CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
CITYWIDE HISTORIC RESOURCES
SURVEY METHODOLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR
City of Mountain View
PREPARED BY
Page & Turnbull
August 13, 2025
Attachment 4
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resource Survey [21308] Mountain View, California
PAGE & TURNBULL ii August 13, 2025
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
CITYWIDE HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY
SURVEY METHODOLOGY REPORT
Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance & Register Update
August 13, 2025
Prepared for:
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
www.mountainview.gov
Prepared by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
www.page-turnbull.com
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resource Survey [21308] Mountain View, California
PAGE & TURNBULL iii August 13, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4 I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 A. Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Scope, Survey Area & Exclusions ............................................................................................................. 5 C. Project Team ............................................................................................................................................... 9 II. DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESOURCES & PREVIOUS SURVEYS ................................ ........................ 10 A. National Register & California Register Listed Properties .................................................................. 10 B. Mountain View Register of Historic Resources .................................................................................... 13 C. Mountain View 2030 General Plan ........................................................................................................ 13 D. Other Previous Surveys, Studies & Reports ......................................................................................... 14 III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 16 A. National Register of Historic Places & California Register of Historical Resources ........................ 16 National Register of Historic Places ....................................................................................................... 16 California Register of Historical Resources ........................................................................................... 17 Age-Eligibility & The “Fifty Year Rule” ..................................................................................................... 18 B. Mountain View Register of Historic Resources .................................................................................... 18 C. Historic Integrity ....................................................................................................................................... 19 D. Mountain View Historic Context Statement ......................................................................................... 22 E. California Historical Resource Status Codes ......................................................................................... 25 F. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ........................................................................................ 26 IV. METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 28 A. Public Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 28 B. Two-Tier (Reconnaissance & Intensive Level) Survey Approach........................................................ 29 C. Data & Fieldwork Methodology .............................................................................................................. 32 D. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms ................................................... 32 E. Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 33
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 4 August 13, 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey was conducted between 2023 and 2025 as one component of a larger Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance & Register Update project. The survey identifies properties that are eligible for local designation and incentives, and it informs the City of Mountain View’s preservation program and other long-range planning efforts. By identifying eligible historic resources, the survey also assists the City of Mountain View in complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires age-eligible properties to be evaluated for historic resource eligibility when there is a project involving discretionary review.
The two-tier survey included a reconnaissance-level “windshield” driving survey of approximately 15,500 properties built prior to 1980, followed by an intensive-level survey of 226 properties with full evaluations for historic resource eligibility. Based on City Council direction provided in December 2023, the focus of the intensive-level survey evaluations was geared toward commercial, institutional, industrial, civic, and multi-family residential properties, and not on single-family residences unless they had previously been identified as eligible historic resources. The citywide survey was informed by the criteria outlined in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Mountain View Register), as well as the Mountain View Historic Context Statement, which includes specific eligibility requirements and integrity considerations based on these criteria and the history of Mountain View’s built environment.
Currently, two properties in Mountain View are listed in the National Register and California Register, and two are listed in the California Register only. The Mountain View Register currently includes 47 designated properties.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 5 August 13, 2025
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Background
The Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey is sponsored by the City of Mountain View Community Development Department and is one component of a larger Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance & Register Update. Preparation of this survey was undertaken to bring a greater level of consistency and clarity to the city’s preservation planning efforts and the permit and environmental review process. Identification of eligible historic resources assists the City of Mountain View in complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires age-eligible properties to be evaluated for historic resource eligibility when there is a project involving discretionary review. Additionally, properties that are listed in the Mountain View Register are eligible for local incentives such as the Mills Act property tax abatement program, use of the California State Historic Building Code, and other incentives that encourage the long -term stewardship of historic resources.
Working with City of Mountain View planning staff, and with the guidance of City Council , Page & Turnbull has acted as the primary consultant to complete a reconnaissance -level “windshield” survey of all age-eligible (built prior to 1980) properties in Mountain View, followed by an intensive‐level field survey of properties that appeared to be potentially significant and eligible for designation at the local, state, and/or national level. The methodology for conducting the survey is described in detail in this report.
The citywide survey project gives a more comprehensive picture of eligible historic resources in the City of Mountain View and will allow the City and community to protect significant cultural and historic resources, encourage restoration and adaptive reuse, and celebrate Mountain View’s unique character, history, and diversity. The citywide survey, along with the Historic Context Statement, also serves to inform updates to the City’s historic preservation ordinance and recommended updates to the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.
B. Scope, Survey Area & Exclusions
The Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey addressed the geographical area within the current city limits, which measures just over 12 square miles (Figure 1). Mountain View is a suburban city located in the southern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula within Santa Clara County, California. Named for its views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, the city lies northeast of the range while the shore of the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay forms the city’s northern limits. The topography of the city is, overall, very flat and slopes up gently from the bay shore; the Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 6 August 13, 2025
average elevation is 105 feet above sea level. Mountain View’s historic downtown is laid out in a grid, anchored by Castro Street.
The Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey was conducted using a two-tier methodology with a reconnaissance-level (“windshield”) survey, followed by an intensive-level survey of a smaller subset of properties that were identified as potential individual historic resources. The initial reconnaissance-level survey included all properties built prior to 1980 within the City of Mountain View, which totaled approximately 15,500 parcels of the city’s total approximately 22,500 parcels.
Properties that were identified as potentially eligible for individual listing in a local, state, and/or federal register of historical resources were intensively surveyed and an evaluation was prepared using California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 historic survey forms. Additionally, all properties that are currently listed in the Mountain View Register or were previously listed in the Mountain View Register were intensively surveyed with updated evaluations. All properties built prior to 1980 within Area H of the Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan were also intensively surveyed. Area H includes the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Castro Street, bounded by Evelyn Avenue, Hope Street, California Street, and Bryant Street. The intensive-level survey included 226 properties.
Based on direction provided by the Mountain View City Council, the focus of the citywide survey was on commercial, civic, institutional, mixed-use, and multi-family residential zoned properties, for which proposed projects are currently subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
Single-family residential properties were only evaluated if they met certain criteria, such as if they were located in the Downtown Precise Plan area, were currently designated, were previously designated, and/or were previously identified as an eligible historic resource through a prior survey or other historic evaluation. The methodology for identifying and surveying single-family residences is described in greater detail in Section III. Methodology, including a summary Table 1.
The Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey only addressed individual historic eligibility.
The Mountain View historic preservation ordinance does not currently include criteria or a designation process for local historic districts. Historic districts with potential eligibility for listing in the California Register or National Register were not identified or evaluated.
Year-Built Dates and Age-Eligibility
To understand the historic importance of a property, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the property. A property less than fifty years old may be considered eligible for listing in the California Register if it can be Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 7 August 13, 2025
demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. 1 For listing in the National Register, properties must meet the threshold of “exceptional” significance under National Register Criterion Consideration G. The Mountain View Register does not have an age- eligibility threshold.
Surveys often use 40 or 45 years old as a threshold to ensure that properties that may be slightly less than 50 years old are evaluated so that the survey findings have a longer “shelf life.” For the purpose of the Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey, “age-eligibility” is defined as properties built prior to 1980. However, when evaluating an individual property for eligibility for listing in the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register, the relevant age- eligibility thresholds and considerations were applied.
Year-built dates were used to determine historic significance through the associated periods of development and themes that are described in Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The Santa Clara County Assessor year-built data, provided by the City of Mountain View, was used as an initial baseline for determining the year of construction of the primary building on a property.
However, County Assessor data is not always accurate. As such, visual inspection during the reconnaissance-level survey and archival research during the intensive-level survey were used to verify year-built dates to the extent possible.
Year built dates were determined or confirmed using a variety of sources, including the building permits on file at the City of Mountain View, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, city directories, historical aerial photographs, and previously completed DPR 523 forms. Most sources referenced above are based on archival or independent research; in some cases, the sources provide conflicting or imprecise year-built dates. In these situations, the year-built date recorded on the DPR 523 forms is a “circa” date.
1 California Office of Historic Preservation, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purpose of determining eligibility for the California Register) (Sacramento:
California Office of State Publishing, March 14, 2006).
Esri, HERE, County of Santa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA
W. Middlefield Road
UV82
£¤101
£¤101
UV85
UV237
UV82
Central Expressway
Rengstorff Ave.
Castro Street
PAGE & TURNBULL August 13, 20258
Citywide Historic Resources Survey
Mountain View, CA
Survey Methodology Report
[21308]
Figure 1. Extant Properties by Development Period
*Accuracy is not guaranteed. Year built data provided by City of Mountain View via Santa Clara County Assessor. Data only goes to the year 2021. Areas not shown on map do not have available year built data. Note: Some properties may include buildings with various years of construction. In general, the earliest year of construction is shown.
Map created by Page & Turnbull, January 2025.
Mountain View City Limits
Downtown Precise Plan - Area H
Year Built*
No Year Built Data
c.1890 - 1909
1910 - 1944
1945 - 1979
1980 - 2021 (Not Age-Eligible For Survey)
0 0.4 0.80.2
Miles ¯
Miramonte Avenue
N. Shoreline Boulevard
El Camino Real
Grant Road
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 9 August 13, 2025
C. Project Team
The Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey was conducted for the City of Mountain View by Page & Turnbull, an architecture and planning firm that has been dedicated to historic preservation since 1973, with offices in San Francisco, San José, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Page & Turnbull staff responsible for this project includes Ruth Todd, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP, Principal-in- Charge; Christina Dikas, Principal, Senior Architectural Historian; Hannah Simonson, Senior Cultural Resources Planner; Samantha Purnell, Cultural Resources Planner; and Walker Shores, Cultural Resources Planner. Additional survey fieldwork assistance was provided by Margaret Nicholson, Cultural Resources Planner; Dominique Segura, Preservation Specialist; and Joshua Bevan, consulting Cultural Resources Planner. All staff involved meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Historic Architecture, Architectural History, and/or History.
Coordination of the project was undertaken by Elaheh Kerachian, Senior Planner, and Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager, of the City of Mountain View’s Community Development Department.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 10 August 13, 2025
II. DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESOURCES & PREVIOUS
SURVEYS
The City of Mountain View has been committed to preserving its architectural heritage since its first historic preservation ordinance was adopted by City Council in 2004. The City’s current 2030 General Plan outlines goals and policies that emphasize the preservation of historic resources, which are buttressed by historic resource surveys and reports produced in 2003, 2008, and 2020. The following section outlines these prior efforts.
A. National Register & California Register Listed Properties There are two (2) individual properties in Mountain View that are currently listed in the National Register and California Register: the Rengstorff House and the Mountain View Adobe. The Henry A.
Rengstorff House, now located at 3070 N. Shoreline Boulevard, was listed as a California Point of Interest in 1972 (P276), was nominated and listed to the National Register in 1978 (NR#78000778), and was listed in the California Register when it was created in 1998. 2 The Mountain View Adobe at 157 Moffett Boulevard was listed to the National Register in 2002 (NR #02001256) and was automatically listed in the California Register. 3
Two (2) additional properties are currently listed in the California Register only: the Julius Weilheimer House (938 Villa Street) and Air Base Laundry (954 Villa Street). While the Julius Weilheimer House and Air Base Laundry were previously nominated to the National Register and deemed eligible by the National Park Service’s Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, neither property was ultimately listed in the National Register due to owner objection. 4 As the properties were officially determined eligible for listing in the National Register, they were automatically listed in the California Register.
2 California Office of Historic Preservation, “California Historical Resources,” accessed online May 31, 2023 from https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=name&criteria=rengstorff; California Office of Historic Preservation, “Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes,” accessed online on December 30, 2024 from:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf
3 National Park Service, “National Register of Historic Places,” NPGallery Digital Archive, accessed online December 2, 2022 from https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults?view=list. 4 National Park Service, “Weekly List 20190426,” National Register of Historic Places, accessed online May 13, 2024, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list-20190426.htm; and National Park Service, “Weekly List 20190614,” National Register of Historic Places, accessed online May 13, 2024, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list- 20190614.htm.
County of Santa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., Intermap, USGS, EPA, County of Santa Clara, Esri, HERE
W. Middlefield Road
UV82
£¤101
£¤101
UV85
UV237
UV82
Central Expressway
Rengstorff Ave.
Castro Street
PAGE & TURNBULL August 13, 202511
Citywide Historic Resources Survey
Mountain View, CA
Survey Methodology Report
[21308]
Figure 2. Existing Designated Historic Resources
Mountain View City Limits
Downtown Precise Plan - Area H
National Register (NR), California Register (CR) & MVR Listed California Register (CR) Listed
On Mountain View Register
Off Mountain View Register (Voluntarily Removed by Property Owner) 0 0.4 0.80.2
Miles
¯
Miramonte Avenue
N. Shoreline Boulevard
El Camino Real
Grant Road
Rengstorff House
NR = National Register of Historic Places; CR = California Register of Historical Resources; MVR = Mountain View Register of Historic Resources PAGE & TURNBUL August 13, 202512
Citywide Historic Resources Survey
Mountain View, CA
Survey Methodology Report
[21308]
Figure 3. Existing Designated Historic Resources - Downtown Core County of Santa Clara, Esri, HERE, County of Santa Clara, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA Mountain View City Limits
Downtown Precise Plan - Area H
National Register (NR), California Register (CR) & MVR Listed California Register (CR) Listed
On Mountain View Register
Off Mountain View Register (Voluntarily Removed by Property Owner) Central Expressway
Castro Street
0 500 1,000250
Feet
¯
NR = National Register of Historic Places; CR = California Register of Historical Resources; MVR = Mountain View Register of Historic Resources El Camino Real
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 13 August 13, 2025
B. Mountain View Register of Historic Resources
The City of Mountain View’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code § 36.54.45) was adopted in 2004 and includes the creation of a Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the City’s official listing of locally designated historic resources. Much like the National Register and California Register, at least one of four designation criteria must be met for a building, structure, site, or other improvement to be designated as a historic resource and placed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.5 Refer to Section III. Guidelines for Evaluation: B. Evaluation Criteria of this report for further discussion of the Mountain View Register criteria and how they compare to the National Register and California Register.
Ninety-three (93) properties are currently or have previously been listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. Property owners were allowed to voluntarily opt off of the Mountain View Register prior to an April 12, 2005 deadline, or in accordance with Section 36.54.75 of the Mountain View City Code. As of the last update to the Mountain View Register in 2022, there were 47 properties listed on the Mountain View Register (Figure 2 and Figure 3).6
C. Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan update, completed in 2012, began with a comprehensive visioning process to set forth a commitment to make appropriate decisions and allocate the necessary resources to support the community’s preferred future. Overarching identified themes included quality of life, sustainability, diversity, health and wellness, and economic prosperity.
Chapter 3 of the General Plan specifically addresses land use and design (LUD) topics aimed to retain the distinct character of neighborhoods, create community vibrancy through inviting streets and public spaces, and focus on walkability.
Chapter 3 specifically outlines several historic preservation policies aimed to preserve local historic and cultural resources and encourage their continued protection and enhancement. 7 These policies are:
LUD 11.1: Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places.
5 City of Mountain View, California, Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 15 – Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources, accessed online December 2, 2022,
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTXVIZOORAD_DIV 15DEPRHIRE.
6 City of Mountain View, “Mountain View Register of Historic Resources” (last updated September 28, 2022), accessed online July 19, 2024, https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7915/638346084894870000. 7 City of Mountain View, 2030 General Plan (adopted 2012), 54.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 14 August 13, 2025
LUD 11.2: Adaptive reuse. Encourage the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in ways that retain their historical materials and character-defining features.
LUD 11.3: Incentives. Encourage historical preservation through incentives and opportunities.
LUD 11.4: Moffett Field. Support the preservation of historic buildings and hangars at Moffett Field and NASA Ames.
LUD 11.5: Archaeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.
LUD 11.6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.
D. Other Previous Surveys, Studies & Reports
Designated and eligible historic resources in Mountain View have been individually documented through various surveys, historic resource evaluations, DPR 523 survey forms, National Register nominations, and other reports. These documents were completed by a variety of consultants from the 1970s to present and can be found in the City of Mountain View Community Development archives, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) via the Built En vironment Resources Directory (BERD) and Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, or the National Park Service’s National Register Database. These surveys include:
2004 Downtown Precise Plan Amendment
The City of Mountain View adopted a Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) in 1988, intending to provide a coherent framework for downtown redevelopment and preservation as well as guidelines for future development. A 2003 historic resources survey performed by Carey & Company resulted in a 2004 amendment to the DTPP, incorporating historical preservation standards like design guidelines for storefronts and public spaces. This survey work initiated a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the late nineteenth- and early twentieth- century downtown buildings’ contribution to Mountain View’s historic character, distinctiveness, and desirable pattern and mix of buildings and land uses.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 15 August 13, 2025
2008 Citywide Survey
Performed by Carey & Company in 2008, the three primary objectives of this survey and report were to provide historic context, perform a reconnaissance-level survey of properties over 50 years old (built up to 1958), and conduct an intensive-level survey of identified eligible properties for the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. Of the 5,295 properties surveyed during the reconnaissance-level survey, 45 properties were found eligible for listing on the National Register and/or California Register during the intensive-level survey. The survey did not evaluate properties for their eligibility for listing in the Mountain View Register. The 2008 survey was not formally adopted by Mountain View City Council.
2020 Downtown Precise Plan Area Historic Resources Survey Report In 2020, TreanorHL, previously known as Carey & Company, undertook a historic resource s survey update of the approximately 200 age-eligible properties located within the Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan area. This area generally extends two blocks to either side of Castro Street between the railway to the north and El Camino Real to the s outh—roughly bounded by Franklin Street, West Evelyn Avenue, View Street, El Camino Real, and High School Way. This survey updated existing historic resource property in formation and identified potential local historic districts, including a portion of subarea B as a “Downtown Mountain View Residential Historic District” with 1900 to 1935 as its period of significance, and subarea H as a “Castro Street Historic Retail District” with 1861 to 1950 as its period of significance.8 Neither potential district appeared eligible for the National Register nor the California Register. At the time of issuance of TreanorHL’s Draft Survey Report in June 2020, the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance did not have designation criteri a or a designation process for listing historic districts on the Mountain View Register. The survey also identified 15 properties in the Downtown Precise Plan Area as potentially eligible for individual listing in the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register, as well as five (5) properties individually eligible for listing only in the Mountain View Register.
The 2020 Downtown Precise Plan Area Survey Report remains a draft report and has not been adopted by Mountain View City Council.
8 TreanorHL, “City of Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan Area Historic Resource Survey Report“ (prepared for City of Mountain View, Draft June 2020).
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 16 August 13, 2025
III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section provides a summary of the regulatory framework that informs the evaluation of properties as eligible historic resources. The following federal, state, and local criteria are used to assess the historic significance of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts, and their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. A property may be eligible for one or more of the three historic registers if it meets both the relevant criteria for historic significance and historic integrity.
A. National Register of Historic Places & California Register of Historical Resources
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
• Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
• Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 17 August 13, 2025
• Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the state of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register- listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria:
o Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
o Criterion 2 (Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
o Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.
o Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.9
Resources listed in the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
9 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #7, 11.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 18 August 13, 2025
AGE-ELIGIBILITY & THE “FIFTY YEAR RULE”
In order to be determined eligible for listing in the National Register, resources less than fifty years of age must be shown to have “exceptional importance,” as the National Register considers fifty years to be “a general estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and evaluate significance.”10 This is not the case with the California Register. According to the California Office of Historic Preservation, in order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. 11 The Mountain View Register does not have an age-eligibility threshold.
The scope of this Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey focused on properties built prior to 1980.
B. Mountain View Register of Historic Resources
The eligibility criteria for local listing in the City of Mountain View’s Register of Historic Resources are similar to the National Register and California Register criteria described earlier. Specifically, as described in the City of Mountain View’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code §36.54.65), a building, structure, site, or other improvement may be designated as a historic resource and placed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources if City Council finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion a (Person): Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history, or development of the City of Mountain View.
• Criterion b (Event): Is the site of a significant historic event in the city's past.
• Criterion c (Design/Construction): Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the city in terms of a type, period, region or method of construction or representative of the work of a master or possession of high artistic value.
• Criterion d (Information Potential): Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the city's prehistory or history.12
10 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15, 41. 11 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #7, 11. 12 City of Mountain View, Code of Ordinances 36.54.45, “Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources,” accessed online September 12, 2022
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 19 August 13, 2025
Comparison of Mountain View Register Criteria with National & State Criteria Although phrasing differs slightly, the designation criteria established by City of Mountain View’s Register of Historic Resources are similar in content and spirit to the National Register and California Register criteria described earlier. In all cases, historic resources may be significant for their association with events, social and cultural trends, important people, architectural design, and/or a notable architect or builder. It should be noted that the City of Mountain View’s municipal code, as currently written, does not include an age requirement, nor does it outline integrity requirements or thresholds. As such, different thresholds of historic integrity were used for evaluating properties for the National Register and/or California Register versus the Mountain View Register, as described in greater detail in the following section.
C. Historic Integrity
In addition to qualifying for listing under at least one of the National Register and/or California Register significance criteria, a property must be shown to have sufficient historic integrity. This is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historic resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.”13 The National Park Service states that “the evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.” 14 The National Register and California Register define historic integrity based on seven aspects that are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property.
• Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).
• Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property.
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTXVIZOORAD_DIV 15DEPRHIRE_S36.54.65DECR.
13 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistant Series #7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historic Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001), 11. 14 National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (rev. 2002).
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 20 August 13, 2025
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.
• Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.15
Evaluating Historic Integrity in Mountain View
For National Register and California Register evaluation purposes, a building ultimately either possesses integrity or it does not. While it is understood that nearly all properties undergo change over time—and thus minor alterations or changes are not uncommon—a building must possess enough of its original features (or features that date to its period of significance) to demonstrate why it is significant. Evaluators of potential historic resources should look closely at characteristics such as massing, roof forms, fenestration patterns, cladding materials, and neighborhood surroundings when evaluating a property’s integrity. As currently written, the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance does not include a definition of or thresholds for historic in tegrity. Some cities utilize the definitions of integrity established by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. While the same definitions of the seven aspects of integrity can be used to evaluate properties for the Mountain View Register, a somewhat lower threshold of historic integrity may be utilized for listing on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources if a property is of local significance, however the property should still be able to convey its reason for significance.
To convey its historical significance, a property that has sufficient integrity for listing will generally retain a majority of its character-defining features. However, the necessary aspects of integrity also depend on the reason the property is significant. High priority is typically placed on integrity of design, materials, and workmanship for properties significant for their architectural design (Criterion C/3/c), while for properties significant in association with events or people (Criteria A/1/b and B/2/a), these aspects are only necessary to the extent that they help the property convey integrity of feeling and/or association. Similarly, integrity of location and setting are often crucial for properties significant in association with events (Criterion A/1/b) but are typically less important for properties significant in association with people (Criterion B/2/a) or architectural design (Criterion C/3/c). For properties significant under any of these criteria, it is possible for some materials to be re placed without drastically affecting integrity of design, as long as these alterations are subordinate to the overall character of the building. For example, minor alterations such as replacement windows with non-original materials may be acceptable in commercial storefronts, but not in an individually
15 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 44.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 21 August 13, 2025
significant property designed by a notable architect or builder. Rear additions or alterations that are not visible from the public right-of-way are less likely to impact historic integrity. However, a number of smaller alterations can cumulatively add up and have a significant impact on historic integrity to the point that a property is not eligible for designation.
On the other hand, properties that are significant for their association with an ethnic or cultural group may be a rare extant property or associated with intangible cultural heritage, and it should be understood that these properties may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property associated with an ethnic or cultural group may have some alteration to its design, but may remain eligible as long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.
Evaluations of integrity typically include some basis of comparison. In other words, the relative levels of integrity associated with each property type can be taken into consideration. Some properties may rate exceptionally highly in all aspects of integrity; such properties should be given high priority in preservation planning efforts and are more likely to be eligible for listing in the National Register, in addition to the California and Mountain View registers. Generally, a property with exceptional integrity will have undergone few or no alterations since its original construction and will not have been moved from its original location.
Conversely, increased age and rarity of the property type may lower the threshold required for sufficient integrity. Especially for local eligibility determinations, this principle is applicable to buildings and structures of any type constructed before World War II, as the properties are increasingly rare in Mountain View. This principle is also applicable to commercial buildings located within the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Castro Street, which comprise the City of Mountain View’s historic commercial core, as the City of Mountain View and its residents place a high value on the character of its downtown corridor.
Where properties have previously been altered, historic integrity can be regained if restoration or rehabilitation projects are conducted accurately based on documentary evidence, such as historic photographs and/or original drawings.
Finally, it should be stressed that historic integrity and condition are not the same. Buildings with evident signs of deterioration can still retain eligibility for historic listing if it can be demonstrated that they retain enough character-defining features to convey their significance.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 22 August 13, 2025
D. Mountain View Historic Context Statement
As part of the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance & Register Update project, Page & Turnbull prepared a Mountain View Historic Context Statement. A public review draft of the context statement was issued on May 29, 2024, and a final draft was issued on October 1, 2024.16 The Mountain View Historic Context Statement provides the historic background and context and the historic eligibility requirements which informed the survey fieldwork and evaluation methodology undertaken in the Citywide Historic Resources Survey. The Mountain View Historic Context Statement presents the history of the built environment in the City of Mountain View from pre- history through 1980 to support and guide identification and evaluation of historic properties throughout the area, as well as to inform future planning decisions. The context statement outlines key periods, events, themes, and patterns of development within Mountain View, and provides a framework for evaluating which individual properties and neighborhoods may qualify as historic resources based on the criteria set forth in the National Register of Historical Resources (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Municipal Code Section 36.54.45 through 36.54.97).
Periods of Development
The periods of development utilized for the Mountain View Historic Context Statement have been identified by Page & Turnbull in consultation with the City of Mountain View Community Development Department. The Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey did not identify any extant built resources from the Indigenous Settlement (Before 1775) or Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) periods of development. Properties built during the Recent Past (1980-2025) development period were out of scope for this survey.
These periods are as follows:
• Indigenous Settlement (Before 1775): The Ohlone, called Costanoan or “coast dweller” by the Spanish, are the indigenous people of the San Francisco Bay area, with a territory stretching from San Francisco to Carmel and 60 miles inland. The Tamien Nation specifically inhabited what is now Mountain View, where evidence of their nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, including the Castro Mound, has been found.
• Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850): In 1775-1776, Spanish Lieutenant Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza led an expedition from Mexico to establish a presidio and pueblo at San Francisco, passing through the Mountain View area along two routes. Following Mexico's
16 “Historic Preservation and Register Update,” City of Mountain View, accessed December 20, 2024, https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/development-projects/historic- preservation-and-register-update.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 23 August 13, 2025
independence in 1822, California was transformed under Mexican rule, with Mission Santa Clara’s lands secularized in 1836, leading to the creation of several ranchos including Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas (also known as Rancho del Refugio) and Rancho Posolmi in present-day Mountain View.
• American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1850-1909): Agricultural interests continued to lure settlers from other American states and abroad to California’s Santa Clara Valley during its Early American Period of the mid-nineteenth century. In 1852, a stagecoach rest stop was established on El Camino Real within the Castro rancho near Stevens Creek. A village supported by surrounding fruit tree orchards and farms soon developed around this stopover on the route between San Francisco and San José and became known as Mountain View. As the Southern Pacific Railroad established its track down the Peninsula in 1860s following the stagecoach route, it bypassed the rural village of Mountain View. While a makeshift stop was created in 1864, a permanent train depot was not constructed until 1888 in an area that became known as Mountain View Station or New Mountain View. This depot spurred commercial development along the newly plotted Castro Street, eventually becoming the city’s Main Street corridor. The two distinct villages of Old and New Mountain View operated independently until the City of Mountain View was incorporated on November 7, 1902. A city hall was built in 1909 on the corner of Castro and California streets and held city government offices, the police department, a small jail, and the public library, and the civic and commercial heart of Mountain View shifted to Castro Stree t.
• Early Twentieth-Century Development, Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944):
The early twentieth century was a time of continued expansion and diversity for Mountain View, with distinct ethnic and religious enclaves in place by the 1920s, particularly Seventh - day Adventists along the city’s western periphery surrounding the Pacific Press Publishing Company complex; Japanese along View Street; and Mexicans in the Castro City and Frog Pond neighborhoods. Large numbers of Filipino, Spanish, Eastern European, Italian, and Portuguese immigrants continued to arrive for work in Mountain View’s agricultural jobs.
The Great Depression (1929-1939) stifled Santa Clara Valley’s agriculture-export economy, with fruit deemed an unnecessary luxury, and halted most new construction in downtown Mountain View. Nearby Moffett Naval Air Station was established in 1933 and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics’ (NACA) Ames Research Center in 1939, attracting an educated and diverse workforce. The construction and operation of these two federal facilities provided hundreds of Mountain View residents with much-needed jobs as the Great Depression wore on. However, the city was divided in the early years of World War II when Japanese citizens were sent to internment camps for the duration of the war, many to remain in the Central Valley instead of returning to the Bay Area.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 24 August 13, 2025
• Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945 -1979) The City of Mountain View’s jagged southern boundary resulted from various annexations following the incorporation of the neighboring City of Los Altos in 1952. In 1956, controversial inventor William Shockley established the first silicon-device research and manufacturing laboratory in an old apricot barn on San Antonio Road, signaling the pivot of Mountain View industry from agriculture in the “Valley of Heart’s Delight” to technology in “Silicon Valley.” Other early technology-based innovators include GTE Sylvania, Fairchild Semiconductors, and Intel, setting the stage for the Dot-Com Boom. Mountain View of the 1960s through the 1970s saw continued conversion of orchards and farmland to tracts of single-family and multi-family housing, supporting a mushrooming population of just 6,500 in 1950 to over 54,000 by 1970, as well as office parks to support new high -tech manufacturing and research and development. Simultaneously, outlying shopping malls decentralized Mountain View’s historic business district, triggering a downtown redevelopment plan in the 1960s.
• Recent Past (1980-2023): During the 1990s Dot-Com Boom, Mountain View's agrarian past was largely replaced by technology campuses and New Urbanist housing, while an influx of skilled workers using the H-1B visa program diversified the high-tech workforce. The former Silicon Graphics Incorporated (SGI) headquarters was converted to house the Computer History Museum. In addition to the demolition of a number of notable older buildings, including the Mountain View Union High School, a number of notable buildin g rehabilitations and reconstructions were undertaken during this period to preserve Mountain View’s heritage. Major infrastructure projects included Shoreline Park and Amphitheatre and the redevelopment of Castro Street and the Civic Center.
Property Types
Each period of development has one or more associated property types that help illustrate the period’s significant themes. Property types include the following examples:
• Residential properties: Single-family residences, duplexes, condominium and apartment complexes, designed residential landscapes, mobile homes. • Commercial properties: Retail stores, including buildings with retail on all floor(s) or mixed - use commercial buildings with retail on the ground floor only with office space or residences above; shopping malls/centers; former printing press facilities; motels and hotels; restaurants; auto-oriented businesses, such as gas stations, service centers, car washes, drive-in restaurants, drive-in theaters, etc.; banks; mortuaries and funeral homes; and business signs.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 25 August 13, 2025
• Agricultural and industrial properties: Working or former farmsteads; orchards; barns; lumber yards; light industrial properties; and other buildings where goods were made, stored, and/or repaired. Agricultural properties may also include rural agricultural landscapes (a type of cultural landscape).
• Civic, cultural, and institutional properties: Municipal buildings, such as city hall, police and fire stations; post offices; libraries; schools; community centers; religious buildings; social halls and club/organization buildings; preforming arts buildings; medical facilities; public art; civic and infrastructure improvements; recreational properties; and designed landscapes, such as parks or plazas.
• Transportation and infrastructure properties: Train depot and rail lines or segments. • Corporate and technology campuses/offices: Office buildings, suburban corporate campuses, suburban corporate estates, and office parks.
E. California Historical Resource Status Codes
Properties listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are listed within the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of “1” to “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register, California Register, and/or local register. 17 The following Status Codes were assigned to properties in the intensive survey:
• 1S - Individual property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. • 2S - Individual property determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in CR. • 3S - Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation. • 3CS - Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation. • 5S1 - Individual property that is listed or designated locally. • 5S3 - Appears to individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
• 6Z - Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation. • 7N - Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR Status Code 4). 18
17 California State Office of Historic Preservation, Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), Santa Clara County, updated September 2022.
18 7N was used for properties that are not yet age-eligible in the Downtown Precise Plan Area H, and not evaluated. “California Historical Resource Status Codes,” updated March 1, 2020, accessed online August 8, 2025, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/Resource-Status-Codes.pdf.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 26 August 13, 2025
F. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is state legislation (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) that provides for the development and maintenance of a high-quality environment for the present- day and future through the identification of significant environmental effects.19 CEQA applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval from state or local government agencies.20 “Projects” are defined as “activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps.” 21 In other words, projects that are subject to discretionary (rather than ministerial or “by right”) permitting are subject to CEQA review.
Historic and cultural resources are considered to be part of the environment.
In Mountain View, single-family residences and duplexes in R1, R2, or R3 zoning districts are not typically subject to planning permits that would trigger CEQA, unless they are located in a precise plan area or include a historic resource as defined below. 22
Status as a Historical Resource under CEQA
In completing an analysis of a project under CEQA, it must first be determined if the project site possesses a historical resource. A site may qualify as a historical resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in California Code of Regulations §15064.5(a). The four categories are:
1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
19 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC), §21000 et seq. 20 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14 § 15000 et seq.
21 14 CCR § 15378: Project.
22 “Zoning,” City of Mountain View, accessed online December 20, 2024, https://developmentpermits.mountainview.gov/about-permits/zoning Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 27 August 13, 2025
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.
Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.23
In general, a resource that meets any of the four criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) is considered to be a historical resource unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates” that the resource “is not historically or culturally significant.” 24
23 14 CCR §15064.5(a)
24 14 CCR § 15064.5(a)(2).
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 28 August 13, 2025
IV. METHODOLOGY
The following section outlines the methodology utilized in conducting the Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey, which is consistent with the guidelines provided by the National Park Service in National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation (1977, rev. 1985).
A. Public Outreach
An overview of the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance & Register Update project was posted to the City of Mountain View’s website in September 2022. The site provided the scope of work, timeline for project milestones and deliverables, frequently asked questions, and noticing on community workshops and public outreach. The first community workshop was hosted virtually on September 6, 2022, and focused on introducing the project’s major tasks, the topics and themes relevant to Mountain View’s developmental history, and sought input from local citizens through an online survey form. Also posted on the project website, the survey form allowed members of the public to share personal stories, photographs, and favorite locations and buildings around tow n. On October 16, 2022, Page & Turnbull representatives staffed an information table at the Mountain View Farmer’s Market. This outreach event provided another public outreach opportunity to inform the public about the project and collect feedback about the special locations and buildings in the city, like the online survey.
In addition to consulting the public through a workshop and online survey, Page & Turnbull also targeted several local focus groups with keen interests in the history of Mountain View, historic preservation, and downtown development. A meeting with represe ntatives of Livable Mountain View occurred on October 19, 2022, with the Mountain View Historical Association on October 27, 2022, with the Downtown Committee on December 6, 2022, and with the Monta Loma Neighborhood Association on January 24, 2023. A second community workshop was held on October 30, 2023 in a hybrid format which provided an update on the status of the overall project and sought input on the City of Mountain View’s preservation priorities and the project goals. Input was also provided by th e Mountain View City Council during a study session on December 12, 2023.
A third community meeting was held on August 13, 2024 to present the Draft Historic Context Statement, and public comments were accepted through September 9, 2024.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 29 August 13, 2025
B. Two-Tier (Reconnaissance & Intensive Level) Survey Approach Page & Turnbull undertook a two-tiered methodology for conducting the Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey. First, a “windshield” reconnaissance-level survey was conducted for all age-eligible properties (built prior to 1980), identified as such by records held with Santa Clara County’s Office of the Assessor.25 Then, properties that were identified as potentially individually eligible for listing in a local, state, and/or national registers were intensively surveyed to confirm their historic significance and integrity, and DPR 523 survey forms were prepared.
The National Park Service provides the following definitions of the two tiers of surveys:
• Reconnaissance Survey: “Reconnaissance may be thought of as a ‘once over lightly’ inspection of an area, most useful for characterizing its resources in general and for developing a basis for deciding how to organize and orient more detailed survey efforts. In conjunction with a general review of pertinent literature on the community's past […].” 26 A reconnaissance-level survey can be undertaken as a pedestrian walking survey, study of aerial photographs and maps, or as a “’windshield survey’ of the community -literally driving around the community and noting the general distribution of buildings, structures, and neighborhoods representing different architectural styles, periods, and modes of construction.”27
• Intensive Survey: “An intensive survey, as the name implies, is a close and careful look at the area being surveyed. It is designed to identify precisely and completely all historic resources in the area. It generally involves detailed background research, and a thorough inspection and documentation of all historic properties in the field. It should produce all the information needed to evaluate historic properties and prepare an inventory.” 28
All survey fieldwork and digital photography was conducted from the public right-of-way. Properties were included in the reconnaissance-level survey if they were located within the City of Mountain View boundaries and were built prior to 1980. Vacant or undeveloped lots, archeological and/or below-ground resources, potential historic districts, and properties not visible from the public right- of-way were not included.
25 Properties with no year built data were also surveyed during the reconnaissance-level survey to determine whether contained age-eligible buildings that appeared likely to be eligible historic resources. 26 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation (1977, rev. 1985), 12. 27 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation (1977, rev. 1985), 12. 28 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation (1977, rev. 1985), 12.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 30 August 13, 2025
Based on input provided by the Mountain View City Council during a study session on December 12, 2023, the single-family residences in R1, R2, or R3 zoning districts were removed from the list of properties for intensive-level survey, except in select circumstances. A summary of the reasons for inclusion or exclusion of properties from the intensive-level survey is provided in the following Table
1. TABLE 1. PROPERTIES INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED FROM THE INTENSIVE-LEVEL SURVEY Intensive-Level Survey
EXCLUDED
- Single-family/duplex properties (R1/R2/R3 zoning), if:
o Not currently designated in the National Register, California Register, and/or Mountain View Register;
o Not previously identified as eligible for listing in the National Register and/or California Register; and/or
o Removed from the Mountain View Register29
INCLUDED
- Listed in the California Register or National Register - Listed in the Mountain View Register (“On Register”)
- Located in Area H of the Downtown Precise Plan
- Commercial, institutional, industrial, civic, and multi-family residential properties that were:
o Previously listed in the Mountain View Register (“Off Register”); o Identified as potentially eligible historic resources during the reconnaissance-level survey; and/or
o Previously identified as eligible for listing in the National Register and/or California Register
- Single-family/duplex properties located outside R1/R2/R3 zoning districts.
INCLUDED -
Evaluated for
NR/CR Only30
- Single-family/duplex properties (R1/R2/R3 zoning), only if o Currently designated in a local, state, and/or national register o Previously identified as eligible of listing in the California Register or National Register.
Reconnaissance-Level Survey
The initial reconnaissance-level survey was performed to identify which properties would be subject to further intensive-level survey and documentation. The “windshield” survey was conducted by teams of Page & Turnbull architectural historians and cultural resource planners driving street-by- street to visually assess each age-eligible property (built prior to 1980) from the public right-of-way,
29 Properties that were previously listed in the Mountain View Register were not evaluated as part of this survey, based on City Council direction, because they are single-family/duplex properties that were not identified as National Register- or California Register-eligible in a previous survey.
30 Properties that are identified as eligible for California Register (CR) are considered historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14 §15064.5(a)(3).
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 31 August 13, 2025
which included approximately 15,500 parcels over the city’s 12 square miles. Reconnaissance-level fieldwork was conducted in May and June 2023.
Due to the scope and number of age-eligible properties, not all age-eligible properties were photographed. Properties that were identified as potentially eligible for listing in a National Register, California Register, and/or Mountain View Register were photographed. A representative sampling of other properties was photographed to document the general character of various neighborhoods, property types, and development eras; many of these photographs were used to illustrate the Mountain View Historic Context Statement.
Properties were identified as potentially eligible as historic resources based on the architectural and historic context provided in the Mountain View Historic Context Statement, and the significance and integrity criteria for local, state, and national designation. The preliminary determinations were made based on observable architectural, design, and construction elements, as well as a knowledge of the development patterns, cultural history, and industrial and economic factors that shaped the built environment of Mountain View, as outlined in the context statement.
Intensive-Level Survey
The reconnaissance-level survey effort informed the methodology and approach to the intensive- level survey. Following the reconnaissance-level survey, Page & Turnbull conducted an intensive- level survey of 226 properties. As summarized in Table 1, properties reviewed in the intensive-level survey included properties identified in the reconnaissance-level survey, as well as properties on the Mountain View Register (both currently listed and previously removed), properties identified as potential historic resources in prior surveys, and properties located in Area H, with the exception of certain single-family residences as outlined above. Intensive-level fieldwork was conducted in April and May 2024.
The intensive-level survey included additional photographic documentation, when needed, and property-specific research; refer to Section E. Research Methodology for additional information.
Following the additional photographic documentation and archival research, DPR 523 forms were prepared for the properties that were intensively surveyed, regardless of whether or not they were ultimately found to be eligible historic resources. 31 In the DPR 523 forms, Page & Turnbull evaluated
31 Of the 226 properties in the intensive-level survey, DPR 523 forms were not prepared for 21 properties. Eighteen (18) properties located within Area H of the Downtown Precise Plan area were not age-eligible (built in or after 1980) or were vacant or contained only a surface parking lot; these properties were assigned 6Z Status Codes. Three (3) properties were evaluated in DPR 523 forms or historic resource evaluations in 2022-2023, outside of this survey project, and were not re- evaluated as part of the survey; the relevant Status Codes based on the 2022-2023 evaluation findings are included in the summary tables of this report.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 32 August 13, 2025
each property according to National Register and California Register criteria. All properties except single-family residences and duplexes in R1, R2, or R3 zoning districts were also evaluated for Mountain View Register eligibility.
Not all properties that were intensively surveyed were found to be eligible, as upon further research, some properties were found not to have sufficient historic significance and/or sufficient historic integrity for designation based on local, state, and/or national historic register criteria. The DPR 523 forms are included in Appendix D of this report.
C. Data & Fieldwork Methodology
Page & Turnbull used a customized mobile survey application to conduct survey fieldwork and to collect and organize data (Error! Reference source not found.). The cloud-based application was u sed to collect geo-located data, including text and photographs, in the field. Page & Turnbull received GIS shapefiles from the City of Mountain View with baseline data, including property address, Assessor Parcel Number (APN), year built (according to Santa Clara County Assessor records), owner name and address, zoning district, current use, and Mountain View Register status.
Additional data fields for the property description and photograph were recorded in the field. Survey photographs were taken in the field using tablets or smartphones with the highest quality image settings available.
In addition to the summary findings presented in this Survey Report (Appendix A) and the DPR 523 survey forms (Appendix B), the data collected during the survey will be transmitted to the City in the form of an Excel spreadsheet and a GIS shapefile of consolidated survey data and findings.
D. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series of forms outline recordation procedures for the documentation, evaluation, and nomination of potential historic resources. DPR 523A (Primary Record), 523B (Building, Structure, Object), and 523L (Continuation Sheet) forms were prepared for properties surveyed during the intensive-level survey (Appendix B).32
32 Of the 226 properties in the intensive-level survey, DPR 523 forms were not prepared for 21 properties. Eighteen (18) properties located within Area H of the Downtown Precise Plan area were not age-eligible (built in or after 1980) or were vacant or contained only a surface parking lot; these properties were assigned 6Z Status Codes. Three (3) properties were evaluated in DPR 523 forms or historic resource evaluations in 2022-2023, outside of this survey project, and were not re- evaluated as part of the survey; the relevant Status Codes based on the 2022-2023 evaluation findings are included in the summary tables of this report.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 33 August 13, 2025
A three-page DPR 523 form was created to provide baseline property information, including but not limited to: a survey photograph, location map, street address, Assessor Parcel Number (APN), year built, current owner, and architectural features. This baseline information was supplemented by fields that outline the construction and alteration history, property type and use, whether or not the property has been moved, and relevant historical themes and criteria used for evaluation. A narrative evaluation of significance and integrity was provided, as well as a period of significance and list of character-defining features for properties that were found to be eligible historic resources. Based on the evaluation finding, a corresponding California Historic Resources Status Code was assigned. The Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (March 1995) provides detailed definitions for each field, including attribute codes and status codes, in DPR forms.
Note: The findings of this survey report, including findings on the DPR 523 forms, indicate eligibility for the National Register, California Register, and/or Mountain View Register but no actual nominations, designations, or listings are implemented by the survey or survey report. The findings of this report do not preclude further evaluation of surveyed properties or official nomination of surveyed properties to local, state, or national registers.
E. Research Methodology
Research for the Mountain View Citywide Historic Resources Survey was conducted using primary and secondary sources held at local, regional, and online repositories. Numerous resources were consulted during the course of intensive-level survey and production of DPR 523 forms and this report.
Historic Context & Guidance Bulletins
The following publications provided guidance for the survey methodology and application of evaluation criteria:
• California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (March 1995).
• California Office of Historic Preservation, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purpose of determining eligibility for the California Register) (March 14, 2006). • National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (rev, 2002).
• National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (1977, rev. 1985).
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 34 August 13, 2025
• Page & Turnbull, Mountain View Historic Context Statement, prepared for the City of Mountain View (Final Draft, October 1, 2024)
• McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.
Prior Surveys & Evaluations
The following resources were used to understand prior evaluations and findings of potential historic significance:
• Mountain View Register of Historic Resources List, updated September 28, 2022.33 • Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II.
Prepared for City of Mountain View, Draft September 1, 2008. • TreanorHL. “City of Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan Area Historic Resource Survey Report.” Prepared for City of Mountain View, Draft June 2020. • California Historical Resources Information System. Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), Santa Clara County, updated September 2022. 34
• National Register nomination forms for properties currently listed in the National Register. • Mills Act contract documentation, provided by the City of Mountain View. • Various prior local register forms, historic resource evaluations, survey forms, and peer review reports provided by the City of Mountain View.
Building-Specific Research
Typical sources consulted for the property-specific research required to prepare each DPR 523 form:
Primary Sources
• Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1888, 1891, 1897, 1904, 1921, 1943, 1956) • Historic photographs in the Mountain View Public Library, History Room collection • Historic aerial photographs via NETR Online (1948-2020) and UC Santa Barbara Library Frame Finder
• Google Maps and Google Earth aerial and street view imagery • Newspaper articles via Newspapers.com and the Mountain View Register-Leader database at the Mountain View Public Library, History Room
• City directories, accessed online via Ancestry.com
• United States Federal Census (1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950), accessed online via Ancestry.com.
Secondary Sources
33 Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, updated September 28, 2022, accessed December 20, 2024, https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7915/638346084894870000 34 Properties listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are listed within the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code); refer to Section II. Regulatory Framework for more information bout Status Codes.
Survey Methodology Report Citywide Historic Resources Survey [21308] Mountain View, CA
PAGE & TURNBULL 35 August 13, 2025
• City of Mountain View Planning Department, "Now and Then: Exploring Mountain View's Architectural Heritage." City of Mountain View, April 1979. • Ignoffo, Mary Jo. "Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California." Cupertino, CA:
California History Center and Foundation, 2002.
• Perry, Nicholas. "Images of America: Mountain View." Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2006.
• Perry, Nicholas. "Then & Now: Mountain View." Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2012.
Building permit histories were requested from the City of Mountain View for select properties only when additional information was needed to confirm the alteration history and integrity assessment.
The City of Mountain View permit records do not always include original building permits or plans, particularly for older properties.
Building occupant research was typically limited to the earliest known owners and occupants, unless preliminary research indicated that later occupants were potentially significant.