ATT 8 - Outreach Summary and Comments Received — Mountain View City Council, December 9, 2025

Outreach Summary and Comments Received
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register Update
Farmer’s Market Pop-up event – October 16, 2022
City staﬀ attended one Sunday Farmer’s Market to pass out ﬂiers, spoke with residents who had questions about the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register and collected input on current Ordinance and Register. Approximately 20 people approached staﬀ at the event.

Virtua
l Community Workshop – September 6, 2022
Staﬀ held a virtual community workshop on September 6, 2022. There were 25 participants at the meeting. The meeting introduced the project’s major tasks and seek input on history, most signiﬁcant places, and any topics or themes that community members think are important and unique
to the history of Mountain View.

Hybrid Community Workshop – October 30, 2023
Staﬀ held a h ybrid community workshop on October 30, 2023. There were 11 participants in- person at the Library, and approximately 30 par ticipants were attending the meeting online via Zoom. The meeting summarized the project’s major t asks and seek input on the current or
dinance, process, and any topics import ant and unique to the history of Mountain View.

The key questions were asked of the public:

1. What ar
e your thoughts on the project goals?

2. What are your thoughts about the strategy for Downtown “Area H”?

3. What are your thoughts about including properties on the Register that would otherwise require City review?

4. What are your thoughts about surveying and including properties on the Register that would not otherwise require City review?

5. What are the beneﬁts as a property owner if your property is designated historic?

6. What are the challenges of owning historic property? What could the city do to address those concerns?
Community
members had many questions about the process and requirements. Some property owners raised concerns about excessive obligations and requested more transparency about who is aﬀected and what they are allowed to do. More detail about the public input from the community meeting is provided below within each topic area.

Communit
y members expressed the following concerns when presented with the various scope options:

Attachment 8
- Property values could be aﬀected by being designated as a historic resource - single-family owners’ rights to make additions and modiﬁcations to their houses would be aﬀected.

Detailed Received comments:
• Give the historic property owners some beneﬁts
• Financial eﬀect on these property owners, a grant to help the owner • Create a clear and transparent process
• The city could prepare a PEIR for routine, desirable modiﬁcations like solar panels and ADU's. This document would identify mitigation measures to be followed, so that owners would have more certainty in the planning process. • Educating people about the incentives
• Important that we are doing this project to give Historic Preservation consideration • Concerns about what it means to R1 homeowners (e.g., being told that additions or rebuilds aren’t possible would be unfair) +1
• Would want to know the threshold for preservation
• Want regulations to be clear about what would need to be preserved (façade vs the entire shell, etc.); there should be ﬂexibility in regulations • Unsettled that the discussion focused on only DT (100-300 blocks) rather than citywide neighborhoods; concerns about State regulations impacting Eichler neighborhoods • More protection on Eichler/Mid-century neighborhoods (e.g., neighborhood sought single-story Overlay Protection to ensure neighborhood's single-story character would be maintained)
• Good to focus on DT Historic Preservation, but also good to think about distinct neighborhood preservation
• In favor of restoring and preserving the character of downtown • The Castro Ped Mall is a great idea; enjoy sitting under the trees and seeing the buildings • Like historic nature but also a balance with property owner rights (allow for restoration, expansion in the back, modernization while preserving the historic nature) • MV should be surveyed citywide to determine which properties are historic • R1 property owners should be able to opt-in (so they can reap beneﬁts but not be put on the register and then restricted to what they can do with their property) • Eichler: preservation should be there to preserve the historic nature of neighborhoods, and should have regulations to protect a unique neighborhood • HP is not necessary for neighborhoods that have a mix of architectural styles ~ mainly concerns about property owners being limited to expanding because someone else determined their house is historic
• These incentives are nice (but no amount of incentive would be adequate if it limits how much one can build, e.g., if you cannot do additions)
• Regulations should allow for modernization (specify what are minor vs. major modiﬁcations, such as increasing amperage and installing panels, etc.) • Not going through additional review (e.g., minor mods won’t require review) is not an additional beneﬁt – beneﬁt should be above and beyond regular homes • Two sides to the issue; doing what we can to protect and preserve the historic character of our downtown
• Chase building: care about the mural and art inside, would not want it to “fall through the cracks” in terms of preservation
• National register eligible structures should be “high on the list” • Have City support owners in preserving historic properties • Maintain ground ﬂoor public interactive uses, downtown as an interactive community space
• Have a viable downtown
• Disappointment in owners of vacant downtown buildings; how can the City address vacancies
• More community spirit
• Would like to explore a downtown preservation district; unsure what that exactly means • Less rigid deﬁnition of historic preservation; quantify deﬁnition • City staﬀ helping to promote vacant commercial spaces on the real estate market to elevate their visibility
• Impressed by past eﬀorts by Economic Development to elevate visibility of opportunities to move into downtown vacant retail spaces; practical service by city staﬀ • Basically, on the right track; happy about the qualiﬁcation of individual buildings • Help set expectations in terms of study results being available to Council; saves time • Important to look at both the individual buildings and the district as a whole • Maintaining the ground ﬂoor public vibrancy
• Mountain View is not listed as a Mills Act city
• On main webpage, have information about Mills Act (incentives & procedures) • Would be nice to exactly know what the eﬀect would be, speciﬁcs • Adding some ﬂexibility and/or encouraging homeowners to include properties • Some people want to preserve historic properties, while others feel limited in development if their property is considered historic
• Owners are concerned about when they sell
• Survey owners to determine their concerns

Hybrid community Workshop – August 13, 2024

On August 13, 2024, staﬀ held a hybrid community meeting to introduce and focus on the Historic Context Statement. Three participants attended the meeting in person at City Hall, while seventeen joined via Zoom. P&T and staﬀ gave a presentation, mostly focusing on the Draft Historic Context Statement document. The Draft HCS is available on the City’s website, and comments will be accepted on the draft document until Monday, September 9, 2024.

Here is the summary of the comments and questions raised at the meeting:
• Why did City only identify three buildings in Castro to be eligible for National/State nominations? Please review the other ﬁve buildings again. • How can I remove my house from the Mountain View Historic Register on its listing anniversary?
• Opted-oﬀ properties from the Register are still on a separate list, which creates confusion regarding the process. Providing clarity is important.

Some community members oﬀered the following suggestions:
• Educate property owners about the advantages of being included on the Register. • Provide ﬂexibility to encourage property owners by providing more incentives and beneﬁts for historic properties.
• Create a grant program to help the historic resources owners with the costs of maintaining their property.
• Would like a voluntary approach for property owners to nominate their properties or create a district.

In general, community members were supportive of the proposed Downtown approach. It was suggested to balance preservation with property owner rights (allow for restoration, expansion in the back, and modernization while preserving the historic nature).

Some concerns were received regarding the higher costs of maintenance of these historic buildings that might create hardship for businesses.

Virtual Q&A, August 25, 2025

On August 25, 2025, the project team held a virtual presentation and question-and-answer session. Seventy-seven community members attended the meeting.

Questions included the following:
• Whether ADUs can be built
• Follow-up questions about various incentives
• Property owners’ responsibility for CEQA
• How to provide comments/edits to draft DPR forms
• Eﬀect of AB 130 on CEQA review of historic properties • Various questions about the eligibility list
• If previously opted oﬀ, can they opt back on?
• Will the project designate districts or neighborhoods? • How will the Sept 3 workshop be diﬀerent?

Community Workshop – September 3, 2025

On September 3, 2025, the City held an in-person workshop to discuss the potential next steps for the Ordinance, which was attended by approximately 20 community members.

Question 1: Property Expectations
• Commercial properties become underutilized when registered on the list. • Interested in seeing the disqualiﬁcation analysis for properties that were eligible but not designated.
• History is not necessarily individual structures, but a collection. • Interested in the Historic or Heritage District designation process. o Concerns about contributing vs. non-contributing historic buildings. What is the threshold of owner support for district designation? What is the impact on non- contributing buildings?
• Fear of designation has grown from the current process and barriers to construction that current historic owners have faced.
• Interested in a process for the community to send in suggestions and nominations for designation.
• Impact of SB 79 – The bill currently only protects the Local Register. How can the city protect historic resources in areas around transit, like Downtown? • Districts may have diﬀerent eligibility requirements. Height and massing may be more impactful than materials on the district scale.
• Glad to see that 492 Castro St is among the properties listed on the handout. • It is important to apply criteria for eligibility uniformly, regardless of how one might feel about the subjective aesthetic quality of a building.
• It is important to capture the context of an area and not just the building itself.

Important to capture the setting as well, importance of resource should be captured by the context.
• “You should want to visit a historic resource – looking at the list, there are some I wouldn’t say are desirable to visit.”
• Of the list of buildings shown, how many are related to an important historical ﬁgure? “How can we capture the importance of historical people vs the design of the building?” • The city should work with Mountainview Historical Society to promote and educate the public on historic resources through plaques, digital resources, or an app that links historic resources together.

Question 2: Nomination and Listing Processes
• Historic Register can stunt the development and trading of properties. • Constricts the value of properties as they are further in options for development and ultimately uses.
• Would like further clariﬁcation on points of evaluation for what considerations are taken for determining registered properties.
• Interested in a heritage zoning overlay for Downtown. • Interested in heritage sign or marker program. Paciﬁc Grove is an example program. • Properties listed on the national register should automatically be added to the local register.
• Clariﬁcation of CEQA connection: Those who opted oﬀ may not know they are still subject to CEQA.
• Supportive of Mountainview establishing a Historic District. • “A challenge for property owner is assessing ﬁnancial impact of this process, so create more resources for property owners to understand impacts in a tangible way.” • Provide clarity around the Mills Act processes
• “The city should concern itself with educating the population about non-physical historical resources too.”

Question 3: Development Review Processes
• Further clariﬁcation is needed on what triggers CEQA and how the historical register may aﬀect the CEQA analysis.
o General clariﬁcation on CEQA triggers from the Planning Division is needed. • Like the tiered permit structure (minor, major, etc.) if it can help identify the need for an Environmental Report.
• The process incentivizes honoring the city’s history. • Request that hard copies of the Historic Context Statement be made available at the Planning Counter and library. This document is useful for the City and the community. • More transparency around designation. Interested in a “How-to” document for the historic permitting process, designation process, and details about how owners will be impacted by designation/eligibility.
o Timelines, checklists, expectations for owners
• Should we have a historic resources committee?
o This would be a body in power to promote education of history/allocation of resources, would have a budget, and some discretion over staﬀ o Would have qualiﬁed people serve on this body.
• The new ordinance update should include a process for creating plaques or markers for historic resources.
• “The new review process to determine level of authority by scope of work seems logical as well as it is well-deﬁned. “
• Financial clarity for property owners, commercial, and residential taxes.

Question 4: Incentives and Concerns
• Interested in learning options for opting out of the register. o Some frustrations with the disconnect between the City’s and State’s registers. • At the same time, enjoyed the idea of the Mill’s Act beneﬁts. o Mostly had questions on this point. The table mostly discussed non-renewal on anniversaries.
o Did not discuss rescission. May need to make it clearer to the public the consequences of early cancellation.
o May have gotten lost in whether we were discussing opting out of the Mill’s Act or the register itself.
• Tension between the priorities of individual buildings and district preservation. • Homeowners are interested in preserving neighborhood character but still would like to make minor changes that don’t impact the look and feel of the building, such as rear additions.
• Looking for more transparency around tax rebates for those on the list. Many opted oﬀ the list, not knowing there is no incentive to opt oﬀ.
• Interest in design guidelines for historic districts. • Interest in historic resources training for City staﬀ and/or Council to ensure informed decisions.
• Create Markers to encourage pride/ownership of historic resources. • Provide property owner assistance in ﬁnding consultation for maintenance resources. “Structural engineer” expert, or “Certiﬁed Handyman”.
• The Mills Act is helpful for maintenance but does not cover the full cost for major renovations.
• A few individuals wanted assistance in interpreting the Mills Act.

From: Hala Alshahwany
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Input for Downtown Historic Designation
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 6:42:52 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Elaheh,
I was hoping to make it to the Historic Ordinance meeting tonight at the community center but unfortunately I’m not feeling well, so I’ll give my input in this message.

I got a chance to review the city’s list of potential residential and commercial buildings that may qualify for historic designation (locally or nationally). In particular my interest is on the following buildings which I extracted from the mentioned list. *124 Castro, Weilheimer Store (Oren restaurant) built 1874 *134 Castro, (Chinese restaurant) built 1967
*169-175 Castro, Ames building, built 1904
*191 Castro, Mock Bee building (Eureka restaurant) built 1906 *198 Castro, Jurian building (Agave restaurant) built 1913-1921 *201 Castro, Farmers and Merchants building (Red Rock cafe) built 1905 *228 Castro, Mountain View Theater, built 1926
*292 Castro, Knight’s Pharmacy (Icicles restaurant), built 1932 *655 Castro, Spanish style retail plaza, built 1930
*799 Castro, Spangler Mortuary, built 1931
I urge the city to include all the above buildings and designate them historic at least in the local ordinance, as soon as possible, because the housing state laws are ignoring the protection of these iconic structures when it comes to developments near the transit center (train) or public transportation corridor (El Camino). Clearly these buildings contain very unique Mountain View history and architectural beauty, adding great characteristics and uniqueness to our downtown. The sooner they are protected and designated historic, the more likely they will survive and continue to add richness and reasons for the public to continue coming to downtown.

I also appreciate all the residential buildings that were identified in the consultant repost as potentially having historic significance. I urge the city to also protect these structures with historic designation, as they definitely enhance MV neighborhoods aesthetics and beauty.

Let’s keep MV unique and cherished.

Sincerely,
Hala Alshahwany

Old MV Neighborhood Resident

From: Mark Lentczner
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: our house on the historic survey
Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 7:51:37 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Elaheh —
Minor problem in the write up of our house, 1209 Villa St:

On page 3 of the draft "Primary Record" for the house the section "Continuation of B10" incorrectly has the address 1665 Villa. I'm assuming this is a cut-n-paste error, since the rest of that paragraph seems fine.

— Mark Lentczner,
owner 1209 Villa St.

From: Carol Holsinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 8:07 PM
To: Kerachian, Elaheh <[email protected]> Subject: 445 Calderon
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Elaheh,
I attended the webinar regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register. I write because I find the information on the Draft Intensive Survey Resource rather confusing.
445 Calderon, the Abbott/Bakotich House, is already on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.

On the Draft Intensive
Survey Resource Evaluation Form page, 445 Calderon is listed as being on the Register, but it uses 3 different addresses, which was quite confusing for the members of the Mountain View Cohousing Community (MVCC) which developed the property in 2014.

Each owner received a letter about 449 Calderon which is a nonexistent address. Again, this was very confusing. I would suggest that the address used in the Register be the address in current use, which is #445.

If I didn't explain this well, please be in touch.

Thank you,
Carol Holsinger

From: Leslie Friedman
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Re: Historic homes
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2025 11:51:32 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi, Ela,
Thank you for your message and for forwarding the information to P&T.

I wonder if you might be able to tell me what steps a person should follow.

At the meetings I have attended, I confess I find the various situations for buildings or homes confusing. How does one start the process? Is there something somewhere I should be looking at? Or would you have time to tell me in person or over email how to begin and maybe how to proceed? What ever works for you.

I am recovering from a back injury, but hope to be more mobile soon.

Thank you so much,
Leslie
Leslie Friedman, Ph.D., History, Stanford University
Dancer: "with her strong technique and capacity for expression she was simply a joy to watch!"–The Times, London
Author: The Dancer's Garden, "I love it. It is a perfect book, in conception and execution....a marvelous writer..." Diana Ketcham, House & Garden, Editor; Books Editor, The Oakland Tribune (ret) "There is so much delight and poetry and wisdom to be found in the garden and in this book!" Sharon Abe, CA Academy of Sciences (ret)

The Story of Our Butterflies: Mourning Cloaks in Mountain View, "This is a wonderful book. I look forward to sharing it with the rest of our staff here." Joe Melisi, Center for Biological Diversity, (national conservation organization)
"Leslie Friedman is an historian, a dancer and choreographer, and now a perceptive writer about nature...in a second splendid work she takes wing into the world of butterflies...One is grateful for this delightful book, so well written and illustrated." Peter Stansky, Author, Historian, Prof. Stanford On Thursday, September 11, 2025 at 11:29:44 AM PDT, Kerachian, Elaheh <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Leslie,

Thanks for providing the information. I forwarded the information to P&T. I will update you as they provide feedback and updates to me. Feel free to contact me anytime.

Thanks,
Ela

From: Leslie Friedman
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 12:40 PM
To: Kerachian, Elaheh <[email protected]> Subject: Historic homes

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello, Ms Kerachian,

Thank you for the good meeting we had on the 25th.

I would greatly appreciate some of your time to learn
what I could do to get attention to this very old house.

You may or may not remember the other part of the
importance of the house. An artist has lived in this
house since 1974. His work is in important

museums around the US and other countries. The
work has been done in his studios behind the house
in Mountain View.

Please let me know if I could meet you before the next
meeting on Sept. 3.

Thank you for your kind attention to this request.

Yours truly,
Leslie Friedman

Leslie Friedman, Ph.D., History, Stanford University
Dancer: "with her strong technique and capacity for expression she was simply a joy to watch!"–The Times, London
Author
: The Dancer's Garden, "I love it. It is a perfect book, in conception and execution....a marvelous writer..." Diana Ketcham, House & Garden, Editor; Books Editor, The Oakland Tribune (ret) "There is so much delight and poetry and wisdom to be found in the garden and in this book!" Sharon Abe, CA Academy of Sciences (ret)

From: Laura DeBacker
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Re: Historic Property on Lloyd Way
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 3:35:24 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hey Ela,
Here is a screen shot of the architect spec for the house. : ) We also have the blue prints. So cool
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, August 20, 2025, 1:35 PM, Laura DeBacker <[email protected]> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Wednesday, August 20, 2025, 1:21 PM, Kerachian, Elaheh <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Laura,

Thanks for contacting me. Please feel free to share your information with me. I am managing this project.

Thanks,
Ela

From: Laura DeBacker
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:29 PM
To: Kerachian, Elaheh <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Historic Property on Lloyd Way

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email
before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi again - just thought I’d check in. I’ve looked through some of the documentation and can’t see who else to contact to give more details on our house. Please let me know at your earliest convenience and thank you. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting.

Thanks again,

Laura
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Friday, August 15, 2025, 2:29 PM, Laura DeBacker
wrote:

Hi Elaheh,

My husband and I are the owners of 1655 Lloyd Way and
have gotten information on the Preservation and
Ordinance update. In looking at the draft evaluation of our

house, I’m excited to say that I have more information on the origin and owners! Is there someone you could put
me in touch with to give more details? I have the original blue prints as well as the complete design spec from the architect which is pretty fascinating. The architect
actually designed the Flat Iron Building in San Francisco (William H.

Topeka)

I’d love to see this house get more recognition as it is so cool. Not sure the process to add it to a California registry as well?

Anyway, let me know thoughts and THANK YOU!

Laura

9/20/2025 To Whom It May Concern: We were very saddened to hear that our home at 336 Mariposa Avenue was found to no longer qualify

for

historic

designation

following

the

City

Mountain

View’s

recent

historical

assessment.

We have been residents of Mountain View for 13 years. We built our lives and careers here, and have

started

raising

our

three

children

here.

When

Covid

hit

the

spring

2020,

decided

explore

what

would

take

purchase

house

with

space

and

yard

for

the

kids.

During

our

house

hunt

were

surprised

and

delighted

discover

the

house

336

Mariposa.

Not

only

did

have

the

space

were

looking

for,

but

also

had

charm

and

history

that

captured

us.

We put a great deal of thought into the decision to purchase a historical property, researching the Mills

Act

and

the

house.

understood

the

responsibility

were

taking

keep

the

home

well

maintained

and

true

its

Craftsman

style.

heavily

deliberated

whether

could

afford

it,

but

ultimately

found

the

property

tax

benefits

enabled

make

the

numbers

work.

Losing our Mills Act contract will increase the cost of home ownership for us by 35%-40% 1 , a
very

large

and

unexpected

change

our

family

expenses.

Interest

rates

have

also

increased

significantly

since

got

our

mortgage

2020,

making

moving

new

home

within

Mountain

View,

especially

within

the

kids’

school

zone,

difficult

financial

proposition.

Given these factors, we appreciate that the City is considering a grace period. We ask that a 10-year

grace

period

for

our

home

considered.

That

period

would

allow

our

3 kids

(currently

2nd

and

3rd

grade

Landels

Elementary)

continue

with

their

peer

group,

while

giving

time

see

our

careers

can

grow

support

the

continued

ownership

our

home.

In addition, we understand the City is clarifying the rules regarding which exterior modifications are

exempt

from

detailed

review.

party

who

has

been

active

discussions

with

the

city

for

5 years

regarding

the

relocation

some

non-historic

exterior

windows

and

doors

the

rear

(non-public-facing)

side

the

house,

believe

would

helpful

distinguish

non-public

facing

elements

with

low

historical

value

from

those

that

are

essential

the

public,

historic

character

the

house.

Thank you for your time and consideration, Alyssa and David Garver 336 Mariposa Avenue, Mountain View CA 1 In 2024, we paid $129,408 in mortgage and $5,513 in property tax. If we estimate a 1.25% effective property tax

the

2020

purchase

price,

that

would

$52,750.

(129408+52750)/(129408+5513)

-1

35%

increase.

the

assessed

value

includes

retroactive

compounded

yearly

appreciation

since

the

purchase

date,

this

number

will

~39.1%

increase.

From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: 134 Castro St. Historic Status Comments
Date: Friday, September 26, 2025 12:46:54 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Planning Division Members,
We are writing in regard to the proposed designation of 134 Castro Street as a historic resource. We received the City’s notification only 10 days ago and missed the community meetings that were held.

Since, its construction 58 years ago, the property, as described in the consultant's report, has never experienced any historical event. It has no association with notable figures, nor does it hold significant ties to Mountain View’s Chinese-owned business community. The building’s material is standard and overall craftsmanship is basic. Interior and exterior design do not reflect any historic style or unique features. In fact, a few years ago, renowned Chinese designer Liang Zhiming reviewed the property on-site and gave it a negative design assessment.

Historic designation would place unnecessary restrictions on the property. It would reduce
the property's value, limit opportunities for future tenants and obstruct future renovations while providing no significant public benefit. If the building stays with the current appearance, that would be only fit for a Chinese restaurant and not appealing to other types of tenants. In addition, the building owners would like to reserve the right to do renovations in the near future to use the property for other types of businesses aside from Chinese restaurants.

With great respect for Mountain View’s history and its preservation, we request the city to decline the designation of 134 Castro Street as a historic resource. Please let us know of any update. Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
Donna Ha, Audrey Ha, Elaine Yu, Kevin Ha, Syvia Ha

From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Update for HP 696 California Street Object Record Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:15:58 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Ela,

Per your request I am submitting some photos and information on the nomination of 696 California Street for eligibility on the MV Historic Register in advance of the October 1st EPC meeting..

Please see attached before fire, during remodel and after completion photos of property.

Please note that the current object record states 696 ”is an exceptionally intact example that, while modest in scale, has several unique features that are characteristic of the style, including flared eaves, decorative shingling at the cornice and gable ends, triparite ached wood vents in gable ends…”. While remodeled to reflect that Queen Anne 1906 style most of the building has been rebuilt (except for the parts of the façade) during the remodel by a 2012 designer with current materials.

Complete replacement of roof, gutters, gables, windows, doors, foundation, skirt, electrical, front and back stairs, fireplace, plumbing and interior which all had to be upgraded to current building codes. The fireplace and brick stairs were not part of the original design.

The current object record states “The property retains all aspects of historic integrity and overall retains integrity for listing in the National Register and California Register.” All aspects of integrity are defined as:

“Historical preservation integrity is the authenticity of a historic building's physical characteristics that convey its past importance, evaluated across seven aspects: location, setting, design, workmanship, materials, association, and feeling. The weight given to each aspect depends on why the property is significant, with, for example, location being crucial for a site significant for its association.”

While 696 is in the same location its design and materials have been dramatically changed after the 2011 fire. After consulting with the MV Council members years ago, it was removed from the register. I still maintain it does not have sufficient integrity and age to be a MV historic resource.

Please let me know what the updated object record will say after Page & Turbull have evaluated my input and if they have any further questions.

Thank you,

Suzette Spencer
Owner 696 California Street

From: , Planning Division
To: Kerachian, Elaheh; Anderson, Eric B.

Cc: Pancholi, Diana
Subject: FW: Additional comment on Item 5.1: Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update: Ineligible properties
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:19:27 PM
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc:

Subject: Additional comment on Item 5.1: Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update: Ineligible properties
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Chair Gutierrez, Vice Chair Nunez, and Members of the EPC, In addition to the letter written by Livable Mountain View, which we sent earlier today, 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. More detailed analysis of these buildings, Mills Act implications, and related issues should be done by staff and the consultants before the EPC and council deems these buildings to be “ineligible properties”.

Robert Cox and Louise Katz

GROOM & CAVE, LLP Attorneys At Law A Limited Liability Partnership Comprised Of Law Corporations THOMAS R. CAVE, ESQ. 1570 The Alameda, #100 Tel: (408) 286-3300 [email protected] San Jose, CA 95126 Fax: (408) 286-3423 November 21, 2025 Via email ([email protected]) and Certified Mail City Council, City of Mountain View c/o City Clerk, City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Re: December 9, 2025 Historic Ordinance Update Meeting Dear Councilmembers: This office represents The 799 Castro Limited Partnership and the Spangler family with respect to the property located at 799 Castro Street, Mountain View, California. On November 19, 2025 our client received the attached letter dated November 17, 2025 notifying our client for the first time that a hearing is taking place on December 9, 2025 to consider a “draft list of historic resources and ordinance update strategies”. Upon reviewing the City’s website information relating to the matter, it became evident that our client’s property located at 799 Castro Street, Mountain View, California has been identified as a property to be considered to be placed on the Historic Register list. I note that the City’s webpage entitled Historic Preservation and Register Update states: “A Draft Survey Methodology Report and Draft Intensive Survey Resource Evaluation Forms (Eligible Private Properties Only) are available for public review. We will accept comments on these documents until December 1, 2025.” Please also note that the City’s letter to property owners was delivered just one week before Thanksgiving and sets a hearing for the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas making it extraordinarily difficult for any property owner to intelligently gather appropriate information and respond accordingly. Needless to say, whether our client’s property is placed on the Historic Register list has a significant impact upon our client and it is only reasonable and appropriate that our client has a reasonable opportunity to review the facts and recommendations of the City in this regard and that our client be provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on this matter. Certainly, a period of a mere 12 calendar days to review, digest and comment on this significant matter cannot be reasonable. At this time, without having the time to appropriately investigate the matter, we must object to our client’s property be under consideration for the Historic Register list. It is respectfully requested that the City postpone the December 9, 2025 hearing and November 21, 2025 City Council, City of Mountain View c/o City Clerk, City of Mountain View

allow my client a reasonable time to obtain the appropriate recommendation of experts in this field and comment on this matter. Sincerely, GROOM & CAVE, LLP Thomas R. Cave Thomas R. Cave, Esq. cc: Mtn. View Community Development Dept via email ([email protected]) Mtn. View City Attorney via email ([email protected]) Mr. Martin James Spangler

Matthew D. Francois

December 1, 2025

R u t a n & Tu c k e r , L L P |

O r a n g e C o u n ty | P a lo A lto | S a n F ra n c is c o | Sc o t ts d a le | 2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

VIA E-MAIL -- [email protected]

Honorable Ellen Kamei, Mayor and
Members of the City Council

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
500 Castro Street, 3rd Floor
Mountain View, CA 94041

Re: Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register Update: Mountain View Buddhist Temple ’s Objection to Inclusion in City’s Register of Historic Resources
Dear Mayor Kamei and Members of the City Council:

We serve as co -counsel with our colleague Mindie Romanowsky of Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure and Flegel, LLP, on behalf of our client, the Mountain View Buddhist Temple (“MVBT”) to object to the inclusion of MVBT’s property located at (the “Property”) in Mountain View’s Register of Historic Resources (the “Register”). As you know, the City of Mountain View (“City”) is proposing to update the Register in connection with its update to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (“HPO”). Inclusion of the Property in the City’s Register will cause MVBT to suffer substantial hardship, which is likely to deprive MVBT of an economic return on the Property, the reasonable use of the Property, and/or the appropriate use of its Property in the furtherance of its religious mission. As a result, the City is prohibited by California Government Code Section 37361 from including the Property in the Register.

Additionally, inclusion of the Property in the Register would impose a substantial burden on MVBT’s religious exercise in contravention of the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and violate a myriad of other statutory and constitutional rights, as detailed below.1 On behalf of MVBT, we respectfully ask that you direct City Staff to remove the Property from the Register and to no longer consider the Property in any further updates to the HPO.

I. Background: The Property has Long Been Used for Religious Purposes.

MVBT owns an approximate 5-acre parcel located at i.e., the Property. Since the mid-1950s, the Property has served as the MVBT campus, and is home to a vibrant Buddhist community offering a wide range of religious and spiritual programs. Over the

1 We reserve the right to submit additional factual and legal objections to the City’s actions on the HPO if the City continues to consider including MVBT’s Property in the Register.

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 2 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

decades, the congregation has invested significantly in maintaining and improving the campus to meet the evolving community and religious needs of its members. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a summary of the campus buildings, their construction dates, primary functions, and any changes or remodels over time.

As illustrated by Exhibit A , MVBT has consistently invested in its campus as the congregation grew and facilities required maintenance, update and renovation. In recent years, MVBT initiated a master planning process to address future religious and community needs and intends to move forward with such plans in the next few years. Those plans are also summarized in Exhibit A.

On or about August 15, 2025, MVBT received its first notice from the City that the Property was identified as an eligible historic resource based on age, architectural features, and/or its relationship to important events. The notice explained that in 2024, the City’s consultant, Page & Turnbull (retained by the City for the project in 2022), had conducted a citywide reconnaissance survey, followed by an intensive-level survey, which led to the Property being deemed eligible for historic designation. MVBT was concerned to learn their Property would be eligible as historic and even more surprised that the process had been initiated by the City in 2022, with no formal notice (as will be further discussed herein).

After receipt of the notice, MVBT representatives attended workshops on August 25 and September 30 and the Environmental Planning Commission’s (“EPC”) meeting on October 1 to express concerns about the proposed designation and the removal of the “opt-out” provision in the current HPO . (Mountain View Municipal Code [“MVMC”] § 36.54.70 [ Council-initiated inclusion of property on Register “will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation.”]; MVMC § 36.54.75(a) [allowing owner to request that its property be removed from Initial Register, which shall be granted if it meets specified procedural requirements].)2 Despite raising questions about the impact of this designation and concerns about the inability to opt -out of the Register , MVBT received no detailed response from the City.

Instead, MVBT received a certified letter from the City dated November 17, 2025 indicating that the Property was proposed to be included on the Register along with a list of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”).

The potential historic designation of the Property poses substantial hardship to MVBT and its religious use of the Property , as well as the future use and development of the Property, including their campus master plan goals (i.e., it could increase costs, cause delays, or even hinder or result in denial of permits necessary for campus improvements). It may also reduce the Property’s valuation due to added restrictions and permitting requirements.

2 (See also MVMC § 36.54.50 [describing the purpose of the HPO as “providing a system of voluntary compliance and available incentives” to increase the likelihood that historical resources are maintained, restored, enhanced, and protected].)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 3 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

This letter will provide the legal and factual information about the Property to inform the final determination of its eligibility for the Register. As will be detailed herein, the Property is ineligible for Register and should be removed from the draft list immediately. Failure to do so could result in legal liability for the City.

II. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Demonstrate that the Property is Historically Significant.

As a preliminary matter, MVBT first learned of the proposed historic designation of its Property after the City’s consultant had prepared: (1) a Historic Context Statement (“HCS”), (2) a Citywide Historic Resources Survey Methodology Report (“Report”), and (3) a Citywide Historic Resources Survey (“Survey”), including one for the Property. The HCS is “intended to provide a framework for the citywide historic resources survey” and to help “ in the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties.”3 Neither the HCS nor the Report were subject to noticed public hearings or approved by the Council , but were nonetheless relied on by the consultant in preparing the Survey. The City’s FAQ acknowledges that the HCS will only be taken to the City Council for adoption “at the end of the project ” and that the consultant relied on the HCS in preparing the Survey. (FAQ, p. 4.) Procedurally, this is akin to putting the “cart before the horse.” Instead, the framework and methodology should be approved by the City Council with ample and robust public input before, not after, the consultant prepared the Survey.

Turning now to the Survey itself, it appears to be based on a “windshield survey” and review of MVBT’s website with no contact whatsoever with anyone affiliated with MVBT. In general to be identified as historic under the national and state criteria, resources must be over 50 years of age, meet one of four criteria of significance, and retain sufficient historic integrity. (Report, pp. 16 -17.) Any such factual determinations regarding historic eligibility must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, e.g., facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129 , 1148 citing Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1115-1116.)
The historic resource criterion include: Event, Person, Design/Construction, and Information Potential. The Property contains a mixture of modern and mid -century modern religious buildings and facilities. While aesthetically pleasing, they were not designed by a famous architect nor do they represent a valuable example of a particular architectural style. The City’s consultant thus only attempts to qualify the Property as historic based on Events. This criterion

3 (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/development-projects/historic-preservation-and-register-update; https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11964/638907857640530000; see also HCS, p. 1 [noting the document “is intended to support the identification and evaluation of historic properties, as well inform future preservation efforts.”].)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 4 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

includes properties that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history. (Report, pp. 16-18.) Per the City’s Municipal Code, an event is described as “the site of a significant historic event in the City’s past.” (MVMC § 36.54.65; see also Report, p. 18.) The Property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history. While the site may represent the first purpose - built facility constructed by and for the Japanese Buddhist community of Mountain View, t he Property is actually the fourth site where Buddhist services were held in Mountain View. 4 Thus, the Property does not represent the establishment of a “new” religious organization in Mountain View as specified in the HCS’s description of the event criterion. (HCS, p. 172.) Moreover, there is no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to suggest the Property is the site of a significant historic event in the City’s past.

Further, in addition to qualifying for listing under the above criteria, a property must be shown to have sufficient historic integrity. The State Office of Historic Preservation defines this as “the authenticity of an historic resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resources period of significance.” (Report, p. 19.) The national and state registers define historic integrity based on the following seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. (Report, pp. 19-20.) As to the Property, the City’s consultant relies on only three of the seven historic integrity criteria: location, feeling, and association. (Report, p. 21 [asserting without citation to any authority that for properties significant for their association with an ethnic or cultural group, “the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties including location, feeling, and association, design to a lesser degree.”].) “Location” refers to the place where the historic property was constructed. (Report, p. 19.) “Feeling” means the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. (Report, p. 20.) “Association” means the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

In terms of location, the Property was not the first site of Buddhist religious practice in Mountain View, but rather the fourth. Further, the MVBT site originally consisted only of

1.5 acres which was developed with the first temple and social hall (i.e., the YBA Building Hall).

Only later did the Property grow its current 5.4 acres with the current temple completed in 1979.

Thus, the Property lacks location integrity. For similar reasons, the Property lacks association integrity as there is no direct link between it and an important historic event.

The Report identifies various periods of historic development , including Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation 1945 -1979. (Report, p. 24.) This significance of this time period is described as associated with urban development and the advent

4 (https://mvbuddhisttemple.org/about-mvbt/our-history/; see also HCS, pp. 153-154.)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 5 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

of Silicon Valley. Nothing about this time period refers to religious or cultural movements. Thus, the Property lack feeling integrity.

Further, as noted by the City’s consultant, “[g] enerally, 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.” (Report, p. 21.) Here, the Property has undergone major significant alterations since the initial temple building was constructed in 1957. Multiple buildings were added to the site from 1957-1979 and it grew from 1.5 acres to 5.4 acres. The original temple building was substantially altered in 2011 -2013. The new temple building was added in 1979.

That building too was significantly renovated in 2011-2013.

Should the City fail to remove the Property from the Register and no longer consider the Property in further updates to the HPO, MVBT intends to bear the expense of retaining a historic resource consultant to perform a critical peer review analysis of the City’s historic evaluation of MVBT’s Property. Importantly, t he consultant’s initial observations were that properties are specifically excluded from being listed on the National Register of Historic Places for their religious history. The consultant also correctly noted that much of the Property is not age eligible.

III. California Government Code Section 37361 Limits Local Government’s Power Over Noncommercial Properties Owned by Religiously Affiliated Associations.

Under state law, cities lack jurisdiction to designate a religious property as historic over the objection of a religious entity claiming that it will suffer substantial hardship as a result of the designation. MVBT objects to the designation of its Property as historic and will suffer substantial hardship as the result of such designation.

Cities have the power to “provide for places, buildings, structures . . . having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value, special conditions or regulations for their protection, enhancement, perpetuation or use . . ..” (Gov. Code § 37361(b).) However, the Legislature created an exception for “noncommercial property owned by any association or corporation that is religiously affiliated and not organized for private profit” provided:
(1) The association or corporation objects to the application of the subdivision to its property.
(2) The association or corporation determines in a public forum that it will suffer substantial hardship, which is likely to deprive the association or corporation of economic return on its property, the reasonable use of its property, or the appropriate use of its property in the furtherance of its religious mission, if the application is approved.

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 6 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

(Gov. Code § 37361(c).) This provision applies to all cities, including charter cities. ( Id.) and explicitly precludes a local legislative body from overriding the “substantial hardship” determination made by the religiously-affiliated entity. (Gov. Code § 37361(d); see also East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 693, 716 [California Supreme Court observes that “there is no requirement of governmental approval or review of a hardship determination.”].)
In rejecting a facial challenge to Government Code Section 37361 on establishment clause grounds, the California Supreme Court described the law as “granting religiously affiliated organizations the authority to declare themselves exempt from historic preservation laws . . ..” (East Bay Asian Local Development Corp ., supra, 24 Cal.4th at 698, 709 [further noting the law grants “an exemption from landmark preservation laws to noncommercial property owned by a religious organization that objects to landmark designation and determines in a public forum that the organization would suffer a substantial hardship if the property were designated a historic landmark,” thereby “restor[ing] their ability to use noncommercial property, unencumbered by the restrictions that accompany landmark designation.” ]) It explained the purpose of the law as follows:

We are satisfied that the Legislature could reasonably believe that the restrictions accompanying designation as a historical landmark under local ordinances in California may burden the ability of a religious entity that owned the property to carry out its religious mission and that an accommodating exemption was appropriate. The Legislature was aware of the restrictions a historic preservation ordinance imposes on the landmark property and had before it anecdotal evidence . . . of actual burdens on religious entities whose noncommercial property had been designated a landmark. 5 [Citation.] Those restrictions, including limitation of the right to alter or demolish a designed landmark and responsibility to maintain the structure without access to governmental disaster or other assistance, may impose significant financial burdens on the owner of the property. Any significant financial burden, or simply the inability to demolish or alter a structure that is no longer suited to the needs of the owner, could affect the ability of many owners t o carry out their religious missions . . . . The Legislature could reasonably conclude that the potential burden of landmark designation justified an accommodating exemption for noncommercial properties owned by religious entities. . . . In this instance, given uncertainty over whether local historic preservation laws adopted pursuant to sections 25373 and 37361 6 would impinge upon the free exercise rights of religious entities, the state could rationally conclude action was necessary to avert a free exercise claim.

5 The evidence consisted of churches not being able to expand their sites or demolish seismically unsafe buildings due to historic resource designations. 6 Government Code Section 25373 is a parallel statute that applies to counties.

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 7 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

(24 Cal.4th at 712 -713 [emphasis added] .) The Court upheld the law, concluding that “[a]n exemption from a landmark preservation law simply allows the property owner to use the property as it did before landmark status was imposed,” noting that by “permitting the religious organization that owns the property to exempt itself, Sections 25373 and 37361 avoid any governmental entanglement with religion.” (24 Cal.4th at 718.)
In California-Nevada Annual Conference etc. v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1559, the First Appellate District ruled that a city lacked jurisdiction to designate church property as a historic landmark after the church objected to such designation. The church building was seismically unsafe and had remained vacant for a long period of time. The church had merged with another congregation and determined that the property had “no use within the church’s mission except as an important source of revenue to be generated by a sale,” and that the church intended to use the sale proceeds to further its ministry. (173 Cal.App.4th at 1562.) The church entered into a contract to sell the property to a residential developer, who intended to demolish the church building to facilitate construction of condominiums.

Over the church’s objections, the city commenced the process of designating the church property as a historic landmark, noting that the church was designed by a nationally renowned architect and a valuable example of early twentieth century church architecture , combining elements of the Mission Revival and English Gothic Tudor styles. The church sued seeking an order directing the city to refrain from designating the property as a landmark or taking any action to subject the property to the landmark designation process.

In its defense, the city argued that the church is not noncommercial property because it is no longer used for a religious purpose but rather for the profit -making purpose of selling and developing condominiums. Citing the Supreme Court decision in East Bay, the First Appellate District roundly rejected the city’s argument, reasoning that “the text of the statute and its legislative history, clearly refute this notion and support the trial court’s observation that the ‘whole point’ of the exemption ‘is to allow religious institutions to sell their dilapidated churches for a profit.’” (173 Cal.App.4th at 1565.) The court noted that the statute explicitly allows a church to exempt its property from a historic preservation law if the law is likely to deny the owner economic return on the property. (Id.) The court went on to state:

Thus, the city’s principal contention that the statutory exemption is inapplicable because the property is not currently being used as a church or for any other religious purpose quite clearly must be rejected. The trial court found and the record contains no basis to question that the church is a religiously affiliated entity that is not organized for private profit, that the church has objected to application of the city’s landmark ordinance to the property, which it owns, and that by its explicit objections at public meetings the church has determined in a public forum that it will suffer substantial hardship likely to deprive it of economic return on its property if the ordinance is applied to the property. Therefore, sections 25373,

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 8 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

subdivision (d) and 37361, subdivision (c) remove from the city the authorization to apply its landmark ordinance to the church property. (173 Cal.App.4th at 1567.) Here, th e Property consists of noncommercial property owned by MVBT, a nonprofit corporation that is religiously affiliated. Inclusion of the Property on the Register would inhibit MVBT’s ability to alter or demolish church buildings as needed to support and accommodate its religious mission. According to the State Supreme Court, simply being unable to “demolish or alter a structure that is no longer suited to the needs of the owner, could affect the ability of many owners to carry out their religious missions.” (East Bay, East Bay Asian Local Development Corp., supra, 24 Cal.4th at 713.)
The alterations of campus buildings is not abstract or theoretical. (See Exhibit A.) In the last 10-15 years, MVBT made substantial renovations to both YBA Hall and the Hondo. YBA Hall (originally built in 1957) is the oldest building on campus and was the site of the original temple. The Hondo (built in 1979) , is the site of the current temple. MVBT obtained building permits from the City for this work and the City did not raise any issues or concerns with respect to the historic nature of them. 7 The fact that that two of the four major campus buildings have been recently altered in a substantial fashion further undermines the credibility of the proposed historic demolition.

Over the past few years, MVBT has also been engaged in a master plan process for future development and growth to support its religious mission. Throught that process, it has identified renovations and alterations needed to other campus buildings. Akin to the past renovations made to the Hondo and YBA Hall, the anticipated future updates and improvements to other structures and the campus, in general, are directly related to furthering MVBT’s religious mission. (See Exhibit A.). While MVBT is a few years away from seeking formal permits from the City, it has discussed such preliminary plans with City planning staff. Moreover, most buildings have an estimated useful life of 50 years or so. Thus, at some point, all campus buildings will require renovations, alterations, and eventually demolition and replacement.

Inclusion of the Property on the City’s Register would restrict and/or inhibit MVBT’s ability to alter or demolish campus building over time. If the Property were to be placed on the City’s Register, MVBT would have to obtain a historic preservation permit (“HP permit”) to “make a significant alteration, redevelop, or relocate any structure.” (MVMC § 36.54.85(a).) The discretionary HP permit is reviewed by the zoning administrator and may be “approved or conditionally approved if the following findings ar e made: (1) the proposed significant alteration will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource; (2) the proposed significant alteration maintains and enhances the appearance of the community.” (MVMC § 36.54.85(c) -(d).) As noted by the Court of Appeal in California-Nevada Annual

7 We hereby incorporate by reference into the proceedings for this matter, the building permit record and associated planning files for the Property.

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 9 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

Conference, Section 37361 was enacted precisely to allow churches to exempt themselves from such a discretionary process which not only requires time, effort, and expense, but also “generates uncertainty that may discourage the parties from going forward with the project.” (173 Cal.App.4th at 1571.)
IV. Inclusion of the Property in the Register would Violate RLUIPA.

The RLUIPA applies when a local government places a “substantial burden” on religious exercise in the form of a land use regulation, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property inv olved. (42 USC § 2000cc(a)(2).) Such a regulation is permissible only if “the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on the person, assembly or institution —(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” (42 USC § 2000cc(a)(1).) Agencies that violate RLUIPA are subject to the payment of a prevailing religious entity’s attorneys’ fees and costs. (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f)).

As outlined above the inclusion of the Property on the Register would impose a substantial burden on MVBT’s religious exercise by greatly limiting its ability to alter or demolish its buildings. Based on the record, the City has failed to substantially demonstrate that a historic designation of the Property would further a compelling government interest, nor that designating the Property as historic would be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

The issues we raise herein are not limited or restricted to MVBT. Given the relatively limited amount of time, we did a cursory review of all the properties listed in the Survey as eligible for inclusion in the Register. W hile our search was not exhaustive, we have already identified 9 other properties that are used for religious purposes and could similarly subject the City to liability for the claims we assert herein.

A. The designation of the Property was the result of an individualized assessment.

The “individualized assessment” requirement is satisfied when the government takes “into account the particular details of an applicant’s proposed use of land ” when making land use decisions. (Guru Nanak Sikh Society v. County of Sutter (9th Cir. 2006) 456 F.3d 978, 986.) If the zoning law permits a governmental entity to consider the applicant’s intended use of the property and utilizes “at least partly subjective criteria on a case-by-case basis[,]” then it qualifies as an individualized assessment. (Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Commn. (2nd Cir. 2014) 768 F.3d 183, 193.)
In Chabad, the Second Circuit analyzed a Connecticut statute that required an individual assessment of applications to alter historic properties. The statute required entities in a historic district to obtain a certificate of appropriateness, which is granted by a local commission that

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 10 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

applies “loosely defined and subjective standards to discrete applications.” (768 F.3d at 194.) When the commission assesses the appropriateness of an application, they must consider such criteria as the “historical and architectural value and significance of the modification” as well as the relationship of the exterior architectural style to the neighborhood. (Id.) The Court held that these standards were subjective, and that the denial of the Plaintiff’s application resulted from an “individual assessment” thus triggering RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision. (Id.) The determination of which properties to be included on the City’s Register, particularly the Property, involved an assessment of the uses of the land and employed subjective criteria. For instance, the City’s consultant identified the religious use of the Property. The consultant then made a subjective determination that the Property “appears” historically significant “for its direct and significant association with the Japanese Buddhist ethnic and religious community in Mountain View.” The consultant acknowledges the Property does not appear to be associated with historic persons or significant architectural design, but rather is “associated with the broader community.”8
The evaluation fails to consider or discuss any of the relatively recent alterations made to the oldest building and original temple (YBA Building) or the current temple (Hondo); instead it notes the complex has “evolved over time” and replacement of exterior wood siding ha s “diminished integrity of materials and design.” Then it refers to the Property as “retain[ing] integrity of location, feeling, and association with the Japanese Buddhist community.” In short, the City’s determination of the Project as historic was based on an individualized assessment for purposes of RLUIPA.

B. Inclusion of the Property in the Register would impose a substantial burden on MVBT’s religious exercise.

In order to satisfy the substantial burden element, courts have looked at a number of factors to determine whether the substantial burden has been met. Courts often find that a substantial burden exists when the government entities (1) apply broad rationales that could foreclose future religious development opportunities, (2) ignore good faith compliance efforts by religious organizations, (3) are applied inconsistently compared to similar religious or secular uses, or (4) effectively shrink the amount of land available for religious purposes. (Guru Nanak, 456 F.3d at 989; Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian , 384 F.Supp. 2d 1123, 1134 (W.D. Mich 2005).)

8 According to the Historic Context Statement, in order to be considered for the National Register, a religious property from the 1945 -1979 period like the Property “must also meet National Register Criteria Consideration A and derive its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.” (Historic Context Statement, p. 171.)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 11 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

As previously noted, once placed on the City’s Register, properties must obtain a historic HP permit to “make a significant alteration, redevelop, or relocate any structure.” (MVMC § 36.54.85(a).) The HP permit is reviewed by the zoning administrator and may be “approved or conditionally approved if the following findings are made: (1) the proposed significant alteration will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significan ce of the historic resource; (2) the proposed significant alteration maintains and enhances the appearance of the community.” (MVMC § 36.54.85(c)-(d).) At minimum, t hese criteria consists of broad rationales that could foreclose future religious developme nt opportunities . Moreover, b ecause the designation is proposed for the entire Property including the parking lot, storage building, and classroom space, the designation effectively shrinks the amount of land available for religious purposes.

In sum, inclusion of the Property on the Register would impose a substantial burden on MVBT’s religious exercise.

C. The City has not shown that designating the Property as historic achieves a compelling government interest or is the least restrictive means of doing so.

Under the RLUIPA, the government entity is subject to strict scrutiny and “shall bear the burden of persuasion” in demonstrating they have a compelling government interest and are using the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. (42 USC § 2000 cc(a)(1).) When evaluating a claim of compelling interest courts often look to whether “in the past the governmental actor has consistently and vigorously protected that interest.” (Grace Church of North County v. City of San Diego, 555 F.Supp.2d 1126, 1141 (2008).) Further, the government entity must show they used the least restrictive means to further the stated government interest by demonstrating they “actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures before adopting the challenged practice.” (Warsoilder v. Woodford (9th Cir. 2005) 418 F.3d 989, 999.) While the City would contend it has a compelling government interest to preserve historic resources, there is no evidence that the City has “consistently and vigorously protected that interest.” (Grace Church of North County , 555 F.Supp.2d at 1141.) The record shows the City initiated the HPO and Register updates to try and retain as much discretion as possible over future development in the light of recently failed legislation that would have required the City to approve new housing developments unless t he site had been designated as a historic resource. (April 12, 2022 Staff Report to City Council Regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update: Scope of Work and Consultant Contract.) Along those lines, the City is proposing to more than double the number of historic resources on its Register from 48 to 100 (per the October 1, 2025 Staff Report to the EPC).

Further, the City acknowledges that it evaluated sites like the Property “with a lower threshold of integrity ” given that these properties were likely altered over time and are likely associated with “intangible cultural heritage.” ( HCS, p. 173.) Given that the supposed connotations are with the broader community, designating the Property as historic is not the least

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 12 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

restrictive means of accomplishing the City’s goal of historic preservation . (Warsoilder, supra, 418 F.3d at 999.) For instance, the City could provide historical information about the Mountain View Buddhist Community through historic walking tours; displays in museums, libraries or online; or through public speaker series.

In sum, inclusion of the Property on the Register does not advance a compelling governmental interest and is, in any case, not the least restrictive means of doing so.

V. Inclusion of the Property in the Register would Violate MVBT’s Constitutionally- Protected Rights.

A. Due Process
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (See also Cal. Con., art. I, sec. 7.) The Due Process Clause has both procedural and substantive elements. And a violation of either subjects a public agency to liability for damages and attorneys’ fees. (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.) As set forth below, were the City to include the Property in the Register, it would be liable for violating MVBT’s procedural and due process rights.

1. Procedural Due Process
In accordance with principles of procedural due process, an owner of property that may impacted by a land use decision is entitled to reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612.) This right includes a fair hearing before unbiased and disinterested decision -makers. ( Nasha L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 483).

While the City initiated the HPO and Register update process in April 2022, the first notice MVBT received of the City’s proposal to include its Property on the City’s Register was when it received a letter from the City dated August 11, 2025 that the Property “has been identified as a historic resource, based on age, architectural features and/or relationship to important events.” By this point, the HCS, Report, and Survey had all been completed, albeit in final draft form. In other words, MVBT’s Property was proposed for inclusion in the City’s Register, all without its knowledge, input, or consent. To compound matters, the EPC then recommended to not allow owners of otherwise historic properties to opt out of the City’s Register , as is currently allowed.

As previously noted, the City sent a letter dated November 17, 2025 providing less than 30 days’ notice of the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting to consider the direction of the EPC on the Register. This does not constitute reasonable notice nor a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

In an attempt to determine what actions the City took to notify the public that the City planned to update its HPO and Register, we reviewed the City’s website and multiple staff reports, 2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25
Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 13 ends

watched video recordings of public meetings, and contacted Elaheh Kerachian, Senior Planner at the City of Mountain View, directly for information. We discovered that while the City held Community Workshops on September 6, 2022, October 30, 2023, August 13, 2024, August 25, 2025, and September 3, 2025, the City provided little to no notice to the public that these Community Workshops were scheduled to occur. Apparently, the only notice given to the public was (i) publication of information on the City’s website and (ii) erection of a stand at a single Farmer’s Market on October 16, 2022. (October 1, 2025 Staff R eport, Exhibit 8; March 26,
2024 Draft Historical Context Statement, p. 7.) Further, the HCS provides that City’s “[web]site provided . . . noticing [for] community workshops and public outreach.” (March 26, 2024 Draft Historical Context Statement, p. 7.)9
When we asked Senior Planner Elaheh Kerachian about the March 26, 2024 Draft Historical Context Statement, she wrote: “The Historic Context Statement has not been changed since it was provided on the website for public review.” (November 24, 2025 Email Communication to Lilian Winters, p. 1.) Thus, it appears that the only notice given to the public about the Community Workshops was publication of information to the City’s website. But without any indication that this update to the HPO and Register was ongoing, property owners had no reason to comb through the City’s website and, therefore, received no notice of the Community Workshops. Thus, publication to the City’s website was largely ineffective at reaching each property owner
who might be subject to the HPO for being added to the Register. And, as discussed above, MVBT was not provided with notice until the August 11 th 2025 letter , when they learned the Prope
rty was eligible for the Register.

While the City conducted multiple “stakeholder meetings” with a few homeowners’ associations throughout 2022 and 2023, it appears the City failed to send out a City-wide mailer or otherwise contact the majority of property owners who might be impacted by the planned update to the HPO and Register. (HCS, p. 8.) To be clear, in our r eview of all the publicly available
documents and information, and in our communications with the City, it appears that the only notice the Cit
y gave to the public that the HPO and Register would be updated was maintenance of a webpage on the City’s website and a booth at one Farmer’s Market in 2022. (See October 1, 2025 Staff Report, Exhibit 8; HCS, p. 7.) Such efforts are insufficient.

From early 2022 through August, 2025, the City f ailed to provide MVBT with notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the proposed historic designation of its Property. As a result, the City would be liable for violating MVBT’s procedural due process right if it were to include the Property on the Register.
9 While the Staff Report for the December 12, 2023 City Council Study Session on the HPO and Register Update made mention of a “Citywide Public Notice” sent “prior to the first workshop on September 6, 2022,” MVBT never received any such notice.

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 14 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

2. Substantive Due Process
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (See also Cal. Con., art. I, sec. 7.) The touchstone of substantive due process is the protection of the individual against arbitrary government action; the due process clause was intended to prevent government officials from abusing their power or employing it as an instrument of oppression. (Wolff v. McDonnell, (1974) 418 U.S. 539, 558; Collins v. City of Harker Heights (1992) 503 U.S. 115, 126.) A violation of substantive due process rights occurs if a government agency’s actions are (1) irrational or arbitrary or (2) not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. (Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) 272 U.S. 365; Lingle v. Chevron (2005) 544 U.S. 528.) The test is disjunctive. Thus, an aggrieved party need only demonstrate facts to support one of the two bases in order to state a viable due process claim.

In Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330, 337, the Court of Appeal ruled that enactment of an ordinance downzoning certain property was arbitrary and discriminatory where enacted without considering appropriate planning or land use criteria.10 (See also Del Monte Dunes, Ltd. v. City of Monterey (9th Cir. 1990) 920 F.2d 1496, 1508 [court finds local agency’s land use decision, motivated by “political pressure from neighbors” instead of legitimate regulatory concerns, supported a substantive due process claim] and Herrington v.

County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 1488 [ denial of subdivision and subsequent downzoning of property violated property owner’s due process rights given evidence that county’s general plan/subdivision inconsistency det ermination was irrational and arbitrary and aimed at defeating particular development project].)
As explained above, the Property is not historic. It is not associated with historic persons and does not contain historic structures. While it has long been the site of the Buddhist society in Mountain View, it was not the only site or even the original site. It is not the site of a significant historic event in the City’s past. It lack historical integrity based on location, feeling, and association. Thus, including the Property on the Register would be irrational and arbitrary and not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

In sum, if the City were to include the Property on the Register, this would violate MVBT’s rights to substantial due process.

10 The Arnel court noted that the ordinance was “not rationally related to the general regional public welfare, but, at best, to conserving the interests of the adjoining property owners and residents of the immediate area.” (Arnel, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at 337.)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 15 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

C. Equal Protection
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (See also Cal. Con., art. I, sec. 7.) The concept of equal protection has been defined to mean that no person or class of persons may be denied the same protection of law that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. ( Hawn v. County of Ventura (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1018. ) “[A] deliberate, irrational discrimination, even if it is against one person (or other entity) rather than a group, is actionable under the equal protection clause.” (World Outreach Conference Center v.

City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2009) 591 F.3d 531, 538.)
In Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) 528 U.S. 562, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff stated a viable equal protection cause of action based on claims that a municipality required a 33-foot easement from her as a condition of connecting her property to the municipal water supply when it had only required a 15-foot easement from other similarly situated property owners. The Ninth Circuit has likewise upheld equal protection claims brought by property owners that were discriminated against or treated unfairly by local agencies as part of the land use approval process. (See, e.g., Herrington, supra [denial of proposed subdivision and subsequent downzoning violated property owner’s equal protection rights where there was evidence that county had approved sizable residential development projects on three other agricultural properties shortly after i t rejected the owner’s proposal] and Del Monte Dunes, Ltd. , supra [allegation that city arbitrarily and unreasonably limited use and development of property and set aside open space for public use, whereas owners of comparable properties were not subject ed to these conditions and restrictions states viable equal protection claim].)11
Our understanding is that the Property is the only site on the Survey that is identified as historically significant based on events. All of the other sites on the Survey are found to be historically significant based on the architectural quality of the building and/or association with historic persons. Further, the City seems to have isolated the Buddhist religious community for separate and unequal regulatory treatment simply because they have practiced their faith in Mountain View for more than 50 years
In sum, if the City were to include the Property on the Register, this would violate MVBT’s rights to equal protection under the law.

11 (See also Fry v. Hayward (N.D. Cal. 1988) 701 F.Supp. 179 [zoning restrictions applicable to just one of several open space areas in City, without rational basis for selective application, were invalidated for denial of equal protection].)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 16 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

D. Takings
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Article I, sectio n 19 of the California Constitution also provides that “[p]rivate property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation . . . has first been paid to . . . the owner.” A land use regulation effects an impermissible taking of property if it deprives an owner of all economically beneficial or productive uses of his land ( Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003) or conflicts with an owner’s distinct investment -backed expectations ( Penn Central Transp. Co. v.

New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104); causes the owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of his property (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp . (1982) 458 U.S. 419); or imposes an exaction in violation of the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards respectively set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.

A land use regulation that deprives the owner of substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of his land constitutes a taking. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, supra [property owner entitled to compensation for regulations precluding development of two beachfront lots, thereby depriving owner of all economic use of his property]; see also First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 482 U.S. 304 [property owners are entitled to compensation for temporary taking of their land] and Monks v.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Estates (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 263 [ordinance imposing a moratorium on construction in landslide area deprived landowner of all economically beneficial use and thus constituted a taking].) Courts have recognized that land use regulations that take all economically viable use of only a portion of private property can constitute a taking. ( See, e.g., Twain Harte Associates, Ltd. v. County of Tuolumne (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 71 and Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1175.) A regulation may affect a taking even though it leaves the property owner some economically beneficial use of his property. ( Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 774.) In order to determine whether a taking has occurred when the economic impact is less than total, a reviewing court looks to three factors in particular: (i) the economic impact of the regulation on the owner; (ii) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the property owner’s distinct investment -backed expectations as to the use of its property; and (iii) the character of the governmental action. 12 (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124.)

12 This last criterion requires a reviewing court to “consider the purpose and importance of the public interest reflected in the regulatory imposition.” (Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2003) 28 F.3d 1171, 1176.)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 17 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

Inclusion of the Property in the Register would likely result in a taking of all (or least most) of the economic value of the Property and interfere with MVBT’s distinct investment -backed expectations. ( Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council and Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, both supra.) The buildings could not be demolished, altered, or repurposed for some other use without the approval of discretionary approvals from the City. While the buildings themselves are not historic they still could not likely be demolished without preparation of a full- blown environmental impact report. (League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896; Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095.) Likewise, it is entirely unclear what standards the City would employ to evaluate alterations to the building since they are not historically significant. As such, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would not apply.

As such, the designation would freeze the buildings in place as of the date of the designation. The land could not be altered or sold but instead must be preserved as is, seemingly in perpetuity.

In short, inclusion of the Property on the Register would result in an unlawful, uncompensated taking of MVBT’s land.

VI. The City has not conducted adequate CEQA review for the Historic Preservation Ordinate Update.

The update to the HPO (including the Register) is a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and one likely to result in significant environmental impacts. As such, the City cannot lawfully act on it without first conducing environmental review pursuant to CEQA. (See, Public Resources Code §§ 21080, 21000, 21065.) It is reasonably foreseeable that by designating 100 properties as historic resources, the Project could force development to locate in other areas inside and outside of the City. This would result in associated traffic, air quality, and noise pollution, including an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled and other related emissions. In Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commn. (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 372, 383 , the California Supreme Court observed that a government agency should “reasonably anticipate that its placing a ban on development in one area of a jurisdiction may have the consequence, notwithstanding existing zoning or land use planning, of displacing development to other areas . . ..” (See also Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369 [“the purpose of CEQA would be undermined if the appropriate governmental agencies went forward without an awareness of the effects a project will have on areas outside of the boundaries of the project area.”].)13

13 (See also Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652 [water district prepared an EIR prior to adopting a water moratorium based in part on potential secondary impacts of the moratorium]; City of Riverside v. LAFCO (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 531 [EIR required for revision to sphere of influence policies because change could

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 18 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

Thus, prior to approving Project, the environmental impacts associated with such displaced development needs to be addressed in an appropriate CEQA document. It is likely that the City could not proceed without preparing and circulating an EIR for public review and comment. (See Public Resources Code §§ 21080(d) and 21081; CEQA Guidelines § 15091; City of Livermore v.

LAFCO (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 531 [EIR was required for revision to LAFCO sphere-of-influence guidelines because change in policies could affect location of development, resulting in significant environmental impacts]; and City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398 [EIR was required for amendments to county general plan eliminating policies requiring deference to city standards regarding hillside development, density of development, and public utilities because changes may result in significant impacts].)

Further, it is well settled that an EIR must be prepared if there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, including urban decay. ( California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 188 and Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1207; see also, Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1406, fn. 24 and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 273, 287-288.) Urban decay refers to long- term building vacancies or site closures that would ultimately result in deterioration and decay of an area. (Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 677, 685; Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839, 849.) Here, the Project would make it very difficult for designated historic properties or redevelop, renovate, or upgrade their sites. This could result in deferred maintenance, property neglect, and overall lack of upkeep. Such conditions could lead to significant urban decay impacts.

In short, the City would be required to conduct full CEQA review prior to updating its HPO and Register to include the Property.

VII. Conclusion
In conclusion, MVBT objects to the inclusion of its Property in the Register and has determined that inclusion of the Property in the Register will cause it to suffer substantial hardship, which is likely to deprive MVBT of an economic return on the Property, the reasonable use of the Property, and/or the appropriate use of its Property in the further ance of its religious mission.

Additionally, inclusion of the Property in the City Register would impose a substantial burden on MVBT’s religious exercise in contravention of the RLUIPA and violate myriad other statutory and constitutional provisions, as detailed above. As such, MVBT respectfully asks that you direct Staff

affect location of development, resulting in significant impacts]; and County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544 [EIR required for ordinance restricting disposal of sewage sludge because of indirect impacts, including need for alternative disposal, increased hauling, and potential loss of farmland].)

Members of the City Council
December 1, 2025

Page 19 ends

2382/099999-0084
23075032.4 a12/01/25

to remove the Property from the Register and to not consider it any further in connection with the City’s proposed update to the HPO.
********************
Thank you for your consideration of our client’s views on this important matter.

Representatives of the MVBT, including the undersigned, will be in attendance at your December 9, 2025 meeting on the HPO and Register. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me or Ms. Romanowsky at ( with any questions regarding this correspondence.

Very truly yours,

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

Matthew D. Francois
MDF:mtr

cc: Julie Satake Ryu, President-Board of Directors, Mountain View Buddhist Temple

Mindie Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel
Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager ([email protected]) Jennifer Logue, City Attorney ([email protected]) Christian Murdock, Community Development Director
([email protected])
Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager ([email protected]) Elaheh Kerachian, Senior Planner ([email protected])

EXHIBIT A

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-1-

EXHIBIT A

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
YBA Hall 1957 Office for minister & staff, Board
Room, Sunday School, meetings,
social gatherings, kitchen.

YBA hall provides a number of
office spaces, meeting rooms, and
open areas. There are areas
dedicated to specific functions, and
areas that are flexible (i.e. can
accommodate a variety of purposes).

For instance, there is a dedicated
office for the Minister. This office
provides a quiet and private area for
the Minister to counsel Members.

This is especially helpful in funeral
planning and, happily, wedding
planning. As such, this space is vital
to the religious purpose of the
Temple. Ensuring that it can be
easily modified, as need ed, to
provide a comfortable and secure
area is very important.

The Board room is another
dedicated space. The Temple Board
of Directors meets in the Board
room. Monthly or as -needed
meetings are held, either in -person
or virtually. Managing, directing and
establishing the goals and objectives
of the Temple is definitely helped by
having this dedicated and
adequately-equipped space.

Further, Temple operations are
conducted in an administrative space
in the YBA Hall. To provide a stable
Temple operation, various
administrative functions are
Major interior remodel (2011 –
2013); reception counter added
(1986); quiet room converted to
minister’s office; wood siding
replacement in 1990s.

Future YBA Hall renovations will
provide improved spaces for the
Temple community to gather,
conduct, or support Buddhist
ceremonies or observances.

For example, plans for creating a
covered arbor or area between the
YBA Hall and fence in order to
provide some privacy and allow for
gathering outside the YBA Hall.

Further, there are plans to remodel
the Kitchen to repurpose it for a
more suitable use (Kitchen was
originally designed as a
commercial kitchen. Its current
flow is not well suited to its current
use.)
Installing solar panels is another
possible improvement. Also under
consideration are other HVAC
systems for reducing energy costs.

This is a smaller space than Sangha
Hall, but a very valuable space to
be able to host organizational,
religious and social gatherings in
order to continue to promote our
important religious practice,
particularly in the building that was
originally our H ondo/primary
worship space, that contains many

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-2-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
necessary. Here, members publish
Temple newsletters and mailings,
document donations and other
financial transactions necessary to
comply with various federal and
state rules, receive and send
packages and mail, store supplies
and other items.

The YBA Hall has meeting halls or
rooms that are “flexible” in nature.

That is, they can be used for a variety
of needs. For example funeral and
wedding planning and support is a
commonly used function of these
spaces. Also, Buddhist education
sessions (fo r the wider Buddhist
community) is another common
need. During Obon, these spaces are
used to hold cultural (e.g., floral
arrangements, handicrafts) displays
and religious items.
positive memories of those
Resident Ministers and their
families that were so important to
our Buddhist Teachings.

MVBT could potentially add some
square footage for additional
classroom or meeting spaces that
would serve its Dharma School,
affiliate organizations (Scouts, Tri-
City youth sports, Nakayoshi
Gakko a Japanese cultural school),
Board committee meetings, or
Buddhist/Religious meetings for
both the Temple and wider
Buddhist community.

In time, MVBT may need to
consider expanding its Board
Room for larger meetings to be
able to be held as well as
completely outfit the entire
structure for current and future AV
needs.

Education
Buildings
1967 Classrooms, library, restrooms,
storage for religious/
/educational/event supplies.

Teaching the Dharma to youth and
adults is a core mission of the
Temple. This building consists of
classrooms and supporting facilities
(restrooms, storage areas, so on) that
provide a permanent location for
weekly classes and teaching
materials (e.g., library of important
religious and cultural textbooks and
artifacts). If these facilities were
only temporary, then teaching
activities would be greatly
disadvantaged. (materials, chairs
would have to be moved out of the
way when classes are not in session)
No major renovations conducted
but maintenance and repair work is
needed.

Planning includes renovating
existing classrooms or adding new
classroom space. The new
classroom space may be dedicated
to a Music Room for housing the
Temple Taiko Program
instruments as well as providing a
dedicated rehearsal and practice
area.

The classrooms are very cold and
drafty. Upgrades to the HVAC
systems may be done. Also, repair
and maintenance work needs to be
completed. Also, studying solar

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-3-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
Additionally, these classrooms
support the various cultural displays
and/or demonstrations so important
to the annual Obon Festival. For
example, the classrooms are used
during Obon to dress our traditional
Japanese Dancers and Taiko
performers. During Obo n two
classrooms are dedicated to making
signs and creating informational
instructions necessary to operate
Obon.
panels or other HVAC systems to
decrease energy costs.

MVBT may retrofit classrooms
with AV equipment to enable
hosting virtual meetings. This
capability would enable the
Temple to host conferences with
other temples or with other
Buddhist organizations.

Facilitating such events enhances
our Temple’s religious objective of
teaching the Dharma to the
community at large.

Parsonage 1973 Minister’s residence. The parsonage
is an extremely valuable asset of the
Temple. The city, indeed much of
Silicon Valley, has a very high cost
of living. Having a permanent
Resident Minister, compared to a
temporary or rotating minister, adds
much value t o the MVBT
community. The congregation is
closer to the resident minister and
the bonds formed are stronger and
longer lasting. Thus, having this
asset on property and readily
available to offer to candidate
Resident Ministers and family
provides an incalculable value to the
Temple. Additionally, the parsonage
is surrounded by a gated enclosed
garden. This private area,
maintained by member volunteers,
provides a serene aesthetic area for
the minister and family to enjoy.

Further the parsonage provides a
more intimate setting for the
Resident Minister to host important
visitors from other Buddhist
organizations.

No major renovations but in time,
but MVBT plans to remodel
various areas such as the kitchen,
bathrooms and bedrooms. Having
a comfortable and “modern” rooms
provides a powerful recruitment
tool necessary to make the Temple
attractive to candidate Residen t
Ministers and their families.

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-4-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
Sangha Hall 1977–
1979
Classrooms, storage, gym
(basketball, volleyball, pickleball),
social hall (500+ capacity), kitchen,
Obon dining hall, stage,
BBQ/outdoor prep
Sangha Hall contains classrooms,
storage rooms, a stage, a kitchen,
and gymnasium. When outfitted
with chairs and tables the gym area
can accommodate approximately
500.

It is used for many Temple
functions. All major fund raising
events use the entirety of Sanga Hall.

Without Sanga Hall there would be
no Obon, and Temple functions
would stop.

No major renovations; targeted for
future remodeling.

Sanga Hall is the most used
building on our campus and the
heart of our religious practice and
social gathering. Therefore, this is
the building MVBT is focused on
for our first phase of Campus
renovation.

Religious practices and
organizations must adapt to
cultural evolutions. Part of our
belief is that gathering and social
spaces for religious,
intergenerational and sports events
are important to a thriving
Buddhist community.

In accordance with its Mission to
share the Jodo Shinshu teachings in
a safe and inclusive environment,
MVBT is developing plans to
create a Campus Master Plan to
meet its growing needs.

The Sangha Hall renovation has
been identified as the structure that
MVBT wants to improve in this
next phase of development. MVBT
wishes to create a Music
Room/Space that could be used for
our Taiko programs that have been
so valuable to our community.

Originally envisioned as a separate
building in front of the existing
Education classrooms, we may
look at potentially utilizing the
concrete slab in front of the foyer
to be able to create a Music
Stage/Room for this purpose. This

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-5-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
is part of our Value -Engineering
idea and still to be developed.

MVBT also would like to redesign
the kitchen/service/smaller
gathering areas to be more efficient
and serviceable for our needs.

Providing multiple gathering
spaces of various sizes allows us to
have religious, organizational and
social gatherings in order to
practice our Buddhist Teachings.

MVBT will need to look at the
pantry areas and walk -in
refrigerators for adequacy and
potential replacement/upgrade.

Further MVBT would like to
remodel our gym level restrooms
to be more serviceable and need to
look at the existing stage and the
storage above and below. MVBT
wants to optimize these spaces to
accommodate growth and
development of Sanga Hall.

MVBT would like to have a much
more handicap accessible
foyer/entrance. MVBT is also
considering a more accessible
method to go from the entrance to
the gym floor to the kitchen/service
area.

Rock Garden/
Landscape
1979 The decorative rock garden is an
open space between the Hondo and
Sanga Hall. It is a serene and
meditative area for people to
informally gather and socialize as
they move between the Hondo and
Sanga Hall. Additionally, this open
area contributes to the a esthetic and
ambience of the Temple during
Obon. During Obon many visitors
Installed around the same time as
Hondo; no major changes noted.

MVBT’s Vision Committee did a
survey in 2025 to ask the Temple
members what they felt about the
rock garden area. Many members
liked the open space and that it
created an area for informal
activities. Another common

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-6-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
come to the Temple (often for the
only time in a year). The rock
garden welcomes them and creates a
quiet and peaceful environment
among the foot traffic shuttling
between the food//game booths and
cafeteria/dining tables.

The landscape consists of
approximately 100 spaces along the
Shoreline side of the property and
along the Hetch Hetchy easement.

Around the rear of the property
(close to the Prometheus
development), MVBT has additional
non-paved areas that can be used as
parking. MVBT currently rents a
portion of the front corner (Hetch
Hetchy/Shoreline) to a cell tower,
but that lease is set to expire in
approximately 2035.

The majority of these spaces are
used during the Obon festival. Some
are for parking, others are used to
booths. For example, the Shoreline
adjacent parking lot is our main
fairway upon which a large tent is
erected for Bingo and smaller tents
are erected for games and food/drink
sales. The walkway between the
Hondo and Sangha Hall becomes
our Plant and Flower Sales area. The
parking area that wraps around
Sangha Hall becomes the stage for
our traditional Obon Odori Dancing
as well as Maui Style Obon Dance
and Taiko performances. MVBT
also features a traditional Japanese
music band that accompanies our
hundreds of dancers during this
annual tradition.
response noted that the space was
under-utilized. Potential uses may
include gatherings for Dharma
Classes or even outdoor services.

Notably, there was strong
sentiment not to completely
hardscape. Perhaps, many noted,
was that the space could be better
used to practice our religious
beliefs, or used for
intergenerational gatherings, or
simply kept as-is for the enjoyment
of the openness and garden
atmosphere.

The value of this space is that it
provides potential areas to use for,
or to enhance our religious
gatherings, ceremonies,
observances, and practices.

Some of this area MVBT is
thinking will become additional
Classroom/Education space
(across from Prometheus, in the
back of the property). Some of this
area may become part of the
Sangha Hall addition/remodel.

MVBT could more efficiently
arrange space in t he front to
accommodate more parking, but
would need to look at some of the
trees to determine how to best
approach a re -design. MVBT may
need to provide a fire road/access
road around the property in order to
comply with fire code. MVBT is
also considerin g whether a
Buddhist Pre-School (similar to the
Lotus Preschool associated with
the San Jose Buddhist Temple)
might be both a source of income
as well as a source of potential
families interested in our Buddhist

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-7-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
As noted elsewhere, the Obon
Festival is the primary fund raising
event for the Temple. The areas
described above are needed to
facilitate a pleasant and welcoming
environment for the visitors and
performers. Of course, having space
to erect booths facilitates all of the
Obon money-making activities.

Further, this area has been a source
of revenue beyond Obon. For
example, building contractors will
reach out to inquire about during -
the-week parking. MVBT has
provided this to the builders for
Prometheus as well as Roberts -
Obayashi, who is completing a
project on Stierlin.

practices. MVBT knows that
several current families enroll in
Lotus Pre School since it does not
have the ability at this point to host
a pre-school at our own facilities.

Hondo 1979 The Hondo is the primary Worship
space, including the altar (“Naijin”),
pews, and entry. At the rear is the
Nokotsudo (columbarium). The
Hondo is the place for Sunday
Services, funerals, weddings, and
ancestral memorials.

The entry area also is an area for
helpers during a funeral service to
collect koden (donations to the
family or Temple) and write
acknowledgements. This area is a
“welcoming” or staging area where
greeters and safety ambassadors
meet visitors to Sunday Services.

During Obon, the Hondo is open to
the public. MVBT uses it to share
information, with the public, about
Major remodel (2011 –2013):

Nokotsudo addition; replaced
original Hondo,
Hondo renovation - improvements
made to permit greater
accessibility for the Temple
members, and to make services
more inviting.

As an example, during the Covid
pandemic, MVBT made significant
investments in AV equipment to
allow for streaming services in a
hybrid manner as well as providing
the ability for a speaker to project
slides onto a large screen for
Dharma messages.

Expanding the Hondo is also a
possible direction for the Temple.

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-8-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
Buddhism generally and our Temple
specifically.

There is also a Minister’s area at the
rear of the altar. This area is a room
for the Minister to prepare and relax
before conducting a Sunday Service,
funeral, wedding, or other service.

During funerals, this room is used to
gather the family and have a p rivate
meeting with the Minister.

Behind the altar is the Nokotsudo or
columbarium. The Nokotsudo was
remodeled in 2011 -2013. The
original Nokotsudo is now a hallway
area accessing both the Minister’s
area and the new Nokotsudo.

Religious artifacts are displayed in
this hallway area (e.g., the
traditional elephant statue for
celebrating, every spring, the
Buddha’s Birth or Hanamatsuri.

The Nokotsudo is a beautiful space
with many niches for holding the
cremated remains of ancestors.

Members may purchase a niche for
themselves or a loved one. The room
also contains a small altar to burn
incense for honoring ancestors. The
Nokotsudo provides an area for
visiting loved ones at the Temple in
a Buddhist environment. It is highly
important for servicing the Temple
community, and enabling the
religious objectives of being a
Buddhist.

Outside the Hondo on the side facing
Sangha Hall, is a large bell from
Japan. This bell is rung for any
For instance, MVBT may consider
adding to the Hondo with smaller
spaces that could be useful for
smaller, more intimate religious
service gatherings. Currently,
MVBT is limited to the Hondo and
for very small memorial services,
the Nokotsudo could be used.

Having one or two other spaces in
between those sizes of gathering
spaces would be optimal to be able
to host more than one memorial or
religious service at a time, which is
not possible with MVBT’s current
configuration.

0.0 a12/01/25

EXHIBIT A
-9-

Building/
Improvement
Year
Built
Function and support for religious
mission
Changes/Remodels Over Time
service to mark the start of the
service.

Warehouse 1998 The Obon festival is the Temple’s
major fundraising event of the year.

The warehouse stores all the
materials used to build up the
various booths and attractions of
Obon. Also, tools, equipment (truck,
forklift), and supplies needed to
operate Obon and ot her Temple
operations are housed in this
valuable space.

Built on the site of the original
parsonage.

In the future, renovating or re -
configuring the warehouse or
modernizing it (e.g., installing
solar panels) is possible. These
improvements will increase the
utility of the storage space thereby
enhancing the number and/or types
of religious, social and fundraising
activities, all while making Temple
operations more economical.

/1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /3 /6 /7 /8 /9 /3 /9 /10 /3 /11 /12 /13 /14 /11 /8 /2 /4 /9/11 /8 /9 /15 /16 /11 /12 /13 /14 /11 /8 /2/17/18 /12/13 /14 /9 /4 /8 /14 /19 /8 /3 /6 /16 /20 /12 /19/4 /14 /21 /5 /4 /15 /22 /23 /24 /13 /7 /21 /12 /6 /14 /9 /12 /6 /14 /11 /12/18/18/3/7 /11 /8 /4 /2 /21 /8 /5 /9 /7 /8 /11 /9 /5 /10 /12 /13 /2 /21 /25 /3 /5 /4 /19 /3 /21 /25 /15 /21 /3 /11 /2 /4 /7 /8 /14 /20 /8 /9 /4 /14 /12 /26 /26 /8 /11 /8 /4 /2 /10 /8 /5 /9 /12 /7 /8 /11 /21 /8 /5 /9 /7 /8 /11 /9 /12 /14 /9 /10 /3 /2 /12 /11 /4 /2 /10 /8 /5 /9 /12 /7 /8 /11 /7 /3 /20 /8 /5 /9 /3 /7 /16 /27 /28 /26 /15 /12 /13 /10 /4 /19 /3 /9 /8/18/3/29 /8 /9 /6 /12 /13 /2 /21 /10 /3 /2 /30 /9 /12 /4 /21 /21 /4 /30 /3 /7 /5 /12 /14 /4 /2 /14 /12 /9 /3 /4 /25 /12 /13 /9 /4 /7 /3 /5 /9 /4 /13 /7 /4 /14 /9 /29 /5 /10 /12 /30 /29 /12 /7 /2 /8 /26 /3 /3 /19 /3 /14 /9 /9 /12 /8 /2 /2 /13 /5 /9 /7 /4 /9 /3 /6 /10 /15 /15 /12 /13 /2 /12 /19 /3 /12 /13 /7 /21 /12 /6 /14 /9 /12 /6 /14 /16 /28 /6 /8 /2 /2 /25 /3 /6 /7 /8 /9 /8 /14 /20 /23/31/15/6 /8 /26 /3 /4 /14 /21 /28 /10 /4 /21 /12 /13 /7 /26 /8 /7 /5 /9 /21 /4 /9 /3 /12 /14 /32 /4 /5 /9 /7 /12 /33 /9 /3 /3 /9 /34 /35 /15 /3 /4 /7 /5 /4 /20 /12 /16 /36 /4 /11 /10 /15 /3 /4 /7 /6 /3 /11 /3 /2 /3 /25 /7 /4 /9 /3 /12/13 /7 /4 /14 /14 /8 /19 /3 /7 /5 /4 /7 /15 /6 /8 /9 /10 /21 /8 /14 /14 /3 /7 /4 /9 /4 /21 /12 /6 /14 /9 /12 /6 /14 /7 /3 /5 /9 /4 /13 /7 /4 /14 /9 /16 /27 /37 /12 /7/18/12/7 /3 /8 /14/26 /12 /7/18/4/9 /8 /12 /14 /29 /6 /7 /8 /9 /3 /9 /12/2 /8 /19 /4 /25 /2 /3 /16/18/12/13 /14 /9 /4 /8 /14 /16 /19 /3 /6/17/20/18/4/8 /2 /16 /11 /12 /18/12 /7 /5 /3 /3 /12 /13 /7 /30 /2 /4 /14 /9 /12 /5 /4 /19 /3 /12 /13 /7 /10 /8 /5 /9/12 /7 /8 /11 /21 /12 /6 /14 /9 /12 /6 /14/4 /9/38 /39 /39 /40 /41 /42 /43 /43 /44 /44 /44 /45 /46 /47 /48 /49 /50 /46 /51/52/48/45 /53 /54/52/43/50 /46 /54 /55 /43/16 /56 /12 /25 /3 /7 /9 /32 /12 /57/58/59 /12 /13 /8 /5 /3 /60 /4 /9 /61 /37 /12 /7 /9 /10 /3 /33 /9 /3/3 /7 /8 /14 /20 /32 /12/18/18/8/9 /9 /3 /3 /12 /26 /59 /8 /19 /4 /25 /2 /3/31/12/13 /14 /9 /4 /8 /14 /62 /8 /3 /6 /64 /64
/65 /66
/67 /69 /70 /71 /70 /72 /73/70 /74 /75 /76 /72 /77/78/70/77 /77 /79 /80 /70 /81 /70 /71 /79 /67 /77 /70 /82 /66 /67 /79 /69 /70 /77 /67 /81 /77 /71 /69 /72 /81 /70 /74 /75 /66 /75 /76 /70 /83 /66 /66 /80 /84 /70 /83 /69 /66 /67 /85 /77 /86 /87 /72 /73 /79 /81 /84 /70 /88/66 /67 /89 /75 /79 /72 /89 /90 /72 /70 /91 /86 /80 /69 /66/67 /85 /92
/93 /66 /67 /89 /77 /67 /81 /77/71 /69 /72 /81 /70 /94 /69 /66/78/75 /76 /72 /77 /80 /69 /66 /67 /85 /79 /89 /74 /77 /75 /66 /85 /69 /70 /71 /70 /72 /73 /72 /89 /80 /70/78/79/72 /84 /77 /94 /69 /66/78/72 /75 /95 /77 /70 /89 /74 /79 /89 /70/78/79/72 /84 /75 /66/96 /97 /98 /99 /100 /96/101 /102 /103/104/105 /106 /107 /99 /97 /106 /102/98 /97 /101 /108 /109 /105 /106 /110 /105 /100 /110 /111 /112 /97 /100 /101/113/114/104 /104 /114 /96 /101 /114 /112 /104 /105 /115 /110 /116 /111 /104 /103/92 /93 /66 /73 /72 /70 /91/75 /76/72 /77 /74 /72 /77 /71 /67 /77 /77 /72 /66 /89 /73 /72 /77 /72 /75/117 /107 /107 /115 /110 /118 /119 /119 /114 /112 /104 /105 /115 /110 /116 /114 /104 /104 /114 /96 /101 /116 /111 /104/103/119/120 /119/103/110/114 /97 /120 /119 /96 /97 /98 /99 /100 /96 /101 /102/103/104/105 /106 /107 /99 /97 /106 /102 /98 /97 /101 /108 /119 /121 /122 /123 /124/121 /124 /120 /111 /123 /125 /126 /122/127/125/128 /101 /126 /125 /123 /101 /124 /100 /121/127/125/128 /111 /120 /129 /128 /99 /130 /124 /121/127/125/128/127/128/121 /114/103/99/97 /96 /116 /111 /104 /103/92 /131 /132 /133 /134 /133 /132 /135 /136 /138 /139 /131 /140 /141/142/143 /144 /139 /141 /145 /146 /147 /148 /149/146 /148 /150 /151 /152 /144/142/148/153 /154 /146 /151 /155 /154 /156 /155 /144 /149 /157 /158 /159 /155 /158 /146 /148 /160 /155 /145 /161 /148 /149 /154 /146 /148 /149 /154 /162/163/148/148 /162/164/151/160 /145 /155 /151 /136 /147 /151 /154 /145/165/162/166/153/146 /167 /148 /148 /168 /151 /169
/148 /153 /146 /139 /169 /167 /151 /154 /168 /170 /149 /155 /154 /171 /148 /149 /172 /171 /173 /150 /144 /145 /148 /154 /171 /151 /160/165/143 /144 /151 /171 /155 /154/174/175 /151 /154 /144 /132 /131 /132 /133 /132

From:

To:

Subject: City Council meeting 12/9 and saving the Mountain View historic downtown Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 4:48:04 PM
Importance: High
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Mountain View City Council members,
With the passage of Senate Bill 79 your constituents in Mountain View need you help save the historic areas of the city. As a 38-year resident of Mountain View, I strongly urge you to save our downtown commercial district in and around the 100- 300 blocks of Castro Street by declaring it an official historic district on the local historic register.

The only way to save our downtown’s character and walkability that draw many people to it, both those who live here and those who come to enjoy it, is to designate a needed historic district to save our downtown under SB79’s limited exception for official city-certified historic districts that are on a local historic register. Our historic
district should include not only architecturally significant buildings but also buildings associated with prominent pioneer and early-day residents and organizations.

On Tuesday, December 9, please establish a historic downtown district adjacent to the transit center. A Historic Ordinance and Local Register will save our downtown and preserve and honor our city’s history and character and recognizing the "focus of the community and heartbeat of the city" as well as protecting this important source of sales tax revenue that supports Mountain View economically. Other cities such as Palo Alto and Sunnyvale are working on plans to save their historic centers and we should not delay in doing so for Mountain View.

Sincerely,
Laura Ackerman-Shaw
Mountain View

From:

To:

Subject: Save MV Historic Section on Castro Street
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 2:16:36 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Our state legislature passed Senate Bill 79 in October 2025.

It goes into effect July 1, 2026,
and mandates that areas within one-half mile of a rail stop in our county must allow 6-9 story housing BY RIGHT without city council vote or community input . Our downtown and its historic buildings can be torn down.

But the new law does allow for a limited exception for official city-certified historic districts that are on a local historic register. The problem is that we do not yet have the needed historic district that could save our downtown.

Next
Tuesday, December 9 at the City
Council meeting, I urge you to consider designating
the downtown commercial district in and around
the 100-300 blocks of Castro Street, as a
historic district on our Local Historic Register. City documents have always called our downtown “the historic center and focus of the community and the heartbeat of the city ”.

And it is a key source of sales tax revenue supporting our city’s economic vitality.

Moreover, historic districts may include not only architecturally significant buildings but also buildings associated with prominent pioneer and early-day residents and organizations.

That was exactly the rationale our neighboring Redwood City utilized in establishing their historic downtown district adjacent to the transit center.

Please save
Our downtown commercial district
by declaring it an official historic
district on the local historic register.

As I write this, my memory takes me to 1984, shortly after my family and I moved to Mountain View. I was interviewed by the Voice newspaper and was asked how I liked the city and what would I like to see different. I responded that I love MV because of its older downtown, and would like to see bookstores and coffee shops open on Castro Street.

Now we certainly have bookstores, coffee shops and much more in our downtown. Let’s work on preserving and honoring our city’s history and downtown’s unique, irreplaceable characteristics that connect us all as residents and visitors.

Best Regards,
Hala Alshahwany
MV Resident -

Mountain View City CouncilDecember 9, 2025

Mountain View City Council
December 9, 2025