different because it's not focused on a specific set of properties. It's a different process in the ordinance.

[02:29:42] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It's effectively initiating the exploration for qualifying areas rather than effectively knowing an area where you want to focus already. Tomato, tomahto, they're initiated by the Council and they're leading to the same end in my mind.

[02:29:59] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'm, I'm generally in favor of the idea of a historic district, but it needs to be initiated by Council. And so I would be open to a recommendation from EPC that we remove the 50% vote thing from any neighborhood from this list.

[02:30:19] Commissioner Bill Cranston: And I was trying to say okay it has to be something initiated by Council, but what you're talking about is identify, that's, there's two mechanisms for Council to initiate it. One is that they say go look at this area, and the other is that they tell staff to go look at it, look at it, doing a survey. To me those are both Council initiated.

[02:30:36] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I would be inclined to keep those, but I'm okay with the idea of removing the... a bunch of people in the neighborhood decide they want to get onto a list and remove that option from the ordinance. Would Mr. Chair, would that be, would that potentially address your concern?

[02:30:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: I guess I don't trust Council that much more than 50% of people wanting to preserve, I really hardly barely do. Um, especially if it goes into districts, right like, we can't like... at some point in the future what if like district elections get implemented right, like there's just so much in the future um where like, it's not something we have today.

[02:31:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: People are not like falling on the street like holding up signs demanding historical districts, and it's really about area H, just being real, it's about... and I support that, but I think this is too big of an umbrella to solve the, you know, rush to, rightfully in my view, save Castro as a historical resource for the future.

[02:31:49] Chair Alex Nuñez: I would be open to exploring like hearing what others have to say in terms of how we modify that, maybe there is a way where it's like some combination, or maybe there's other models we don't know of where it's like it's only um you know Council initiated and 50% of people plus one have to agree or something. Maybe there's other ways to explore that or our recommendation could be um to staff to explore additional safeguards from this historical district um, but we don't have it today, I don't hear the giant clamoring outside of Area H, um and so I'm still like just not in favor of um the district, but I'm open to other thoughts on that.

[02:32:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Chair, I did just want to arm the Commission with one more fact given the importance of this district discussion to the deliberation and the relationship to what I hear housing development potential broadly.

[02:32:49] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So to the extent there's concern about districts as a tool that might circumvent SB 79, Senate Bill 79, transit-oriented development capacity, um the law SB 79 does limit um the use of historic resources as an exclusion to 10% of the TOD area. So it's not as though a district uh you know could carve out the entirety of that SB 79 transit area and use that historic district as a mechanism to suppress housing development potential.

[02:33:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um there are no other limitations on area you know elsewhere in the city outside of those SB 79 areas, but there is a safeguard in SB 79 to limit to just 10% of that area.

[02:33:31] Chair Alex Nuñez: That's awesome, I would be down to support it if we felt and if we can't do this then staff let me know, it'd be a miracle if we could do something... but um I would be down to support it if there was some mechanism that staff would explore where um there would be some like a potential for like higher scrutiny of like opportunity areas as identified by our housing element.

[02:33:56] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Meaning like some higher threshold for Council action if the district or the coalescence of a district that happens to be in opportunity areas that come about from the legitimate process of housing element that gets approved by the State of California?

[02:34:12] Chair Alex Nuñez: Right.

[02:34:24] Chair Alex Nuñez: Cause that'd be like an official designation, right?

[02:34:32] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I think maybe one mechanism uh is maybe adding some qualifying language to the district approval process where if a district includes a housing element opportunity site, maybe a supermajority like five out of seven rather than just the simple majority four out of seven would need to take a vote. Given the heightened tradeoffs that are being made of housing versus historic preservation in that sense.

[02:34:56] Chair Alex Nuñez: I can get down with that. Yeah, what do you think Commissioner Cranston and or other Commissioners? I would be down to support that.

[02:35:04] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I'm open to that. I'm open to that. I guess I was going to... clarifying question. We can't make downtown a historic district without incorporating this into the ordinance, right? We don't have a mechanism for... we don't have a mechanism in the city's code to create a historic district.

[02:35:21] Commissioner Bill Cranston: So I'd still like the idea that there's something here. I'm okay with strengthening it, narrowing the scope of it, um but I don't want to lose the ability to do that in that area. So I like the supermajority idea, um, however we can incorporate that into this, I'm open to something like that, okay.

[02:35:55] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds good to me. Uh Commissioner Subramanian.

[02:35:58] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And maybe in adding to that is putting in some restrictions around kind of the extents of it. So you know not too small and not too large.

[02:36:10] Chair Alex Nuñez: I appreciate that. I think um yeah I think we might end up staying here until uh Commissioner, I mean Mr. Anderson bring out the maps. Um I don't, I think well um if it's okay with you I think we could probably I if staff...

[02:36:28] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: No so it's just a recommendation without, without getting too into the details.

[02:36:33] Chair Alex Nuñez: Right okay, you mean the recommendation um I think recommendation to Council around you know further refining historic district language in addition to the 50% and tying it up with council recommendation to limit it in such a way to your earlier point about not interfering with potential opportunities within housing element sites.

[02:36:59] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I'm not sure I'm quite following. I think the, the approach that we're thinking right now is um if there is a um the potential coalescence of a historic district, that if there is an inclusion um or an opportunity area or site um on or within um that potential district, that in those um cases it would require a supermajority council vote um rather than a simple majority.

[02:37:31] Chair Alex Nuñez: And so I think like I feel comfortable with that level of detail. I think um you know like I don't know like staff might be able to work the technicals around how that I... otherwise I think we might be needing to go into a lot of detail we're not quite for. But I don't want to speak for staff, staff do you want to help us out here to extent possible?

[02:38:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think I'm I'm not necessarily uh fully understanding Commissioner Subramanian's point. I think it's uh having language that says the district should not be more broad than it needs to be to communicate its historic essence. I think there's a natural limitation there given the the factual analysis to support the district designation. You know if it's too diluted because too much non-historical area is included, it really diminishes the the evidentiary basis for that action. So I don't know in my mind that there's necessarily more that needs to be done on that point.

[02:38:36] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Okay, that's fair. Thank you.

[02:38:38] Chair Alex Nuñez: Is that okay? We feel, yeah? Um okay. Then in that case I think we've got a couple additions modifications to this which would be largely right now this is what we have on the floor, so still open for discussion obviously but um uh we have the recommendation, the three things with the additions um or additional guidance direction recommendation what have you, um that the Council um in a final product please make more clear what the incentives, benefits structure and potential um improvement to that might look like.

[02:39:14] Chair Alex Nuñez: Um and then I'm not using motion ready language here but and then the second one is um the supermajority um uh standard for any districts that would have the inclusion of an opportunity site. Those are the two things that I'm hearing as uh recommendations to be added or modified. Um anything else or any objection, concern um support that... from the Commission?

[02:39:49] Commissioner Bill Cranston: The neighborhood, the neighborhood initiated one? Or so it has to be from Council and and it has to take these additional criteria for the supermajority? Is that what you're thinking?

[02:39:58] Chair Alex Nuñez: Um I, I don't mind. I don't mind just going with the staff recommend... personally with the staff recommendation plus the supermajority for opportunity sites. And leaving in the the community thing. Sorry, were you going to say something Mr. Murdock? No? Okay.

[02:40:25] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: The, if we have the community initiated process, then it's still subject to council approval, that all of this is subject to council approval. So, okay.

[02:40:41] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah so in that case if there was an opportunity site in a um plebiscite origin uh district movement then it would still be subject to the five out of seven supermajority. Condition. Okay. Uh Commissioner Pham.

[02:40:56] Commissioner Tina Pham: So I have a question. So for a historic district that is community initiated, if it includes an opportunity site, then it would still need supermajority of council? Okay.

[02:41:11] Chair Alex Nuñez: Well I mean I'm down to make a motion here. Um unless there's more discussion or deliberation.

[02:41:23] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I was also open to it, I just was a question for how do you want me to word the, the incentive thing, okay. I can, I can say it, but I just how do you want me to, how should I word that?

[02:41:37] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh so here's what I captured and let me know if there's a a different approach. Um I just kept it simple and said EPC recommends that council add more clarity to incentives prior to adoption of the ordinance.

[02:41:53] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Is that good?

[02:41:55] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: I think introducing the word proportionate would be important, to to to suggest that the incentives and benefits line up proportionately aligned with the historic designation. And the economic impact of that designation.

[02:42:14] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Absolutely.

[02:42:15] Chair Alex Nuñez: What is... is there a zoom speaker still on? Oh, anyway, uh that... I don't know, yeah. Okay, um...

[02:42:26] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I guess uh it would help staff to understand more about what that means in practice. So I think as we've envisioned and set up the ordinance, you know, an individual property is eligible for all of the incentives, subject to any limitations that might be in the future Council policy that maybe prioritize smaller rather than larger projects or establish limits on the amount of incentive to a larger site compared to a smaller site or whatever other policy approaches the Council wants to take. So maybe more specificity can be provided as to what this means about proportionality if if already they're largely accessible, all the incentives are accessible to all of the properties.

[02:43:06] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yeah, I'll leave it to Commissioner Subramanian and Cranston to to help us understand a little bit more.

[02:43:10] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yeah, where my thought was going with that is in there being a clear identification of what the size of this rehab loan fund bucket, whatever you call it, uh that is created to address the number of properties we're including in the register. Which makes it clear that you know all the carrots are not equally applicable, like getting concessions on permit fees or in-lieu fees only matters if there's going to be substantial reconstruction or rehabilitation of the property and may not be uh a resource to just homeowners just continuing to maintain their property and in the face of deterioration needing more um access to funds in addition to their own capital to address those um upkeep and maintenance costs.

[02:44:07] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: And so there there being a clear identification of the pot of money that is being set aside by the city for individuals to be able to approach that and to utilize that in aiding their rehab and maintenance of their properties. So while I appreciate that there's a whole host of benefits not all are equally applicable to all properties.

[02:44:31] Chair Alex Nuñez: Um to that are you... would you like to to un- unless Commissioner Cranston wants to say something about that but would you like to take a stab at summarizing or...

[02:44:40] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I think maybe to keep it succinct so, you know, adding to what I said earlier of adding more clarity to incentives prior to adoption of the ordinance and urging Council to resource the incentives proportionate to the need of the properties on the adopted register.

[02:44:58] Commissioner Bill Cranston: That would be... that's what I'm hearing. Yeah.

[02:45:00] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay.

[02:45:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Add more clarity to the incentives prior to adoption of the ordinance and urging Council to resource the incentives proportionately to the need of the properties on the adopted register.

[02:45:29] Commissioner Bill Cranston: I would have said the economic burden, proportion of the economic burden.

[02:45:35] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I think that's that's a broad term that could mean the economic burden of being denied significant development potential versus the cost burden of physical maintenance so I would ask that the commission be specific.

[02:45:52] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yeah I would limit it to just the physical maintenance needs.

[02:45:57] Chair Alex Nuñez: I think need is the broad like need without getting into ah lawyer uh ville here is is not necessarily what we want but I think like um if um our community development director is saying I think need would suffice to meet the concern then I think we can kind of like proceed with that. Um and then um in terms of the additional language for the um super majority um Mr. Murdock do you have recommended language for that or um city attorney Ms. Chen any that we can just add tack onto this?

[02:46:38] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I would just maybe just uh to revisit the incentives piece, I think it may help for clarity to add something along the following lines. So add more clarity to the incentives prior to adoption of the ordinance and urge Council to resource the incentives proportionate to the maintenance needs of properties on the adopted register.

[02:47:01] Chair Alex Nuñez: To the maintenance, perfect. Maintenance needs, uh-huh, of the properties on the register. Um and then for the final piece around the super majority, is there any recommended... would that go into number two or three or is that like a separate...?

[02:47:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That would go into number two, as would the incentives language. So for the supermajority I think something like, um require a supermajority of five votes if a proposed historic district includes a housing element opportunity site, given the heightened trade-off of housing versus preservation.

[02:47:44] Chair Alex Nuñez: If the historical district contains um an opportunit- a housing element opportunity site?

[02:47:51] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes.

[02:47:52] Chair Alex Nuñez: A housing element opportunity site, given the uh tradeoff...

[02:48:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: The heightened tradeoff of housing versus preservation.

[02:48:04] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay. Okay, so then um that would be uh for I'm just gonna read it for everyone so what the new number two would sound like. Um it would be uh adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36 Zoning of the Mountain View City Code to update standards and procedures related to the designation and preservation of historic resources and finding that the amendments are exempt from the review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to SEQA guidelines section 15308 as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission attachment two to the EPC staff report and adding more clarity to incentives prior to the adoption of the ordinance and urge Council to resource these incentives proportionate to the maintenance needs of the properties on the register, and requiring a supermajority of five votes if the historical district contains a historic element opportunity site given the heightened tradeoff of housing versus preservation. And three, adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending the zoning map to exclude properties designated on the Mountain View register of historic resources prior to January 1, 2025 from government code section 65912.157 Senate Bill 79 and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to SEQA guidelines section 15061b3 as recommended by the environmental planning commission attachment 3 to the EPC staff report.

[02:50:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's right, Chair, maybe it's worth taking a straw poll to see if taking them together would have sufficient majority support. That would efficiently allow us to conclude the item. If it's not clear then we can take them, you know, one by one.

[02:50:24] Chair Alex Nuñez: Okay, I think yeah let's do a straw poll if taking them together...

[02:50:30] Chair Alex Nuñez: On the count of three. Ready? One, two, three, go.

[02:50:36] Chair Alex Nuñez: Sounds like we've got support. Alright. So then I will make the motion and I'll read it and do we have a second?

[02:50:48] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Second.

[02:50:50] Chair Alex Nuñez: Commissioner Cranston seconds. Excellent. Alright. Let us proceed to the vote, please, Mr. Clerk.

[02:51:19] Chair Alex Nuñez: Alright let us take the vote.

[02:51:26] Chair Alex Nuñez: Mr. Clerk, I'm not able to vote on the screen again.

[02:51:31] EPC Clerk: We'll have to do the voting by roll call then.

[02:51:37] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Cranston.

[02:51:38] Commissioner Bill Cranston: Aye.

[02:51:45] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Dempsey.

[02:51:47] Commissioner Hank Dempsey: Abstain.

[02:51:51] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Pham.

[02:51:53] Commissioner Tina Pham: Yes.

[02:51:57] EPC Clerk: Commissioner Subramanian.

[02:52:00] Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian: Yes.

[02:52:02] EPC Clerk: Vice Chair Donahue.

[02:52:04] Vice Chair Paul Donahue: Abstain.

[02:52:06] EPC Clerk: Chair Nuñez.

[02:52:08] Chair Alex Nuñez: Yes.

[02:52:12] EPC Clerk: The motion passes with four yes, one absent, and two abstain.

[02:52:20] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. All right. Having concluded that portion, we will proceed to agenda item number six, Commission/Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests, and Committee Reports. No action will be taken on any questions raised by the Commission at this time. Do we have any announcements, updates, requests, and or committee reports from either staff or the Commissioners?

[02:52:51] Principal Planner Diana Pancholi: Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner with the Planning Division. Thank you for an interesting meeting tonight. Appreciate your participation. At this point in time, we don't have any agenda items on the September 2nd meeting, so that's going to be most probably canceled. The next time EPC is going to reconvene is going to be September 16th meeting when we'll have a few items on the agenda.

[02:53:21] Chair Alex Nuñez: Thank you very much. So then we'll go ahead and proceed to adjournment. The meeting is hereby adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Thank you everyone.

• ← Previous