|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Poised to enter a flashpoint of public debate, Mountain View is taking steps to update its Historic Preservation Ordinance and list of historically significant buildings. It also is considering the possibility of creating a downtown preservation district that could potentially set standards, as well as offer incentives, for maintaining or modifying properties.
Since 2004, the city has had a historic ordinance and register, said Senior Planner Elaheh Kerachian, who addressed the City Council at a study session Tuesday evening, Dec. 12.
“Together these tools help the city preserve historically and culturally significant buildings as well as their character-defining features,” she said in the presentation, adding that the ordinance and register help preserve the integrity of historically important buildings and neighborhoods.
The ordinance lays out criteria for designating properties as historical and provides guidelines about permit requirements, incentives and processes for adding and removing properties from the register.
The council provided direction to staff at the study session, addressing the scope of a survey that the city plans to conduct to identify historical properties that could be eligible for the register.
Council members supported updating the historic ordinance, in part to clarify and protect the city’s historic resources as well as to streamline building review processes. But they also recognized the sensitivity of implementing a survey that could list previously unidentified properties as historical, triggering a whole set of regulatory processes against the wishes of the owners.
Council member Emily Ann Ramos raised this issue, seeking clarity on how properties are deemed historical. “If we do the whole citywide (survey), and there are properties that we find that are under the guidelines, then whether or not we want it to be deemed historic, it is going to be historic anyway,” she said.
Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson confirmed that any properties identified as historic, including properties that currently only require building permits, would be subject to other review and mitigation processes, like the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
“That is a constraint that is basically equal to being on a register, but you have no benefit of being on the register,” Anderson said. “Being on the register gives you access to the incentives that the register has. So, it’s kind of all costs, no gain for the property.”
Following the recommendation of staff, council members unanimously supported a survey option that would only look at properties already subject to development review and CEQA processes. The survey does not include any new categories for historic properties and thus would not force property owners to conform to new requirements.
Council members also supported another option to create a way for community members to voluntarily self-nominate properties and districts as historical, although Council member Lucas Ramirez said he did not support this for districts.
In addition to the survey, staff presented council with the option of creating a downtown historic district, something that all the council members supported, with the notable exception of Ramirez, who expressed concerns about the use of historic designations to circumvent state laws, particularly around housing development.
“I think the council and the community need to really understand what the limitations are in establishing the preservation district. If part of the intent is to discourage or preempt state law, I just don’t think it’s going to be successful,” Ramirez said. “But if the intent is to provide strong incentives to preserve buildings, absolutely, I’m very comfortable with that.”
Livable Mountain View, an organization that supports historic preservation, backed the creation of a downtown historic district, while also advocating for the council to revisit the possibility of identifying more historic buildings downtown.
In 2020, a consulting firm identified three out of eight buildings as eligible for the national register. They are: 191 Castro St. (occupied by Eureka!), 194 Castro St. (Agave) and 301 Castro St. (Bloomsgiving). The consultant said the other buildings did not meet the national criteria because major changes had been made to the buildings over the years.
Representatives of Livable Mountain View took a different perspective, arguing that the buildings were significant, given their connections to the city’s founding history. Specifically, members asked that the city reconsider the Farmers and Merchants Bank Building, located at 201 Castro St. (now Red Rock Coffee House) and Weilheimer Store, located at 126 Castro St. (Oren’s Hummus).
“The evaluation of historical value should not be limited to the examination of the building’s façade. The association of the building with historic people and events that occurred there must also be considered,” said Robert Cox, a Livable Mountain View steering committee member.
Peter Katz, president and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for historical preservation in the downtown area, stating that it would make the commercial center more interesting and inviting to visitors, shoppers and residents. But he also asked that the council offer more incentives for building maintenance and rehabilitation, and to consider recourse for property owners negatively affected by a historical designation.
“If designation is bestowed on a building, which in turn places hardship on the owners, please be fair to the owners and make the incentives and compensation commensurate to the economic burden placed upon them,” Katz said, referring to the case of Chez TJ, where the property value dropped dramatically after owner George Aviet’s restaurant was identified as a historic resource without his consent, crushing his retirement plans.
Council member Pat Showalter similarly emphasized the need to offer clear and beneficial incentives for property owners to maintain their properties. “Hopefully further along in the process, we will also be identifying incentives and assistance we can give to those property owners to make them not want to demolish their property but to preserve it,” she said.
The council members also conceded that the city’s discussions around historic preservation in the past has been confusing to the public, with greater clarity needed around the issue of what it means to “opt in” or “opt off” the register and how a historical designation impacts property owners.
Currently, there are 45 properties on the register, with another 45 properties opting off of it since 2005, even though they still might be eligible, according to the council report.
Public outreach was therefore a priority for the council, with Alison Mayor Hicks advocating that the city could do more to highlight why historic preservation was important.
“Often when we talk about historic preservation, there’s a lot of state and national law and it becomes very bureaucratic. But at the same time, it’s something that’s close to people’s heart,” Hicks said, requesting that staff highlight this more in its communications and engagement with the public.
Mountain View aims to give Shoreline’s burrowing owls a boost with more fundingApril 14, 2026 2:19 pm
Silicon Valley is an area of dynamism and change. A restriction to this in the form of a “historic district” only creates worst conditions for property owners and tenants. None of the buildings in downtown MV are worthy of special preservation. Let the owners and residents maintain their flexibility to adjust for changing times.
Oh good, let’s make even more regulations for downtown businesses to have to follow for the sake of City Staff. Have you seen how boring and uniform the new fence areas look, and how much the businesses have to pay to use them? Blegh, Castro St is losing its unique character.
Talking Cat / or ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
Have you seen how boring and uniform the new …. AH but what about “the old stuff,” built along the street a century or more ago?