September 2025

Chair Gutierrez, Vice Chair Nunez, and Members of the EPC,

In addition to the letter written by Livable Mountain View, we would like to add some comments about the five properties described as “ineligible properties” on pages 13-15 of the staff report. The staff report states: “Staff recommends developing a process whereby these properties have an opportunity to improve their integrity within five years before being removed from the MV Register. The property owners of these five properties would need to submit an application with an analysis showing that the improvements would return sufficient integrity to be eligible for continued listing in the MV Register. “

The architectural integrity of the building is not the sole criterion by which the historical status of the building should be judged. For example, the Rogers building at 142-156 Castro Street is historically significant because it was the site of Mountain View’s first post office.

Furthermore, the building, which was constructed in 1894 and rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake, is an integral part of Mountain View’s historic retail district H. Allowing it to be demolished would destroy the look and feel of the core of that district. Furthermore, this property has already been granted Mills Act status. Removing that status without the consent of the owner could be viewed as a taking, subjecting the city to lawsuits. For these reasons, we oppose revoking the building’s Mills Act status.

As for the four other buildings, the staff report does not include enough information to determine whether their historic merits rise above the narrow characterization of historic status based on architectural integrity alone. Most detailed analysis should be done by staff and the consultants before the EPC and council deems these buildings to be “ineligible properties”.

Robert Cox and Louise Katz  

Chair Guiterrez, Vice Chair Nunez, and Members of the EPC,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 5.1: Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update .

We appreciate the hard work that has gone into this item, both by staff and their consultants, Paige and Turnbull.

In addition to what is recommended in the staff report, we support the establishment of a historic district which would include the Downtown Precise Plan District H (a.k.a. historic retail district) and buildings with similar businesses on Villa and West Dana Street, including the Weilheimer House/Chez TJ (938 Villa St) and Air Base Laundry /Tied House/Legal Zoom (954 Villa St).

Our history as a city is not simply that of Castro Street. The National Park Service defines a historic district as a “significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical developments.”  Historic districts can have numerous components considered together which represent any or all of the social, cultural, economic, and/or architectural history of a community.  A focus solely on individual properties within a district might not exhibit those same patterns when viewed alone. Therefore, our historic district should reflect how the commercial district evolved since the 19th century and not be restricted to the age and number of specific buildings.  Historic districts can and likely will take many forms in a commercial area or residential neighborhood.  

The earliest history of Castro Street, surrounding streets and the Old Mountain View neighborhood street adheres to the definition of historic district as follows: 

• 1852 The first Mountain View was a tiny settlement formed around the first stagecoach stop for service originated by John W. Whisman near Grant Road and El Camino.  The first general store is built.
• 1853 The Weilheimer brothers, Seligman and Samuel, arrived from Germany, take a shot at the American Dream and open the second general merchandise store.  More businesses follow. The settlement is named Mountain View in 1854..
• 1864 The railroad in the form of the Southern Pacific arrived and by locating its rail line in its present location, the Mountain View we know today grew and prospered.
• 1865 The new Mountain View town grid that we now call the Old Mountain View neighborhood was laid out and remains today with Castro as the main street.  The area was called Villa Lands.

Exhibit 3 (Historic Context Statement, p. 27) notes that “historic districts must work together to tell the story of their significance and must have distinguishable boundaries.” Also, “Boundaries of a historic district are frequently defined by … their connection to an event (i.e. commercial district)”.  We acknowledge there are a number of properties within this area we have defined which should be eligible for the local, state, and/or national registers based on significant events that occurred there, persons associated with the properties, and/or the buildings design and construction.  But as stated by the National Park Service,  we assert that this area as a whole has historic significance because it is well documented that historically it was the Southern Pacific Railroad which sparked the economic growth of downtown Mountain View, the street grid of the Old Mountain View neighborhood and the state at large.  

We therefore request that the EPC direct council to formally establish the historic district we have described above as a FORMAL historic district. It is important that the EPC and council act now to formally establish this district, because current and pending state legislation (e.g. SB79) provides no protections for historic properties and districts that are not designated as such by local government.

 Beyond this, we support the recommendations in Table 4 (page 18):

1. Remove the unilateral owner opt-off provision and the required owner approval within the Council nomination process.
2. Create a process for neighborhoods or districts to nominate themselves, subject to Council approval.
3. List properties on the Mountain View Register if an official determination of eligibility is made by the California Office of Historic Preservation or the National Parks Service, which is a formal process that does not depend on owner acceptance.
4. Provide delisting procedures that consider findings, including reassessment of eligibility through further analysis, if a listed property becomes a safety hazard, is damaged by a natural disaster, or an owner faces an economic hardship related to a property’s listing.

We also support the recommendations in Table 5 (page 20):

1. Clarify and adopt a comprehensive list of exempt alterations.
2. Define “minor alterations” (e.g., in-kind replacement of doors and windows, alterations not visible from the public right-of-way, such as rear additions, and changes to noncharacter-defining features) and provide a staff-level review process.
3. Define “major alterations” (e.g., relocation, new openings, visible additions, and alterations that would alter, remove, or obscure character-defining features) for review through an Administrative Zoning public hearing.
4. Create a process for delisting a property from the Mountain View Register, such as when demolition of a structure is required.
5. Incorporate enforcement measures for property neglect, unauthorized alterations, or demolition without permits.
6. Align ordinance permit review procedures with environmental review requirements under CEQA.
7. Require contributing properties in a historic district to adhere to the review processes described in the report.

Thank you for considering our views on this important topic.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Hala Alshahwany, Maureen Blando, Jerry Steach, Leslie Friedman, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Nancy Stuhr, and Nazanin Dashtara

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View  

TITLE: PLEASE VETO SB79

Governor Newsom,

We stand with Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles and other public officials urging you to veto SB79.

Despite recent amendments, this proposed legislation is still deeply flawed. The historic protections it offers are only for buildings on a city’s local historic register. There is no provision for historic districts like Mountain View’s three-block historic retail district. SB79 would allow buildings which are seven stories or higher to be constructed immediately adjacent to buildings on our local historic register, destroying the look and feel of a unique historic retail district. Cities with historic districts near transit up and down the Bay Area Peninsula will be similarly impacted.

Mountain View is one of only two cities in Santa Clara County with a state pro-housing designation. In the last few years, our city council has upzoned large areas of our city even beyond what was required in our housing element despite being a city of only 13 square miles. Additional upzoning from SB79 will seriously challenge the limits of our infrastructure for which there will be no state funding.

And SB79 does nothing to improve the amount of AFFORDABLE housing that can be constructed near transit stations. Mountain View, like other Bay Area cities, faces a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing, not luxury housing. Almost 15% of the apartments constructed in our city since 2016 lie vacant. Destroying residential neighborhoods to build more of them will not make housing more affordable in our city.  

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Nazanin Dashtara, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Toni Rath, Peter Spitzer, Maureen Blando, Jerry Steach, David Lewis, Carol Lewis, Hala Alshahwany, Carole Griggs, Leslie Friedman, Nancy Stuhr, Natalie Solomon, Sean O’Malley, Diane Gazzano, Lorrie Wormald, Alice De Guzman, and Julia Ha

For the Steering Commitee of Livable Mountain View
Mountain View, California

OPPOSE SB79: Insufficient historic protections

Senator Becker,

We urge you to vote NO when SB79 comes back to the senate for its concurrence vote. While the bill was amended in the Assembly to allow some protections for buildings on a city’s local historic register, these will be insufficient to preserve the look and feel of Mountain View’s Historic Retail District H and the immediate vicinity, which includes buildings not only on our city’s local historic register, but also eligible for the California and National Historic Registers.

The key point is that many buildings on these historic registers are adjacent to others which are not on those registers, but complement their look and feel to provide a historic presence in the core three blocks of our downtown. SB79 would allow these adjacent buildings to be demolished and replaced by 7 story or higher modern buildings. These new buildings would tower over our few remaining historical buildings leaving us with a sad reminder of who we once were and what we once had.  Our former historic retail district would be ruined.

Thank you for considering our views on this critical issue.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Nazanin Dashtara, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Toni Rath, Peter Spitzer, Maureen Blando, Jerry Steach, David Lewis, Carol Lewis, Hala Alshahwany, Carole Griggs, Leslie Friedman, Nancy Stuhr, Natalie Solomon, Sean O’Malley, Diane Gazzano, Lorrie Wormald, and Alice DeGuzman 

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Santa Clara County Assessor Candidate Rushi Kumar:

Several members of the Livable Mountain View steering committee received communications from your campaign, indicating that you are seeking our organization’s endorsement for your candidacy for Santa Clara County assessor.

Livable Mountain View will not be endorsing a candidate for the Santa Clara County Assessor’s race this year.

Our organization’s focus is on lobbying on land use issues that affect the City of Mountain View. While we have done candidate endorsements, we only endorse candidates for offices in which the elected official will have a significant role in shaping the land use policy in Mountain View. Consequently, all our previous candidates’ endorsements were for those running for Mountain View City Council.

Once again, thank you for your interest in Livable Mountain View.

Robert Cox, Jerry Steach, Carole Griggs, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Maureen Blando, Leslie Friedman, Hala Alshahwany, Peter Spitzer, and Nancy Stuhr

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View