Mountain View City Council Meeting – December 9, 2025

The City Council held a regular meeting on December 9, 2025, covering the consent calendar, public comments, and a major discussion on updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and local register. Key actions included unanimous approval of consent items and a comprehensive motion directing staff on historic preservation policy.

Consent Calendar

• Item 4.1: Approved resolution to settle Alice Acuno v. City of Mountain View for $275,000.
• Item 4.2: Approved resolution to settle Ella Kobzanets v. City of Mountain View for $400,000.
• Item 4.3: Approved resolution reappointing Tina Fan and appointing Shweta Submanian to the Environmental Planning Commission.
• Item 4.4: Introduced an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 36, Article 13 (Tenant Relocation Assistance) with a new article in Chapter 46. The ordinance includes caps on moving costs based on unit size and extension of temporary displacement from 90 to 180 days. Second reading set for January 27, 2026. Unanimously approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Oral Communications (Non-Agenda):
  • Albert reported 309 RVs on city streets, up from 297 a month ago, and described a bike theft possibly linked to RV encampments. He urged stronger action after the Navarro agreement expires.
  • James Guzman criticized the insinuation that RV residents are connected to crime, calling it inappropriate.
  • Kevin Ma noted the YouTube stream was not working.
• Historic Preservation Ordinance:
  • Religious and property owners opposed to listing: Julie Satake-Ryu (Mountain View Buddhist Temple) thanked the council for removing religious sites from the draft register. John Martinez, George Aviat (44-year restaurant owner), Jim Spengler (Spangler Mortuaries), Massimo Prati, and representatives of 134 Castro Street and 895 Villa Street all opposed involuntary listing, citing financial hardship and lack of clarity. Matthew Francois reiterated the Buddhist Temple’s objection under state law.
  • Supporters of historic preservation and downtown district: Robert Cox (Livable Mountain View) urged a downtown historic district to counteract SB 79, proposing a preservation area around Castro Street. Louise Katz supported delaying other city projects to prioritize an SB 79 alternative plan. Jerry Stich and others emphasized economic benefits and community character.
  • Housing advocates: James Kuzma (Mountain View YIMBY) and Matthew Marting argued for voluntary listing and cautioned against overbroad historic designations that hinder housing. David Watson opposed forced designations, stating the city should bear costs for preservation.
  • Technical speakers: Christina Dykus-Bropes (Page & Turnbull) and Stacey Kozakiewicz clarified eligibility criteria and state/federal register processes.

Discussion Items

• Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register Update: Planning Manager Eric Anderson presented the staff report covering four topics: resource eligibility, treatment of ineligible properties, nomination/listing/delisting processes, and development review. Key points included:
  • Removal of religious sites from the draft list without owner consent.
  • Adoption of integrity thresholds; five currently listed properties may be ineligible and given a period to improve integrity (4 years to apply, 3 years to complete).
  • Proposed changes: eliminate owner opt-out provision; allow council-controlled listing/delisting; create process for neighborhood-nominated districts; distinguish minor/major alterations with streamlined review for exempt and minor work.
  • SB 79 implications: properties listed by 2025 are exempt; a local alternative plan could exempt newly listed properties in exchange for more density elsewhere.
  • Councilmembers recused themselves (Hicks, Clark, McAllister) for properties near their residences; staff presented 12 specific properties on a slide for discussion.
• Council Deliberation:
  • Many members expressed discomfort with picking individual properties without full ordinance details. Council Member Clark proposed a matrix showing which properties are state/national eligible and which are listed solely for design/age, plus owner sentiment data.
  • Council voted on a motion by Ramirez, seconded by Hicks, that passed unanimously (7-0). The motion directed staff to:
    1. Support staff recommendations for treatment of the five ineligible properties (4-year application window, 3-year completion).
    2. Support development review process updates as recommended by staff.
    3. Support nomination, listing, and delisting process updates, but return with additional options for historic district creation, including safeguards for property owner engagement and a potential council-override mechanism only if criteria are met.
    4. Include Council Member Hicks’ streamlining suggestions: exempt rear additions not significantly visible from the front and evaluate easier ADU processes for historic properties.
    5. Create a matrix of the proposed draft list (approx. 90 non-religious properties) showing which are already eligible for state/national registers and which would be listed solely on design/age criteria; additionally, conduct outreach to property owners to gather sentiment before the register is finalized in Q2 2026.

Key Outcomes

• Unanimous vote (7-0) on the consolidated motion as described above.
• The consent calendar was approved 7-0.
• The historic preservation ordinance and register update will return to council in Q2 2026 with additional analysis and owner input.
• Religious properties are removed from the draft register per staff recommendation.
• Council also informally signaled interest in completing the register for the downtown Castro Street area, but no formal action was taken on that subset.
• The meeting was adjourned in memory of former mayor Norman Shaske.