Benicia Historic Preservation Review Commission started a review Thursday of its rules and procedures, a document that is likely to undergo some minor revisions in the future.

The Planning Commission’s rules underwent a similar review, with members of that panel asking that some passages be clarified and some wording changed to reflect the use of modern technology in recording meetings.

The original rules were adopted in 2005 and last were revised in 2009, Suzanne Thorsen, senior planner, said.

The commission may revise its own rules, she said.

The document provides guidance to the commission about how to run its meetings, in particular to prevent conversations between the panel and members of the public from becoming a debate.

The chairperson is in charge of the meeting, with the vice chairperson stepping in if the chairperson is unable to attend.

After preliminary procedures such as the pledge to the flag, roll call, adoption of the agenda, specified announcements and approval of routine items on the consent calendar, the panel addresses business items.

In conducting a hearing on such topics, the commission first hears a staff report, after which members of the panel may ask questions for clarification.

Once the hearing starts, applicants may speak before others are given the floor for a one-time, five-minute opportunity to talk on the topic.

At times, the chairperson or a city staffer may make notes on questions aired during the hearing, and if a commissioner wants to ask a staffer or member of the public a question, the request must be approved by the chairperson.

After members of the public have their say, the comment portion of the hearing is closed so the commission can start its deliberations without interruption.

The chairperson may ask staff employees to answer questions aired by the public or the panel, then after commissioners have weighed in the chairperson may ask for a motion.

Modifications may be made to the motion before it gets a second; however, once a second is made the motion must undergo a vote before an alternative motion can be considered, Community Development Director Christina Ratcliffe said. Nor can a second be rescinded.

Members of the panel may know some of the applicants, but they must be fair and objective when they are considering any issue, Thorsen said.

The impact of the commission’s vote needs to be clear, too, she said: “People need to understand the decision.”

In other matters, Chairperson Jon Van Landschoot described a workshop on historic preservation he attended in Placerville.

Among the speakers, historian Sean de Courcy described the economic benefits of historic preservation, from improved property values to additional jobs to a boost in tourism.

Preserving historic buildings also makes sense from an environmental standpoint, among multiple other benefits to a community, Van Landschoot learned.

The commission also agreed Thursday to resume a hearing Aug. 27 on whether to modify a Mills Act contract.

Carla and Paula Chiotti own 1025 West Second St., and originally requested their contract modification May 28. However, after several members of the commission recused themselves because they live too close to the Chiottis’ house, there was no quorum, which is required for a vote.

A Mills Act contract gives owners of historic properties the chance to reduce their property taxes in exchange for restoring and maintaining their site in a manner that complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Mills Act contractors must perform specific tasks by certain dates if they are to remain qualified for the reduction in property taxes.

The Chiotti sisters want to remove front door and back fence requirements from their mandatory work plan. They also have said the existing wooden door is consistent with doors of the home’s era and style, and that the back yard fence, covered with vines, doesn’t detract from the house’s historic character.