Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the Environmental Planning Commission meeting of October 1st, 2025.

I will call the meeting to order at 7.01 p.m.

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 at Mountainview.gov by 4 30 p.m.

on the meeting date.

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.

Please complete one yellow speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak and turn them into the EPC clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you are speaking on.

Instructions for addressing the commission virtually may be found on the posted agenda.

Now I will ask the EPC clerk to proceed with the roll call.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pham?

Here.

Commissioner Donahue.

Vice Chair Nunes.

Here.

Commissioner Dempsey?

Here.

Commissioner Yin.

Here.

Commissioner Cranston.

Here.

Six commissioners present with the exception of Chair Gutierrez, who is absent.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we will now proceed to item three point one.

Environmental planning commission meeting minutes of December 4th, 2024.

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on the minutes, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the EPC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on the minutes, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

No speakers online or in person.

Okay.

Sounds good seeing no speakers.

We will proceed to commission action.

We have a motion on the floor to approve the environmental planning commission minutes of December 4th, 2024.

Commissioner Cranston.

Are you looking to speak on these contentious minutes?

I'm happy to make a motion, but the button is not on for me to make the motion.

Oh I will verbally say I will move through the report.

And I will second it.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Looks like we have a motion from Commissioner Cranston and a second from Commissioner Yin.

We'll take this to a vote.

Six commissioners, yay, um, with one um one absent.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

All right, having passed that, we're moving on to uh item number four, oral communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the EPC on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

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.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide comment on non-agenda items, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Ms.

Clerk, do you have any speakers in the Zoom queue or in person?

Uh no speakers online or in person on this item.

Okay.

Seeing no uh speakers, uh, we will close item four and we will now proceed to item five point one historic preservation ordinance update and historic register update.

We will take this item through a special deliberation process due to commissioner conflicts of interest.

First, we will have a staff presentation, then public comment.

At the closure of public comment, the commission will ask general questions, then discuss individual topics, including any questions about those topics.

And uh before that, I'm just gonna double check in with our staff about the order in which recusals need to take place.

Are you allowed to proceed with the presentation?

Yes, uh, you can proceed with the presentation.

Okay, we will now proceed with the present presentation, then public comment.

Good evening, Vice Chair Nunes and Commission.

This item is regarding the historic preservation ordinance and register.

My name is Ella Kerachian, I'm the project manager, and I'm joined tonight by Eric Anderson, the planning uh manager.

The city has had a historic preservation ordinance and register since 2004.

Together, these tools help the city preserve historically and culturally significant buildings as well as their character defining features.

There are uh several reasons to update the ordinance and register at this time that are shown on the screen.

The bottom of the screen shows an overview of the project process.

This project is started in uh 2022 and has three major deliverables.

A historic context statement, uh an intensive survey of properties that may be eligible for listing, and uh lastly an update to the ordinance.

The register and ordinance are expected to be adopted by 2026.

Uh City Council meeting was held in 2023 to clarify the project goals and scope.

Project goals uh were identified as reflect preservation priorities, provide uh clarity about historic status, streamline the process, provide incentives, and create local district criteria for the downtown uh district.

In addition, uh City Council directed the staff to evaluate and conduct an intensive survey for the following properties.

All properties currently listed on MV register, uh California or national register, all properties within area age of uh downtown, precise plan, single family properties that were previously identified as eligible for a California or national register or those uh located in precise plan areas, and uh commercial, institutional, civic, and multifamily properties.

A number of uh virtual hybrid and in-person outreach events have been held regarding this project to hear from the community about the project goals as well as to inform them about the key process issues and also the historic context assignment.

Leading up to this meeting, the city held two meetings, one virtual and one in person, to inform the community about a list of potentially eligible properties and hear feedback on this process improvement.

The first main topic for this meeting is regarding resource eligibility.

Eligibility of historic resources is composed of two different types of analysis: significance criteria and integrity thresholds.

The city's ordinance currently includes significant criteria that are similar to those established at the state and national levels.

Integrity thresholds are focused on seven characteristics, including location, design, settings, material, workmanship, feeling, and association.

The city does not currently have integrated thresholds, though other cities have them, as well as the state and national review processes.

The project team has conducted an intensive survey of these properties as directed by city council.

Based on the significance criteria and integrity thresholds, a draft list of hundred privately owned properties have been identified as eligible for listing in the local register.

These properties are mostly clustered in old Mountain View and Shoreline best neighborhoods, and more than half of them are single-family houses.

Staff have the following recommendations regarding the eligibility and draft list of resources.

Continue to utilize the city's significance criteria, adopt integrity thresholds consistent with the state and national historic preservation best practices, and include the draft list of eligible properties in the Mountain View Register.

While most of these properties currently under register are still eligible, five may not be eligible if integrated thresholds are applied.

If these properties remain under register, future review of application at these sites could be challenging.

Staff recommends not immediately removing them from the register to allow property owners to adjust.

Staff recommends that this balanced approach to minimize impacts to individual property owners from loss of any incentives associated with their properties, such as Nailback.

The next topic is regarding nomination, listing and delisting processes in the code.

Currently, nomination of a property may be carried out either by the property owner or by city council.

If city council nominates a property, the following steps will only be carried out if it approval from the property owner.

Then there's a staff review process, and after that, formal listing action.

Once the material have been reviewed, the formal action to list a property on MB register requires public hearings before both the ZA and City Council.

The current code also identifies one formal delisting process.

The property owner may opt off on the fifth anniversary of their designation, and there is going to be no public process or formal findings that must be met for this action.

There are several limitations to this process to add or remove properties from the Mountain View Register.

Opt-off process is not transparent to the public and may not eliminate obligations.

National andor California registered properties not automatically included on MV register.

California national register eligibility determined without property owner knowledge.

And there is no process for nomination of local historic districts and no process for delisting a property.

The following are the staff recommendation for nomination listing and removal processes in the code.

First, remove the owner opt-off provision and the required owner approval within the city council nomination process.

Owners can still nominate themselves and apply for removal, but listing and delisting would be under the authority of the city council.

Create a process for neighborhoods and districts to nominate themselves subject to city council approval, list properties on MV register.

If an official determination of eligibility is made by the California Office of Historic Preservation or the National Park Services.

Provide the listing procedures that consider findings, such as if there is an overriding consideration through CEQA or reassessment of eligibility through further analysis.

The next topic is regarding the development review process.

The ordinance currently have three levels of development review for projects that would alter a historic resource listed on in the MV register or eligible for listing in California or national registers.

There's no additional planning permits for various improvements that have limited potential to affect the character defining features of a historic resource.

The ZA reviews HP permits applications for alterations to properties on the MV register if the property is not eligible for California state registers, and the city council reviews HP permits applications for alterations to the properties that are eligible for listing on California or National Register.

Staff has identified several limitations with the current ordinance.

Limited list of exempt alterations and not objective.

No differentiation between major and minor projects.

Projects are on properties eligible for a state and national required to go to city council for review and approval.

And there is no clear process for demolition or other modifications that impact the integrity or eligibility of the resource.

And there is no enforcement provisions at this time.

The following are staff recommendations regarding the development review process.

Clarify and adopt a comprehensive list of exempt alterations, define minor alterations, define major alterations, create a process for delisting a property from MV register and incorporate enforcement measures.

The City Council meeting is tentatively scheduled for to review these items on December 9th, 2025.

Once the City Council provides direction, staff will prepare a draft ordinance and the project will return to City Council for final action in Q2 2026.

In addition, the project team is continuing to work on the following items and will provide an update when the project returns to EPC following City Council direction.

Due to commissioner conflict of interest, a staff recommends these deliberation process.

First public comments, then general questions from the Commission, then the EPC would ask questions and deliberate on individual topics, starting with the eligibility criteria, individual votes may be held on each of the topics, and finally the chair would provide a summary of the EPC recommendation.

In conclusion, staff is requesting that EPC make a recommendation to see the city Council on the draft list of properties eligible for the MV Register of Historic Resources and draft strategies for ordinance updates and the development review process for historic structures.

We are happy and to answer any questions that you might have.

Also, we have Christian Murdoch, the community development director, and Amber Belzinski.

And members of our consultant page enter and will be here to answer any of your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We will proceed with public comment.

If anyone in attendance would like to provide comments on this item, please fill out a yellow speaker card and provide it to the APC clerk.

If anyone on Zoom would like to provide a comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press started, I think star nine on your phone.

Phone users can mute and unmute themselves with star six.

Sorry.

Thank you very much, members of the EPC.

I participated in some of the meetings that were discussed regarding the city outreach.

And I wanted to bring up a very specific topic that I think is relevant and is of great concern.

And I realize that you mentioned that at some point in time in the future there would be a discussion of incentives, uh incentives.

I'm not sure exactly incentives for what.

But I'm very concerned that there seems to be a problem that we have a great disconnect between the issues of conservation and preservation.

As if simply putting down all these words on paper is actually going to give us the result that we want.

An example being the Rogers building that you talked about, the Mills Act, and I think the perhaps the SCARPA meat market, is that these buildings have been altered to the point where they don't meet the various criteria that's being used.

But at some of the meetings, there was a discussion with our consultants as to why is the city not creating a program to assist property owners to restore their buildings so that they would be historic again and they would qualify.

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

So the consultants said, Oh, we we provide resources and assistance all the time to our clients.

In other words, no property owner can just hire a contractor and say go to Home Depot and go get some 19th century windows to put back in my building.

So that seems to be missing from this kind of evaluation.

And if we're not going to discuss incentives until way far into the future, as the city, as the state's, you know, um laws kind of bear down on our historic buildings and our limited ability to preserve them.

Um I think we're missing in a critical opportunity to tell owners of buildings, whether family homes or or downtown Castro Street, to actually that the city has a program to help you have find the resources to figure out how to make your old building up to new codes to preserve the streetscape and the integrity of our city streets, our historic streets.

So that's the one thing I would hope the EPC can recognize that our consultants can do and they do do, but our system is such that nobody is in charge, it seems, and nobody is asking them to do it, even though this was part of a meeting.

The other thing I wanted to mention very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Katz.

Your time is up.

We really appreciate your comment.

We will proceed to the next speaker.

Uh next we have Robert Cox, followed by Kenneth Sukahara.

Robert, you should be able to speak now.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Vice Chair Nunez and members of the EPC.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak for Livable Mountain View on Historic Preservation Ordinance and the historic register update.

While we do support most of the recommendations in staff report, we do differ on two key points, and we ask you to consider our perspective carefully as you deliberate this item.

We support the establishment of a formal historic district, which would include the downtown precise plan, district H, called in the document historic retail district, and buildings with similar businesses on Villa and West Dana Street.

This area tells a specific story of the commercial growth of Mountain View around the Southern Pacific Railroad established in 1864 and deserves recognition and formal status.

Formal status is essential because current and pending state legislation provides no protections at all for historic properties in districts that are not designated such formally by the local government.

We also do not support delisting five properties described as ineligible properties on pages 13 to 15 in the staff report.

At least not right now.

The staff report suggests that architectural integrity is the overriding consideration when evaluating the historic authenticity of a building.

We believe the events which took place at the site and the building's context also matter.

Furthermore, the Rogers Building at 124 to 156 Castor Street, which served as the city's first post office, is already under a Mills Act grant.

Voiding out the grant could be viewed as a taking subject in the city to lawsuits.

We urge deeper evaluation of the buildings and consequences of voiding out mills act grants before taking the action recommended in the staff report on these five properties.

Thank you for listening to our concerns.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Mr.

Cox.

Next we have Kenneth Sukahara, followed by Nancy Adelster.

Kenneth, you should be able to talk now.

Hi, thank you.

Thank you to the P EPC and the staff members who put together this report.

I'm um speaking on behalf of uh the Mountain View Buddhist Temple, which is one of the properties that are designated to be on this list.

Um, the property consists of a campus setting with four or five buildings on it, all of different vintage.

I think the property that's been listed is primarily the main temple building for its maybe historical significance of um uh house of worship.

Um, but that being the case, um, questions that come up in our analysis is whether or not one building or all five buildings should be designated on these lists when in fact some may be much newer than the 50-year threshold and/or the historical significance.

I think that's one big question.

Uh, the second thing also is the removal, the potential removal from the registry.

We're reading uh various sections of the potential code.

I don't know if this is occurring or not, but it says within six months of adoption of the ordinance we can submit or requests in writing to be removed.

We have probably less interest in being on the registry and would like to control our own uh future here, and yet it says that the director shall determine whether the request for removal is in compliance.

Why is it up to the director to make sure if whether or not the ownership can delist their property or not?

It should be truly in the uh the owner's property uh hands is what I think hasn't been really truly uh um detailed in here, and we brought it up two times now in both of the hearings, uh, public hearings that uh I've gone and attended.

That is um, I think the main two items that we want to um state here to the uh EPC.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh next speaker is Nancy Adelster.

Can you hear me?

Oh, yes, we can.

I never get that right.

So thank you for uh hearing us this evening.

Um I would like to echo uh Louise and uh Robert's thoughts that and I would like to encourage you to establish a formal historic uh district in downtown.

I also think it's a mistake to de-list the five properties in the staff report without further, you know, and broader and more careful consideration and analysis.

So I truly hope that you will reconsider reconsider them and give them a chance.

That's the bulk of what I had to say.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um there are no further speakers um online or in person.

Okay.

So we will proceed to EPC questions and discussion.

Are there any general questions regarding this topic from the EPC?

Questions focused on individual recommendations should be held until later in the meeting.

Commissioner Femme.

Hi, I had a few questions.

Um first question, I'm generally curious to see what other cities do for their historic preservation ordinances or programs, um, especially your neighbors.

Uh sure, and thank you for providing this question ahead of time.

Um our consultant uh Ms.

Dykas is here with uh Paige and Turnbull uh and can I think uh start with that, and then if we have anything to add, we will.

Hello, good evening.

Uh Christina Dykis from Page Internal.

Um, the answer to that, and we looked at about 16 other cities throughout the state, including some that are here locally, uh, for a few different comparative items for some of the recommendations that we're looking at.

And every city is a little bit different and tailored to their city, so it's not really an easy um answer.

Uh in general, the the at the at a high level, every historic preservation ordinance includes uh a process for nomination and designation to the local inventory or register, some kind of process of review of projects for properties that are on the register, and then um uh some benefits or incentives for properties to be for owners of properties who are on the register, um, whether those are some tax benefits through the MILS Act, which Mountain View has, not every city has that program, uh, or um leniencies with different permit processes and other things like that.

Um so uh it's a bit of a um difficult question to answer without getting into some of the specifics of each of those items.

Um but we have done uh a lot of um comparative study for this.

What about just uh malused neighbors?

Any specific information you can share about our direct neighbors?

Um Palo Alto is one of the properties or sorry, the cities that we looked at.

Um they have a different kind of local register that has four different uh tiers, which is complex.

So here in Mountain View, you already have criteria that are aligned with the National Register and the California Register, and we recommend keeping that.

Um they have a number of incentives uh of which I can't remember all of them off the top of my head, but they include uh transfer of development rights for downtown historic properties and um I think something with flag lots that have some leniency.

Um but Mountain View already has a number of of uh similar kinds of incentives, and then we're look exploring other ones and and incentives that would be, you know, most um of interest and of benefit to the um member the members of the community in Mountain View.

I know that's not very specific.

That was very helpful though.

Um I wanted to switch to a different question.

Um I've heard discussion of eight buildings on Castro mentioned on the council meeting in December 2023.

Can you give an update on those buildings?

Yeah, I'll I'll summarize them.

Um there were uh eight properties that were seen as maybe potentially um eligible for national listing.

Uh Paige and Chernbull looked into them and found five of them that actually uh in their um analysis met the um criteria for national listing.

Uh so three of them were um uh the Ames building, 169-175 Castro.

That was one that um was probably not uh enough integrity to to qualify for national listing.

Um the uh 275 to 277 Castro and 292 Castro, uh probably not enough integrity to to qualify for national listing.

Uh but the remaining five um were uh uh the Wilheimer store 124 to 126 Castro, 191 Castro, the Mockby building, that's the one with Eureka in it.

Uh 194 Castro, the Junior Building, that's the one with Agave in it.

Uh 201 Castro, that's the Red Rock building.

Uh and 301 Castro, that's uh a the one-story building that used to have the bookstore, now it has a flower shop.

Um those properties we've we've actually completed our draft nomination packages and uh we are uh planning on submitting them to the National Park Service uh later this year, early next year.

Okay, thanks for that update.

Um had just a few more questions.

Um for the five ineligible properties mentioned in the staff report.

Um can you provide some discussion regarding how a property owner could improve their integrity within the next five years?

Um as recommended as the five-year period um to keep uh some of their benefits.

Uh for example, um, are there known resources, connections with architects or um information that can be shared with these property owners regarding how to restore their buildings?

Uh so we could uh provide and we are uh working on a list of um uh architects and consultants uh that um are qualified for the city.

Uh and so that could be a resource that uh people could use uh to find uh architects or or qualified um uh architectural historians to help them in this process.

Uh ultimately, they would need to hire contractors and architects and everything to uh study the uh old photographs to uh identify materials and modifications to the building that would uh kind of restore how the building looked per those old photographs, uh especially oriented to uh you know, visible public rights of way.

Um and then uh that uh those modifications would have to be reviewed by somebody like Paige and Turnbull to determine whether the those modifications then meet the criteria for uh integrity for continued eligibility, then they would need to actually construct those improvements.

Okay, so it sounds like the process uh if they were interested, they would be able to get some sort of information feedback before they would have to commit to actually doing construction.

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah, no, we we would not go through uh a process of forcing them to do something that then ultimately doesn't meet the eligibility.

On it.

Um my last question has to do with historic marker program.

Any update on that?

Uh so that's not uh a formal part of the ordinance.

Uh it is perhaps a um an implementation item coming out of this project, and we can identify some next steps uh to the city council once we uh you know once we adopt this ordinance and register.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you, Commissioner Pham.

Commissioner Yin.

Thanks.

I think uh Commissioner Pham actually answered uh sorry, asked a couple and of my questions and answered them, but um tagging on to one of hers regarding uh bringing some of the historic homes back to their historic integrity.

If they have the results of the process that you've already gone through in evaluating them, and you guys are providing a resource list for them to take action if they so choose.

Is there also something in local funding that allows them to kind of give them a little boost to get them there?

If um that's something you know, council would we don't have any funding sources identified.

I will note that part of the purpose of Mills Act contracts is to provide relief to property owners for improvements like this.

Um Director Murdoch or Assistant Director Blazinski, I don't know if you could talk a little bit about the process for identifying funding sources or if that is even uh uh realistic.

Good evening, Commissioners Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Um as Eric mentioned, um that would require an authorization of funding uh from the city council as part of the budget process.

Um, you know, it occurs from time to time where there are public priorities and council is able to resource them.

I don't have uh an ability to sort of add a likelihood or percentage to that occurring in this instance.

Typically, these kinds of improvements are owner-funded and would be likely to continue uh to remain owner-funded.

Um, and the Mills Act contracts uh depending on an individual tax basis on a property can provide pretty sizable amounts of uh indirect uh fiscal support for uh maintenance preservation, restoration, and so forth.

Okay, and I would assume that those who already have a Mills Act contract know those benefits, but for the ones that do not, are they then given, are they aware of the benefits that they could reap if they were to move forward in restoring the historic integrity of those of their properties?

So we did reach out to all five of the property owners.

Uh we've so far only had direct correspondence with one of them.

It is certainly um our interest to make these property owners aware of the resources that are already available to them and also the opportunity to influence the city council for potentially additional opportunities and resources that the city council could provide.

Okay, thank you.

Just uh let's see, I have another question.

Uh regarding the historic districts, there wasn't a ton on how that process moves forward and what the difference is, because if you're talking about a district that's very different than a property in a solid structure there.

So I don't know if it's possible to sort of illuminate what that looks like.

Uh sure the the staff report uh does include some potential direction for how districts could be nominated and listed.

So I the staff report identifies a threshold for number of property owners that would need to be on an application.

Uh in addition, there would need to be uh we we have yet to establish a threshold for number of contributing properties within a district.

Typically, I believe that it's it's on the order of two-thirds.

So you set up a boundary and is as long as you know two-thirds or seventy-five percent of the properties in that boundary can be considered contributing to the um to the uh significant time period and and significance criteria for that district, uh, then it would qualify as a historic district.

Um and then there would need to be a formal listing process by the city council, and I believe the staff report mentions a uh ballot measure or put a ballot measure, but a ballot uh to be mailed to properties that would be affected just to see what the comment are or comments are from those properties um uh for council deliberation.

Ultimately, we believe it should be up to the city council whether uh a district is formally created or not, um, and then the ongoing development review of a district would focus on the contributing properties, and those contributing properties would be treated as individually historic properties for the purpose of development review.

And uh just to clarify, um when you're looking at a historic district, in the staff report it mentioned sort of time period, but the time period alone doesn't always dictate um the arc of categorizing the district as historic.

There are other factors that can go into it other than just time period, correct?

Or is time period the sole determination?

And I I think I read somewhere, I'm sorry, I don't have it underlined exactly, but it said you could look at it not necessarily from X year to Y year, but it could extend further in time to something like uh it didn't give an actual year, but said into the 20th century.

So um typically, and there are exceptions to this, but but typically 50 years is the age at which um any structure or resource is evaluated for historic significance.

Uh there, like I said, there are exceptions uh for uh properties kind of approaching that threshold as well as um kind of special case properties, but typically 50 years is is a good rule of thumb.

So that means that um uh contributing properties to a historic district would generally need to be at least about 50 years old.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Dempsey, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I have a couple of questions that pertain to cost and money, and then the first pertains to the Mills Act, which admittedly is something I don't know a whole heck of a lot about, and we've already heard a little bit from the director that there's a lot of variation, I think, in what you can get from a bit of sort of two-part question about Mills Act.

One, if you could tell us a little bit more about what how the incentive is determined and and how big of an incentive are we talking about.

I understand it's gonna depend on the value of the property, but is it like two percent of the how do they decide?

I Amber Blazinski, Assistant Community Development Director.

Um, so the percentage um that they get off of their uh tax bill.

Um I think that's based on valuation, but I may not, I'm I'm not an expert on that particular piece.

However, um it is typically high, and maybe Christina actually knows, but I think it's higher that it's it's higher than two percent.

Um but I think one of the things that hasn't been mentioned about the Mills Act yet is that it's um a program that's supposed to uh there, you know, the homeowner is receiving a benefit in that tax break and then what they're doing is providing the city with um a list of improvements that they're gonna make over that time period so the Mills at contract gets renewed every 10 years and um it's automatically renewed unless you know the the jurisdiction does something about it or the homeowner does something about it and within that those 10 year time periods they're supposed to provide us with information on the improvements that they're also going to make so I do want to mention that because I think it's important you're not just getting the tax break you're also you're getting the tax break in order to improve to maintain the historical integrity of the house.

So if no further improvements are made do you get the rebate anymore or does it go away?

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

And those rebates are money that's that are not coming to the city.

Um correct it's a it's a property tax uh credit like um deduction what is the right word decrease the decrease do you know how much it costs the city per year you could even ballpark it I'm just curious no I don't think we have that cumulative data I think we do have an example where it's upwards of forty thousand dollars for one property that's submitted a public comment letter so it can be quite sizable particularly if the property's newer and potentially has a much higher assessed value.

Okay or should was purchased more recently I should clarify.

How many Mills Act contracts does the city have outstanding right now?

We have the list we'll we'll get that information from as soon as we can the yeah uh just um you know the uh I believe there was a a comment uh in the comment packages from the um 660 Mariposa or 336 Mariposa Avenue owners uh that said losing the Mills Act contract would increase their cost of own homeownership by 35 to 40 percent so their their Mills Act contract is very significant.

Yikes okay well the the reason why I ask and it's probably obvious but um I'm very curious about the adequacy of the incentives um because I would imagine most property owners would want to use it if the incentives were strong and I don't get the impression that it's heavily heavily utilized amongst all the registered uh houses uh properties that we have here so I think to me that's actually really important if the incentives aren't adequate to get people to do it and people are trying really hard to be delisted that tells us something important that we don't quite have our incentive structure built right the um other question that I wanted to ask also pertaining to cost it's really just uh these the analyses that we do or that we contract out for for these houses say you were gonna do an integrity analysis of the Rogers building or something like that.

Ballpark how long does that take and how much does it cost?

Is it quick and easy you could do it for 500 bucks in a day is it take three weeks does it cost 10,000 bucks these analyses I would imagine could be expensive.

So I'm very curious to know what they're costing the city.

Well the the city doesn't typically pay for them on a you know through the sequel project basis.

We have a kind of a peer review uh of what's submitted, and then you know, the the analysis of, for example, you know um proposed modifications, would they impact the resource?

Uh you know, as part of an overall sequel review process, uh, yeah, that's that's you know, I think on the order of 10,000, 10 to 15,000 as part of a SQL review process.

Um, of course, we have our consultant with Paige and Turnbull here who probably knows more about how much it might cost like a single family homeowner to do an analysis of their property, which is something that the city wouldn't be involved in.

So it's largely a cost borne by the property owners.

Uh well, like I said, there are there are several steps to the process.

There's the initial evaluation, which is something that the city is trying to take care of now on behalf of a lot of the pro all of these properties, right?

We have conducted this analysis of, you know, almost 200 properties, potentially eligible properties across the city.

Uh, and so that's analysis now that property property owners don't have to bear.

In the future though, um, we did, you know, we did not study every single family home in the city.

That was council direction.

So in the future, there may be single family homes who may want to nominate themselves to the register, and they would need to prepare analysis like what the city did for commercial properties in order to do so.

Um, I don't have a sense of how much that costs.

Another, but but we can ask um Ms.

Dykas.

Um, I will say that there are other steps in the process.

If you are trying to do a modification to a structure, then you will need to analyze those modifications to see whether they will impact those character defining features, and that's an additional analysis that has to happen.

Typically, that analysis is also prepared by the by a project applicant and it's peer reviewed by the city as part of like a California Environmental Quality Act process.

Um, so we do have a number for how many MILSAC contracts we have.

So we have about like 20, which is now.

We have what is it, 46?

Four to six under now.

So a little less than half.

Yeah, exactly.

Um, and then Miss Dykas, if you want to talk a little bit about costs, like how much it costs to do one of these studies.

Uh so we were talking about like a project analysis.

If somebody has a project and we're analyzing it for potential compatibility or impacts, um maybe first just like a DPR form.

Okay, so first with a historic evaluation, which is um what we have done for this historic resources survey uh where we conduct uh historic research on the property and evaluate it using the criteria for the National California and Mountain View registers.

Um I would say that runs it kind of depends on the consultant, but it could be anywhere between about 3,000 and six or seven thousand dollars, depending on the consultant and the complexity of the property.

Uh, you know, if you have one single family house versus maybe a property with multiple buildings on it or some other kind of complexity, uh and then um I think as Eric was talking about, we do a project analysis of somebody has a historic resource.

Uh we use the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation.

Typically, this is um National Park Service uh federal guidance on how to analyze a proposed project for its um sensitivity to the historic building.

Um, and this kind of analysis uh often runs um, I would say between 3,000 and $5,000 uh for for one of those.

Um and the conclusion is that the the design of the project, you know, whether it balances the um the preservation and retention of important historic features while also making changes.

That's typically what we're looking at.

So how's that balance?

Um, are you able to retain enough integrity for that property to remain listed uh eligible for its listing on the register?

Um, and if not, then um, you know, what are the potential project improvement measures that you might be able to make to get there?

And that's a lot of what the uh consultants like us um undertake.

And I'll just say my quote is probably biased towards long-range planning projects, which are larger in geography and multiple sites.

No further questions, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Mr.

Cranston.

I was hoping more of my questions would be asked by other people before they got to me.

But we get to made it a small dent.

Um so on Mills Act, um, said something like 40,000.

Is the is a contract expectation that they're gonna put 40,000 back into the property?

If they if they the savings on their taxes is 40,000, does that mean they have to put that much in?

Or what is what's the nature of the contract?

So my experience um not in Mountain View, but in other cities, um, has been that it is a it's not typically the exact amount.

Um, and you don't actually usually get all the valuation information because that can vary based on their contractor or who's doing this work.

So you're typically looking for reasonable projects that they are you know going to undertake in that 10-year period that um you know would enhance the integrity of the house or maintain the integrity of the house.

Um so there's no like there's no exact answer, it's not in the MILS Act what exactly that looks like.

I'm sure there's some cities that maybe do look for you know exact valuations when if they're very serious about historic preservation.

Um I don't think that has not been the case in Mountain View, and it hasn't been the case in some of the cities that I've worked for that um have robust, you know, historic uh ordinances.

And the other thing you said is at the end of the 10 years, it's kind of automatic.

And are they so at the end of the 10 years they didn't meet the things that they set out to do?

It's still automatically renewed.

Uh that would be a I mean, uh, you know, I I don't know of any I I've never worked for a jurisdiction that has just been like, oh, you didn't do it, so you're you're out, you know, we're canceling this contract.

Um I've I one of the jurisdictions I work for um in Marin, we would work with the applicant to either you know uh put those items on their next tenure list or um you know have them tell us timelines for when they were gonna do that work, um, so that you know we had a little bit more uh we could go on and to ensure that it was done, but um I've never I I've never worked anywhere where the Mills act is like a really stringent contract where you are kind of sitting there and going through it every year and making sure that everyone's you know doing all of their projects.

I think it's more of a good faith contract where you know you're working with somebody, you're getting you're getting their list of improvements, and um I've had pretty positive success with them in in other jurisdictions.

Um, you know, so it hasn't really come to you know what do you do if if someone isn't doing any of the things, and also related if it's a 10-year period, I'm gonna start the tenure period.

I sell my house two years in.

Is that transferred to the new buyer?

Yeah, it's a con it's it uh it yeah.

I'm not I I don't know enough about the Mountain View contracts to know, you know, how they transfer.

I don't I don't know the wording enough.

Um we haven't actually done any very recently.

Um so but in other jurisdictions I've worked for, you just it's a part of your um real estate documents that you transfer um and the contracts built into that because it's with your it's like a property tax um component.

Um that was all part of one question, next question.

Um, if someone opts out on the current program, are they able to opt back in?

Uh yes, in fact, that did happen uh quite a bit earlier on in the um the current iteration of the ordinance.

Um, it it has not happened recently, uh but yes, they would be able to opt back in.

I have a follow-up to Commissioner Yin.

I'm trying to figure out this neighborhood, so I'm I know a neighborhood, so I'm gonna use my neighborhood as an example, okay, and see if you can help me understand that this is what I live in Monteloma, right?

All the houses in Montaloma kind of look alike, but they're not okay.

Okay.

There're eichlers, which is one builder, there are Mardells, and there are Mackeys, okay.

I don't really know what a Meki is other than they look like a Mardell and a an ICler.

Okay.

There are some noticeable differences on the inside.

I don't have radiant heating in my Mardell, but I still have the my roof is my is my ceiling.

Um I still have slope groups and things.

So if I wanted to do the neighborhood thing, would I have to do only Mardells?

Or could I do all of Monteloma?

I mean, what does in what you're envisioning here, what does that mean?

If they look kind of alike, can you do a thousand residences in Montaloma all at once?

Or do we have to do them as three different neighborhoods that all have to be done separately?

I'm just I'm just trying to understand how this might work.

And I'm not that answer to her question didn't answer my question.

So that's can you help me in that context?

Yeah, I mean, we haven't uh figured out quite all the details of the program to to fully answer this question, like you know, maximum neighborhood size or district size or anything like that.

Um, so you know, I I can't answer that question.

What is important to mention is that for a historic district, the properties should generally share a reason why they are historic.

Uh, in some cases, that's the developer.

In some cases, that's the architect.

In some cases, it is it is something relevant to the question that you're asking.

In other cases, it's not, right?

Like there could be uh properties that are significant because they're associated with some event or some um uh you know, some some activity or something like that in in the neighborhood, uh, in which case the builder or the architect really wouldn't matter.

Um, so we would need to establish that in the review of the application for listing.

Uh and so uh there would need to be materials provided with the the nomination process that would give us a head start on that to understand why is this a cohesive neighborhood for listing?

What do these properties share in their significance that um qualifies them for listing?

Um, a related question, you should use the term contributing.

I don't know what that means.

It just means that there might be some buildings in a district, uh, you know, um missing teeth, as you were, as it were, right?

Some some buildings in the district that just don't fit the significance criteria.

So uh, you know, maybe uh just take a single family district for example, maybe you know, five of the houses are from 1925, but one house got demolished and rebuilt in 1986.

Well, that wouldn't be a contributor to the district, the other five would be.

Um last one on this kind of topic.

You said that you're mentioned 50%.

Is that 50% of the people have to say yes, or 50% of the people who respond have to say yes?

So that is a nominating threshold.

So that is you the the uh the properties that want to become a district have to get that many people to say, we want to become a district, and then there's the whole review process, and then there is a mailed ballot that you know will get an idea of is it 50%, is it 70%, is it 90%?

And then ultimately the decision is up to council.

Even if council wants, you know, even if it's only 50%, council could still say yes or no.

Um, the other option is council nomination, right?

Council can always nominate districts, and in that case, you know, maybe only 40% of people want to be in that district.

So, really it's it's the process whereby the application starts to go through the staff review process.

I've seen cases where a non-response is effectively a no vote.

Is that what you're envisioning?

Go ahead.

So I don't think that we've gotten that far.

And 47 say yes, that's not 50% of the neighborhood.

Does that mean it's not 50%?

That's what I'm trying to is what is 50%?

Is a non-response and no vote?

Right.

We haven't gotten that far in our recommendation.

I have to presume we were imagining that it would be 50% of the overall property owners, not simply of those responding.

So those not responding, I guess in your scenario would be no votes.

But I think that's relevant for the commission's recommendation.

If you want to clarify, it should be one way or the other or some other way that perhaps I haven't thought of yet.

But um, that has merit or bearing on your recommendation, in my opinion.

And I'll just add that uh, you know, we already have process in our zoning code for this.

We have a neighborhood design district and we have a height overlay district.

And this is essentially the process that we've already established for incorporating these districts into a neighborhood.

Maybe we could show this.

I thought one of the comments was that we basically were following the national one, but when I look at the mountain view column, it doesn't have everything that I see in the National California register.

So does that mean that the Mountain View column are additions to the National California column?

No, it's just verbatim what's in each of those criteria.

Um the Mountain View Register has some slightly different text, but it's getting at the same idea.

Uh, you know, and we are seeking council support for uh maybe updating the text a little bit to better align with the um meaning and uh the intent and language of those other lists, and so a 60-year-old house on Diablo in Mount Montaloma that had a person of significance who lived there after the 50 years, do they count?

Steve Jobs home.

Does it have to be before the 50 years?

Is it only historic people?

Or how sounds what does that mean when it has these like things of significance?

Is that can something current be considered part of it criteria or not?

I will have to defer to our in-house expert on that specific question.

Uh there can be historic significance uh within 50 years.

It's more challenging for an association with a person.

Um, one thing with the criteria for association with people is that um that property needs to represent the reason that the person is significant.

So if Steve Jobs is significant for his contributions to Apple, then um his place of work would better represent that significance than his home.

So that's one thing to keep in mind just in general for that criterion.

Um the other thing is that it can get tricky with people who are still alive, which is not Steve Jobs, but uh for other folks who may uh you know may be important within the last 50 years.

Um we like to uh the the reason why we have this 50-year threshold is there's a certain amount amount of historical distance um to be able to understand the historic significance of a place or the context with some perspective.

So um while so something could have exceptional significance that we already recognize as very important to history within 50 years, but it's less likely.

Chair, may I ask a follow-up question uh to the consultant?

Um so in this scenario of Steve Jobs or a hypothetical tech entrepreneur, um, if they developed some key piece of technology or software in their garage, for example, could that then bring it back to the residential context in this scenario as opposed to a corporate office location someplace else?

Yes, I think in Palo Alto there's a garage that is a historic resource for that reason.

Uh so that is possible.

Uh next question.

Um in the text it said if somebody opted out or they were moved from the register, they had to pay the money back that was part of the Mills Act grant on the five that you're proposing to remove.

Are they gonna owe money?

No, actually, that's not the mills act, it's the city's property tax rebate program.

So they're actually two different programs that are available to to property owners.

There's the Mills Act, which is a state program, and there's a city's property tax rebate program.

The property tax rebate program has to be repaid.

From the city.

No, if if somebody opts off of the register, they would have to repay the property tax rebate program.

But if we take them off.

Well, none of the five properties that we identified as ineligible are using the property tax rebate program.

Um misunderstood the answer to Mr.

Denny's or then Commissioner Densey's question.

Um I'm troubled by demolition.

So if I go in with a bubble's or I knock it down, I'm no longer I don't have to worry about it.

I just I can knock it down and no big deal.

The fact that it doesn't take into it says, well, we have to account for the fact that somebody's demolished seemed to be a remarkably easy way to get around a historic designation by just driving a bulldozer or driving a car into a building to demolish it.

Can you clarify on what you mean by demolition?

Sure.

Uh I mean, so we're not saying that somebody could just demolish a building, right?

You need to get permits in order to demolish any building.

Um, and so there would need to be a permit process to get approval to demolish a historic building, uh that would obviously impact the historic resource, right?

And that would be something that would be an impact under the California Environmental Quality Act, and it would need to be something that the city council would need to approve.

Um, so we are not proposing that in fact to the contrary, we're proposing to include more enforcement measures in the code, which would actually the intent would be to be able to enforce you know some kind of deliberate action of defacing a property or demolishing a property, we would be able to be able to um apply some kind of uh uh punishment or remedy on that.

You're envisioning that that would be greater than the it would be more than what they would lose by being able to redevelop.

We we haven't done that analysis yet, but that's uh you know something to consider.

Um, I'm getting close.

Um so one of the things that came up last time in the last meeting was this uh hazard due to negligence, and it's not kind of discussed it's you mentioning here that um it can be delisted because it's it's now a hazard.

If somebody decides they want to get it removed from the list, so they decide, well, I'm just not gonna take care of it and let it run down to nothing.

Um that would seem like that would it's a hazard, and so it's now needs to be demolished because but it was because of their own negligence.

How do you deal with that?

Again, that's something that's a detail that we have not um uh uh analyzed or identified uh policy approach for, uh, but I wonder if our consultant might provide some examples of how it maybe it's done in other communities.

Oh, not off the top of my head, I'm sorry.

I think we'd have to look back at um some of our um the analysis that we did and we can get back to you about that.

Um the one of the comments was that minor changes would be things that are not essentially not visible from the street.

I found that kind of curious um, because the building looks historic on the front and they put a super oven guard building attached to the back of it.

Is that not that doesn't care, right?

If it's not I I guess I was the the exclusion of something that's not visible from the street seemed odd to me.

And I can you explain why that's why that should be there.

The one of the purposes of historic preservation is to maintain the character of the building for the benefit of the public.

Um now it is entirely possible that a garish avant-garde addition to a property could impact its integrity, but that would have to be something that's analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Um, and so that is why it's not exempt.

It's why it's something that we would need to review, but the um the tendency is for things like rear additions and uh other improvements that are not visible from the public.

Uh the tendency is that those would tend not to be impacts, and that's why we feel we can call them minor alterations.

There's an expectation that they are consistent with the design integrity of the building that they're attaching it to, not usually actually there's a um, and I I'm sure our uh consultant can speak more to this, but there's often an intent to um make it clear what is the historic part of the building, and so we don't want to keep somebody from being able to do an addition, but we also want to make it clear what is the historic part of the building.

Uh and part of doing that is uh constructing an addition that um kind of fits some characteristics of the building, but also is kind of obviously not historic.

Um, I'm sure our consultant can provide more detail about kind of how that's done and how it's assessed.

Yeah, I think what Eric said is the the overall gist of um of what we analyze and what we recommend.

Uh this goes back to again the the federal guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation, and they recommend um uh new uh construction like additions to be compatible yet differentiated.

And uh there's another standard that um speaks to making sure that uh the proposed changes um can't be confused for the the original building.

So um, you know, that there's kind of a range of what a design could be, it could be more on the modern side or a little bit more traditional, uh, but typically the recommendations are to have some kind of um uh compatible but slightly different windows or siding, you know, similar but different to that type of thing, um, as well as massing that it you know doesn't overwhelm the original building while still being able to have some kind of uh addition or change.

Um, we also don't typically look at interiors, so you know, changes to kitchens and bathrooms and all of that are um are not typically under historic resource purview uh design purview.

Which was so an interior ADU could not necessarily be affected standalone ADU in the back, would be yeah, correct.

So interior, if it's just uh, you know, changing interior spaces, then um that would not be seen to affect the historic integrity of the building, which is really focused on exterior features.

Um we again we kind of go back to what is the historic significance of the property, whether it's architecture or another association for those criteria of significance in each of the uh registers, events, people or or architecture design, um, and the period of significance, which you might have been trying to get at earlier.

I wasn't sure if that's what you were talking about.

Um, period of significance is the era in which that historic significance can be represented in time.

So for a building that is significant for its architecture, it might have been its year of construction.

Um, but if it was associated with some kind of event that spanned a period, you might have a range of dates, and that's for true for an individual property as well as a historic district.

Um so we we look at those things and and make recommendations for alterations um that you know retain the ability of somebody a member of the public to be able to see that this building is from that era, even though it has some of these changes occurring.

Um, integrity question.

So if a building is a hundred years old but it was modified 70 years ago, how does it fit the integrity criteria?

Are you judging that property based on what it was built 100 years ago or is when it was modified seven years ago, does that count?

Uh depends on its reason for significance again.

If it was significant for found significant for its architecture, um I think if we if we found it historically significant for its architecture, it probably has enough integrity even with some of those later changes.

So it really kind of depends on the situation.

Um if you have uh an associated um event uh that has a longer period of time or even took place at a later time after that building already existed for a while, then those changes might be part of you know what it looked like during that time, and that's um considered uh you know allowable.

It it really um varies depending on the the property and its reason for significance or kind of related.

So the you mentioned area H, but I know I mean when you look at the little map, there's lots of dots just outside of area H.

Did Council suppose we say not to look at I can remember what they are in downtown A, Z, whatever the the ones that are alike along, Villa and Dana.

Is there a reason did council say not to look at those?

Or was that I just was no.

I think we we looked at every property in Area H.

So you'll uh you know, in our files we have, you know, analysis of newer buildings in Area H and everything like that, but everywhere else we looked at properties that um were identified during the consultants reconnaissance survey.

So we we didn't really talk a lot about this in the presentation, but leading up to the intensive survey, the uh Page and Turnbull basically drove by practically every building in the city to determine whether just at face value that building could meet eligibility criteria for listing.

Uh, and so they did that with all the other parts of downtown, all the neighborhoods around Old Mountain View and Shoreline West and everything, and so um we are uh our um list of eligible properties is a uh filtering down from a comprehensive citywide reconnaissance survey that was conducted.

So in the recommendations here, you talked about this downtown preservation district that you don't want to do a historic overlay.

So I'm I would miss I came away like not getting what is the difference between what you're looking at doing for downtown is what are the precise plans and why isn't it historic overlay and help me understand because I don't get it?

Yeah, we're unfortunately we're really not there at this stage in the process, and we're gonna have to report back to you on the overlap with downtown.

Are you saying on what you mean?

I don't know.

I mean we're so in the last section of the report, you'll see, you know, kind of as our next steps, we're gonna be continuing to work with the downtown precise plan update process, where we are actually going to be bringing forward to the EPC and Council um, you know, the the community visioning reports and uh recommendations for kind of goals and next steps for the downtown precise plan update.

And so the timing of that works with kind of informing what how what is the community really interested in preserving in this area, and what are the most effective ways for us to implement preservation, and are there uh tools that we need to bake into the ordinance in order to make that happen in the downtown precise plan?

So that's something that's going to be happening over the next few months, and then we're gonna report back on those findings and how the two projects intersect uh when we come back to the EPC and council for adoption in uh 2026.

Okay, but that's not going to include a historic overlay zone.

Uh it's specifically say staff does not recommend historic overlay zone, and that's why I'm not clear on what a historic overlay zone is a specific regulatory tool, it's not the same as say a historic district, which is something that's included on a register.

Uh that reference to historic overlay zone is um, you know, there are some cities that use overlay zones for their whole register, they put every historic property on the zoning map as something that is is applies through the zoning map, and that's not something that uh we think is um the most uh streamlined and effective tool for the city of Mountain View.

It has little to do with the question about downtown.

Downtown already has a special zoning designation, the downtown precise plan, in which we can implement area-specific policies similar to an overlay zone.

So we don't really need an overlay zone in downtown, we just describe those policies in the downtown precise plan.

I'll admit I'm still somewhat confused, but I'm sure you can just have to build my state.

Thank you.

Commissioner Donahue.

Some of the answers to the questions left me a little bit more confused.

The uh so um there was a lot of talk.

Okay, so there are various incentives to be on this um uh register, um, things like uh variances of FAR exceptions and setbacks, things like that.

There's then there's Mills Act contracts, and now I see I didn't notice this before because it kind of the way it printed it's on a separate page, or the way it came out in the PDF, it's like on a separate page, it's weird.

But there's a rebate of the City of Mountain View portion of the property tax.

I thought that the MILS Act was the rebate of the Mountain View property tax.

Yeah, it's apparently a different thing.

They're two separate programs.

Yeah, can you explain the the difference a little bit?

Like what what is it?

What is the Mills Act contract then?

Um, where does that money come from?

It also comes out of the city's property tax.

It's comes from the same place, but the um the process for creating the um the agreement is different.

And um the MILS Act is a state uh program, and the the local property tax rebate is a local program.

And maybe to provide a little more context.

So we may want to think of property tax as a largely you know local focus revenue source, but in fact, communities get varying percentages.

I think Mountain Views is around 16% of the property tax that's assessed, um, is actually uh remitted to the city for local purposes.

And so uh you can see just mathematically that under the Mills Act context to achieve the uh extent of property tax savings that we're talking about, somewhere from 20% to 70% according to the county assessor's office.

Clearly that's pulling in from non-city share of property tax.

Now Mountain View has its own program to say, well, we're gonna take that 16% of we'll call it that of our local share and make some amount of that available for rebate under certain conditions.

So separate programs talking about um largely separate but maybe slightly overlapping components of property taxes.

So it's a little confusing, but um they're coming from property tax, but they're different components of the property tax that's collected.

Okay, so if the city enters into a contract with the this property owner, the that contract can affect the property taxes that would would have gone to the county, the school district, and all the other special districts and things um up to this 70% or whatever the number is.

Yeah, I don't wanna I don't want to acknowledge that exactly.

I don't know specifically all of the non-city or non-county property tax recipients that might be affected.

I think the potential exists, but I don't want to confirm that I don't have that information.

Okay, sure, but just in non-city entities at minimum the county, for instance, uh is potentially affected, and also potentially other non-county and non-city recipients, which we would have to confirm.

Okay, sure.

I I just want to get a sense of of it.

I don't need I think maybe the heart of your question is could the city's decision affect non-city entities and reduce their property tax receipts?

And the answer is yes, um, under this program provided in state law.

Okay, that's that's interesting.

Um but so can somebody have a MILS Act contract and get the city uh property tax rebate as these separate line items in the in the incentives or or do they i implicitly get the the by get having a Mills Act contract, do they get this rebate as kind of as part of that?

Uh it doesn't appear that anybody has both.

Okay.

I'm not aware of any legislation that says that they can't, but it it appears that they nobody has both.

Okay.

Um yeah, I get the I was I was curious because earlier you said that 20 out of the 46 people have Mills Act contracts, and I thought, well, the other twenty-six what benefit are they getting, other you know, other than these you know, FAR waivers and things like that, which if you're they're not actually developing didn't seem uh important, but maybe are those other twenty six getting why why are people on on the on this list?

Is my basic question or why are they choosing to be on the list?

I mean I think it's great.

I the the list is great and I and I want to you know um uh preserve these historic historic resources but I just I'm curious about kind of how how it works in practice.

Yeah it looks like there are about five or six uh recipients five or six recipients of the the city's tax rebate program okay well that still leaves 20 or 21 who so I think maybe to that second part of the question that you just asked I think you know there are I'm sure many factors why people you know want to or why a city would like a certain property on a list.

And so um you know I will say I think Mountain View's opt-off uh process is is pretty unusual I've I've never encountered that in other jurisdictions um and so most of the time you know it's the city wanted to wanting to preserve their heritage and so they're you know the city is kind of usually the one like directing staff to you know create the lists and and do the analysis to you know ensure that the right properties are going onto the list um I've worked in cities where people like they are obsessed with being on the list um because it's a source of pride and they're excited that they live in a historic home and they would do it regardless of incentives.

And I think it's really kind of depends on how the city looks at these historic homes and makes it a part of our like you know heritage and and that we're proud that we have these um lists and that's kind of you know what a marker program can do for for property owners too give them that pri like display that um but I think you know there's there's so many reasons why something could be put onto this list and there's reasons why people may not want to not be on the list.

And then I will say firsthand that there are lots of people who you know have a historic home and or a property and probably don't want to be on the list.

And I don't think there's an easy answer to that really.

Okay.

Okay that yeah no I I can I can see where people might have a kind of a pride thing too um so yeah I guess as you said it's kind of each case is different so um okay um uh so with respect to SB 79 uh and downtown proximity to uh you know transit um how how do those things interact and um well that's my question.

Yeah so uh well SB seventy nine as of right now I don't believe is yet signed by the governor so it it may be a moot point um but uh certainly SB 79 does quite a bit to affect the city's uh land use authority in areas around major transit like downtown um we have not had a whole lot of opportunity to really understand the statute at this point so I can't really give a whole lot of information it is a very complex law and it was changed a lot in the months uh and weeks before the legislature adopted it uh so um I'll seem like the director wants to say something and I'll defer to him thank you um I think the key takeaway um as SB 79 stands today uh assuming the governor ultimately signs the bill um is this issue of whether a property is a potential historic resource or is it a listed historic resource in a local register and so SB 79 makes that important distinction related to listed resources and has some some provisions related to that.

So there's greater opportunity to protect those resources from some of the mandated land use elements of SB 79.

And I think that theme is carrying forward in more and more state legislation related to land use development housing and so forth, where simply um some communities using the potential historic nature of of buildings to try to frustrate the purposes of the state laws is not going to work any longer.

And a city actually has to take the affirmative step to list a property in order to provide whatever protections are in the statute from the provisions of state law.

And so this question is important, which we'll get to later in the discussion about you know taking forward the identified list of properties to put them forward for listing, and it will have ramifications under state law whether or not a properties listed.

Okay.

Okay.

Um that's all my questions.

Thanks.

Commissioner Yin.

Thanks for all that.

I think a lot of my questions started getting answered.

Um following on Commissioner Donahue's uh Donahue's question about SP 79.

I know it hasn't passed yet, but I was just wondering if you had ideas about timing considering what we're doing uh with downtown precise plan and this ordinance and how that might converge.

The timing is very challenging, I'll put it that way.

So if SP 79 becomes law, um it would take effect in July of 2026, and a number of our processes will either not yet be finished or will have uh been just finished, and so um we don't really have the opportunity in the intervening you know, six to nine months uh to really um meaningfully incorporate um the potential impacts, and so we are doing a lot of thinking right now about how to account for this and and whether and when to alter uh our planning processes that are underway, but I don't have more to share than that right now, other than we're bracing for impact to some extent, because of the significant uh changes that are likely to come.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, yeah.

I have a little bit more information about SP 79 if it does pass uh regarding historic resources.

Um, what I've read is that uh only historic resources that are listed locally as of January 1st, 2025 um are uh included, and so the work that we're doing now may not apply if that is how the bill would pass.

Um, there's also some provision for 10% of historic properties within the transit area um that are historic um being protected, so there's some what seem to be arbitrary limitations on the protection of historic resources.

So I just wanted to um clarify that since it may uh affect this conversation.

Okay, that's helpful.

Okay, so um another question I had.

Um, I know in the packet you guys had talked about providing clarity for people, and um I think it's just a little bit of an example that we didn't quite understand that about the Mountain View Rebate Program versus the Mills Act, and I'm sure as you move along in preparing documents that it becomes abundantly clear what is available to people who are on the list and what they can gain from being listed, um, tax rebates, so on so forth, whether it's state, city, both.

I'm I think that would be you know, speaking to what um Commissioner Dempsey had said earlier, which is you know, balancing the incentives.

Um, and if the incentives are high enough, then people would opt on it.

And if you know, the I guess we're talking about Ms.

Bolazinski had mentioned that um, you know, it depends on where you are.

There's a cultural aspect to whether or not a city locally cares about its history.

Um, I found that to be true, and um I'm from Maryland, and there is um there are three neighborhoods that have been registered, I believe, nationally, and they're all mid-century modern by the same developer.

Um, and it's unusual to have so many, but I was just curious, and I took a look briefly, and all of them had higher sale values than their neighbors.

So it's like, oh, okay, there are you know benefits, but um that would be something also to add in that I don't know if there's data on that, but if there is, that would be something else to add.

Um what was my other question?

Oh, ah, yes, back to the historic district.

Yes, thank you.

Um Christina from Page and Turnbull, you had mentioned about the period of significance.

So if we're looking at the historic district for downtown Mountainville, let's say, just as an example, if that were a probability if someone were to nominate if council decided ultimately to go forward with that in the right amount of time.

Are we looking at a certain period of significance?

Or are we looking for things that can be um a little bit outside of that?

I believe you had said usually you were looking at timing, but in this regard, are we just looking at a period of significance historically?

Or can we say, well, this is the seat and living room and heart of the city and has been for since you know from 18, whatever it was.

I'm sorry, I don't I'm not great with dates to today, and obviously today doesn't count, 50 years don't count, but it has been that case up until 1975.

Would that then allow for that period to be the period of significance because it is the heart of the city and where the community comes together?

Is that a valid reason for being historic?

I I you know I we don't have the analysis to support that answer right now, but I don't know if Ms.

Dykas can speak to that, maybe kind of a longer period of significance for a place like Castro Street, downtown Castro Street from you know 1875 to 1975, you know, something like that.

Yeah, we haven't done the we we didn't evaluate any historic um districts.

Uh I can say that um that uh we did put together a map um of the ages or the different kind of periods of development, and um there are about 42 percent of the properties um along Castro Street, the hundred to three hundred blocks, so not necessarily on some of the side streets, just those facing Castro Street that are from circa 1874 to uh the 1940s um or 1930s really um seems like there was a slowdown in development during the late 30s and through World War II, and then it picked up again a lot in the 50s and 60s, and there's actually more buildings in on those blocks from the post-war period than the early period.

Um so you know, I think there's either the potential for uh identifying an earlier period um up to the 1940s because of that gap in development, or some kind of more lenient understanding of downtown in order to encapsulate more, particularly if the post-war period is um you know found to be significant.

Um I think there's also potential tools to consider uh that we've talked a little bit with planning staff about, which have to do um less with using the kind of um best practices uh historic register criteria and more with other types of planning tools to recognize character, which you know can have to do with the kind of scale and the massing of those uh 20th century properties through a later period.

So those are things that we uh haven't fully um hashed out yet, but that we've started to talk about.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm good for now for questions.

Commissioner Pham.

I just had one more question, kind of after Commissioner Cranson's uh questions related to neighborhoods and district nominating themselves.

Um I just wanted to get an idea of the size and scale of folks who are interested in doing this.

I know it's great that a process is being developed, and maybe staff won't need to mention exact neighborhoods or number of people, but I just wanted to get an idea of interest.

We've certainly heard uh, you know, a few people bringing it up at outreach meetings.

Um, you know, I I won't say that it's more than uh a handful of people who have come up to out come to outreach meetings, but it's it's possible that they could be speaking for larger conversations that they're having in their neighborhood, and we just don't we don't know about all of those conversations.

Thank you.

All right, I'll go ahead and make some questions of my own.

Um for that staff recommendation, I guess like just at a really high level, um, because there's a lot of um items, if you will, or like um areas, touch points, if you will, of um potential policy and discussion making that we could have here.

Um but in terms of that uh recommendation draft criteria and list of properties and approach for properties already listed, like those four bullet points, um whoever on staff feels most um appropriate or positioned for responding here.

I guess I'm just curious um which ones of these does staff view as more kind of like simple housekeeping type of um items versus the maybe more complex contentious uh mediator ones.

Um can we just get a a sense of that?

Uh sure.

Yeah, I mean, I think that there's there are policy consequences to to all the recommendations for sure.

Um, you know, the uh listing question and removing the opt-off option, I think would be a major change for the city of Mountain View and a major change in perspective to how we how we see our historic resources.

Um the uh the uh identifying um kind of delisting processes, you know, kind of replacing that opt-off process with the council approval process, I think has a lot of potential um kind of policy consequences and questions that you know the the uh EPC and council will have to um uh kind of work with in order to to provide feedback uh to the city or to staff, and then uh the um the uh eligibility the ineligible properties, uh that's actually an issue that is um not something that comes up very often.

And so it's such a uh kind of a special case that that other cities really haven't had to deal with.

Uh this is it's something that we are trying to chart a path on, and so we're um uh I think that has kind of significant uh um weight to it as well.

Um so ultimately coming out of this, we would like to know, you know, should we be including all of these eligible properties on our register?

Uh and that would be a big a big change from how we've done things in the past where where property owners have been able to opt off.

So um there's been a lot of discussion around the Mills Act um component as well.

One thing I'm curious about uh is uh as may regard to um I guess I'll ask it this way, to what extent does delisting potentially open up lead create risk of anything that might be constituted as a taking.

I don't think we're prepared to to answer that in this setting.

You know, it's certainly something we can look into more.

Yeah I I guess I I haven't heard that issue come up in the Mills Act context.

These are contracts entered into a mutual agreement between the city and a property owner and there are parameters in the contract for um terminating it under certain conditions.

And so it's likely very much outside of the takings context and more in the contract law context, providing that the city act within the allowable parameters of the contract and the terms of the contract as opposed to a constitutional takings.

Thank you that's thinking that's a helpful distinction not because I want to harp on this taking context.

If no then that's fine too I just want to make sure I'm covering basis.

Well the takings is always there when you're talking about zoning right it's it's always something that we have to be cautious about.

Especially with if you are enacting regulations that significantly limit what somebody can do with their property.

And that is actually one reason why we're recommending the economic hardship delisting which is something that's actually fairly common in other jurisdictions because it allows for that takings kind of relief valve.

And when we say economic hardship we don't mean oh they could do something better.

We mean that calling it a historic resource literally takes all value out of the property and there's nothing that they can do with it as a historic resource.

And so if they can make that argument uh then under the constitution we would be forced to um uh you know uh either buy the property from them or or uh you know give them the value of the property um or uh give them relief from those that requirement okay cool so then it sounds like there's no relevance of like a loss of incentive or a loss of like a tax um you know benefit that would then constitute that taking is what I'm hearing.

So then um along those lines even within the contract law context um in terms of like standing that means it sounds like only the property owner uh for any relevant property um as may be delisted or listed or what have you where the property owner feels like or or actually did lose some level of material value um it sounds like only those property owners would have any kind of like standing for recourse and like uh interest groups or um you know other kind of like parties wouldn't be really able to get involved in in that right like if we were to just go ahead and proceed with the delisting um it sounds like only property owners themselves for specific properties would have some like ability to to challenge that or or try to get something for that right am I is that right I think we're we're talking about a couple of different things if I understand the question.

So um in the Mills Act context and and entering into or terminating a Mills Act contract I think it's most likely that the property owner who's party to the contract would have the greatest potential to have a claim uh in standing to pursue litigation against the city.

But it's hard to say that nobody else would have standing under some some theory.

Same thing applies to the permitting context or the listing or delisting context that's outside of the Mills Act realm but in the standard city uh sort of due process realm.

And so certainly uh people could participate and think to the city erred in its judgment or abused its discretion related to listing or delisting or permitting or not permitting uh an alteration to a historic resource and could pursue a claim against the city uh for you know abuse of discretion or other sort of standard theories under land use so it's really difficult to say who may or may not be able to um have a grievance and pursue that grievance um through the court system okay thank you very much um I'm gonna shift gears a little bit back to the um downtown core uh I'm gonna try to keep it very high level though um unless I miss it somewhere it sounds like um the the potential that H or whatever the historic core stuff um didn't factor much into um at least from my reading like the staff report as would um lead to the recommendations uh put forward um and or kind of like delistings I guess I'm just curious within that context um kind of like from staff's perspective um because my understanding is there is um other areas of work that the council has undertaken as pertains to that um downtown uh area and so um I'm just curious from staff's perspective in what ways does the other uh ongoing kind of work items that council have going on um in what ways do they or do they not kind of like um have like you know like tentacles reaching into if that makes sense and and to be clear what I'm trying to like um understand a little bit more is like how valid or or what like like that that historic core that district kind of like um ask that we're hearing from the public um I know I have feelings and thoughts about that but I guess I'm trying to hear from staff like um how that did or didn't factor in um less specifically about this ask but like even going into the motion of of this whole process.

So the focus of this meeting is on you know the citywide policies uh you know we're focused on our kind of the the citywide nomination and listing process and and everything we all recognize as staff as the community as you know the city council that Castro Street is special right it is a definitely a special case for not just the historic character of the city as well as the um kind of what it means to the history of of Mountain View.

Is a little bit sidestepped from that question of how um kind of how are we considering area H or Castro Street in this process.

We will bring back more information at a later date about how this process and the downtown precise plan process intersect.

I think it's clear that um there needs to be some historic preservation policy language in the downtown precise plan itself because that is the tool for regulating zoning in that very special part of town that process is moving forward on its own timeline with the downtown precise plan update process.

But we're just not quite there yet now to get the EPC and council direction on it.

Okay, so then um thank you for that.

Uh so then for example, as pertains to, for example, the Rogers building, um if we were to make some recommendation saying, yep, let's uh proceed with the uh delisting and then the council uh were to let's just say theoretically um approve that next week, right?

They call like a special session just to get this going or whatever.

Um that would just be then this would be like the last opportunity to uh affect the status of that building's uh like preservate the the preservation status of that building, um the ongoing uh work items that council have that may in the future uh you know come to fruition would not um go back and touch this again.

Am I am I is that understanding correct?

So that's not our recommendation.

Our recommendation is to give the property owner an opportunity to bring some integrity back to that building over time.

Uh and so if the council agrees, then they they won't be delisted immediately.

They will have some time to make the building look a little more like it did during its periods period of significance.

Um if they don't take that opportunity, then yes, they would be delisted.

Of course, there is the opportunity for downtown precise plan updates, as I said, that may have other policies related to historic preservation, which could affect that building.

Um then um the so I I think there are still uh opportunities to be had in this discussion.

Um not to mention the fact that what we have put out about that building is a draft analysis.

So we are still seeking and accepting uh public comments on that analysis, which could ultimately affect uh the official finding of eligibility.

Okay.

And um just to make sure I'm I am being mindful of of uh these concerns as well.

Um say for example, we proceed with the recommendation and you know, especially as clarified, hey, this is like a five year window, right?

We want to help get this up to speed.

Um is there any way like I I'm just trying to think very um I know it's theoretical right now, so bear with me.

Um in these like uh work items that the council have going on, if there was some, you know, pot of money attached to that where there was an allocated resource that the city was putting aside for um reintegratizing um you know buildings in this in this district or what have you, um, and the property owner says, No, I you know what, actually I want I want the historicness to decay and I don't care.

I'm just gonna let this like um I'm gonna turn it modern, I don't know, whatever it looks, what whatever that was, is there any way where those um future council work items could I don't know like be more than encouraging of the property owner making these um restorative improvements to the historical character.

You got do you hear what I'm getting at?

Yeah, it sounds like you're you're asking what the possibility is for the city to mandate in some way the the uh return to integrity.

Do more than encourage maybe.

Okay.

Um yeah, you know, uh I think if the EPC wants to um uh recommend to the city council for us to look into that, we could look into that as an option and study it.

Okay, thank you.

Um Commissioner Cranston.

Uh just a question that I heard after we hear a we lost the building on San Antonio that was the first basically semi-ductor facility in the world.

Okay, it probably didn't meet the significance.

I guess I'm it's not um it's not a a building that's 100 years old, but it had other things.

And as I looked through this list of the significance criteria, can it or items we're part of the birth of Silicon Valley, which to me would seem to be something that's historically significant?

Um I I I just want to clarify is how much can that dominate the decision to be on the list as opposed to the building design to be on the list?

It just we've talked a lot about the building design, and you know, I think when Intel's first Fabs is on California Street, but it's doesn't look like a freaking historic building, but that's a big deal, I think.

So I how does that kind of thing fit into this criteria is today if something was identified as significant part of the history of the mountain view of the Bay Area of Silicon Valley?

How does that fit into this?

The building doesn't look like that.

Yeah, I'll start and then maybe I'll um kick it to Miss Dykus for any additional detail.

But you know, one of the one of the purposes of a historic preservation ordinance is to communicate the character of the city's history to the community, um, and so that's the purpose of integrity.

You know, would somebody from 1968 Intel going up to that building recognize it?

You know, would somebody from 195 Shockley going up to that building recognize it?

Um, and if they don't, then it's not communicating the history of that event or the the history, you know, the um it's not communicating its significance, and so the purpose of the the ordinance and the historic protection then uh becomes questionable.

Uh further, I think it's important to recognize that one of the reasons we have this ordinance, is because we want to review modifications to buildings, and if a building doesn't have any integrity, it becomes very difficult to know what we can allow to be changed and what we cannot.

So the whole foundation of the review process becomes more challenging if a building doesn't look anything like it did during its period of significance.

So I'll see if uh our consultant has anything to add on those issues.

Yeah, just add a little bit.

I think that's a really good explanation.

Even if a property is uh significant for a reason that's not related to its architecture design, so the the Shockley Lab is a great example.

Um I documented that building before it was torn down about 10 years ago.

Um, and it was like a fruit packing shed before, you know, so a very simple building, important history.

Um, but uh in within the historic preservation framework, we still want to identify the physical features of the building that look like it did during its period of significance, regardless of the reason for significance, whether it's so you you know, certainly if it was significant for its architecture, but even if it's significant for its association with Shockley during that period of the 1950s or so, um, you still want to have that building look um more or less like it did during that period of time to connect to that history.

So I think that's what Eric was saying, just to support that.

And and to add one more thing when we're documenting um properties for their s historic significance, and you'd see this in the DPR forms that we filled out as part of the survey.

If we found properties to be significant, we create a list of what we call character defining features, and those are the physical features that you can see that help convey that the appearance and that significance.

So if you have a property that is so changed that it doesn't have those character defining features, that's the baseline that we use for understanding the potential impacts of a project that could change that property further.

So if you don't have those character defining features to start with, then how do you know where to go with approving a prop a project so um I think that's what Eric was trying to say and just add a little bit more detail to that.

Good.

I think we'll move on to Commissioner again.

I know I said it was my last question my last question okay so I just want to gain a little bit of clarity I'm really appreciative of the discussion because with all the little parts bouncing back and forth I think it's like coming together in my brain.

Okay.

So sorry the microphone question just flew off then we'll we'll get to that later um regarding downtown I understand you were saying that you know you're we're this as a city we're going through the process right now of determining the process for how we regulate our historic ordinance how we implement it just putting down the regulations and how we're modifying it.

However the language of SB79 is very definitive.

Where there is specific language stating that you need to be listed or registered locally.

Now I understand there are great reasons why SB79 is you know moving forward transit oriented development and all that but we all know as we said earlier that we as a community understand that Castro Street in the historic area is special and different so are you saying that the January 2025 deadline if properties are not listed locally as being historic that when seven SB79 hits if it does that it doesn't matter anymore what's historic and that we're in the process of determining that it's historic if January 2025 was the date that's it.

So there are a couple different provisions in SP 79 related to historic resources the one with the earlier deadline that predates our discussion tonight.

My understanding of that provision is that's sort of the immediate impact on properties and those properties listed prior to that date may have a more limited effect.

I think there's still an opportunity for local listing that would occur sometime after today to have uh relevance under SP 79 but only in the local alternative plan context.

So there's an opportunity where um locally listed historic resources and there's no date limitation in the law on those resources could be identified in a local alternative plan to be exempted from the mandatory densities of SP 79 but there are some other requirements about shifting those densities to other properties and so I think there's there remains importance and relevance in the SP 79 context to listing actions that may be taken after today but there are other provisions in SB79 that do prevent us from retroactively rephrase that that would prevent any listings from today onward of uh limiting the application of SB79 okay so that's I don't know it's it's it's confusing in the law and it's confusing in the explanation I think the simple version is in the absence of an alternative local plan that will require a lot of work and adoption by the city council and approval by the state.

We do not have an ability to protect properties through listings after today under SP 78.

But that's when the January 2025 went into effect.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cranson, did you think about it?

Did you have a follow-up or not?

I think I understand what you're saying.

So if it if it doesn't look like it did at the time that Shockley was in there or the voice and those guys are in there, and that impacts whether it could be something that's positioned historic.

If they looked at it, and it has that, then so it's the appearance is if it looks absolutely nothing like what it did then and it's now a pink bubble gum shop or something, then that would be so I I think I get that that it's an preclude it if it if it's been radically altered, then it's then it'll make it more difficult to carry what it's so I think I can thank you.

Alright, I have one last question.

Um just with regard to registering or having something good on on the list or um even on the delisting, is there and and sorry if I missed this.

Is there any kind of element for like a a future or ongoing need?

So for example, like I don't know, um if there was a really historic gas station or something and it's like the world's oldest gas station, but it's our only place to have a gas station, and do you know I mean like is there some delisting um thought or criteria um or even going into like potential listing, like, hey, you know, it would be great that you know this historic farm want this property owner for this historic farm really wants to include it, but it's our only farmland and the climate shifts and we need to grow tomatoes versus corn.

I don't do you get do you know what I'm getting at?

Like for actual present value and future value resource.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, and so we we thought a little bit about that, um, and of course the sequel process has the statement of overriding considerations, which I think is getting to what you're you're asking about, which is you know, giving the policy makers in a community the path to make the policy decision that something is more important or more needed in the community than this historic resource.

And so we've identified that as a process in this in this ordinance.

Sweet.

All right.

I have to get back to the uh, I'm assuming no more questions.

So, yep.

Uh I think we need to maybe do I'm looking at staff here for the citron location.

Okay.

Yep.

Uh, I believe the next item is to discuss eligibility criteria, and um uh provide a recommendation on the first two bullet points for uh the the eligibility criteria.

If you could show it on the screen.

Perfect.

So then the next one is you.

Chair, if I could perhaps help tee this up since it's been a little while since we talked about it.

Um so advanced planning manager Anderson can speak in greater detail, but we really have um an existing component um that we're looking to validate that we will continue to have uh with the significance criteria with some minor adjustments to better align with the state and federal uh standards and uh update to to modern best practice and terminology.

And then there's a second part here that we're suggesting we add to the local ordinance um related to integrity thresholds, which we do not currently have in our ordinance.

So validate what we have, confirm that we want to add this second part that provides a framework for determining how much significance remains in a given structure.

So if there's more to qualify that, you know, Eric can can describe, but sort of two parts to this confirming existing and confirming in addition to the ordinance.

Confirming existing and confirming in relation to the ordinance.

So the first part the significance criteria confirming that we want to keep it and continue on with largely the same provisions that we have.

And then the second part of this is confirming that the commission supports staff's recommendation to add um integrity thresholds.

Okay.

Alright.

Then we will go ahead and take deliberation on those.

Commissioner Donahue.

I just hopefully a quick question.

What what is feeling?

I mean, there's that song feelings, but I didn't know.

I'll take a stab and then I think our consultant can probably provide a more technical answer.

But I think feeling is a uh the emotional response that you get to looking at a building.

Um subjective experience.

Um so I don't know.

Ms.

Dykas wants to add, I think.

Yeah, the last two feeling and association are a little squishier of these.

These are uh in the National Register of Historic Places guidance uh just to um provide a little extra information uh for um how to evaluate a property for um for the national register and we use these for uh for the state and uh many jurisdictions use these as well.

Um so yes, feeling is is kind of related to um that the idea that we were talking about earlier about being able to see a property and understand the era in which it is significant, the error in which it comes from and it has that feeling and then association relates to uh I know that wasn't the question, but since it's the other kind of squishy one, um uh let's say it's a you know it's a residence from the 1910s, you can still tell that it's a residence where people live from the 1910s, it has that association with its use or its association with its reason for significance that you can still um perceive that uh in the in the when looking at the building.

Okay, thanks.

I think actually having the the tie-in to the national standard kind of makes it seem uh less arbitrary.

Okay, Commissioner Cranson.

I guess I kind of translated it into the character of the building, is that right?

I mean, I might brain translated into the how it kind of feels you know as the kind of character of the building.

Is that not a good definition or is it?

Commissioner Yan.

Okay, I was just curious, like as we move through this and as time goes on, um, is Paige and Turnbull gonna be available to assess properties that um someone who has more knowledge, you know, about architectural history and things like that.

Yeah, I mean, this is not um something that that staff is going to be doing on our own.

You know, we we have some expertise with this, but we're not we're not the professionals.

So there are um quite a few firms that are fully qualified to be doing these assessments on an ongoing basis.

And um, you know, one of the tasks that we're working on is is pulling together that list of qualified um historic consultants that we can share with the community and uh use for our own purposes, like I said, for um CEQA peer review and and other processes.

So yes, Paige and Turnbull is very very qualified, and we we expect they will, you know, meet those qualifications to be on that ongoing list.

Uh, but we also want to make sure that it there are other options available.

Thank you.

Yeah, sorry, it wasn't trying to say page and terminal specifically, just that it was not gonna be staff decision.

There would be consultant who is available.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess my answer to the question is I'm I'm I'm reinterpreting this as bullets one and two on page 13 of the staff reports.

That's what we're talking about.

And if that's what I think it is, then yes, I'm okay with this.

Yes, that's what we're gonna say the way it says it here, but I think that's what you're doing.

So I had yeses by those in my move the bill.

Uh sorry, move the move the what do we call this, the recommendation.

No, just uh a couple hundred miles away from that one.

But yeah, I uh um would you you wanna say anything?

Yep.

Okay.

All right, sounds good.

So uh and just to confirm uh then from my end with what Commissioner Kranz decided, those would be the um like associated with events, lives of persons, distinctive characteristics, is that am I recalling that?

Yes, yes, absolutely.

The continuation and then the integrity thresholds being as listed.

Um that sounds like we feel good about those.

Um, so uh yeah, I am happy to entertain.

Do we need straw poll for this one or like a formal motion?

I think for now we can work through with the consensus you've gathered here, um, and then at the end we can wrap up, summarize and get the motion on the bulk of the recommendation.

All right, Mr.

Murdoch, it sounds we have consensus on that one.

Okay, so this next item is where we need to do the recusal.

At this point we will segment the EPC discussion.

May the commissioner uh with the conflict of interest relating to the individual sites, please make your recusal statement now.

Okay, I am recusing myself from discussion on this agenda item due to proximity of my personal residence to one of the sites recommended for inclusion.

Chair, just I'm kind of lost where we are in the agenda.

Could they put that thing back up which said what how we're going through this?

I'm like, where are we?

What's in the It's the third bullet on page 13, Commissioner Cranston, the um exhibit five properties discussion.

That's all right.

Okay.

So for anyone watching on Zoom, we are on that, yeah.

On that second item.

Uh I believe that we might need to put the similar kind of like slide for the next one, right?

There's I'm assuming there's a similar slide for what the commission is discussing.

Okay.

So we are gonna take this one by one, sounds like, right?

Well, no, we're gonna for this one property with the conflict of interest recusal.

We need to talk about this specifically, and then Commissioner Don, you can come back and we can discuss generally, and we don't have to go through every property individually.

Sounds good.

Thank you for clarifying.

Uh anyone want to take a stab uh this one first.

I'm just gonna say in general, I don't feel qualified to really judge this list at all on this one or the next part, okay.

I didn't go through and drive through every single property in entire city of Mountain View and assess every building like she did or somebody else did.

So I'm quite frankly okay with these and others, but I'm not don't interpret that as Bill's looked at all the properties around this list and said that's a good one, that's good and that's gonna be it's I'm like okay I kind of get what you did.

It kind of makes sense to me we put it out there people will talk about it and if they've got some concerns they'll raise the questions.

But I don't I don't feel personally qualified to assess 1181 bonita okay whether it belongs in the register or any of the others so I mean I'd be inclined to include it because it's not a done deal yet.

Okay.

People will have the opportunity to to question it but it that's my comment here applies to this and I can repeat it when there's no returns but I I don't personally feel I'm the person who should be assessing this not my area of expertise.

And I didn't review how many residences are there in the city of Cabinet to know whether there's something missing or should be added to the chair if I may um I think Commissioner Cranston makes a number of good points.

You know we need to rely on expert assistance to understand these properties and and what they mean in a historical context.

I think what the the process provides tonight is an opportunity for commissioners to say I noticed a really glaring error there's a factual inconsistency or if members of the public had provided additional information for the commission to sort through that and get insight and information from staff and from our expert in historic preservation to sort that out in relation to the recommendation to the council and so if there's confidence in the work that's been done and we don't hear evidence to the contrary um it's fine to move through it relatively efficiently.

If there are questions or areas of that are unclear, we can dig into that and provide the information for the commission.

Thank you Mr Murdoch yes I'm on the precipice of uh volunteering that myself but I'd rather hear from Commissioner Dempsey.

I too am on uh on the precipice of wanting to get this moving so um I think Commissioner Cranson said it exactly right I trust the experts here it's not a final decision it's merely just keeping that process going y'all know more than me and just because you know I love time checks we're two and a half hours in and we got a lot to cover so shall we jump off the stoop and just say yes.

Consensus looks like a consensus all right we have consensus on that.

Well our legal minds uh work through uh their questions yeah um commissioner consent for my thinking is similar I mean I looked at that and I said I guess but also um but also uh I think what we're here uh at least the way I felt about it in that moment is you know we have large uh corpus of investment of time uh staff resourcing and expertise that um you know we can lean on here um and so I feel you and yes I appreciate that commissioner one quick thing um I agree I'm not an architectural historian I don't know so I'm with you on that however I just did want to note that since you guys have already done some work in determining what is eligible or not um is it possible to provide the owners with the information and how far they are away from being eligible is that something that's packet ready to go oh sorry I did take a question.

How far they're away meaning like if they missed one yeah exactly right I don't know that we've contemplated following up with property owners in that in that manner okay okay just a thought that if work is already done.

We yeah, I mean, I I think we've moved on from the site specific.

Right?

I mean, your question isn't about general.

Yeah, it's a general question.

Commissioner Yin, can you ask your question again?

Sure.

Um since work has been done to determine if sites are eligible or ineligible.

Is it possible to follow up with those properties and let them know how far away they are?

Farther away from they are from eligibility.

So we'll talk about this more in the next uh item, which is about the five properties that we found ineligible.

We did send them the analysis that supported that finding uh and so um they have that information.

Uh we do have a number of other um analyses that uh are uh that show the finding of ineligibility.

Um that uh we can share with property owners.

Uh we did not feel it was imperative to do so by this meeting because it's not one of the topics that we're going over at this meeting about like um kind of the in the future if you wanted to get on the the register.

Um but uh this uh that is something that we can share with property owners before we do final adoption.

Okay, thanks.

Sorry for jumping the gun a little bit.

Go for it.

All right, thank you.

Um Commissioner Fountain.

Um I had a question along the lines of Commissioner Yun's question.

Um I noticed that in the staff report um describes the list, very extensive list.

Seems like a lot of work that staff um collected to put into this list.

Um, is there a deadline for folks who may have more information or may want to revise or um, you know, discuss with staff in order to make uh before this the list is final.

So we are we're taking comments until December first on these uh these draft materials that we've put out.

However, it does not preclude somebody coming to the dais on the adoption date in 2026 and saying I have more information.

I mean, I think that's a reality that we're gonna have to accept as part of this process.

Uh, but we're hoping that people can get back to us by December first to inform the development of the formal register, which would be adopted by the city council in 2026.

And no one's precluded even after ordinance adoption from nominating a property, and so there is an ongoing opportunity to add properties to the list, and so um this is just sort of this process, but there's an ongoing process or opportunity we'd like to think of it that way.

Thank you.

Commissioner Conson.

So briefly for the person who missed my speech before.

I I looked at this list as a whole and said they went through this.

I didn't visit every property in all the city of Mountain View.

So I don't necessarily feel qualified to go through and judge the merits of every single one of the properties on this list.

I think hopefully they've done a diligence and we hit there's a ongoing process.

One of the things that I will add kind of related to what uh Commissioner Yuna said is one of the things I was struck by in the kind of the current state was the lack of communication with people on whether they are or not on the list.

So if it's not already a plan, every single property that is on the candidate list should receive the communication that says, hey, you're on the candidate list, okay?

That's not something that we did they should just find out later.

Oh, I'm on the list.

What the hell happened?

Okay.

I think this is a as part of my acceptance of this list of sites, it is a feedback that staff needs to reach out to every single one of these property owners and say, yo, you're on the list, okay.

And do you, you know, if you want more information, here's where you find it.

So that's I would view that as kind of a condition of my number item number three here approval of the list is I'm expecting that you're communicating with these people uh staff is that um is that possible within this item specifically what says yo you're on the list.

Yeah uh perhaps we can discuss the notification and engagement that we've already done and intend to can continue to do.

Oh yes we've we have um sent not just letters to people but also their draft uh analyses to every property owner who's been identified uh so they should have hard copies they should have um you know the links to to all of the documentation for the whole city that's online um we haven't heard from everybody so we can't confirm that it's gotten to the right person but um we've we've done everything that we uh uh can do to notify sounds good I'm also inclined to support this yeah okay all right smart arc we have consensus on that one thank you Commissioner Cranston um all right we are proceeding to ineligible properties as process up integrity um and it would be that top bullet point there is as pertains to those um those buildings uh set are in the staff report I'm presuming around the five year yeah the Rogers building this is regarding the five properties that uh we have identified that do not meet the integrity thresholds uh for continued listing okay um I might do the chair privilege thing and just say I would like to support this but only um if staff can do some of that exploration especially around the downtown properties around um any kind of um capability that uh council may be able to put forward um to uh be a little bit more um hands on with how these uh properties are managed as a and resourced as a historic site chair and you're you um are you saying that you think uh the recommendation should include um a suggestion to council to identify resources to help rehabilitate these properties or something else um so this was uh yeah did you want to hear someone oh okay maybe it's just the echo um this was as pertains to the discussion in particular around the Rogers building and um I mean it's it's in particular to that but um at a more generalized level it would be um I know that the city council has uh body of work going on as pertains to the downtown I think precise plan district H all that stuff um my thinking is if we can have some assurance or um making a recommendation to council whatever that looks like whereby we say hey um we know this is an important building and uh we would uh support this five year uh path to um delisting in this current moment here but um we recommend beseech ask you council or staff if we have that ability here um to go explore ways that um these may be more relevant opportunities that the city council has teed up on their word on their work docket uh for um how we're gonna handle the downtown uh whether through that precise plan or district H item um whereby they can uh direct you guys to explore ways where we can require property owners to make use of maybe like allocated resourcing um or you know just opportunities to do that it doesn't have to be limited to that um but it's it's obviously an important building uh you know the feel thing you know I I take that seriously like I love that build right that um and so um yeah that I think do you get what I'm getting at?

I think so let me maybe provide a hypothetical that's a little more tangible for me.

So um the city currently has a facade rehabilitation grant program for example so perhaps this recommendation includes something to encourage the city to find ways such as but not limited to expanding the facade grant program for historic properties or those that need to restore or rehabilitate their historic character and provide additional funding um for those kinds of properties is that is that the sort of theme or example in the right yeah that's definitely directionally there but I think um I feel like Mr Anderson had a beat on it earlier when um so I don't know maybe he can kind of bridge the planning communication gap uh it it sounds like the vice chair is looking for ways the city can exert more control um rather than simply providing incentives are there ways that the city can um uh you know obviously within its power um uh apply some kind of maybe mandate is too strong a word but um you said kind of a hands-on approach uh maybe it's it's more communication maybe it's more um uh kind of uh yeah I'm I'm having a hard time kind of seeing what's what's in our role uh in this um you know in the as as regulators uh typically the city doesn't force improvements on on people um but it's something that we can um we can you're you're recommending that uh the city look for ways that we are not simply passive actors right yeah and that we would recommend that to council right because ultimately um we're kicking this back up to council um and you know even if all of us all six of us you know agree on something council can always just like say no right um and so what I'm saying is um you know it yeah we would like council we say hey like we understand everything that's gone on to get this delisting and like it right there's a lot of expertise that went into this and also it's not like what community members are coming to us with isn't real um and that you know it's worth exploring some solution there right like I know I think Commissioner um Yin brought up earlier like hey um what like do we make pots of money available for like helping property owners um you know bring their uh properties back up to integrity right um what if there's a way where it's like hey like this is definitely a historic resource like um we are gonna provide the money and we we're gonna explore ways to ensure it gets used um to the best that we can if we can't we couldn't but at least we didn't just sit there and just like yeah I think we have enough to work with um you know active not passive and focus that on 100 200 and 300 blocks I guess or even just the 100 and 200 blocks and maybe good to get a little clarity on the geographic extent the more limited the better for staff so that we're putting whatever energy or resources council supports into a finite area.

But maybe if you could just define some geography for clarity.

Commissioner Yen I'm just gonna look to you if that's okay really quick how do you feel about something like that.

Oh I think that sounds good.

I think um especially if they were already there now they have to come off because they were found to not be historically significant or the integrity isn't quite there we've got willing partners with the city.

If the city feels like, you know, if council we're offering council the ability, not offering council has the ability to make these decisions, then we're just making the recommendation perhaps if we get all six of us to say, can we just have you know more communication and perhaps find some funding that we already have, make it available, make it known, maybe see if there's extra funding if council deems that these properties are worthy.

Um if we're looking at region, I would say downtown.

Okay, we don't have the map of the precise plan portions, but I I think wherever there are clusters of other structures with historical significance, if you can find that there's continuity.

No, but then you have like California Street, which is this node, huge node, connecting, and you have the circle, it's an extremely from an urban design point, um, or framework, very significant that the buildings around the circle also are significant because it's sort of the commercial area, and then maybe even for I don't, it's very hard to say, but my feeling, if we're going over personal feeling, is downtown and then whatever commercial areas go off of downtown.

But I don't know which subcategories those are.

Yeah, and this would be an opportunity for us to um be able to proceed with um this uh building with the Rogers kind of like um the staff recommendation and also like um bring to council this that concern that we want the council to be a little bit more active with correct um their hands-on protection versus like passive.

Um so uh Commissioner Cranston.

I just make sure I'm clear.

So the three that don't have Mills Act, they have no financial incentive right now on their properties, right?

Uh yes, that's correct, but there may be you know uncertain financial incentives that um you know could apply to future zoning actions or something like that that that they just haven't taken advantage of.

But no, yeah, they don't have any any property tax reductions.

So I am I'm actually more troubled by the five year arbitrary what I feel is like a five arbitrary for the two that have no exact contracts in place or but um I would be more inclined and and you haven't said they have two years left or ten years left or how long is left on the various property, but I think we need to honor what was in place.

If they've got two years left or eight years left, they should have two years left, or it's not an arbitrary five years, and oh by the way, we need to make it very clear that you need to show progress during that time.

It doesn't necessarily mean you're done in five years.

If we if you signed up to make changes within two years or within ten years, and there's two years left, and you haven't made those, you need to get those done.

Okay.

So basically we honor what was put in place, okay, and then if they make progress, we can give them a follow-on.

That they, you know, maybe a mini five year milzek for after that to get the rest of the way.

Okay.

So I I don't like changing the rules on people.

So on for on the other three, I would be more inclined to say, okay, then you give them the five-year option.

Okay, do you want it or not?

And if they don't, they'll just say, okay, fine.

But I don't know about you, but I can't I didn't look at the Scarpa building very closely, but it doesn't look anything like what it did back in the earlier picture.

So I don't know how you ever get back to what it was before.

So they may just say forget about it.

Um but I I'm I'm troubled by the two that have mills there.

I think we as a city need to honor what was in place.

We also need to to my question, more part of my questions earlier were what happens if they don't do it.

And this is one of those where if you said you're gonna make these improvements in this amount of time, two years or three years or five years or whatever, you're gonna be done.

And if you haven't, then guess what?

We're not gonna renew it.

If you do make progress, then we can give you another time to make it the rest of the way.

But I don't like this hard cutoff for the two where I agree that you know, if you go into other ones and say, okay, Rogers building that there's a facade thing, maybe we absolutely communicate these things, but I'm not I'm not inclined to cut off something that I view was essentially an agreement with the city for those property owners that we should continue to honor through the period at least for the two that have contracts in place and then and give them the opportunity if they need it you know if they haven't if they have made progress could extend a little bit beyond that.

So that's more my inclination just five years.

We've got staff's thoughts on that.

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

Be that as it may um I stand but I think we have to own some part of the solution.

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

Commissioner Fam I just want to say that this is a really unique uh issue.

I it was at Eric Anderson that said that not many cities have to chart down this path of delisting and so um I I think that we should do this very carefully I like a lot of the ideas that have been brought up including you know exploring funding exploring how the city could be more involved and getting these properties back to um integrity.

I'm just thinking about how long it takes generally for projects with permitting and construction for a normal project this one you would have to try to find an architect that knows about historic buildings especially during the time where the building was built so that might be more challenging um so for me five years seems like a really tight period of time.

I'm wondering if my colleagues would support something like seven or eight years to give these property owners a little bit more time to um think about whether they'd want to embark on getting their buildings back to integrity or or not and if they did they would have a little bit more time to make it happen.

Is there any thinking from staff on the five versus seven versus like where does it stop?

I think we don't have a strong opinion I think five we felt like would be a minimum but responsible and feasible amount of time ten years I think is beginning to push the boundaries of reconciling our ordinance and allowing us to just carry forward as a city systematically something between five and ten.

I think we can we can work with that.

What do you think, Commissioner Fan?

Do you have a preferred number like I guess seven.

Alright, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Donahue.

So the existing ordinance talks about the one of the benefits is the historic building rehabilitation loan fund.

Is that used?

Like is that funded or like uh I don't believe that was ever established.

Okay.

That I kind of suspected that might be the answer.

Um the um Commissioner Cranston said something about the uh only two of the properties have MILS Act contracts in place, so the others have no incentives, but there is that incentive of city tax refund that's sixteen percent.

So do do any of the others have that?

No, okay.

You see uh uh shaking heads so okay.

Um so then it truly is that they don't have any at least financial incentive.

There's these other uh zoning ordinance uh exemptions and things.

Okay.

Um as far as our uh non enforcement of the Mills Act contract uh uh requirements to to continuously improve the the property.

Um I assume that the the contract still requires that, and so technically they would be in breach of contract for for not doing that even if the city isn't enforcing it.

So um I though, of course, you don't want the city to come in and just lay down the hammer all of a sudden.

So there that you know you'd you'd want to have a good faith effort to try to to give them some time to come into conformance.

That's right.

I think the issue is you know there's more than one way to terminate the contract.

There's the just non-renewal at the end of the period, there's a termination for cause if we'll call it that for failure to abide by the contract, which potentially has penalties, which we are desiring to avoid in this case.

Where we don't have evidence to suggest this is the fault of any of the current property owners, but we are where we are with these properties, and we're trying to figure out the best way forward.

And so that's where the third option, which is to um terminate the contracts if the city determines the properties are no longer eligible for listing, um, comes into play, and the city actually takes the step to delist the property.

The contract just ends.

So we're trying to use that part where the city has some discretion as to the timing and nature of the action to allow this to occur on the seven-year timeline.

If that's where the commission and the council end up to say okay, end of year seven, city delists, and so the Mills Act contract sunset to that point, no penalty, everyone just moves on, property taxes adjust.

And that that's in the contract that the city is allowed to go through that.

I can't say it's in every contract, but a contract we've looked at for this specific purpose has that, and I imagine something similar, if not the same provisions are in the other contracts in question.

Okay, okay.

Um, yeah, what you said makes a lot of sense to me.

I I I don't want to, like I said, just lay down a hammer all of a sudden out of nowhere and um uh penalize people for kind of not engaging in behavior that they were never expected to be engage in previously.

So um yeah, I I think uh some comments here.

I think uh seven years sounds uh reasonable to me.

Um I think that will you know there's there's uh in this list there's only two contracts in place anyway.

I don't know when they um would expire anyway, but there's kind of a 70% chance that they'd expire within seven years.

Um I think that that's kind of a reasonable uh thing.

I I I don't expect all of these properties as somebody pointed out, the uh Scarpa's meat market is unlikely to be uh rehabilitated to the original uh state, and I don't think that somebody's gonna add a second story back onto the uh Eaton Manfredi House.

So um but you know maybe some of the others could be could be adjusted.

But but I think a seven-year period is a good amount of time to um to do that, so thanks.

Commissioner Dempsey.

So um I very much agree with what I just heard from Commissioner Donahue, and I think I'm gonna associate myself pretty heavily with his comments.

For me, most of these buildings just looking at the picture, I don't know how they're gonna remediate this back into their old historic form.

I can only assume that because that's such a long shot, that's why you put them on the delisting list.

Uh so just as a general philosophy or approach to this, you know, I don't I would not want to see hammers dropped on people, but I also don't want to see the city throw property tax money away on contracts that aren't doing anything for us.

If they're not getting us better historical buildings, then we're just burning it in a pile.

And I can, you know, if this is costing us a hundred thousand bucks a year, I can imagine things that we'd really much rather spend that money on.

So for what it's worth, no hammers.

And in fact, if there's ways to do incentives to get people to build buildings that we actually want, cool.

Um but I have zero problem with the city working to back out of contracts that aren't doing anything that's really of any value to us.

Commissioner Yin, do you have some furtherance?

Sure.

Uh yeah, ditto on that.

However, I was curious if if there ends up being a historic district, these would just be non-conforming.

Is that correct?

But if there's a district, what happens in that case if they give the fields, even if they're not historically significant to that period.

This is one of the challenges with creating the kind of downtown specific policies.

Um, if we were to adopt downtown specific preservation policies, I think there would need to be uh downtown-specific and sp incentives, um, because the whole fundamental challenge here is that the Mills Act contract is impossible to carry out because there aren't character defining features to the building to preserve and maintain.

So if um if we were to carry out a downtown specific district that acknowledges a building like the Rogers Building or the Scarpa's building, it would have to have some specific incentives as well.

It would have incentives, okay.

But I mean, um, okay.

How about regarding what they would need to do to be a participant?

The other side of it, incentives good.

Well, what would um so I again it it's getting pretty hypothetical at this point.

Okay.

Um especially since we we haven't looked at all sides of this issue.

I understand it's the uh I'm just I'm just highlighting a fundamental challenge with maintaining these properties on the mills act.

Okay, okay, I understand.

So if we're specific to what we're just looking at right now in terms of the process, um if we're talking about just going back to what Commissioner Cranston and Commissioner Fan were talking about timing, everyone's saying let's not drop the hammer.

I agree for especially for those who are already under the Mills Act.

Um I was gonna make a suggestion that perhaps the five years is to um do a check and see if they've engaged with an architect, have they talked with them?

Are they starting on the design process?

It does take a long time.

I'm I have clients who you know will wait several months before I start.

So it takes time to find someone, get going, design takes a while, then just the whole process is long, and you know, permitting can take long, and unless there's a permitting exp, you know, expediency that can be had as part of a perk.

That's something else to consider.

But um maybe five years is the check, and then there's additional number of years to ensure some aspect of construction in the permit process there is anyways, right?

It expires after a certain amount if you don't get another inspection and it expires.

What you know, what I'm talking about.

So maybe there's something similar without being overly complicated, but maybe the five years is just progress.

So that's I think a key milestone would maybe be at year four having submitted you know the historic preservation permit application to the city to evaluate, right?

And then you're showing good faith, you're investing some effort and and money, and you're working through the city process, which is a prerequisite to the building permit process.

Uh, but by year four, if you don't even have the concept and conceptual approach for the restoration and rehabilitation, you're delisted at that point rather than waiting another three years to find out.

So then we can do the seven years total as suggests.

Uh by Commissioner Fam, with the like four-year check.

Deadline for earning of those additional three to completion.

Right, okay.

Um, Commissioner Fam, is that okay with you?

Yeah.

No?

Commissioner Dempsey.

Okay.

So it sounds like we have uh commissioning and generated consensus on that last item and through Commissioner Pham, thank you.

Um, for the uh develop the process for those five properties.

Um I would like to see us uh proceed with the staff recommendation with the added direction guidance, ask whatever we have, you know, we want to frame that, um, or I leave to staff to maybe clarify that uh to council for um again.

I think as um forgot if it was Mr.

Murdoch Anderson um citing there is downtown specific work that the city council has in their pipeline that would be uh an ideal vehicle and the most relevant uh for um incentives, requirements, regulation resourcing, all that to kick in the gear with regard to some of these historic buildings downtown, or at least those perceived as such, listed, delisted, what have you.

Um so that's that's the suggestion I'm throwing out to be able to proceed with the staff recommendation with this additional ask to council for direction to staff to explore um opportunities for us as a city to be more hands-on active and involved with how we preserve and handle our downtown historic resources rather than just passive.

Um, so that's that's what I have on the um floor.

If we want to proceed with that, I'd be happy, Commissioner uh Cranson.

I guess I'm a little confused by the it's probably just looking for it.

I what I heard was seven years and four years in, you have to have submitted a package to you know for what you're gonna do, and that would replace the five-year-old done option.

Yeah, and I think that was it, still making sharing.

You know, here's the facade improvement things and all these other things that we communicate with them, but it wasn't the staff report as is it was the four year, seven year I think there's merit to that to me, and I would prefer that over the five year old.

Uh defer to come uh staff on this.

My view on it was we the the we kind of just handled the easier part, which is the the how of the delisting might happen, and now we're trying to get back to those top two around the the who, the what properties um as being put forward.

Um, am I getting that?

Yeah, I think um the earlier discussion on this subject was um recommending to council the the city craft um some sort of affirmative mechanism to go beyond the passive mechanisms of just incentives for property owners to at minimum engage through active communication and persistent communication during this period, um if not bringing to bear financial resources if the city's in a position uh and council desires to do that to really push a proactive approach to these properties to encourage them to do the restoration and rehabilitation before that four-year or seven year milestone triggers.

As pertains to the downtown.

Yes, and I think we didn't talk specifically where in the downtown, I don't know if that really got more specific than the 100, 200, 300 block, but is that the area?

Not yet.

That's the um, I guess that's an open question.

Um I'm I'm trying to uh proceed with like the properties delisted um or being proposed as delisted, but also trying to weave the thread of like um in particular some of like the Rogers building in particular being within the downtown and also the work that's going on concurrently from council uh with regard to the downtown precise plan, that we can potentially have an opportunity to proceed with the staff recommendation right now, but also with an adjoining um recommendation or ask to council to please take advantage of this other work item for the downtown precise plan whereby you might do something like open up a budget pool, some you know, like special circumstance where we're able to to Mr.

Murdoch's point, like be more proactive in how we push um the use of that resourcing, right?

Because we can't just tell people, hey, go fix it at your own dime, and right like we have to be able to like put forward something like we want to say, hey, we actively want to protect this building.

Here's our historic preservation ordinance.

Here's how we're gonna take advantage of the downtown precise plan work item to push that.

Um that's that's that's kind of what um I'm thinking.

I know I'm not speaking uh communicating it in the most clear way here.

I'm looking at staff certainly, but um uh you know that Rogers building in particular is what I'm trying to get at.

Sure.

I'll just um sure for your consideration, it may be better to be more general on this point than specifying downtown precise plan update.

That process is tracking separate from the historic preservation ordinance and is on a multi-year timeline, and so it could be two or three years from now before that plan is adopted, and that could eat into the four-year checkpoint.

So having something independent of that, but I think focusing on a geography will allow us to identify the right tools, whether it's downtown precise plan update or some other mechanism.

Do you have any recommendation on the generalization that can help us get there?

Any idea?

I'm sorry, was that a question?

Yeah, it was.

Yeah, do you have any kind of like um recommendation?

Well, I think the the more general language about um recommending to council proactive measures rather than the passive measures.

I think for my perspective, is specific enough, but not overly specific.

Commissioner.

Did you need more specificity on the area?

Right.

I think if there's a geographic bound, regardless of the mention of the downtown precise plan, that would be helpful for us, and you know, the narrower the better given the scarcity of fiscal as well as staff resources.

Sure, okay.

I don't think we can go.

I mean, I I would suggest not going all the way up to the like circle um the like core core of it.

I mean, we really are only talking about five properties, right?

So is it's either the Rogers building or the Rogers building and Scarpa's, or you know, another building that's fairly close to downtown there is the 1076 Wright Avenue is just north of downtown.

So is there like what thinking about in terms of the properties that you want to apply that that proactive action on maybe more useful than thinking about an arbitrary geography?

Yeah, I guess I would just offer that you know, the city is putting a lot of resources in a number of dimensions into the downtown.

I think we've heard from the public as well that the downtown has particular importance and significance, so a mention of the downtown specifically at minimum would be helpful from my perspective.

That really limits us, I think to the two resources we've been talking about.

Um that's probably appropriate for my perspective to really put that concerted effort into that focused geography and the finite number of properties.

For purposes of tonight, you're really just looking at the five, so they all fall in that zone.

Yes.

The ones that are in downtown.

Uh no, so the um the the three residential properties, 336 Mariposa Avenue, uh is in Shoreline West, 1643 Villa is also in Shoreline West, and then uh 1076 Wright Avenue is um north of downtown.

So it's in the kind of um Sterling uh actually on the other side of shoreline from Sterling.

So it's the on the uh kind of near closer to Rex Manor neighborhood.

Okay, I'm okay with downtown.

That would work for me too.

How does that work for you?

So it's what so it's the we're gonna put try to encourage active measures to make sure that help the folks that are downtown, and everybody gets the four-year seven year thing.

Yeah, the time frame applies to everyone.

What we're saying is that we um are cool with what staff is putting forward, and also um asking council to as part of this process consider ways to be more active in ensuring that the downtown properties can make use of or somehow kind of like move forward with the with the um rest I don't know, restoration isn't the right word, but to go do it here what we're saying.

It's like just take spotlighting downtown.

We're basically saying downtown is more important to like obviously more important to our community, and we'd like properties in this area to have extra consideration.

So I'm the city attorney.

I hear this, and I'm one of those people that's not downtown.

I'm like, you're gonna give these people special treatment, you're not gonna give you not gonna give me.

What the hell is that?

So I'm I'm not if there's a program that is in existence for downtown that we're gonna make them more aware of, then that's one thing, but offering something over and above that's not being offered to the other side.

Wow, just feels like I would be worried.

Well, I'll offer that the city already does that right in a number of ways, and in the past has had like facade furniture grants for the pedestrian mall or other programs focused on different geographies in the city.

I think the key thing is what's the basis?

Do we have a rational basis to say some significant government interest is advanced by doing it in this focused way rather than a broad way, right?

I think it's fair to also recognize the city has limited resources and needs to have priorities uh to advance public policy.

So I think we have ample evidence to show the downtown has a unique historic character and provides a central role for the entire community, and it has those unique aspects that would justify um an investment of resources in this way.

Question of fairness is is perhaps not a legal question as much as uh a policy question.

I'd probably go to like oh my um, so I guess I'm I'm I'm comfortable with suggesting that we would do something over and above what is already being looked at for downtown.

Within the context of what we're doing downtown to try to develop downtown, I get that.

Okay, but doing something special outside of that makes me uncomfortable.

Okay, so I'm that's my line, if you will.

I'm I like the four-seven if it's something that is consistent with what we're doing in the downtown area for the two that are in on on Castro, I'm okay with that, but I'm not comfortable suggesting that they would go beyond what's being offered to other businesses, regardless of whether they're privacy as part of continuing improving and making them.

That makes sense.

Um if there's other discussion on this, um, we don't necessarily I think we could probably put that to a vote then um on proceeding with that as well.

It would be nice to have consensus for sure.

Um I think what we're saying is um the community values the downtown and the properties downtown as historic resources to such an extent that the city council ought to consider this as a direction to really you know make sure these resources that people drive from you know like Waverly Park to go downtown and have a coffee because they enjoy that so much that this can continue being something people enjoy in the future as a public resource.

I think that's what we're saying is we'd like council to make that consideration and we'd like staff to explore that if possible that's all that we're saying.

Oh I was just gonna say you want to take a straw poll on uh so the uh the third bullet point is settled uh which would be the four and the seven and now we're uh on the top two which is around including um the properties uh that staff has put forward for um delisting within that four and seven um your time frame in such a manner where we're also um packaging with that a uh recommendation uh to city council that they um you know uh that they direct staff to explore ways that um you know any historic resourcing uh you know could be made available and or um you know more actively um engaged with for properties in the downtown area.

Did I capture that correctly?

Yep.

Yes and to focus the city's resources on those two properties in the 100 and 200 block.

Sounds good.

Um shall we take a straw pole to uh Commissioner Donhue?

Yeah I I'm just thinking that the downtown is the center of the community and as has been said I I I mean I agree that it versus kind of private residences that are sp sprinkled around town uh which which lend character to the neighborhood and are I think are important and that's why we have historic uh resources around you know uh we've identified things around town but but yeah trying to get the downtown up to that standard of his you know to to be a historic area uh I think is is important.

I I think it's it's worth even if it's a special new program I I do think it's it's worthwhile.

All right sounds good.

Um let us take a straw poll um all in favor of proceeding that all against all right we have consensus unless I need to call upstains okay all right proceeding nomination listing and delisting process um any commissioner commentary deliberation.

Commissioner Cranson so we're looking at the list this matches up with the list on page 17 is that around here.

So this would be for like removing the owner opt-out provision the one with the 50% of property owner constitutional yes the only thing that I'm I guess unclear questioning and it's kind of related to the last one as well is the is the the um the listing process for safety I I'm I'm I'm I'm just like we had in the discussion about uh as the ordinance of last time um I don't like the I don't like the idea that negligence could be a reason whether something becomes delisted and so it's not um I would like that language what what staff comes up with to be more clear that it's if they're if it's a result of negligence on the negligence of negligence on the part of the property owner, then that's not and this is that's not a way to automatically get off the list.

That's where the incentives that come up in the enforcement process wherever that was uh should definitely be strong enough to address that.

That's my only the other pieces made sense to me, but I don't want negligence to be the excuse getting interested.

Commissioner.

I agree.

I think uh the preceding vote we just took, just showcases you know, enforcement has to go hand in hand.

And so if we're doing checks or whatever it is to ensure that those are not the reasons, I'm I'm good with what you've got as staff recommendation.

Staff do you have some thoughts on that?

That's viable.

Uh um if you provide that recommendation, we'll forward it to the city council.

Okay.

Commissioner Donegan.

What was the recommendation again?

Would you like to repeat that, Commissioner Cranson?

It's just to that as oh as worded in the fourth bullet on page 17 that it needs to be needs to grow.

If for delisting negligence can't be can't has to can't be one of those reasons for it.

So it needs to be, it's not just the property stinks.

It's if it stinks because they were intentionally doing something to let it go bad, then that's not a reason to be listing.

So that's all I'm saying is that that needs to be incorporated into as they work on these procedures that that has to be.

Got it.

Yeah, that um kind of reminds me of the heritage tree ordinance having been on the previous set on the PRC slash urban forestry board and um sometimes tree appeals came in where basically the owner improperly pruned the tree and then you know waited a couple years and then came to the city and said, Hey, I want to take this heritage tree out, and the the city arborist would go out and say, well, that tree is eligible to be removed because of bad past pruning practices, and which seems like bad pruning practices can happen, right?

But you know, if it happened 30 years ago from two owners ago or something, that's that's one thing, but if the current owner is like actively trying to do something.

And and the ordinance actually does require proper pruning, but I don't know that it's always enforced because it's hard to net necessarily notice that that the uh uh that that's happening.

Anyway, that that's obviously a completely separate ordinance, but it's kind of I think analogous.

Um I do agree because of that, I do agree uh that there should be some sort of uh kind of a penalty for, you know, improperly maintaining the the a uh historic uh uh property.

Um other question that I had.

Oh the so there's this thing about 50% of contributing owners, and we had some questions about that earlier.

Um if there's a I just I think it was answered before, but I just want to hear it again.

Um if there's an area that's designated as a historic um uh district, and there are non-contributing properties, those properties are not subject to to any of this historic preservation ordinance.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, good.

That's that's what I thought um okay then then that'll make sense.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just would say that I'm generally okay with the staff recommendation I will say I am mildly uncomfortable with removing the unilateral owner opt-off provision and that's mostly because I keep coming back to this question of incentives and balancing sort of you know risk and reward for homeowners if there's so many people that want to opt off that we have to prohibit it that means the incentives are out of alignment.

And that's what concerns me.

This should not be a this should not be a compulsive thing or not compulsive but this should not be a an avenue of compulsion for for property owners I don't that it shouldn't be a drag to end up having your building named a historic uh or being put on a historic list.

So anyway uh I can go with this I just want to flag for everybody that if we're taking the opt-off away it must be because we're concerned about excessive use and if there's excessive demand for this it's probably because the incentives are misaligned.

Am I jumping on that um I think uh that is a very impactful idea I think that makes a lot of sense um I guess I'm curious like in that context then we would probably have to increase the incentives uh that would make it more likely that folks wouldn't want to delist unilaterally or otherwise which then would also potentially maybe even increase the desire the need the like for enforcement if that like if we're gonna increase incentivization or incentives um to points where people are no longer kind of like rushing to the door to delist then that would also mean that we would maybe have more of a stake or desire to make sure people are actually using those appropriately and therefore maybe increase like monitoring or compliance or check costs.

I guess I'm curious um Commissioner Dempsey because I do like the idea but I'm curious what you have to say.

Let me be clear um you can balance the incentives by either increasing the incentives or decreasing the burden and so one of the things that I note I was planning on saving this till the very end that if we're gonna start creating more enforcement powers with enforcement costs and penalties and things of that nature I don't know exactly how that's gonna work but that if I you know as a homeowner who doesn't have a historic home um I would be worried about that.

That's one way that the cost might actually become higher more scarier.

I don't know if there's going to be prune police who are going to come by and you know check and see exactly how did I cut my tree and stuff that there's got to be better things for the City of Mountain View to do than that.

So um I just want to be clear that it's not just about increasing incentives it could be and I'm not prejudging this reducing the burden on the homeowner just so long as it balances.

Right chair I think um some of what Commissioner Dempsey is touching on is covered in uh topic six the development review process and so I think there are perceptions about the burden of undertaking projects um for a listed property that may be made less burdensome or more flexible um it'd be a part and parcel to that package of incentives and disincentives that Commissioner Dempsey was touching yeah Commissioner Donahue?

Um yeah the the that initially bothered me as well about the the removing the ability to opt out but in reading the staff report one thing that I noticed was this discussion that CEQA requires um potentially requires an analysis of of the historic nature of things anyway even if you're not on the register so um I guess maybe I have a question.

Can can you characterize that a little I mean it's in the staff report, but can you kind of summarize that a little bit and and if you're not on the the register, maybe because say you did out, um, you know, what burdens do you still have uh kind of either way?

Yeah, um for sure, and and that's certainly one of the goals of this project is to better align our city policies with um with various state laws, including CEQA.

Uh so CEQA requires every discretionary action by the city to be analyzed for its impact on uh the environment and under CEQA historic and cultural resources are included as part of the environment.

So when you uh when the city has some discretion over a development project, and that development project would require the demolition or the defacing or some impact to a property that meets these criteria that we are recommending, that property would need to go through the environmental impact report.

That project would need to go through the environmental impact report process, and that process forces the city to make a decision around whether that removal of that resource is worth whatever the application is requesting.

Um and so this project, you know, these recommendations by staff would better align our city procedures with what already exists under CEQA.

Now, as the director said earlier, there are some ways that the state is carving out uh of CEQA with um additional ministerial actions, and some of those protections really do only apply to properties on the register, um, but uh in general, still most development applications are still discretionary actions by the city and need to go through this SQL process.

Okay, yeah, so it's yeah, I'm very sensitive to additional burdens, takings that were mentioned before.

These kinds of things, um, but I it sounds like there's a kind of already that in place, so um it makes sense to to have everything aligned, kind of like aligning the um uh the eligibility requirements with the national and and state registers and and those kinds of things.

It's just having because that kind of streamlines things, which I think is is an important goal.

Commissioner Cranson.

So the reason I'm very comfortable with removing the up deck position is because there is a mechanism for rule from the list number one, but more importantly, if I buy a property that City of Mountain View said is historic because it was founded in 1870s, but I believe that history, you know, anything before you know, like 81 is is modern.

I'm not gonna I don't agree that somebody can just arbitrarily say well that's not historical anymore.

So I think it has to go.

I like the fact that there's a procedure.

I don't like the arbitrary, I just don't like it anymore.

I bought the building so I can change it um option.

So if they follow through the procedures, they show the what they're trying to do, it goes to French City Council and it gets approved, they can get removed from the list, but not the automatic opt out position.

So I I'm very one of the things I flagged reading through the current process was there's an automatic opt-out position?

What the hell is that?

So I was very glad to see that that was here.

So I am very supportive of number one.

Well, um that nudged my uh that uh I yeah, I guess I found that persuasive.

I mean, I'm happy to proceed with um the four bullet points in addition to the negligence um recommendation uh that Commissioner Cranson had put forward.

Yeah, seeing nods from Commissioner Fan.

Come thumbs up, we got three thumbs up, we've got three all right.

Um Mr.

Murdoch, do you have the information you need for that one?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Uh proceeding, I think we have one more.

The discussion development review process.

Can we put that one on the screen?

Inviting any commissioner discussion.

Commissioner Fam, haven't heard from you in a while.

Do you want to any thoughts?

No.

Commissioner Cranson.

So in general, I that I worked.

The one thing I was uncomfortable with was the inclusion of items that were on the national or California Historic Register as something that was approved by the ZA.

I would probably keep that with the case.

Other than that, that's uh the third paragraph of table five.

It removes the uh there's the the council from that, and it also reflected on the first line on page 21 and other stuff.

I would rather have council when it's state or national transition specific.

Any other thoughts on that?

Chair, can I ask a clarifying question, Mr.

Conson?

Um, do you mean uh state and national listed or state and national eligible?

Listed.

Okay.

So that would be a change from our current.

Uh our current is state or national eligible goes to council.

Whether listing it or not, I keep it the same because it's uh the current code I I I wanted to keep for I'm okay for mountain view list only, but for I guess I didn't I didn't catch the difference between the so I would keep the current code for for council review of of California International Register of eligible and so then does that mean you agree with the staff recommendation in essence?

I'm saying that before on city council public hearing and actions, it would that would not go to the ZA for city or for state and national items.

It would have to go to still have to go to council.

That's that seems like doing something that's on the California registry or the national registry.

It feels like more than just a ZA.

Chair, I'll maybe just add some context.

Um I think what we've seen as of late is very minor projects.

Um very small additions going to city council and providing a significant burden uh to property owners trying to do pretty routine uh projects on their homes.

And so I think we've sensed some interest on the council, you know, to have a more streamlined process for those kinds of projects.

So I think there's kind of two dimensions here.

There's figuring out, you know, is it state or national eligible or state or national listed?

And the other component is is there a distinction between minor or major alterations in this recommendation?

Um I think in general we were trying to respond to what we perceived as a council desire to make projects uh simpler for what I said earlier is actually wrong.

I'm I'm not as a key uh minor items go to council.

It's the major items.

If staff looks at it and says it's a major change, that still goes to council.

Minor changes, I'm okay with that.

That can go to the A.

It's major changes than I can't.

So that it's not the same as what we have.

Is that context still hold?

Okay, I understand the recommendation, I think.

Yeah, I understand whether or not it aligns with our perceived council direction, I think, you know, is for council to decide.

Any other thoughts from the commission?

Commissioner Donhue.

So my recollection is that there was an item on the city council agenda six months ago for a house like the corner of Villarde and Bush review or something like that.

I don't think a little confused about the geography there.

Where they wanted to add like 50 square feet to their kitchen or something like that, and that had to go to the council.

So that's the type of thing that the proposal would just go through the ZA.

That type of project could under this proposal could actually be a staff level approval.

And uh, but it would be something more more significant with the potential to affect character defining features that would go to ZA.

Or in Commissioner Cranston's recommendation to council if it's state or national eligible.

Okay.

So if if they want to redo the facade of the Rogers building to be from the original photo to the new photo, that kind of thing, it would clearly be a major alteration.

Well, I want to make the distinction here between what would actually um impair the integrity to the point of being ineligible, which would go to council under any circumstance.

Okay.

Versus what would um simply have the potential to affect character defining features, and then that would be at the ZA level.

Um and we would uh set up specific criteria and the ordinance, but that's that's roughly the rubric.

Okay.

Commissioner Dempsey.

So uh I'm in favor actually of the staff recommendation.

I think trying to take decisions and push them as far down as we can is actually a smart and more efficient thing to do.

Part of what I would be concerned about too is if council will s were seeing things that they perhaps have already expressed uh that it's a little too pickyon for them.

What's gonna happen is they're gonna jam through it because they're gonna be like, uh, put it on consent, right?

Just move it, move it, move it.

If it goes to the ZA, they're more likely to actually spend more time looking at it.

And I think the I think getting the level right is how you get the most attention to it, and if we send it too high up, then it just gets flashed past.

So I I myself am actually fine with what staff have here.

Thank you, Commissioner Dempsey.

Commissioner Yin.

Um I'm of like mind.

I think um what staff has proposed is fine with me.

Commissioner Fam.

I just had a question for Commissioner Cranson.

Um, so what you mentioned with uh California and national um listed properties.

Could you re-explain that?

And it does that align with staff recommendations.

So is there earlier bullets in this or that staff that staff is gonna go back to find what's a minor alteration, what's a major alteration, and make it far more clear.

That will be something that will go through this whole process and will go in front of council.

So they so they would have it up and they look at and say if it's if what is a major item that we would want to see?

If it's a if they don't want to see it, then they would remove it into the minor.

So the concern that Commissioner Dempsey has is something that I think will be resolved through the process of of developing this list of items, and so it's only those items that are considered major alterations, relocation, moving, visible editions, it would alter the defining characteristics of something that is on the California state registry or the national registry that would ever go to council.

So if the if the list is well developed to start with, then the risk that Commissioner Dempsey is flagging theory should not occur because those kind of things will have been the vast majority of things will pass through, uh will go through the either staff level or through the ZA.

If it's a mountain view only list, it'll never go to council.

Okay, even if it's a major revision, it'll only go to the ZA.

It's just those items that are on the national or California that's that I'm that I'm talking about.

So it I'm I'm counting on bullets two and three to be worked through, and we will see again in this process to make sure that what personal Demsey is concerned about doesn't occur.

That's helpful.

Um, can staff clarify what the current situation is now for major alterations in terms of approvals first, especially for California and national listed properties.

Sure.

Um, and I uh first off, we don't have this three level process right now.

We have exempt and not exempt, and if it's not exempt, there's two separate processes.

One process is always council if you are state or national eligible, and there's an issue there, which is that this term eligible is often not agreed upon between consultants, it's something that can be determined without the property owner knowing, and it's um, you know, it adds a lot of complexity and uncertainty to the process.

So simply using this term state or national eligible is kind of part of the problem.

Um the uh so that process, those projects always go to council, um, and then the uh everybody else always goes to ZA.

Um, so we have uh in our in the previous section, we've recommended a different process for identifying state or national eligible.

It's not just if some consultant says so, it's if the um National Park Service or the State Office of Historic Preservation makes unofficial determination of eligibility, which is not always the same as actual listing.

Uh there are slightly different processes there, but they're both public processes.

Um we could keep the state, we could keep that um kind of state or national determination and have that go to council for the major modifications, or it could be state or national listed, of which there are very few.

Um, and that could go to council.

Um, or the staff recommendation is to just have um it be solely based on what the type of improvement is.

So follow up question, you said there are very few.

How many roughly in the entire city?

Uh so on state or national, I believe it's just four.

And two of them are city owned.

Okay, with that context, I generally am in favor of um staff's recognition.

Commissioner?

Other way around.

Thank you.

Um maybe this is getting too far out there right now, but I I understand that major and minor definitions will be flushed out, um, in regards to downtown.

I am I'm wondering if I know design is one of the categories of integrity.

If we're not just talking about facades, because so far from the example I've seen or examples we've talked about, major and minor just means whether or not it could be seen from the outside, but there's one particular aspect of the downtown three blocks that makes it quite unique from anything else, is also that you get like seven to twelve businesses in on one block on one side of the block, even so, like in one block on both sides, you you could have like 14, 15 businesses.

If you're just keeping the facades, and there are some places that have done this where we just have the facades that look old, and then we do one whole building of the block, and there's like one giant store behind all those fake facades.

I think that takes away from the crux of what our downtown is, and I I don't know how that plays in major or minor, because it can't be seen in theory.

So I just want to be very specific in my request that that is a criteria to examine um I mean honestly you know if you look at I don't want to be pick uh nitpick on anybody but the Wells Fargo the new one that in the Kaiser that's like 400 and I don't know 550 feet that block it two shops so to speak.

If you look at how many people are actually there on the sidewalk and how active it is and how much of a community it makes on that part of the sidewalk it is so small compared to let's say you know the apartments that have one ounce coffee Starbucks and um the UPS store all those in the Mediterranean house that is an example of one building that has multiple shops versus you know in one block versus one block that has three and so that's an illustration of what I mean it doesn't have to be necessarily this I know we're going a little off historic but I feel like today's examples of development I don't see anyone dividing up their ground floor into smaller chunks.

I'm not saying it has to be exactly the way it is now but there needs to be some consideration for that type of design in what makes our downtown so active is if you were to just move Kaiser and Wells Fargo and just stamp that out into three you know and just choose a different business I don't think it would be that active anymore it would no longer be downtown regardless of whether or not everything looked exactly the same.

I am in agreement with that um and also agree with the staff recommendation um was Commissioner Yin's commentary I I that I I mean that that is meaningful I happen to like the little break that you get from people walking past Kaiser and Wells Fargo but the rest of the point stands I get what you're getting at.

Is that is there enough here can staff just kind of like speak to are we okay with that well on that specific point from Commissioner Yin I think I understand the intent we'll have to do some work to figure out whether and how we can define you know a change in the floor plate right some sort of consolidation in this historic context as a major alteration but I understood that was the intent of the recommendation so we can carry that forward and if council supports it we can we can work to see if we can achieve it.

Commissioner Consumer like um it would be like just added guidance around like consideration of floor plate or floor plan um fit for purpose language kind of something like that.

That's how I understood Commissioner Yin's comments yes.

Right and I I know that there you have a lot of things going on with the precise plan and the economic development strategies and you know some people are wanting to do a little bit larger but I I know you're flushing this out you're not there yet but I just wanted to make that a point that we there needs to be some consideration of that in terms of what is minor what is major especially for that area.

Well well um I'm I'd be inclined to support that as we move toward um the uh getting like a decision on this but uh Commissioner Donahue do you have any so having one big store um would involve uh merging or whatever's uh consolidating lots I assume right that the there would have to be one big parcel.

Unless you're talking about like just punching a door through or something like that.

Um, but but if if it involves you know, maybe um consolidating parcels would be a major altercation.

Is that an alteration?

I mean it's certainly would be something the city would have to be, you know, go through an approval process, right?

So, well, I don't know that the property lines themselves would necessarily have a potential impact on a historic resource.

I think it's really what you do with the building relative to that property um or the interior floor plans if you consolidate multiple lots into a single lot and are considering redevelopment uh of the sort that Commissioner Ian was describing.

That could then change the historic integrity of the whole function of that building or its surroundings, the context were to change.

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

So, I think you're touching on all the things we need to work on.

Uh I think the intent is clear.

I think of implementation requires a fair amount of analysis.

So I think uh we should probably take this to a vote.

I know um I know I'm in agreement with that with the um conditions put forward that I think staff was captured.

Are we comfortable with checking for agreement?

Yeah, microwaves thumbs up okay, cool.

I think there's enough affirmative um yes there.

And I think that is the last one.

I guess um staff, there's a line here in the uh chair notes around providing a summary.

Do we need to do that or have we picked that up along the way?

Uh sure.

Why don't I go through and provide the summary of what I've captured and the commission can confirm if that's accurate and complete.

So for eligibility criteria, I noted um the commission was okay with bullets one and two.

Um for the listing of the properties, um, the commission was okay with all of the listings.

Um for managing um and taking action on the invel uh ineligible properties that we've identified.

Um the commission supports the approach.

Um, but for downtown properties and the I guess 100 and 200 block, um, those two properties that were specifically identified in that location, um, recommend uh very proactive measures, not simple reliance on the passive incentives to bring property owners um to come forward with projects to restore and rehabilitate those properties.

Um as it pertains to the phase-out period, if we'll call it that, there's a four-year period in which to submit a historic preservation permit application with the restoration plan.

Uh failure to do that would result in the delisting at that time.

For those that submit at that four-year threshold, they have up to the full seven years to complete the work in order to remain on the list and eligible for their Mills Act contracts.

And then in terms of delisting, um, the commission was okay with staff's recommendation plus Commissioner Cranson's recommendation related to um excluding property owner negligence um as a basis for delisting and the development review process.

Uh the commission supported the staff's recommendation um with the addition from Commissioner Yin about considering how to define changes to floor uh area uh consolidation or otherwise um as a major alteration.

Yeah, Commissioner Donahue.

Well, I have a question.

Are we gonna have a motion?

Is that what's gonna happen?

I think do we need a motion for that?

Yes, please.

So someone could move my summary or amend it in some way.

So move.

Yeah, I have a question though, because I had to recuse on that that little narrow thing.

Can I vote on, you know, because whatever I didn't participate in is kind of implicitly part of that motion.

Is that right?

I think we were imagining um two parts to this.

Uh the first motion, everything but the property you were excluded from, and then the second motion, just that property, and you would just abstain from that vote.

Okay, so I don't need to leave the room for that vote or I mean I'm I'm happy to do that.

I I don't know.

I think you can abstain from that.

Okay, yeah.

I just want to be super ethical, so okay.

All right, I heard uh Commissioner Dempsey make a motion.

Then anyone second?

Okay, so we've got a second from Commissioner Yin.

And um, that being for Commissioner Murdoch's wonderful summary.

Yeah, so it was Commissioner Dempsey moved it and then Commissioner.

Are we good to vote?

No, okay.

All in favor?

Are we gonna use the vote machine or do we want to do a roll call vote?

Uh I do believe it's set up right now.

All right, motion failed.

Do we need to just do a roll call vote?

Yeah.

Um, yes.

Yes, Vice Chair Nunes.

Yes.

Commissioner Dempsey.

Aye.

Commissioner Yin.

Yes.

Commissioner Cranston?

Yes.

Uh the motion passes uh six, yay, um, and one absent.

So, Chair, now we'll just have a second motion um for uh inclusion of the 1181 Benita property, for which um Commissioner Donahue will abstain.

I make a motion to move the 1181 to include the 1181 Bonita Avenue uh property on the listings register, uh, with Commissioner Donnyhu having not been present here for the discussion as uh recused.

I was second or Commissioner Cranston seconds of the motion on the floor.

Uh Commissioner Femme, yes.

Vice Chair Nunes?

Yes.

Commissioner Dempsey?

Commissioner Yin.

Yes.

Commissioner Cranston?

Yes.

Uh we have five.

The motion passes five, yes.

Um abstention and one absent.

Yeah, Commissioner Donahue abstained from that vote.

It was the abstention for the record.

We will now proceed to uh item number six, commission staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports.

Um first being that uh quite um relevantly, actually.

The city is recruiting applications for appointments to the Board of Library Library Trustees, environmental planning and parks and recreation commissions, the downtown performing arts and senior advisory committees, and the EPC application deadline is 5 p.m.

on October 8th.

All other applications are due 5 p.m.

on October 15th.

Um and I will say that tree appeal was the most heartbreaking term I've heard all day.

Um, and so I think that's a technical term, like a tree appeal, and that really kind of wore on me.

Um, uh yeah, anyone else have any kind of commission uh announcements, updates, etc.

Any from staff?

No, nothing from staff, Chair.

Thank you.

Wahoo, okay.

Uh I hereby declare this meeting adjourned.

Oh, just confirmation on the next meeting.

I think one got pushed, and I think the date was for the next meeting in two weeks.

Just wondering if you confirm.

Checking our calendar right now.

Right.

So this time uh we're anticipating the next EPC meeting will be October 15th.

October 15th.

All right.

I hereby declare this meeting adjourned at eleven p.m.

on the dot.

Thank you, everyone.