|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Mountain View City Council updated its historic preservation ordinance but did not finalize a list of buildings to put on the city’s historic register. The register has drawn opposition from some community members who say their properties are not historic and should be included on the list.
At a Sept. 22 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a staff recommendation to make changes to the ordinance, laying out the rules for how properties are nominated, listed and removed from the city’s historic register.
The changes will no longer allow property owners to unilaterally “opt off” the local register. Instead, property owners will need to go before the city’s zoning administrator and then the City Council to get off the register once the list is formally adopted. That vote is tentatively scheduled for December, according to city Planning Manager Eric Anderson.
“We cannot finalize the register update with the ordinance because that would leave the owner opt-off provisions in place,” Anderson said. “Thus, we need to adopt the register update once the new ordinance’s provisions have taken effect.”
With the council’s approval, the historic ordinance amendments will go into effect in November.
Public responses to the register
While council members did not finalize the historic register, they still directed staff to remove specific properties from the list. That list was drawn from a citywide survey of historic properties conducted by a consulting firm.
Prior to the Sept. 22 meeting, the city identified 99 eligible properties, including 41 sites already listed on the existing register and 58 proposed for addition. The city had also reached out to property owners, inquiring if they wanted to be on the register.
While many did not respond to the city, about two dozen property owners expressed a preference of “do not list.” Several of those respondents attended the public hearing.
“This ordinance will strip away property rights from their owners and cause serious financial harm by devaluing our biggest financial asset,” said Mountain View resident Massimo Prati who had previously opted off the register in the early 2000s.
Prati noted that a historic designation on downtown buildings would severely restrict their redevelopment potential – especially in light of Senate Bill 79, a state law that allows for dense housing near major transit stops, including the downtown Caltrain station. Prati was also skeptical that the financial incentives tied to the ordinance would fairly compensate owners for the upkeep of their properties.
Others questioned the historical integrity of their properties, describing them as radically altered from their original form and function.
“The building itself doesn’t really look anything like what it used to look like,” said Marina Keith, owner of the Monte Carlo Niteclub and Restaurant at 228 Castro St. The site used to house the Mountain View Theater, originally built in 1926.
A Mountain View Realtor, speaking on behalf of a 96-year-old property owner on Castro Street, compared the register to a form of “eminent domain” that would take away development rights from his client without his knowledge or consent.
Other public commenters pushed back on some of those characterizations, arguing that the city had been planning to update the ordinance for years and the public had been informed. They also described the importance of protecting historically significant properties for future generations and touted the economic benefits, especially in the downtown area.
“We have a big goose downtown laying beautiful eggs that are drawing people from near and far,” said Jerry Steach, a Mountain View resident and member of Livable Mountain View, a historic preservation advocacy group. “The atmosphere is due in no small part to the historic buildings downtown that we really, really, really need to take care of and preserve.”
City Council weighs in
The City Council expressed strong support for the historic ordinance updates, noting that it had not been substantially revised since its adoption more than two decades ago.
“It’s important that we acknowledge that our criteria and our inventory were out of date relative to how our community and our building stock has changed,” Council member Ellen Kamei said.
The council also largely aligned on decisions of which properties to keep and which to remove from the local register, ahead of the final adoption in December.
If a property was not on or eligible for state or federal historic registers, and not currently on the local register, then the council recommended to staff that it be removed from the list – provided that the owner did not want it on the register. Properties on state or federal registers are already required to adhere to certain regulations and permitting processes, as mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act.
The council also took off properties on the city’s housing element inventory, including 624 W. El Camino Real (Joe Musso Motor Service) and 1901 W. El Camino Real (Walt’s Texaco Service).
Council members noted that it was important to be transparent and align the local register with what is already documented on state and federal registers so that property owners are not blindsided if seeking to make changes to their properties.
“One of the things that we’re trying to do as part of this process is make sure that there isn’t a mismatch,” said Council member Chris Clark. “It would be kind of silly for us to just stick our heads in the sand and say we’re just going to pretend that you’re not on the state or national register.”
Prior to the public hearing, city staff also removed religious sites from inclusion on the register, as it could impinge on rights to religious assembly by limiting future growth, unless a property owner indicated a desire to be on the list. The city plans to remove one property currently on the register that has a religious affiliation – Villa Siena, a senior care facility at 1855 Miramonte Ave.
The delisting will require the city to prepare an environmental impact report, as mandated by CEQA. It likely will cost $150,000 to take the property – and any other historic resource – off the register, according to the staff report.
Council members also backed a recommendation to establish a process that would allow for the creation of a “historic district” in the downtown area. The geographic area would be bounded by California Street, Hope Street, Evelyn Avenue and Bryant Street.
“Downtown is our living room,” Council member Alison Hicks said. “It’s the place where we get out of our cars and run into each other and get to know each other… I would like to do anything and everything that’s legal and practical to make sure we get a district there.”
