Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Q&A - August 26, 2025
Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Q&A - August 26, 2025
The City of Mountain View held a virtual community Q&A session on August 26, 2025, from approximately 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM to discuss the ongoing update to the historic preservation ordinance and register. The meeting was led by project manager Ella Karachian, planning manager Eric Anderson, and consultants from Page & Turnbull (Christina Dykis Brubs and Hannah Simonson). The team presented background on the survey process, eligibility criteria, benefits and costs of historic designation, and next steps. Approximately 26-27 community members attended. The session focused on answering questions rather than formal decision-making.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Jenna Yarkin (representing the Umbra family, property at 987 Ringstorf): Noted potential factual inaccuracies in the draft survey evaluation forms for the property and asked how to correct them. Staff directed her to email Ella Karachian or request a meeting.
- Robert Cox (Livable Mountain View): Asked about recent CEQA reform implications, questioning whether a building must be deemed historic before a development proposal to be considered. Staff clarified that the survey aims to pre-identify eligible properties. He also inquired about whether properties not on the draft list could be appealed; staff confirmed community feedback is welcome and the process is not final.
- Halla (last name not given): Pushed for more transparency about the draft list, specifically the number of downtown Castro Street properties identified as eligible. Staff explained that five National Register nominations were prepared separately, but many more properties were evaluated, and encouraged reviewing the list online.
- Luis (last name not given) (Livable Mountain View): Expressed frustration that the city previously refused to consider the Chase Bank building (1977) for historic designation because it was under 50 years old, despite its Richardsonian arches and artistic significance. He urged preservation of the facade and brickwork during redevelopment. Staff noted the building has been found eligible for the National and California Registers in the survey, and CEQA review is ongoing; they directed him to the project planner Margaret Neto.
- Peter Katz (no relation): Emphasized the need for clarity on what building features can and cannot be altered, citing the examples of 444 Castro Street (which he noted was controversial when built) and the importance of community input in defining historic significance. Staff agreed and noted that character-defining features are listed in the evaluation forms.
- Leslie (last name not given): Raised a property associated with a longtime, internationally recognized artist (a house from ~1904-1910) and questioned how integrity and significance are balanced—whether a modest house with important cultural associations counts. Staff explained that the survey includes such properties, and community members can submit additional information to support eligibility.
- Q&A participant (multiple): Asked about preservation easements, ADU permitting on historic properties, and the difference between eligible and designated registers. Staff clarified that preservation easements are perpetual, while Mills Act contracts are 10-year renewable terms; ADU state law overrides local ordinance; eligibility triggers CEQA, but local designation provides incentives.
Discussion Items
- Presentation Overview: Staff explained the purpose of the historic preservation update: to provide clarity on historic resources, identify age-eligible properties (over 50 years old), and streamline environmental review. They detailed the three levels of designation (National, California, Mountain View registers) and the criteria for significance (association with events, persons, architecture, or information potential). Integrity (retention of physical features) is also required.
- CEQA Implications: Staff noted that CEQA review is triggered by discretionary permits for commercial, multifamily, and institutional properties, but single-family/duplex projects in standard zones are exempt unless already designated. The city’s survey pre-identifies eligible properties, potentially saving owners from hiring consultants later.
- Benefits of Local Designation: Included the Mills Act property tax reduction, state historical building code alternatives, permit fee exemptions, and some zoning flexibility. Staff acknowledged potential incentives from future ordinance updates (e.g., transfer of development rights) and sought community input.
- Draft List of Eligible Properties: The intensive survey identified approximately 200 properties (out of 10,000-15,000 age-eligible buildings) as potentially eligible for the local register. The list is available on the project website. Staff emphasized that corrections and additions are welcome via email or the September 3rd community meeting.
- Participant Count: Ella Karachian noted about 26-27 attendees at the virtual meeting.
Key Outcomes
- Next Steps: The city will hold an in-person community meeting on September 3, 2025, at the Mountain View Community Center (on Rangsurf Avenue) to gather feedback on criteria, the draft list, and process improvements. The Environmental Planning Commission will review recommendations on October 1, 2025, and City Council on November 18, 2025. Final approval of the updated ordinance and register is expected in 2026.
- No Votes Taken: No formal decisions were made; the meeting was informational and intended to answer questions.
- Directions Given: Staff encouraged property owners to review the draft evaluation forms online (project website) and submit corrections or additional historic information via email to Ella Karachian. The city also plans to develop a future self-nomination process for the local register.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. I'm Ella Karachian, the project manager. I'm joined tonight by Eric Anderson, the planning manager and our consultant team, Paige and Turnbull, Christina Dykis Brubs, and Hannah Simonson. As you may know, the City of Mountain View is updating the historic preservation ordinance and register. And as part of this effort, we have conducted an intensive survey of properties, and we have prepared a draft list of privately owned properties that appear to be eligible for listing in the local register. Tonight, we are here to give you some background information on the process and answer your questions. We will uh start with the roughly 15 minutes presentation and we will spend the rest of the time answering your questions. We are recording this meeting, and uh we will be available on YouTube in a few days. Uh uh, what does what is the purpose of this uh virtual QA? This presentation will talk about what it means to be listed on a historic register, including the potential costs and benefits. We will also identify additional opportunities for you to provide input to this project. And mostly we are here tonight to inform you about this process. Some of you may know a lot about it already, but others may be hearing about it for the first time. Um why do cities engage in historic preservation? There are many reasons, but uh, four primary ones are listed on this slide. It will help retain historic buildings and neighborhoods that make the city unique. It helps to preserve uh there is a replaceable uh architectural theatre features and materials. It may also help to maintain and the community character in older neighborhoods, and it can also help avoid sending materials to landfills. And then I think Christina is going to go over the mixed field slides. Thanks, Ella. Uh, again, my name is Christina Dykus Bropes. Um, I'm a principal at Page and Turnbull. We're an architecture and planning historic preservation firm based in San Francisco. And we also have an office in San Jose. Um, and we've been working with the City of Mountain View on this project for a couple of years now. Uh so um just to start out, uh, why is a historic resource ordinance and register update in Mountain View necessary? It provides more clarity and certainty on what historic resources exist in Mountain View. Um, we'll talk about this a little bit more in this presentation. Um it identifies eligible historic resources for more efficient project review for environmental review, and I have a slide a little bit later specifically about that. Some properties have become what we call age eligible since previous historic surveys or register updates. Um, age eligible means that they've become 50 years old, which is a threshold that we often use for potential historic significance. And so, if uh a previous historic study, historic survey was done, let's say 20 years ago, there are properties now that um may have become 50 years old that we want to take a look at and see if they have historic significance because they just haven't been uh reviewed before. And then lastly, the ordinance uh will be updated with clarifications and improvements, including permitting and incentives, and we're just starting to on the path of um of considering what updates we'll want to make uh for the historic preservation ordinance. So uh we'll start with some of the basics and then get a little bit more detailed about um Mountain View's program and what this may mean for you and your property. So to start out, uh there are three levels of historic designation. Uh, there's the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. They have similar criteria for um for eligibility. And so uh you've been invited to this presentation because in our uh survey of the city of Mountain View, we've identified that your property uh appears eligible under at least one of these um for at least one of these historic registers. Historic resources can be individual properties, or there can also be historic districts that are identified that would be comprised of many properties with a similar historic significance that they all contribute to. So what is a historic resource? Historic resources can be significant in association with an important event, an important person, a distinctive example of an architectural style, construction type or work of a master designer architect, or for archaeology or information potential. These are basically the criteria for potential significance in each of the historic registers. And a property can be found significant for one or more of these reasons. It just depends on the property. It doesn't have more significance if you are significant for an association with an important event and architecture. It just means that you have different reasons for significance. And then to be eligible for a historic register, you not only need to have historic significance that has, you know, historic research that supports that finding, but also what we call integrity, which means that the property retains physical features that convey its reason for significance that was identified, as well as that period that the significant era, the period of significance associated with that property. And then as I mentioned before, properties are typically evaluated for potential historic significance after they are 50 years old. It's not a hard and set rule for some of these registers, but 50 years is often thought of as the threshold for being able to have sufficient distance, historical distance and perspective to be able to identify historic significance.
openpublica.com