Mountain View EPC backs draft updates to historic preservation ordinance, advances list of candidate properties to council

Mountain View’s Environmental Planning Commission voted on Oct. 1 to send staff’s draft updates to the city’s historic preservation ordinance and a list of potentially eligible local historic resources to City Council for further action.

The commission’s action advances a package of changes staff said are intended to modernize the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, align local rules with state and federal practice and create a clearer path for nominating, reviewing and — in rare instances — delisting properties from the city register.

Project manager Ella Kerachian told the commission the project began in 2022 and the team had prepared three deliverables: a historic context statement, an intensive survey of candidate properties and a proposed ordinance update. “This item is regarding the historic preservation ordinance and register,” Kerachian said, and staff recommended continuing to use the city’s significance criteria while adding integrity thresholds consistent with state and national best practice. Staff said a draft list of about 100 privately owned properties were identified as eligible for local listing; the properties are clustered mostly in Old Mountain View and Shoreline West and more than half are single-family houses.

Why it matters: state and pending state laws affecting transit-oriented development, plus local development pressure in the downtown area, have increased appetite among residents and the city for clearer rules about what the register protects and how to treat properties whose historic character has been altered. The changes staff proposed are intended to reduce uncertainty and create transparent procedures for listing, review of proposed work and, where appropriate, delisting.

What staff recommended and what the commission forwarded - Keep the city’s existing significance criteria (aligned to the National and California registers) but add explicit integrity thresholds tied to the seven standard integrity characteristics (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association). - Include the draft list of approximately 100 candidate properties in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources and forward the list and ordinance changes to City Council for direction and later formal adoption (staff indicated a tentative council review on Dec. 9, 2025 and a final adoption target in the second quarter of 2026). - Revise nomination and delisting procedures so listing and delisting are matters of public record and council action rather than a private owner “opt out.” Staff recommended removing the current owner “opt off” provision and establishing transparent procedures for council review. - Clarify the development-review process for alterations to resources on the local register or eligible for state or national registers. Staff proposed a three-tier review distinguishing exempt, minor and major changes and recommended adding enforcement measures and a clear demolition review process.

Public comments and concerns Community members urged greater emphasis on incentives and on practical assistance for property owners who might want to restore buildings so they retain or regain historic integrity. - Louise Katz said she feared a gap between policy and practice: “I’m very concerned that there seems to be a problem that we have a great disconnect between the issues of conservation and preservation,” she said, and asked the city to create programs to help owners restore altered buildings so they could remain eligible. - Robert Cox, speaking for Livable Mountain View, supported a formal downtown historic district and urged caution before removing five specific properties staff flagged as potentially ineligible. “Formal status is essential because current and pending state legislation provides no protections at all for historic properties and districts that are not designated such formally by the local government,” Cox said. - Kenneth Sugihara, representing the Mountain View Buddhist Temple, asked whether multi-building campuses should be treated as a single historic resource and questioned language that left delisting decisions solely to staff. - Nancy Adelster urged the commission to establish a formal historic district in downtown and to delay delisting the five flagged properties pending deeper study.

Commission discussion and clarifications Commissioners pressed staff on multiple practical questions: how owners could restore integrity (staff and Page & Turnbull consultants said they would compile a list of qualified architects and consultants), what financial incentives exist (staff and the director discussed the state Mills Act and a separate Mountain View property-tax rebate program), how long reviews and DPR-style evaluations cost (consultants estimated typical DPR/eligibility surveys in the $3,000–$7,000 range and project-level rehabilitation analyses about $3,000–$15,000 depending on scope), and how many Mills Act contracts the city currently has (staff reported about 20 Mills Act contracts and roughly 46 properties on the local register).

Commissioners also discussed state legislation (SB 79) and its potential effects; staff and the community development director noted that certain provisions of state law treat properties listed locally differently from those merely identified as potentially historic and that the law’s effective dates create urgency for clarifying the register and listing procedures.

Transition and delisting procedure forwarded to council Staff recommended, and the commission forwarded, a transition approach for the small number of properties staff found to lack sufficient integrity. Under the approach the commission approved to send to council: - Staff would include the five properties in the draft register materials but would not remove them immediately. Instead the city would provide a multi-year transition period during which property owners could pursue work to restore integrity. - The commission endorsed a staged timetable discussed in the meeting: a 4-year checkpoint at which property owners would need to have submitted a historic review application showing a viable restoration plan, and a longer 7-year window to complete improvements to retain listing eligibility and associated incentives (including continued Mills Act eligibility where applicable). The commission asked staff to report back with concrete steps to notify owners and to explore proactive options for downtown properties (see below).

Commission direction to staff and additional requests The commission asked staff to: - Provide direct notifications and supporting materials to every owner on the draft candidate list (staff said draft analyses and notices already were mailed or provided but agreed to follow up). Staff asked the public to submit additional comments by Dec. 1 to inform the register before it returns to council. - Return to the commission and council with a draft ordinance and clear, numeric definitions for exempt, minor and major alterations, and clear demolition and enforcement provisions. - Explore, at City Council’s direction, targeted proactive measures to assist downtown owners (the commission asked council to consider focused outreach, funding or façade/rehabilitation assistance for downtown properties cited by staff, while recognizing any funding or program decisions would be for council).

Votes at a glance — key motions recorded on Oct. 1, 2025 - Approve minutes of the Dec. 4, 2024 EPC meeting — Motion by Commissioner Jason Cranston; second by Commissioner Yin; vote: 6 yes, 0 no, 1 absent (Chair Gutierrez absent). (Outcome: approved.) - Forward staff recommendations on the draft list, the integrity threshold approach, nomination/delisting processes and the development-review approach to City Council (including the 4-year checkpoint / 7-year completion timeline for properties lacking integrity) — Motion by Commissioner Dempsey; second by Commissioner Yin; roll-call outcome reported by the clerk (Outcome: approved by majority; commission voted to forward the package to council). - Add 1181 Bonita Avenue to the list of candidate properties under consideration — Motion moved and seconded on the floor; vote: 5 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention (Commissioner Donahue recused for proximity), 1 absent. (Outcome: approved for forwarding.)

What happens next Staff said the City Council will review the draft list and ordinance language later this year (the City Council review was tentatively scheduled for Dec. 9, 2025) and staff expects a final ordinance adoption process in 2026. Staff told the commission it will accept written public comment through Dec. 1 and will continue outreach and follow-up to property owners listed in the draft materials.

Notes and clarifications - Staff and consultants repeatedly emphasized that CEQA typically requires discretionary approvals to analyze and disclose historic-resource impacts, and that state law changes (including SB 79) make the distinction between locally listed resources and potentially eligible resources legally meaningful. - Staff said it would compile lists of qualified consultants and architects and share resources with property owners who wish to pursue restorations. - Staff estimated typical consultant costs for property-level historic evaluations in the $3,000–$7,000 range; project-level rehabilitation/Secretary of the Interior Standards analyses were estimated roughly $3,000–$15,000 depending on scope.

Ending The commission’s recommendation does not finalize any local ordinance change; it sends staff’s draft register and code updates to City Council and asks council to consider direction and any funding or program decisions. Staff and the EPC said they will continue outreach and will present a draft ordinance and development-review language for Council consideration in the coming months.