Livable Mountain View comment on Item 5.1 “Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update” (Environmental Planning Commission 10/1/2025)

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