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”.
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):
Remove the unilateral owner opt-off provision and the required owner approval within the Council nomination process.
Create a process for neighborhoods or districts to nominate themselves, subject to Council approval.
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.
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):
Clarify and adopt a comprehensive list of exempt alterations.
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.
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.
Create a process for delisting a property from the Mountain View Register, such as when demolition of a structure is required.
Incorporate enforcement measures for property neglect, unauthorized alterations, or demolition without permits.
Align ordinance permit review procedures with environmental review requirements under CEQA.
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
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
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
First, we would like to thank the Mountain View Voice for drawing attention to Senate Bill 79 (SB79), which if passed, could have profound consequences to our city’s downtown historical retail district and residential Mountain View neighborhoods.
The language of the bill is complex. Information received in answers to questions about its impacts from Senator’s Weiner’s office have not been entirely consistent. To understand the bill’s impact, it is imperative to consult the text of the bill itself. If it is passed into law, the text of the bill will be standard guiding its implementation.
SB79 is a threat to Mountain View’s Historic Retail District
In response to Livable Mountain View’s concerns that the bill could lead to the replacement of Mountain View’s downtown historic retail district (the 100-300 blocks of Castro Street), the Voice cites SB79’s provision for a local alternative plan. It is important to note that there are limitations set in the text of SB79 to what can be proposed in such an alternative plan. In particular, section 65912.161 (a)(2) reads:
The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on which the plan allows residential use by more than 50 percent below that permitted under this chapter.
Mountain View’s downtown historical retail district would be classified at Tier1 area under SB79:
“Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop within an urban transit county served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.
The SB79 text states that:
For a transit-oriented housing development project within one-quarter mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, , … a local government shall not impose any height limit less than 75 feet.
For a transit-oriented housing development project further than one-quarter mile but within one-half mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, … a local government shall not impose any height limit less than 65 feet.
Applying the rule that under a local alternate plan that the maximum allowed density will not less than 50% of what is permitted, means that heights permitted in the local alternative plan may not be less than 32.5 feet within ½ mile of the Caltrain station and not less than 37.5 feet within ¼ mile of the Caltrain station. These height limits imply a minimum allowance of 3-4 story residential buildings (6-8 stories with the state density bonus), where 1-2 story historical buildings exist now. This puts Mountain View’s entire downtown historic retail district at risk.
SB79 Local Alternative Plans Explicitly Permit Impact Zones to be declared around Bus Stops
The Voice article states that SB79 “would not apply to bus lines in the city”. However, the SB79 Section 65912.161 (e) states:
A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may designate any other major transit stop or stop along a high-quality transit corridor that is not already identified as a transit-oriented development stop as a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop.
The California Public Resources Code, Section 21155, defines a high-quality transit corridor as “a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.” The Castro and Showers bus stops along El Camino have service intervals during morning and evening peak times of less than 15 minutes, and so could be included in an SB79 local alternative plan which seeks to add density to compensate for density lessened in other areas.
SB79 and Mountain View’s Historic Preservation and Register Update Do Not Contain Explicit Protections for the Historic Retail District
The Voice article quotes Vice Mayor Ramos, saying: “If it’s specific properties that have truly historic context then I don’t doubt that we can find ways to make that protected.” However, SB79 specifically (and purposely) contains no language stating that historic buildings will have any special consideration. Much of the debate around amendments to SB79 involves whether language protecting historic buildings will be added.
Mountain View is currently updating its Historic Preservation and Register Update. There is already a draft list of buildings being circulated for comment. But there is no city effort to provide special historic status to the entire historic retail district which encompasses the 100-300 blocks of Castro Street and the area between Bryant and Hope Streets. This means that even if a few buildings in the historic retail district are eventually qualified as historic before developers tear them down, others adjacent to them could be demolished and replaced with buildings which are a minimum of 3-4 stories and up to 14 stories, towering over the few remaining historical buildings leaving us with a sad reminder of who we once were and what we once had.
Robert Cox and Louise Katz For the Steering Committe of Livable Mountain View
We are sending you this letter in opposition to Senate Bill 79, introduced by Senator Scott Wiener.
The city of Mountain View has consistently been an advocate for good development. We are one of the few cities in the region that has earned a pro-housing designation from the legislature. Our city has accomplished this with the participation of all stakeholders when it enacts housing policy.
SB79 would allow five to seven story buildings (10 to 14 with state density bonus) to be built 5 feet from a single-family home or small apartment building. We have these small buildings throughout our community. This proposed legislation, SB79, would not conform to the precise plans that we already have in place, which support increased density. SB79 fails to require any additional affordable and low-income housing, and does not require a single concession from developers. It fails to protect any historical resource now or in the future. This bill could open the door to the destruction of all or part of Mountain View’s historic retail district (the 100-300 blocks of Castro Street), the heart of our community.
According to our Rental Housing Committee, Mountain View has a 12.5 percent vacancy rate for market-rate apartments built in the last eight years. The owners of these apartments are obviously willing to let housing sit vacant to keep rents high. Allowing five to seven story buildings that deny the occupants of neighboring buildings light and privacy will not change those high vacancy rates, and will not lower rental pricing.
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, Sean O’Malley, Diane Gazzano, Lorrie Wormald, Alice DeGuzman, Chuck Muir, Julie Muir, and Roger Noel
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
Mountain View Caltrain Station: 6-7 story buildings (12-14 stories with state density bonus)
San Antonio Caltrain Station: 6-7 story buildings (12-14 stories with state density bonus)
El Camino & Showers Bus Rapid Transit 522: 5-6 story buildings (10-12 stories with state density bonus)
SB79 Section 65912.161 (e): A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may designate any other major transit stop or stop along a high-quality transit corridor that is not already identified as a transit-oriented development stop as a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop.
El Camino & Castro Bus Rapid Transit 522: 5-6 story buildings (10-12 stories with state density bonus)
SB79 Section 65912.161 (e): A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may designate any other major transit stop or stop along a high-quality transit corridor that is not already identified as a transit-oriented development stop as a Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop.
Whisman Light Rail Station: 5-6 story buildings (10-12 stories with state density bonus)
Middlefield Light Rail Station: 5-6 Story buildings (10-12 stories with state density bonus)
NASA Bayshore Light Rail Station: 5-6 Story buildings (10-12 stories with state density bonus)
DISCLAIMER: Impact zones were developed by Livable Mountain View after reading the text of SB79 and after consulting with people knowledgeable about the legislation. However, our organization does not include elected state officials, their staff, or real-estate attorneys. Ours is a good faith effort to map the impact of SB79, but the placement and size of the actual impact zones determined, should SB79 become law, may be larger or smaller than those depicted here.
NOTE: We have received word from people in communication with Senator Wiener’s staff that the impact zones around train and light rail stations should be larger. The half-mile radius is from ANY point in the transit center, not just the single point in the middle of the transit center.
NOTE: SB79 Section 65912.157 (d) explicitly provides for state density bonus to be applied on top of SB79 base allowances: A transit-oriented housing development project under this section shall be eligible for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 or a local density bonus program, using the density allowed under this section as the base density.
Recent Comments