Mayor Ramos, Vice Mayor Clark, members of the Mountain View City Council and City Planning Staff,

First, let us congratulate Mayor Ramos and Vice Mayor Clark on their election to the offices of mayor and vice-mayor last Tuesday.

As we have continued our efforts to understand the content and ramifications of SB79 this letter provides some additional information and comments.  We are providing this in advance of the upcoming staff report for the council study session scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2026, during which there will be options for an SB79 local alternative plan for the council to review.

(1) Although SB79 allows a local alternative plan to designate 10% of a transit-oriented development zone as eligible for a historic exception, the area that we are asking is less than 3% of the downtown Caltrain transit-oriented development zone.  This means that more than 97% of the downtown Caltrain transit-oriented development would be available for 6-9 story buildings provided by the SB79 default regulations. 

(2) If we transfer the density to the East Whisman Precise Plan in the Light Rail Station transit-oriented development zones, no city upzoning of the precise plan area will be needed. This is because the East Whisman Precise Plan already contains zoning for 6-9 story buildings. As was said often in the SB79 hearings, “cities get credit for the upzoning that they have already done”. By our measurements, there is enough capacity in just the area south of Middlefield Road between North Whisman Road and SR 237 to accommodate the SB79 zoning transfer to preserve the downtown commercial retail district. This area contains no neighborhood with single-family or duplex buildings \hat would be impacted by having high-density residential built nearby.

(3) Finally, there are good reasons for councilmembers, even those who want some projects to proceed within our proposed historic district, to support an SB79 local alternative plan.  With an SB79 local alternative plan in place, the COUNCIL can (a) make the decision about whether to take such projects as GATEKEEPER projects and thereby get community benefits, and (b) retain existing zoning and rules that require ground-floor retail and height transitions to historic buildings. These benefits of the existing zoning will be lost without an SB79 local alternative plan as will the ability of our elected representatives to exercise local control. 

Thanks in advance for considering this additional information.

As always, if there is anything we have written that requires clarification, please reach out to us. We will be happy to answer questions before the upcoming study session.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Leslie Friedman, Nancy Stuhr, Maureen Blando, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Lorrie Wormald, Hala Alshahwany, Chuck Muir, Julie Muir

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos and Members of the City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 6.1 “Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update.”

We appreciate the years of effort staff and consultants Page and Turnbull have put forth to get us to this point. However, Senate Bill 79 (SB79) has altered how we must plan our city to fulfill density mandates and created conditions and deadlines for doing so which impact our historic downtown.

Urgent Need for Action. For Livable Mountain View and our city, the key urgent need is the establishment of a historic district including the downtown commercial retail district in and around the 100-300 blocks of Castro Street due to the SB79 mandate rezoning the area for 6-9 stories of housing by right unless we implement an SB79 local alternative plan to exempt our historic commercial retail district. This requires submission of a completed plan by the July 1, 2026 deadline which is when the law takes effect.  Getting a state-validated SB79 local alternative plan assures there is no loss of housing density potential provided by SB79. 

We are fortunate to have the ability to implement such a plan which requires only 10 percent of the downtown commercial retail district to be included in a historic district exemption.  We recommend that the density be transferred to the three transit-oriented development zones within Mountain View which are centered on the VTA Light Rail stations.

Why save the downtown commercial retail district (Area H and commercial parts of areas A, B, F, and G)?

Without an official historic district and instead saving only a few designated buildings based on age and architecture, under SB79, not only some buildings but also the visible history of Mountain View as a pioneer-founded city could be lost.

“The personality of any city is not just dependent on its great buildings and great places but is created by the total complex of large and small, important and minor, individual and the mass…Minor buildings, in the aggregate, create the major urban scene. They are the body of any city. The body is being rapidly carved up bit by bit and sometimes in whole chunks…History is dead in such a city just as though it never existed.”  (Carl Feiss, Our Lost Inheritance)

Our downtown commercial retail district is the historic core of our city. It stands almost exactly as it was set out in the 1860’s with the same continuous use and purpose. There is no other place in our small city that is like it. That unique history plays a big role in drawing locals and people from other cities to the downtown, generating business for local businesses and tax revenue for Mountain View.

We have the following comments with regard what is in the staff report regarding historic districts:

1. The key requirement for SB79 exemption is that the exemption area be added to the city’s local historic register. The city is granted discretion as to what sites it will add. State and federal guidelines for historic districts help inform regarding eligibility but are not requirements. Our city has the final say.

2. The staff report raises the issue of integrity of buildings and whether they appear significantly different from when originally built. Yet, a historic district is not a matter of a particular number or age of buildings, nor architecture. In a historic district some buildings contribute to the historic merit of the district and others do not.  And because history is ongoing, buildings need not be of a certain age to merit consideration.  There is no need to set a numerical limit to buildings contributing to historic merit or disqualify a district because it contains those that do not.

“A historic district is a formally designated group of buildings, structures, site and spaces that relate to one another historically, architecturally, and/or culturally.

A district can span part or all of a neighborhood. It can be large or small, can represent any architectural style(s), and can include streetscape and landscape elements.

Individual buildings within a district don’t need to be highly significant on their own. The area’s overall cohesiveness, uniqueness, and architectural integrity are what matters.“  See

“ https://www.smheritage.org/about-historic-districts#:~:text=What%20Are%20Historic%20Districts?,Designation%20by%20the%20city/municipality”

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.”  See https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4781/Historic-Resources-and-Districts/FAQs

3. The staff report suggests that a percentage of property owners within the proposed historic district approve the nomination process. Not only is this NOT a requirement, due to the urgency of SB79 we believe this is too restrictive of an approach and is not supported by law. While we agree property owners should be able to nominate a historic district, by law individuals, citizen organizations and city officials including city council and staff can nominate one as well and move the process forward.  It should be noted that if owners object to property being nominated and deemed eligible for state and/or federal historic registers that means the property is not listed on the official registers and the owners cannot display an identifying plaque. But the buildings retain their eligible historic status. 

4. We also acknowledge the demands on staff to complete other projects that have been calendared prior to the exigency of SB 79. We ask council to provide staff direction on land use items on the council work plan that can be delayed six months so that urgent work on an SB79 local alternative plan can be completed on time.

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

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and Members of the City Council,

We understand the city council will have a public hearing on Tuesday, December 9, on the Historic Ordinance and Local Register Update.  

As the impact of SB79 on our historic downtown is now known, the designation of a historic district to be placed on the Mountain View local historic register (which would include the downtown historic retail district and adjacent commercial buildings) is now one of the most significant and time-sensitive of the actions needed to preserve our downtown with the creation of an SB79 local alternative plan.  

We request the support of council on this issue as there is no other option if we are to have a historic downtown that preserves the history and identity of our city, particularly in this time of urbanization. 

Please see the attached slides numbers 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18-20 to see why declaring this historic district is a key component to an SB79 local alternative plan. In particular, note that the Redwood City Extended Main Street historic district, described on slide 20, is similar in many ways to our downtown historic retail district and is already certified as an official historic district.

We are happy to answer any questions about our request for a historic district. Also, we would be happy to set up a time (via Zoom or in person) to walk through this updated rendition of our slides.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Peter Spitzer, Hala Alshahwany, Leslie Friedman, Maureen Blando, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Nazanin Dashtata, Jerry Steach, Nancy Stuhr, Lorraine Wormald, Alice De Guzman, David Lewis, Carol Lewis, and Julia Ha

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and members of the City Council, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on item 4.3: Amendment of Section 11 of City Council Policy A-13.

We support this amendment and ask for your vote of approval. It is in the public interest to ensure that any council member who wants his or her vote on a council matter changed must do so in a timely fashion. Advocacy groups such as ours often spend much time rallying public support for an issue before approaching the council with our recommendations. Having a matter brought back months later for a new vote diminishes the public’s ability to effectively organize and present its views to the council. Furthermore, all public stakeholders deserve the certainty that a strict time limit on council vote changes provides.  

Thank you for considering our views.

Robert Cox, Maureen Blando, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Jerry Steach, Julia Ha, Nazanin Dashtara, Chuck Muir, Hala Alshahwany, Leslie Friedman, David and Carol Lewis, Lorrie Wormald, and Nancy Stuhr

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View 

Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and Members of the Mountain View City Council, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 6.2: Gatekeeper Process 

1. We support the historic preservation fee. At the discussion of the Historic Ordinance and Register Update at the last EPC meeting, the EPC supported finding money to restore the historic facades of buildings on Mountain View’s local historic register, particularly those in the downtown.  A key example is the Rogers Building 142-156 Castro Street, which could lose its position on the local historic register unless the façade is restored. Under SB79, such buildings could be demolished if they do not remain on the local historic register.
2. We support the recommendation on the park fee as a community benefit. While a 25% of property dedication for park land may seem out of proportion compared to alternative benefits, the council should keep in mind that dedicating land for a park would be done as an alternative to paying the park in-lieu fee. 
3. We support removing the community facility benefit. Typically, this “benefit” has been to allow the occasional use of an office conference room by community organizations. We do not know of any community organizations that have taken advantage of such a benefit here in Mountain View. It is much less useful now that many community groups hold many of their meetings on Zoom. In any case, this “benefit” is of miniscule value compared to something substantial like a dedicated park.  We do not want to encourage developers to opt for it as alternate to a real community benefit.

 Thank you for listening to our views.

 Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Peter Spitzer, Julia Ha, Hala Alshahwany, and Nazanin Dashtara

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

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