Environmental Planning Commission Meeting Summary – August 19, 2026

The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) of Mountain View held a public hearing on August 19, 2026, to consider updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register. After staff presentations, public comments, and deliberation, the Commission voted 4-0-2 (with one absent and two abstentions) to recommend the City Council adopt the Historic Context Statement, the updated ordinance with additional recommendations, and the zoning map amendment for SB 79 exclusion.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The Commission unanimously approved the minutes from March 4, 2026, and April 15, 2026, with 7 present and one absent.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jonathan Davis (online): Represented a property owner of a historic home on Mariposa Avenue. He expressed support for historic preservation but requested that the EPC recommend the City Council evaluate a supplemental historic preservation fund for extraordinary situations, noting that the Mills Act is insufficient for older properties facing essential structural repairs. He asked that preservation not place owners in a difficult financial position.
• Massimo Pradi (in person): Owner of 537 Bush Street, a property proposed for listing. Expressed strong opposition to forced listing without owner consent, calling it "eminent domain by another name." He argued that the presumed benefits are paltry compared to lost development potential (especially under SB 79) and cited poor outreach from city staff. He stated that the city lacks expertise and architectural code to support historic preservation.
• John Martinez (in person): Owner of a property possibly on the registry due to age and a non-functional tank house. Expressed concern that being listed would force him to restore the tank house at significant expense. He misunderstood the EPC's role and planned to address the City Council.
• James Kuzmall (in person): Spoke for himself. He acknowledged the importance of historic preservation but argued the ordinance is too onerous. He said it places burden on well-maintained 60–70 year old properties and will hinder housing development near transit under SB 79, preventing hundreds or thousands of people from living in the city. He supported opt-in processes and better incentives.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Ella Keracian and Planning Manager Eric Anderson presented the three recommendations. Key changes include: establishment of historic districts (primary and limited contributors), a tiered permit system (exempt, minor/major HP permits, demolition requiring council approval), expanded incentives (plaque program, conditional use permits, reduced parking, impact fee reductions), enforcement measures (reconstruction requirement, penalty period), and a temporary provision for SB 79 exclusion for properties registered before January 1, 2025. The draft register includes 99 resources (up from 41) after removing seven religious properties and adding five city-owned properties. Outreach included four workshops, a survey of property owners in July, and three prior City Council meetings.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioners inquired about:
  • Comparison of CEQA and ordinance processes (staff responded that they are closely modeled, but the ordinance adds a discretionary permit for properties not subject to CEQA).
  • Integration of permits for ADUs and rear additions (serialized process).
  • Economic hardship removal (staff explained it requires proof of deprivation of all value, unlikely for well-maintained properties).
  • Expansion of the register (due to correction of opt-off provisions and aging eligibility from 2004).
  • Incentives in council policy vs. ordinance (staff noted that many incentives cross departments and a policy is more flexible; specifics will be developed later).
  • Enforcement and duty to maintain (staff acknowledged it depends on specific cases, with code enforcement focusing on visible issues).
  • Historic districts: staff stated that owner-initiated districts require a 50% ratio of contributing parcels and council approval; council can also initiate. Commissioners discussed safeguards against misuse, including a supermajority vote for districts containing housing element opportunity sites.
• Deliberation: Commissioners expressed general support but concerns about the balance of burdens and benefits, especially given the expanded list. Commissioner Dempsey and Vice Chair Donahue abstained due to uncertainty about incentives. The Commission added two recommendations to the motion: (1) add more clarity to incentives and urge council to resource them proportionate to maintenance needs; (2) require a supermajority (5 votes) for historic districts that include a housing element opportunity site.

Key Outcomes

• Motion Passed (4-0-2): Commissioners Kernston, Fam, Subramaniam, and Chair Nunes voted yes; Commissioners Dempsey and Vice Chair Donahue abstained; Commissioner Gutierrez was absent.
• Recommendations to City Council:
  1. Accept the Historic Context Statement (Attachment 1).
  2. Adopt the amended Zoning Code (Attachment 2) with additional direction to:
     • Add more clarity to incentives prior to adoption and urge council to resource incentives proportionate to the maintenance needs of properties on the register.
     • Require a supermajority (5 votes) if a proposed historic district includes a housing element opportunity site, given the heightened trade-off between housing and preservation.
  3. Adopt the Zoning Map amendment (Attachment 3) to exclude properties designated before January 1, 2025, from SB 79.
• Next Steps: The EPC's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council at a public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 22, 2026. The Council will also consider the draft register and provide direction. Adoption is expected by November 2026, with a final register adoption in December 2026.