|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View is forging ahead with updates to its historic preservation ordinance and list of historic buildings, despite objections from some community members who say their properties are not historically significant and should not be on the list.
In a unanimous vote Tuesday evening, the City Council directed staff to move forward with plans to clarify eligibility criteria for historic properties, largely aligning with state and federal guidelines. The City Council also supported plans to revise the process for nominating, listing and delisting properties on the historic register.
“We’re tackling a really thorny issue that we haven’t updated in quite some time,” Mayor Ellen Kamei said at the Dec. 9 council meeting.
Under the proposed process, property owners would not be allowed to “opt off” the register, according to Eric Anderson, the city’s planning manager. Property owners could still nominate buildings to the register and could apply to remove them, but the final determination would be made by the City Council.
A final vote to update the ordinance is expected next year. The Council also still needs to decide which sites to place on the historic register based on a list of 101 properties that a city consultant identified as potentially eligible.
“I don’t look forward to that meeting,” Council member Chris Clark said. “Essentially, we’re not picking and choosing tonight. We’re basically gathering additional information.”
Even without the list of sites finalized, the prospect that property owners would no longer be able to opt off the list has caused alarm. Community members told the council that a historic designation would create an undue burden for them, as certain permit requirements and restrictions on historic properties could make it more difficult to redevelop them.
“What I’m hearing tonight from many people is the financial distress that this ordinance could cause without proper incentives, without the freedom to handle their properties in the way that they would like,” said Mountain View resident Massimo Prati who opted off the register in the early 2000s. His property is now being considered for relisting by the city.
Several other community members also spoke out against relisting their properties, including Jim Spangler of Spangler Mortuary, a third-generation family-owned business in downtown Mountain View.
“We plan on serving Mountain View continuously for the next 30, 40 years,” Spangler said. “We take care of our property and maintain it in what we feel is a very respectful manner. And it is a nice property, but it is not historic.”
There are 46 properties on the existing register, but that number could more than double with the city’s expected update. The consultant that Mountain View hired surveyed private properties to determine which could be eligible for historic designation, based on criteria like age and association with historic events, people and design aesthetics. A majority of the 101 sites identified are residential and clustered in the Old Mountain View and Shoreline West neighborhoods.
The list also includes commercial, agricultural sites and religious sites – a situation that has sparked concern from the Mountain View Buddhist Temple. In a letter to the city, congregants noted that a historic designation could impinge on their right to religious assembly by limiting future growth. At the council meeting, staff announced that they would not proceed with the listing of religious properties without consent from the property owners.
Council members meanwhile sought to reassure the public that no final determinations have been made about which properties will ultimately land on the register. They also noted that the revised ordinance would provide more consistent criteria to evaluate properties as historic resources.
“There should be a single, fairly reliable source that says you either are subject or not subject to these things,” Clark said. “We’re trying to do that work for you, like we’re trying to use your taxpayer dollars to help add additional clarity and transparency.”
Historic Districts and Senate Bill 79
More than a dozen public commentators questioned the city’s process and criteria for adding properties to the register, especially without the owner’s consent. However, several commentators expressed support for the ordinance updates and urged the council to go a step further.
Livable Mountain View, a historic preservation advocacy group, has been particularly vocal in its support for a historic retail district in downtown Mountain View, especially in light of the recent passage of Senate Bill 79, a state law that allows for high-density housing near major transit stops. The legislation goes into effect July 1.
The group has pressed the city to act quickly to protect historically significant buildings near the Mountain View Transit Center, particularly on the 100, 200 and 300 blocks of Castro Street, which consists mostly of older one- and two-story buildings.
“Senate Bill 79 could eliminate our historic downtown,” said Robert Cox, a Livable Mountain View steering committee member. “It provides a strong financial incentive for the property owners to assemble their properties to redevelop as housing, and it could mean that our downtown would no longer be a retail and restaurant destination.”
Cox urged the city to move forward with a historic retail district as a response to SB 79. However, Community Development Director Christian Murdock noted that SB 79 refers to exemptions for historic resources, and not districts, so it is not clear that a district would be protected from the legislation. He added that it would be difficult to establish a historic district before the law takes effect.
Murdock also pointed out that the city is working on a downtown precise plan, which would allow for a lot of potential development, even along Castro Street.
“I think there may be a perception that without SB 79 the downtown is safe and with SB 79 everything’s going to be destroyed,” Murdock said. “It’s not quite the case.”
Council members expressed support for the creation of historic districts but did not settle on what one would look like in practice.
The updated ordinance and register of historic properties likely will return to the City Council in the second quarter of 2026, Anderson said. City staff also are planning to discuss SB 79 at a council meeting scheduled for Jan. 27.
C’mon, it’s not like we’re Rome. Or even Boston. Sure, there are a few classics. But the Eureka building? Seriously?
“A historic resource is a building, structure, object, site, landscape, or a grouping of these types of properties (known as a historic district) that is significant in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Historic resources are usually more than 50 years old and qualify for listing in a local, state, or national historic register based on their association with significant historic events, individuals, or architectural design or construction techniques.”
Robert Cox, Livable Mountain View
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4781/Historic-Resources-and-District
Before the meeting, all religious sites were removed as some laws prevent the City to include them in a register.