News

Council quashes plans for historic house in Cuesta Annex

Following a City Council decision made behind closed doors on Tuesday, the future hangs in the balance for a 130-year-old house and the city's proposed history museum.

City Council members say they voted 4-2 against a proposal to add a restored 1880s home to plans for a Mountain View history museum in the Cuesta Annex. Mayor Jac Siegel recused himself because he owns property nearby.

Pushing the plan was developer Roger Burnell in partnership with the Mountain View Historical Association. Previously Burnell had called the proposal a "win-win-win" for the city, as it would preserve one of the city's oldest homes, allow him to develop a 20,000-square-foot office building on the "blighted" site where the house now sits at 902 Villa St. and provide the History Association with a restored house to go with its museum.

But council members say they received more comments opposing the museum than supporting it because its footprint intrudes on the unstructured open space at the Cuesta Annex -- and the Pearson House could potentially increase that footprint by 10,000 feet. Those comments include a letter sent to the council on Tuesday, Oct. 19, from the Audubon Society and the Committee for Green Foothills, which said the Annex is Mountain View's "one uniquely free area for children to roam in the dirt and the bugs and the birds," adding that "Cuesta Park is a far better location" as only developed parkland would be lost.

"I did not hear from the community that they wanted this house there," said council member Laura Macias, explaining her vote against the proposal in the closed session meeting.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Macias said she hoped the house could be moved to Shoreline Park where it could sit near the Rengstorff House. "We have this developer willing to refurbish it. It is important to see where our momentum is and continue that."

Council member John Inks said he also voted against the proposal, citing the financial burden the city could have in maintaining the house if the History Association was unable to raise the money to do it.

Leaders of the Historical Association could not be reached by the Voice's press deadline on Wednesday.

Fundraising difficulties?

Several council members said they had the impression that little fundraising has been done towards the museum's $5.5 million cost.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Instead of fundraising, council members say Association members have focused on the Pearson House, proposing to substitute it for a $750,000 museum fundraising milestone due in April 2012. The milestone was a city requirement in a September 2009 memorandum of understanding that would allow the Association to build the museum at the rear of the Annex.

"If it's hinging on milestones, I think we're coming to the realization that the museum people have to really scour to get the funds or something," Inks said. "They are kind of in a bind."

Council member Mike Kasperzak, who supports moving the Pearson House to the Annex, said, "I personally have concerns that this might be all there is. I don't know whether the Association will be able to build a bigger thing. I hope they do. They have to come up with three quarters of a million dollars by April under current terms of the MOU. The association was taking the position this house would have constituted fulfillment of that initial requirement."

Inks noted that the Los Altos History Museum, which the Association would like to emulate, had $1 million from one donor. But the Association has no "angel donors, at least not publicly," Kasperzak said. Inks said fundraising in this economy is tough even for existing charities.

"I think it would be great if this setback motivated the people in the community who do really want a historical resource like this to come out and get publicly engaged in the process," Kasperzak said.

As for the Pearson House, Inks said there is some potential that could be demolished, though no one involved wants to see that happen.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Council quashes plans for historic house in Cuesta Annex

by Daniel DeBolt / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 12:16 pm

Following a City Council decision made behind closed doors on Tuesday, the future hangs in the balance for a 130-year-old house and the city's proposed history museum.

City Council members say they voted 4-2 against a proposal to add a restored 1880s home to plans for a Mountain View history museum in the Cuesta Annex. Mayor Jac Siegel recused himself because he owns property nearby.

Pushing the plan was developer Roger Burnell in partnership with the Mountain View Historical Association. Previously Burnell had called the proposal a "win-win-win" for the city, as it would preserve one of the city's oldest homes, allow him to develop a 20,000-square-foot office building on the "blighted" site where the house now sits at 902 Villa St. and provide the History Association with a restored house to go with its museum.

But council members say they received more comments opposing the museum than supporting it because its footprint intrudes on the unstructured open space at the Cuesta Annex -- and the Pearson House could potentially increase that footprint by 10,000 feet. Those comments include a letter sent to the council on Tuesday, Oct. 19, from the Audubon Society and the Committee for Green Foothills, which said the Annex is Mountain View's "one uniquely free area for children to roam in the dirt and the bugs and the birds," adding that "Cuesta Park is a far better location" as only developed parkland would be lost.

"I did not hear from the community that they wanted this house there," said council member Laura Macias, explaining her vote against the proposal in the closed session meeting.

Macias said she hoped the house could be moved to Shoreline Park where it could sit near the Rengstorff House. "We have this developer willing to refurbish it. It is important to see where our momentum is and continue that."

Council member John Inks said he also voted against the proposal, citing the financial burden the city could have in maintaining the house if the History Association was unable to raise the money to do it.

Leaders of the Historical Association could not be reached by the Voice's press deadline on Wednesday.

Fundraising difficulties?

Several council members said they had the impression that little fundraising has been done towards the museum's $5.5 million cost.

Instead of fundraising, council members say Association members have focused on the Pearson House, proposing to substitute it for a $750,000 museum fundraising milestone due in April 2012. The milestone was a city requirement in a September 2009 memorandum of understanding that would allow the Association to build the museum at the rear of the Annex.

"If it's hinging on milestones, I think we're coming to the realization that the museum people have to really scour to get the funds or something," Inks said. "They are kind of in a bind."

Council member Mike Kasperzak, who supports moving the Pearson House to the Annex, said, "I personally have concerns that this might be all there is. I don't know whether the Association will be able to build a bigger thing. I hope they do. They have to come up with three quarters of a million dollars by April under current terms of the MOU. The association was taking the position this house would have constituted fulfillment of that initial requirement."

Inks noted that the Los Altos History Museum, which the Association would like to emulate, had $1 million from one donor. But the Association has no "angel donors, at least not publicly," Kasperzak said. Inks said fundraising in this economy is tough even for existing charities.

"I think it would be great if this setback motivated the people in the community who do really want a historical resource like this to come out and get publicly engaged in the process," Kasperzak said.

As for the Pearson House, Inks said there is some potential that could be demolished, though no one involved wants to see that happen.

Comments

Local Dad
Cuesta Park
on Oct 20, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Local Dad, Cuesta Park
on Oct 20, 2011 at 3:47 pm

The Historical Association needs to find another location for their museum building. They will never be able to raise the funds to put it in Cuesta Park Annex. Who wants to be a major donor for a very unpopular development? And with so many opposed, they will never be able to raise the funds on small donations.


USA
Old Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm
USA, Old Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm

What in the hell is so wrong with some people that makes them continually want to build things in the Cuesta Annex?

Leave it alone!

There are plenty of old buildings in Mountain View that could be refurbished or scraped and rebuilt at a lower cost with much less environmental damage.


History
Blossom Valley
on Oct 20, 2011 at 7:29 pm
History, Blossom Valley
on Oct 20, 2011 at 7:29 pm

As I understand it, the museum wouldn't even be a historical museum as most of us would probably envision it. I was at a public meeting where it was asked if the museum would take many of the documents/artifacts that are currently housed at the MV Library. The answer was "no", that this was going to be more related to the agricultural history of MV.


W Park Dude
Waverly Park
on Oct 21, 2011 at 8:56 am
W Park Dude, Waverly Park
on Oct 21, 2011 at 8:56 am

Ask the folks who run the Computer History Museum. If they are honest with you, they will tell you they've been running in the red since day 1. If it weren't for the special events and rentals, and they have several there a week, they would not be afloat, even with all the huge tech donations. This is in a first class facility in the dead center of Silicon Valley paying homage to what now largely supports this valley. And the city is/was going to fund a blast-to-the-past homey museum? Just how often is every citizen of 75,000 paying their way through the turnstiles a second time? How many times can the schools repeat field trips there? If they think their having fundraising issues now, wait until it's up and running. Thankfully it looks like cooler heads are prevailing. Time to go back to the drawing board. Do we even need to do that? What's wrong with leaving it as it is? It's becoming the lone slice of Mountain View where would be artists can take their oil paints and easel and look like they're part of an old time Mtn. View postcard. That's the blast-from-the-past I want to keep. Is this city, which seems to doing fine compared to others even during these trying times, that desperate to develop every square foot in its coffers?


Jane
Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 21, 2011 at 9:55 am
Jane, Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 21, 2011 at 9:55 am

It sounds like there are lots of people vocally opposed to the museum. The historical people say the silent majority is in favor of the musuem. Apparently, the people in favor just aren't willing to make any donations or to even make any noise.


Don't know much about history ...
St. Francis Acres
on Oct 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Don't know much about history ..., St. Francis Acres
on Oct 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm

@Jane, it seems that the silent majority indeed wants a history museum ..... as long as others pay for it .... and it's located in somebody else' backyard :)


Kim
Cuesta Park
on Oct 21, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Kim, Cuesta Park
on Oct 21, 2011 at 6:42 pm

Please remember to communicate your feelings about the Mountain View History Museum at the Cuesta Park Annex directly to the City Council Members. Here's a link <Web Link I thought they had their minds made up already so I'm shocked, but very pleased, that they voted like this. Maybe it's not too late to "save the annex"...


Kim
Cuesta Park
on Oct 21, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Kim, Cuesta Park
on Oct 21, 2011 at 6:46 pm

My link didn't work... just go to the city of mountain view home page, choose city council from the main menu and under related links (on the left), choose Email Council (bottom of list). Thanks! "Web Link


Carl W.
Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 21, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Carl W., Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 21, 2011 at 11:46 pm

I find it interesting that the same city council was more than willing to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a day workers center, and millions into pedestrian overpasses and other various pet projects but is unwilling to support a museum that would conical our cities rich past- Regardless of location, the city should take the lead on a project that we could all enjoy and benefit from.


DCS
Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2011 at 8:34 am
DCS, Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2011 at 8:34 am

It just goes to show you how hypocritical the Council is regarding listening to the people of Mountain View. The homeowner's in my community signed a petition against the BMR housing. BMR DID LOWER OUR PROPERTY VALUES, and the council never once considered any kind of compromise (mixed housing, etc.). (Portion removed, terms of use.) I guess people who live near the Cuesta Annex are more important than us.


DCS
Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2011 at 9:17 pm
DCS, Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2011 at 9:17 pm

I wonder why my comment was censored, all I said was that some people suggested mixed type housing - seniors, regular, low income. WEIRD!


Andrea Gemmet
Registered user
Mountain View Voice Editor
on Oct 25, 2011 at 11:54 am
Andrea Gemmet, Mountain View Voice Editor
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2011 at 11:54 am

@DCS: The sentence that got excised from your comment can be paraphrased as, "It makes me mad." The expression you used to convey that sentiment was more profane, and so it didn't pass muster with the site monitor.


DCS
Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2011 at 10:05 am
DCS, Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2011 at 10:05 am

@Andrea - But I didn't use profanity...it still seems weird to me. If you have a list of words that cannot be used, maybe this should be posted somewhere.


DCS
Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2011 at 10:16 am
DCS, Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2011 at 10:16 am

@Andrew - The sentence that got excised was the suggestion that was given to city council about considering mixed-use housing. If I did say something else in that sentence, why did the part about the suggestion get kicked out? It just seems like my voice was being cut-off, and the point about writing comments is to get public opinion heard.


Andrea Gemmet
Registered user
Mountain View Voice Editor
on Oct 27, 2011 at 11:24 am
Andrea Gemmet, Mountain View Voice Editor
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2011 at 11:24 am

@DCS:
I think posting a list of words that shouldn't be posted defeats the purpose, don't you?

I looked again at your original comment, and it looks like the parenthetical phrase at the end of your sentence was inadvertently cut off when the more colorful four-word sentence that followed it was removed:

(mixed housing, etc.)

I restored it to its rightful place.


DCS
Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm
DCS, Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm

@Andrea - Thank you, and sorry for misspeling your name! I Still don't agree that I was being profane in anyway.


Begener
Cuesta Park
on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Begener, Cuesta Park
on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm

Isn't it ironic that the History Museum would have destroyed one of the last open spaces in Mountain View?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.