Mountain View City Council
September 22, 2026

EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY COMMERCIAL
Downtown Mountain View includes a mix of twentieth century commercial styles, representing the development of Castro Street over the course of many decades. Some twentieth century commercial sub-styles are only represented by one or a few extant buildings, including Richardsonian Romanesque, Western False Front, and Classical Revival. Some commercial buildings built in the early twentieth century have since been extensively altered, including changes to the entrances, storefront systems, upper windows, and cladding.
273
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 196 August 10, 2026
Period of Significance: 1900s-1930s

Associated property types: Commercial properties.

As the few extant commercial properties from the early twentieth century represent a range of architectural styles, no general character-defining features are provided. Refer also to: Italianate, Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Moderne/Streamline Moderne, Ranch, and Commercial Modern, which may include expressions in commercial properties.

BAY TRADITION (SHINGLE) STYLES
The Bay Tradition (or Bay Area Tradition) is a regional interpretation of the East Coast Shingle style and a reaction to Beaux-Arts classicism. The Bay Tradition has three main periods of significance:

First Bay Tradition (1880s to 1920s), Second Bay Tradition (1930s to 1950s), and Third Bay Tradition (1960s-1980s). The First Bay Tradition showcases the naturalistic, almost rustic elements of the Shingle style, in particular wood shingle cladding and asymmetrical arrangement of features and volumes. At the same time, homes built in this style may have classically inspired features, such as columns or dentils, and gambrel roofs that reflect the influence of the Colonial Revival style. First Bay Tradition residences are also defined by a high level of craftsmanship, which can be seen in impressive carved wood and art glass.

The Second Bay Tradition embraced the Modern Movement and infused it with a more rustic, handcrafted, and woodsy aesthetic. Second Bay Tradition homes often have the geometric massing, simple lines, flat or very low-pitched roofs, and ribbon windows associated with Modernist architecture of the period, but also include shingle or wood board cladding and emphasize open floor plans at the interior and organization around indoor-outdoor living spaces.

The Third Bay Tradition emerged in the 1960s, generally tracing its roots back to The Sea Ranch where Charles Moore, Donlyn Lyndon, William Turnbull, and Richard Whitaker (MLTW) and Joseph Esherick were experimenting with complex interior volumes and influence by the local vernacular and agricultural architecture of the northern coast of Sonoma County. Also often clad in wood shingles or other wood siding, Third Bay Tradition homes were often composed of a series of assembled, asymmetrical volumes, capped by various flat and shed roof forms, with an emphasis on multi-story interior volumes and windows that strategically allow in light and views. The Third Bay Tradition was also adopted by various developers and builders in more modest expressions for multi-family housing complexes in the late 1960s and 1970s. 274
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 197 August 10, 2026
There are several extant examples of First Bay Tradition homes in Mountain View, but no known examples of the Second Bay Tradition exist. In Mountain View, the Third Bay Tradition is most likely to appear in a more modest expression in multi-family residential complexes.

First Bay Tradition single-family residence. Third Bay Tradition apartment complex.

Period of Significance: First Bay Tradition (1880s to 1920s), Second Bay Tradition (1930s to 1960s), and Third Bay Tradition (1960s-1980s).

Associated property types: Single-family residential (First, Second, Third Bay Traditions) and multifamily residential (Third Bay Tradition).

Common Character-Defining Features of the First Bay Tradition style:
• One-and-one-half or two stories tall
• Wood shingle and/or wood clapboard siding
• Decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails underneath eaves • Wood-sash windows, typically with divided lites and occasionally with diamond muntin patterns
• Front porches or recessed entries
• Shed-roofed or hipped-roof dormers
• Asymmetrical arrangement of features at façades
• Cantilevered overhangs above the first story, in some instances flared outward • Angled or boxed bay windows.

Common Character-Defining Features of the First Bay Tradition style:
• One to three stories tall
• Wood shingle (most common) and/or wood board siding
275
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 198 August 10, 2026
• Asymmetrical massing, often a geometric assemblage of different volumes • Shed roof forms
• Fixed, casement, or slider metal windows (undivided), with placement that typically reflects interior programming
• Tuck under parking or carports.

MODERNE/STREAMLINE MODERNE
The Moderne style (also known as Art Moderne) evolved in the early twentieth century from the Art Deco style, and is a distinctly modern architectural style that expresses speed and sleekness, which were associated with the Machine Age. Sometimes used interchangeably with Moderne, the Streamline Moderne style can also be understood as a variation that includes more emphasis on curves and the implication of speed. Designers often borrowed form and ornament from inspirations outside of architecture, including ocean liners, airplanes, and automobiles. The Moderne style may also include more boxy, geometric expressions that include transitional references to Art Deco and/or International Style Modernism. In some cases, older commercial buildings may have been renovated to include Moderne or Streamline Moderne features in the 1930s. While the Moderne and Streamline Moderne styles were most popular in California in the 1930s, Mountain View has at least some later examples dating to the early 1950s.

Period of Significance: late 1920s-early 1950s

Associated property types: Single family-residential, multi-family residential, and commercial properties.
276
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 199 August 10, 2026
Common Character-Defining Features of the Moderne/Streamline Moderne style:
• One to two stories
• Wood frame construction with stucco cladding
• Flat roof with no eaves (hidden behind parapet)
• Recessed entrance or flat entrance canopy
• Wood, steel, or glass block windows
• Windows that meet at the corner of the building
• Curved edges at the building corners or entrance
• “Speed lines”-incised or projecting horizontal bands that typically wrap around the building facades
• Fluted pilasters (in commercial buildings).

MINIMAL TRADITIONAL
The Minimal Traditional style is closely associated to Federal Housing Authority (FHA) mortgage loan practices, which stipulated certain minimum requirements for single-family housing construction.

These small houses are generally characterized by modest, stripped-down ornamental expression which may refence various revival styles, such as American Colonial, Spanish Colonial, Tudor, or Craftsman styles. Minimal Traditional homes were popular in the 1930s and 1940s as they were an economical option for fairly mass-produced housing during the Great Depression and through World War II and into the immediate postwar period. The Minimal Traditional style shares many similarities with early transitional Ranch style homes.

Period of Significance: 1930s-1940s

Associated property types: Single-family residences and duplexes (less common). 277
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 200 August 10, 2026
Common Character-Defining Features of the Minimal Traditional style:
• One story, small scale
• Wood construction with horizontal wood siding most common; other siding types may include asbestos, stucco, or aluminum
• Hipped or gable roofs
• Hung or casement windows are typical, often with wide divided lites • May include angled bay windows or windows at building corners • May include front portico
• Modest decorative features may include wood window shutters, window awnings, attic vents and/or wood trim in the gable end, brick accent cladding.

TRADITIONAL RANCH
Ranch style architecture is a uniquely American residential building type that originated in California in the mid-1930s. The style gained popularity during the 1940s and became the dominant style throughout the country during the decades of the 1950s and 1960s. A typical Ranch style house features an asymmetrical one-story mass that included a built-in (attached) garage capped with a low-pitched roof that was either hipped, cross-gabled, or side-gabled. While California architects like Cliff May made the Contemporary Ranch style popular through wide publication in magazines like Sunset and Better Homes & Gardens, other Ranch styles, often built in tracts by contractors or merchant builders, drew on revival styles and more eclectic influences (including Storybook, Swiss Chalet, Cape Code, and Polynesian). The primary sub-types in Mountain View are Traditional Ranch and Contemporary Ranch (refer to: Midcentury Modern).

Among Traditional Ranch homes are examples that draw influences from popular Southern California developers, such as the Birdhouse Ranch homes by William Mellenthin in San Fernando Valley. While Mellenthin did not build in Northern California, the popularity of his Birdhouse Ranch homes—with their characteristic birdhouses or “dovecotes” in the gable end, patterned garage doors, diamond patterned window muntins, board-and-batten siding, and brick chimneys— influenced builders throughout the state.228 A unique local sub-style of the Traditional Ranch was built by local developer Art Walker and features wood wagon wheels set into the brick base, brick chimney, or a column feature at a portico or carport.
228 Hadley Hall Meares, “Explore the Legacy of Builder William Mellenthin’s Classic Birdhouse Ranch Homes,” Ventura Boulevard, accessed online May 30, 2023, https://venturablvd.goldenstate.is/explore-the-legacy-of-builder-williammellenthins-classic-birdhouse-ranch-homes/. 278
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 201 August 10, 2026
Typical Traditional Ranch tract houses.

Birdhouse-style Traditional Ranch. Wagon Wheel subtype of a Traditional Ranch.

The flared gables on this Traditional Ranch are a
subtle reference to Polynesian architecture.

Traditional Ranch style applied to a commercial
property.

The Ranch style is also utilized for duplexes in Mountain View and some multi-family apartment complexes. Less frequently, the Ranch style is found in commercial and institutional architecture.

279
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 202 August 10, 2026
Period of Significance: late 1940s-1970s

Associated property types: Single-family residences (most common), duplexes, and multi-family residences, as well as commercial properties (retail or offices) and institutional properties (such as schools or religious buildings).

Common Character-Defining Features of the Ranch Style:
• One story tall
• Rectangular or L-shaped plan, with horizontal emphasis • Asymmetrical primary façade
• Low pitched roof, generally hipped, gabled, or Dutch gabled (gable-on-hip) roof with overhanging eaves.
• Roof cladding may be wood or asphalt shingle
• Street-facing attached garage (single-family residences), or a carport • Wood construction with wood or stucco siding typical
• Picture windows at the primary façade are common
• Brick or stone chimney, typically at the side
• Limited ornamentation may include wood shutters, brick base, detailing on the garage doors, exposed rafter tails, a birdhouse (dovecote) feature, bargeboard, or diamond patterned window muntins.

MIDCENTURY MODERN
While the Modern Movement began in Europe in the 1910s, it emerged in California over the course of the 1920s and 1930s. The expression of the Modern Movement in California at the height of its popularity between the mid-1940s and mid-1960s, has been termed the “Midcentury Modern” style.

The Modern Movement eschewed historical architectural references in favor of a Machine Age aesthetic that emphasized honesty of structure, form, and material. The uniquely Bay Area expression of Modernism in the post-World War II era includes a more rustic material palette, diverging away from steel, glass, and stucco. In California, the connection between indoor and outdoor living spaces is a quintessential aspect of Midcentury Modernism. While suburban tract homes in the Midcentury Modern style (also known as Contemporary Ranch homes) often have fairly plain or private front facades, the indoor-outdoor connection is emphasized through atriums, courtyards, or expansive rear glazing made possible by wood post-and-beam construction.

Midcentury Modern architecture may include references or inspiration from Japanese architectural traditions.
280
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 203 August 10, 2026
Midcentury Modern single-family residences.

Midcentury Modern multi-family residences.

Midcentury Modern institutional buildings.

Period of Significance: late 1940s-1960s

Associated property types: Single-family residences, multi-family residences, and institutional buildings (schools, religious buildings, recreational facilities, libraries, social halls, etc.). Rare extant examples of agricultural or industrial properties may exist. Refer to following section on Commercial Modern for commercial properties, including corporate/technology offices, campuses, and research and manufacturing facilities.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Midcentury Modern style:
• One-story massing in single-family residences; one- to two-story massing in other property types
• Horizontal emphasis in massing
281
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 204 August 10, 2026
• Low-pitched gable roofs are most common, but other roof types include: shed (low pitched), flat, barrel vault, butterfly, and hyperbolic paraboloid • Overhanging eaves, may include exposed rafter tails
• Expressed construction method (wood post-and-beam is most common) • Vertical or horizontal wood siding is common; other common siding types include brick, concrete, or stucco
• Roman brick or stone veneer may be used as an accent at the base or at entrances • Atrium or courtyard entrance or interior feature
• Large expanses of glazing, ribbon windows, or clerestory windows • Overhanging trellises, sunshades, or pergolas
• Absence of applied ornamentation
• May include Japanese architectural motifs
• Attached carport or garage (for residences).

COMMERCIAL MODERN
Commercial Modern is the expression of the Modern Movement in commercial architecture in the postwar period, including in commercial retail buildings, offices, corporate campuses, and technology laboratory and manufacturing facilities. Like the Midcentury Modern style, the Commercial Style has geometric massing with simple lines, often with expressed structural systems, and eschews most historical forms of architectural ornamentation. Some automobile-oriented postwar businesses such as drive-in restaurants and carwashes were designed in the Googie style, a subtype of Commercial Modern architecture, which expressed the values of the atomic/space/jet age with dramatic rooflines and signate. Another Commercial Modern subtype is the Quonset hut, which is a prefabricated corrugated metal semi-cylindrical building which was often military surplus.

As are certain property types that were often designed in Modernist styles, including drive-in restaurants, bowling alleys, theaters, shopping malls/centers, motels, gas stations, and car washes.

Office and technology sector buildings that fully express the Commercial Modern style are increasingly rare; many extant technology-sector office, research, and manufacturing facilities are simple boxy concrete buildings that are not a full expression of the Modernist style. 282
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 205 August 10, 2026
Commercial Modern along El Camino Real and Castro Street.

Commercial Modern drive-in restaurant. Googie-style carwash with Quonset hut in background.

Commercial Modern high-tech office building. Commercial Modern retail off of Castro Street. 283
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 206 August 10, 2026
Period of Significance: 1940s-early 1960s

Associated property types: Retail stores; mixed use buildings; shopping malls/centers; motels; restaurants; auto-oriented businesses, such as gas stations, service centers, car washes, drive-in restaurants, drive-in theaters, etc.; banks; signs; offices; research and development laboratories; and manufacturing facilities.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Commercial Modern style:
• One- to two-story massing (one story is most common)
• Wood, steel, or concrete construction where the structural system may be expressed outwardly
• Flat roofs are typical, but other roof forms may include butterfly, low-pitch shed, barrel vault, or low-pitch gable
• Roofs may include projecting canopies (flat, folded plate, or barrel vault) • Cladding materials range from exposed concrete or concrete masonry unit (CMU) to stucco, wood, or brick
• Roman (narrow horizontal) brick bulkheads are common
• Massing is typically highly geometric and simplified
• Lage expanses of glazing are typical
• Inward angled storefront entrances are common
• Absence of applied ornamentation
• Brise-soleils, screens, or other sunshades may be included • Googie style buildings often include dramatic roof forms, structural systems, and/or signage.

LATE MODERN
Late Modernism is a broad term that encompasses the varied designs of the 1960s and 1970s within the Modern Movement when backlash against the perceived uniformity and repetitiveness of International Style architecture inspired many architects to explore other architectural forms.

Some architects drew inspiration from historic architectural examples, giving way to New Formalism and eventually Postmodernism. Others pushed the modern aesthetic to new extremes through advancements in technology, engineering, and materials, leading to Brutalism, Expressionism, and High-Tech Structuralism. Still others transformed the glass-and-steel look into taut glass skin and mirror glass designs, or alternatively, incorporated organic materials and shapes for a more natural, wooded aesthetic. Late Modernism hybridized established Modern rationale and functional forms with aspects of the emerging architectural stylistic trends that would gain prominence from the 1960s through the 1980s.
284
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 207 August 10, 2026
Because of this interplay of varied forms within a clearly Modern vocabulary, Late Modernism is difficult to define. This is exacerbated by the number of subgenres like traditional Modernism, New Formalism, Brutalism, and Expressionism that have their own defining characteristics; some Late Modern examples feature elements of these styles in various combinations. Typically, Late Modern commercial, institutional, and government buildings were often monumental in scale, had sculptural qualities within the design, including strong linear elements, pronounced structural components, and interplay of plans or volumes, and comprehensive landscape design in plantings, paving, and features to create a cohesive setting.

In Mountain View, Late Modern architecture is common in office buildings, technology research and manufacturing facilities, institutional properties, and commercial properties. Late Modern may be used for multi-family residential complexes, but is highly unusual in single-family residences. 285
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 208 August 10, 2026
Period of Significance: mid-1960s-1980s

Associated property types: Commercial properties, institutional properties, offices, research/manufacturing facilities, and residences (more often multi-family than single-family).

Common Character-Defining Features of the Late Modern style:
• Strong geometric forms and monumental scale, with a variety of heights and footprints • Strong pattern of solid and void (i.e. pattern of solid and opening/glazing) • Modular composition, may be symmetrical (New Formalism) or asymmetrical (other Late Modern subtypes)
• Integrated and expressed structural elements or construction methods • Industrial and prefabricated materials
• Floor-to-ceiling glazing systems at the ground floor
• May include high quality materials at the ground floor • Colored or reflective glazing treatments
• May include some historicist references in form or ornamentation • Designed plaza, art component and/or comprehensive landscape design • Climate controlled environments.

POSTMODERN, NEO-TRADITIONAL & NEO-ECLECTIC
In the late twentieth century, there was a resurgence in interest in classicism and earlier revival styles. The long dominant Modern Movement gave way to Postmodernism and eclecticism by the 1970s with architects and builders freely incorporating classical and historicist references in a range of buildings from residential to commercial and from modest tract homes to high-style architecture.

In some cases, these references are eclectic—with a mix of features, materials, and forms from 286
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 209 August 10, 2026
various earlier architectural styles. In other cases, revivals of Colonial, Spanish Colonial, Craftsman, and Queen Anne were applied to new multi-family complexes. Generally, the scale of the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century revivals is much larger than their early twentieth century counterparts. This trend extended into the early twenty-first century. Except in rare cases, buildings that exhibit the features of these later revivals or eclecticism are unlikely to be individually significant for their architectural design.

Period of Significance: mid-1960s-2000s

Associated property types: Single family residences, multi-family residences, commercial properties, institutional properties, and corporate and technology offices.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Postmodern & Neo-Eclectic style:
• Typically multi-story
287
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 210 August 10, 2026
• Exaggerated scale of building form and/or ornamentation • Applied classical, historicist, or revival ornamentation from one or more previous architectural styles
• Ornamentation is often applied, rather than an integrated aspect of the structure or construction method
• Cladding materials often mimic more expensive materials (such as stone) • Climate controlled environments.
288
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 211 August 10, 2026
V. REFERENCES
Published Works & Reports
“1968 Architectural Awards of Excellence.” Modern Steel Construction (Third Quarter 1968): 13-15. 2023 CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act Statute & Guidelines. Palm Desert, CA: Association of Environmental Professionals, 2023. Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2023_final.pdf.

Adamson, Paul. Eichler: Modernism Rebuilds the American Dream. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2002.

Arenson, Adam. Banking on Beauty: Millard Sheets and Midcentury Commercial Architecture in California. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2018.

Bickel, Polly McW. “Changing Sea Levels Along the California Coast: Anthropological Implications.” The Journal of California Anthropology 5, no. 1 (1978): 6-20. Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0gp0m6k9.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). A Historical Context and Archeological Research Design for Agricultural Properties in California. Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, 2007. Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/ser/agriculture-study-a11y.pdf. ----------. Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation. Sacramento:

California Department of Transportation, 2011. Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/ser/tract-housing-in-ca-1945-1973-a11y.pdf.

California Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento:

California Office of State Publishing, March 1995. Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf. ----------. Latinos in Twentieth Century California: National Register of Historic Context Statement.

Sacramento: California State Parks, 2015. Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/latinosmpdf_illustrated.pdf. ----------. Technical Assistance Bulletin #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purpose of determining eligibility for the California Register). Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, March 14, 2006. Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011 %20update.pdf.
----------. Technical Assistance Bulletin #7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001.

Carey & Co. Inc. Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California. Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.
289
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 212 August 10, 2026
Chang, Michael S. “150 Years of Chinese Lives in the Santa Clara Valley.” In Toward the Golden Mountain: The History of the Chinese in Santa Clara Valley: An Exhibit at the Cupertino Historical Society & Museum, edited by H. John (Cupertino, CA: Cupertino Historical Society & Museum, March 16, 1997).
“Construction Contracts Awarded and Miscellaneous Personnel Data-Bank Bldg.” Architect & Engineer vol. 217, no. 4 (April 1959): 41.

Grant, Benjamin. “The Corporate Campus: A Local History.” The Urbanist 553 (September 2016).

Accessed online February 9, 2021, https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2016- 09-21/corporate-campus-local-history.

Gullard, Pamela and Nancy Lund. History of Palo Alto: The Early Years. San Francisco: Scottwall Associates, 1989.

Hoefler, Don C. “Silicon Valley U.S.A.” Electronic News, January 11, 1971.

Ignoffo, Mary Jo. Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, California. Cupertino, CA: California History Center and Foundation, 2002.

Jackson, Robert H. Indian Population Decline: The Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1687–1840.

Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press, 1995.

Krell, Dorothy. The California Missions. Menlo Park, CA: Lane Publishing Company, 1989.

Levy, Richard. “Costanoan.” In Handbook of North American Indians-Volume 8: California, edited by William C. Sturtevant and Robert. F Heizer, 485-95. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, 1978.

Liebs, Chester H. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture. Boston: A New York Graphic Society Book, 1985.

Lukather, Chris. A Birdhouse in Paradise: William Mellenthin and the San Fernando Valley Ranch Houses.

Los Angeles: Writing Disorder, 2017.
----------. The Cinderella Homes of Jean Vandruff. Los Angeles: Writing Disorder, 2019.

Jakle, John A. and Kieth A. Sculle. Fast Food: Roadside Restaurants in the Automobile Age (Baltimore:

John Hopkins University Press, 1999.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.

McCracken, Harry. “Behold, Some of the First Apple Computer Photos Ever,” TIME, November 22, 2012. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://techland.time.com/2012/11/22/behold-someof-the-first-apple-computer-photos-ever/.

McGovern, Janet. Images of Rail: Caltrain and the Peninsula Commute Service. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2012.

Mozingo, Louise A. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes. Cambridge, MA:

The MIT Press, 2011.
290
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 213 August 10, 2026
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, rev. 1995. Accessed online March 13, 2023,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. ----------. National Register Bulletin No. 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997. Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16AComplete.pdf.

N.W. Ayer & Son’s American Newspaper Annual And Directory. Philadelphia: N. W. Ayer & Son, 1921.

Accessed online January 4, 2023,
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924087717553&view=1up&seq=25.

Page & Turnbull and Donna Graves. “Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1970.” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. August 2019.

Accessed online March 7, 2023,
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/CA_MultipleCounties_AsianAmericans-andPacificIslanders-in-California%20MPS_MPDF_SLR.pdf.

PAST Consultants. San José Modernism Historic Context Statement. Prepared for Preservation Action Council of San José, 2009. Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=77217.

Perry, Nicholas. Images of America: Mountain View. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2006. ----------. Then & Now: Mountain View. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2012.

Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America.

New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017.

Shaban, Hamza. “Of Microchips and Men: A Conversation About Intel.” The New Yorker, July 24, 2014.

Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/microchipsmen-conversation-intel.

Starr, Kevin. Endangered Dreams: The Great Depression in California. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.–
SurveyLA. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Trailer Parks and Mobile Home Parks, 1920- 1969. Prepared for the City of Los Angeles, January 2016. Accessed online March 14, 2023, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/4960e8aa-327c-44ab-be58- ed0c67ed916b/Trailer%20Parks%20and%20Mobile%20Home%20Parks%2C%201920- 1969.pdf
Wheeler, Jean French. “Historical Directory of Santa Clara County Newspapers, 1850-1972 (San Jose:

Sourisseau Academy for California State and Local History, 1973). Accessed online March 14, 2023, https://www.sourisseauacademy.org/Publications/historicaldirectory.pdf. 291
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 214 August 10, 2026
Unpublished Reports & Papers
Perry, Nicholas. “Boulevard through the Barrio: The Planning History of the Latino Barrios in Mountain View, California.” Term Paper, City Planning 200, University of California, Berkeley, November 22, 2005.

TreanorHL. “City of Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan Area Historic Resource Survey Report.” Prepared for City of Mountain View, Draft June 2020.

Public & Archival Records
Bay Area Census. “City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County: Decennial Census Data.” Accessed online January 4, 2023, http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/MountainView50.htm.

Bureau of Land Management. “General Land Office Records.” Accessed online October 4, 2022, https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx.

Circuit Court of Northern California. “United States v. Castro.” National Archives San Francisco Region, Roll 6: Case 369. 1854.

City of Mountain View. 2030 General Plan. Adopted 2012. Accessed online December 2, 2022, https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/regulations/general.asp. ----------. Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 15-Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources. Accessed online July 22, 2026, URL TBD.

Hoffman, Ogden. “1862 - Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court of Northern California, Volume 1, Ogden Hoffman, District Judge.” 1862. Accessed online October 4, 2022, https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_usa_3_d/16/.

Mountain View Public Library. Mountain View History Center. Also includes Mountain View Historical Association Archives.

National Register of Historic Places, Mountain View Adobe, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, CA, National Register #02001256, listed 2002.

National Register of Historic Places. Multiple database forms. Accessed online December 2, 2022, https://npgallery.nps.gov/nrhp.

San José Public Library, California Room.

Maps
Day, Sherman. “Santa Clara County Map Number One.” 1876. Accessed online October 4, 2022, https://www.davidrumsey.com/.

Delgado, Emanuel. “Mapping Historic Campsites of the Anza Colonizing Expedition.” National Park Service, 2015. Accessed online March 13, 2023,
https://www.nps.gov/juba/learn/historyculture/mapping-historic-campsites-of-the-anzacolonizing-expedition.htm#CP_JUMP_5830319. 292
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 215 August 10, 2026
Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps, 1888, 1891, 1904, 1908, 1921, 1943, 1956. Fire Insurance Maps online (FIMo), accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

Stanford University, University Archives. “Guide to the Birge M. Clark Architectural Records and Personal Papers.” Accessed via Online Archive of California, March 6, 2023, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt796nf454/.

Sourisseau Academy for State and Local History. Historic photograph collection.

UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library Digital Archives. “Map of land bought by Martin Murphy Jr. of Mariano Castro, being part of the Rancho del Refugio [Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Santa Clara Co., Calif.]. Surveyed by William J. Lewis, County Surveyor; drawn by S. Day.” 1851. Accessed online October 4, 2022, https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/hb0b69n681/.

UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library Digital Archives. “Rancho del Refugio or Pastoria de las Borregas granted to Don Francisco Estrada, Jan. 15, 1842.” 1842. Accessed online October 4, 2022, https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/hb7580078g/.

UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library Digital Archives. “Survey of Rancho Posolmi and Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas.” Circa 1850s. Accessed online, October 4, 2022, https://oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb6489p0d6/?order=2&brand=oac4.

UC Santa Barbara (UCSB) Library, Geospatial Collection. Various aerial photographs accessed via FrameFinder portal. Accessed online March 13, 2023,
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

Newspapers
Los Altos Town Crier.

Barton, Bruce. “Mountain View’s changing, growing downtown,” July 24, 1996. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.losaltosonline.com/archives/mountain-views-changinggrowing-downtown/article_b5fa62b8-f704-52df-8f5b-0b5e3d6f1deb.html.

Simpson, Katherine. “MV housing history tells parallel stories of inclusion, exclusion,” August 2, 2022. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/mv-housinghistory-tells-parallel-stories-of-inclusion-exclusion/article_e73293bc-12bc-11ed-a174- a702de85d343.html.

Los Gatos Mail. “Loss One Billion; San Francisco Razed,” April 19, 1906.

Mountain View Patch. Cruz, Claudia. “Groundbreaking Kicks Off Development of The Village at San Antonio Center.” August 24, 2011. Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20130313180318/http://mountainview.patch.com/articles/grou ndbreaking-kicks-off-development-of-the-village-at-san-antonio-center.

Mountain View Voice.
293
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 216 August 10, 2026
DeBolt, Daniel. “Mt. Bay Plaza’s muddy beginnings,” January 5, 2000 .Accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2009/01/05/mt-bay-plazas-muddy-beginnings.

Nick Perry, “Mayfield Mall once a hot item,” October 15, 2004. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/morgue/2004/2004_10_15.history.shtml.

DeBolt, Daniel. “Hetch Hetchy housing standoff,” April 18, 2008. Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2008/04/18/hetch-hetchy-housing-standoff.

DeBolt, Daniel. “Google buys former home of the Pacific Press.” May 26, 2011. Accessed online October 25, 2022, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2011/05/26/google-buys-formerhome-of-the-pacific-press.

DeBolt, Daniel. “Steve Jobs called Mountain View home as a child,” October 7, 2011. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2011/10/07/steve-jobs-calledmountain-view-home-as-a-child.

Forestieri, Kevin. “LASD finalizes $155M land deal for new Mountain View school,” December 24, 2019. Accessed online January 17, 2023, https://www.mvvoice.com/news/2019/12/24/lasd-finalizes-155m-land-deal-for-new-mountain-view-school.

Pacific Union Recorder. “New Teachers and New Facilities at Mountain View Academy,” October 16, 1967, 7.

Palo Alto Online.
“Castro City,” January 22, 2009. Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/01/22/castro-city. “Mountain View Neighborhoods.” February 2, 2010, updated January 3, 2019. Accessed online March 2, 2023, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/02/02/mountain-viewneighborhoods. “Celebrated architect Goodwin Steinberg, 89, dies after illness,” obituary, December 16, 2010. Accessed online March 6, 2023,
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/12/16/celebrated-architect-goodwin-steinberg89-dies-after-illness Palo Alto Times/Daily Palo Alto Times
“Sylvania plant job is underway in MV,” August 12, 1952, 1 “Map for first MV industrial park approved,” December 11, 1956, 6. “Old neighborhood gives way to new in Mt. View,” October 24, 1962, 6. “New look at school in Mtn. View,” August 15, 1967, 52. “Data Memory building program starts,” June 9, 1969, 11.

Emerson, Paul. “Spotlight: Recital to aid Mt. View school,” November 13, 1969, 23.

Fuller, Dave. “Kiwanis Club hails 50 years of perfect attendance,” March 19, 1976, 6. 294
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 217 August 10, 2026
Redwood City Tribune. “Large Acreage Deal Announced,” May 31, 1961, 29.

San Francisco Examiner
“Don L. Kimball—The Patriarch of Bay Area Mobile Home Living,” January 3, 1965, 6. “New Frontier Mobile Home Park,” advertisement, January 3, 1965.

San José Mercury News/The Mercury News.
“Selected South Bay Transactions: Leases,” April 25, 1985. “Mountain View,” May 20, 1894.
“A look back: Timeline of Mountain View history,” February 24, 2007. Accessed online January 4, 2023, https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/24/a-look-back-timeline-of-mountain-viewhistory/. “Today marks 50th Anniversary of Highway 85 to Mountain View,” December 7, 2015. “Big Plans for El Camino Real Being Considered,” November 13, 2018.

San Jose News. “Socio-Cultural Contributions: Mayor Fetes Fifteen,” October 16, 1969, 105.

The Los Gatos News. “Pacific Coast Items,” July 24, 1885.

The Peninsula Times Tribune.
“Unearth Skulls in a Mound Near Mayfield,” February 20, 1912. “Bulldozer Is Leveling Indian Mound Near By,” November 19, 1946. “’Trendsetting’ subdivision planned in MV,” November 28, 1952. “Work near compltio [sic.] at Sylvania plant,” December 18, 1952, 29. “Annexation election in MV tomorrow,” August 17, 1953.
“New company formed here,” September 22, 1961, 15
Shaw, Peter, “Mountain View facing major crisis over Castro City demolition,” October 3, 1962.
“New Mayfield shopping center will include roof over central mall,” August 25, 1966, 6.

Norman, Ellen. “New police-fire building gets boost from council,” June 1, 1977, 2.

Richards, Evelyn. “New police-fire building gets final OK in Mtn. View,” July 20, 1978, 2.

The Times (San Mateo). “Sylvania Starts A New Tube Lab,” January 2, 1957, 13.

Internet Sources
AgAmerica. “Historical Moments in American Agriculture.” Accessed online, March 16, 2023, https://agamerica.com/blog/history-agricultural-inventions/. 295
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 218 August 10, 2026
California Revealed. “Mountain View Theatre.” Mountain View Public Library. Accessed online, January 4, 2023, https://californiarevealed.org/islandora/object/cavpp%3A29951. ----------. “Old Mill,” Mountain View Public Library. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://californiarevealed.org/islandora/object/cavpp%3A29988. ----------. “The administrative offices of Sylvania,” Mountain View Public Library. Accessed online March 9, 2023, https://californiarevealed.org/islandora/object/cavpp%3A29928 Choris, Louis. “Coiffures de danse des habitans de la Californie.” Paris: Imprimeir Firmin Didot, 1822.

Lithograph Print. National Library of Australia Digital Collection. Accessed online October 26, 2022, https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-136168720/view.

City of Mountain View. “Historic Preservation and Register Update.” 2022. Accessed online October 26, 2022,
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/historic.asp. ----------. “Major Mountain View Companies and Development Projects.” Accessed online October 31, 2022, https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/economicdev/companies.asp. ----------. “Mountain View Annexation History 2.0.” ArcGIS Online map, May 13, 2016, updated 2018.

Accessed March 3, 2023,
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8fddb0a53e55446d9fea4a704eda33b4. ----------. “Mountain View Historical Newspapers Online.” Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/library/services/mvhistory/mvhistoricalnewspaper.asp ----------. “The Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act.” Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/rentstabilization.asp.

Computer History Museum. “Companies.” Accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/companies/. ----------. “Computer History Museum’s Major New Exhibition Opens,” January 12, 2011. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://computerhistory.org/press-releases/revolution-opening/. ----------. “Fairchild Semiconductor,” Report to the Computer History Museum on the Information Technology Corporate Histories Project: Semiconductor Sector, 2006. Accessed online March 8, 2023, http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2012/10/102746515-05- 01-acc.pdf.

Donald MacDonald Architects. “Two Worlds: Mountain View and Pleasant Hill, California.” Accessed March 3, 2023, http://donaldmacdonaldarchitects.com/projects/mixed-use/two_worlds.php.

DPR Construction. “Demolition of Emporium Building Makes Way for Mountain View Medical Landmark,” February 17, 2005. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.dpr.com/media/press-releases/emporium-demolition-makes-way-formountain-view-medical-landmark.

Druzin, Bryce. “Google buys former mall site in Mountain View,” Silicon Valley Business Times, September 26, 2016. Accessed online March 3, 2023,
296
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 219 August 10, 2026
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/09/26/google-buys-former-mall-site-inmountain-view.html.

Employbl. “Tech Companies and Startups Headquartered in Mountain View,” December 11, 2022.

Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.employbl.com/blog/tech-companies-andstartups-headquartered-in-mountain-view.

Faigin, Daniel. “California Highways: US Highway 101.” Accessed online October 26, 2022, https://cahighways.org/ROUTE101.html.

Hackford, Heidi. “Making Trouble: Leslie Berlin Explores The People Who Built Silicon Valley.” Computer History Museum, January 5, 2018. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://computerhistory.org/blog/making-trouble-leslie-berlin-explores-the-people-whobuilt-silicon-valley/.

Higher Intellect: Vintage Computing Wiki. “SGI Buildings.” July 20, 2019. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://wiki.preterhuman.net/SGI_Buildings.

IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section. “IEEE Milestone: the Birthplace of Silicon Valley.” Accessed online March 8, 2023, https://ieeescv.org/2019/06/06/ieee-milestone-the-birthplace-of-siliconvalley/.

IFES Society of Mountain View. “About.” Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://ifessociety.org/about/.

Jetha, Rya, Bay City News Foundation. “Ten maps that show where Asian American communities reside in the Bay Area.” Local News Matters, August 26, 2022. Accessed online November 1, 2022 https://localnewsmatters.org/2022/08/26/ten-maps-that-show-where-asian-americancommunities-reside-in-the-bay-area/.

Kahan, Michael B. ”Understanding the History of Housing in Mountain View: Stories of Racism, AntiDiscrimination, and Movement Towards Inclusion.” Mountain View Community Center, July 26, 2022. Recorded presentation accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/manager/history_of_housing.asp.

Katz, Louise. “Weilheimer/Chez TJ and Air Base Laundry/Tied House Preserved.” Livable Mountain View, July 24, 2019. Accessed online October 26, 2022,
https://www.livablemv.org/2019/07/24/weilheimer-cheztj-air-base-tied-house-preserved/.

Keane, Katherine. “Steinberg Rebrands as Steinberg Hart” Architect, January 9, 2018. Accessed online March 6, 2023, https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/steinberg-rebrands-assteinberg-hart_o.

Laws, David. “Silicon Valley Turns Fifty.” Medium, January 11, 2021. Accessed March 8, 2023, https://medium.com/chmcore/silicon-valley-turns-fifty-27738a1bf2b0.

Library of Congress. “Early California History: From Gold Rush to Golden State.” Accessed March 14, 2023, https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-andessays/early-california-history/from-gold-rush-to-golden-state/. 297
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 220 August 10, 2026
Meares, Hadley Hall. “Explore the Legacy of Builder William Mellenthin’s Classic Birdhouse Ranch Homes,” Ventura Boulevard. Accessed online May 30, 2023, https://venturablvd.goldenstate.is/explore-the-legacy-of-builder-william-mellenthins-classicbirdhouse-ranch-homes/.

Menendian, Stephen, Sami Gambhir, and Arthur Gailes. “The Most Segregated (and Integrated) Cities in the SF Bay Area.” Othering & Belonging institute, UC Berkeley, November 18, 2020.

Accessed March 3, 2023, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-and-integratedcities-sf-bay-area.

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. "Sierra Azul Preserve-History.” Accessed online December 6, 2022, https://www.openspace.org/preserves/sierra-azul#history.

Mogg, Trevor. “Check out Google’s stunning new Mountain View campus.” Digital Trends, May 18, 2022. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/google-newmountain-view-campus/.

Morris, Rhett. “The First Trillion-Dollar Startup.” Tech Crunch, July 26, 2014. Accessed online March 8, 2023, https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/26/the-first-trillion-dollar-startup/.

Mountain View Buddhist Temple. “Our History.” Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://mvbuddhisttemple.org/about-mvbt/our-history/.

Mountain View Federated Woman’s Club, “Who We Are.” Accessed online March 13, 2023, http://mtviewwomansclub.org/who-we-are.html.

Mountain View Historical Association. “About Us.” Accessed online January 4, 2023, https://mountainviewhistorical.org/.
----------. “Castro Family History: How Castro & Rengstorff Park Go Their Names.” Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/castro-city-rengstorff-park/. ----------. “MVHA’s History.” Accessed online March 6, 2023, https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/our-history/.

Mountain View Odd Fellows, “Mountain View Odd Fellows.” Accessed online March 14, 2023, https://mountainviewoddfellows.org/.

National Park Service, “Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail: Maps” (2021). Accessed October 26, 2022, https://www.nps.gov/juba/planyourvisit/maps.htm. ----------. “National Register of Historic Places.” NPGallery Digital Archive. Accessed online December 2, 2022, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults?view=list. ----------. “Revision of the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework, 1994.” Accessed online September 12, 2022, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSthinking/thematic.htm.

Nelson, Andrew. “Google Stars Renovation For Hangar One in Moffett Field, Mountain View,” SF YIMBY, May 12, 2022. Accessed online March 14, 2023, https://sfyimby.com/2022/05/googlestarts-renovation-for-hangar-one-in-moffett-field-mountain-view.html. 298
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 221 August 10, 2026
Nelson, Marie. “Writing Historic Context Statements.” Accessed October 4, 2022, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/WritingHistoricContexts.pdf.

Olsen, Stephanie "Google's movin' on up,” CNET, July 11, 2003. Archived from the original on November 2, 2012, retrieved March 2, 2023,
https://web.archive.org/web/20121102053103/http://news.cnet.com/Googles-movin-onup/2110-1032_3-1025111.html.

Penn, Malcom. “The Roots of Silicon Valley, Part 1: Founders, Legend, Legacy.” EE Times, July 1, 2022.

Accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.eetimes.com/the-roots-of-silicon-valley-part-1- founders-legend-legacy/.

Rkasnuam, Hataipreuk and Jeanne Batalova. “Vietnamese Immigrants in the United State.” Migration Policy Institute, August 25, 2014. Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/vietnamese-immigrants-united-states-2012.

Ruffin II, Herbert G. “The California Fair Housing Act [The Rumford Act] (1963-198).” Black Past, June 5, 2011. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.blackpast.org/african-americanhistory/california-fair-housing-act-rumford-act-1963-1968/.

Rust, Susanne, Mat Drange, US Guardian Interactive Team. “Cleanup of Silicon Valley Superfund site takes environmental toll.” Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting, March 17, 2014.

Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://revealnews.org/article/cleanup-of-silicon-valleysuperfund-site-takes-environmental-toll-2/ San Francisco Water Power Sewer. “Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 Seismic Upgrade: Fact Sheet.” Accessed online March 7, 2023,
https://infrastructure.sfwater.org/fds/fds.aspx?lib=SFPUC&doc=712303&ver=1&data=274236 655#:~:text=Completed%20in%201952%20and%201973,and%20throughout%20the%20Bay %20Area.
----------. Water System.” Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://sfpuc.org/about-us/oursystems/water-system.

Santuario, Angel. “Then & Now: Mountain View Union High School,” Patch, November 7, 2010.

Accessed online March 13, 2023, https://patch.com/california/mountainview/then-nowmountain-view-union-high-school.

Segall, Eli. “Backyard deal lands National 1st a credit union.” Silicon Valley Business Journal, March 11, 2011. Accessed online March 14, 2023, https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/printedition/2011/03/11/backyard-deal-lands-1st-credit-union.html.

Shettle, M.L., Jr. “Historic California Posts, Camps, Stations & Airfields: Naval Air Station, Moffett Field.” California State Military Museums, June 26, 2016. Accessed online January 17, 2023, https://www.militarymuseum.org/NASMoffettFld.html.

Shoreline Amphitheatre Tickets. “Shoreline Amphitheatre Information.” Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.mountainviewamphitheater.com/shoreline-amphitheatre/. 299
References City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 222 August 10, 2026
Southern Poverty Law Center. “Extremist Files: William Shockley.” Accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/william-shockley.

St. Joseph Catholic Church. “Parish History.” Accessed online October 26, 2022, https://www.sjpmv.org/parish-history.

St. Joseph’s College. “Our History.” Accessed online, March 8, 2023, https://www.saintjosephscollege.org/history.htm.

Studios Architecture. “Googleplex.” Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://studios.com/googleplex.html
Sunnyvale Heritage Park Museum. “The Murphy Family.” Accessed online October 4, 2022, http://www.heritageparkmuseum.org/murphy.html.

SWA. “Google Headquarters.” Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.swagroup.com/projects/google-headquarters/.

Tamien Nation. “Food Sovereignty.” Accessed online December 6, 2022, https://www.tamien.org/food-sovereignty.

Tensinet. “Shoreline Amphitheatre.” Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.tensinet.com/index.php/component/tensinet/?view=project&id=3790; and Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 94.

UNESCO. “What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?” Accessed online March 8, 2023, https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Cleanups in My Community Map,” last updated February 16, 2023. Accessed online March 3, 2023,
https://cimc.epa.gov/ords/cimc/f?p=cimc:map::::71.

Weinstein, Dave. “Building Community in a Peninsula Tract.” Eichler Network, July 6, 2022. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.eichlernetwork.com/blog/dave-weinstein/buildingcommunity-peninsula-tract. ----------. “LomaLiving.” Eichler Network. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/lomaliving.
----------. “Meet the Mackays.” Eichler Network. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/meet-mackays?page=0,0.

Yonemoto, Kazuyo. “Sakura Gardens, An Early Japanese Restaurant In Mountain View.” My Heart Mountain. Accessed online March 3, 2023, https://myheartmountain.weebly.com/sakuragardens-restaurant.html. 300
Appendices City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 223 August 10, 2026
VI. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A-MOUNTAIN VIEW POPULATION BY DECADE
YEAR POPULATION229
1894 1,000
1910 1,161
1920 1,888
1930 3,308
1940 3,946
1950 6,563
1960 30,889
1970 51,092
1980 58,655
1990 67,460
2000 70,708
2010 74,066
2020 82,376
229 Population for 1894 provided by “Mountain View” article from the May 20, 1894 daily issue of the San José Mercury News.

Years 1910 to 1940 provided by Mary Jo Ignoffo’s Milestones: A Mountain View History. Population for years 1950 to 2020 proved by Bay Area Census, “City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County,” Accessed January 4, 2023 from http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/MountainView50.htm. 0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1894 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

POPULATION
DECADE
Mountain View Population by Decade
301
Appendices City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 224 August 10, 2026

APPENDIX B-MAPS
Note on Year-built Data: Year-built data was provided by the City of Mountain View and only goes to the year 2021. Areas not shown on the following map do not have available year-built data. Some properties may include buildings with various years of construction. In general, the earliest year of construction is shown. In some instances, “1900” is used as a placeholder date in city and county records and may not reflect the accurate year of construction; this may indicate a vacant lot or an unknown construction date for an extant building.
302
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community
°
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
PAGE & TURNBULL Page 225 August 10, 2026
City of Mountain View, CA
Historic Context Statement
Appendices
[21308] FINAL DRAFT
Appendix B1. Aerial Map of Mountain View
£¤101
£¤101
UV237
UV82
UV82
UV85
Castro Street
Rengstorff Ave.

El Monte Ave.

W. Middlefield Road
Central Expressway
303
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
°
Mountain View City Limits
Year Built*
No Year Built Data (6%)
c.1890 - 1909 (0.7%)
1910 - 1944 (4.1%)
1945 - 1979 (58.1%)
1980 - 2021 (31.1%)
*Year built data provided by City of Mountain View. Data only goes to the year 2021. Areas not shown on map do not have available year built data.

Note: Some properties may include buildings with various years of construction. In general, the earliest year of construction is shown.

Map created by Page & Turnbull, March 2023.
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
PAGE & TURNBULL Page 226 August 10, 2026
City of Mountain View, CA
Historic Context Statement
Appendices
[21308] Final Draft
Appendix B2. Extant Properties by Development Period
£¤101
£¤101
UV237
UV82
UV82
UV85
Castro Street
Rengstorff Ave.

El Monte Ave.

W. Middlefield Road
Central Expressway
304
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
°
Mountain View City Limits
Year Built*
0 - No Data Available
c.1890 - 1900
1901 - 1920
1921 - 1940
1941 - 1960
1961 - 1980
1981 - 2000
2001 - 2021
*Year built data provided by City of Mountain View. Data only goes to the year 2021. Areas not shown on map do not have available year built data.

Note: Some properties may include buildings with various years of construction. In general, the earliest year of construction is shown.

Map created by Page & Turnbull, March 2023.
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
PAGE & TURNBULL Page 227 August 10, 2026
City of Mountain View, CA
Historic Context Statement
Appendices
[21308] Final Draft
Appendix B3. Extant Properties in 20-Year Increments
£¤101
£¤101
UV237
UV82
UV82
UV85
Castro Street
Rengstorff Ave.

El Monte Ave.

W. Middlefield Road
Central Expressway
305
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
°
Mountain View City Limits
Year Built*
0 - No Data Available
c.1890 - 1900
1901 - 1920
1921 - 1940
1941 - 1960
1961 - 1980
1981 - 2000
2001 - 2021
*Year built data provided by City of Mountain View. Data only goes to the year 2021. Areas not shown on map do not have available year built data.

Note: Some properties may include buildings with various years of construction. In general, the earliest year of construction is shown.

Map created by Page & Turnbull, March 2023.
0 0.075 0.15 0.3
Miles
PAGE & TURNBULL Page 228 August 10, 2026
City of Mountain View, CA
Historic Context Statement
Appendices
[21308] Final Draft
Appendix B4. Extant Properties in 20-Year Increments:

Old Mountain View, Shoreline West & Castro City
Castro Street
W. Middlefield Road
El Camino Real
306
Imagining change in historic environments through
design, research, and technology
170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, #450 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95816 TEL 916-662-8532 333 WEST SAN CARLOS STREET, SUITE 600 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 TEL 408-320-7911 1201 WILSON BOULEVARD, FLOOR 25 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 TEL 703-459-9528 307
Attachment 2
-1-
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
AMENDING CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) OF THE MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY CODE

TO UPDATE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE DESIGNATION AND

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AND FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE

EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15308,

AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City Council initiated an amendment of Chapter 36 of the City Code to reflect the community’s historic preservation goals, update the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Register) to include a complete list of historic resources to be protected, establish a process and criteria for the designation of local historic districts, create updated and streamlined processes and historic review permits, and create a more detailed and comprehensive list of incentives and benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the procedures and requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65853, et seq., and Section 36.52.40, et seq. (Zoning amendments), of the Mountain View City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 2026 and recommended the City Council adopt the amendments to Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 22, 2026, on this Ordinance and received and considered all information, documents, and comments presented at said hearing regarding amendments to Chapter 36, including the recommendation from the Environmental Planning Commission, the City Council report, and project materials; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the findings for text amendments to Chapter 36 (Zoning) pursuant to Section 36.52.70 of the City Code:
a. The proposed amendment(s) is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan because they promote the preservation of historic resources, which is consistent with General Plan Goal LUD 11 (Preserved and protected important historic and cultural resources), Policy LUD 11.1 (Historical preservation), and Policy 11.3 (Incentives), as the amendments will update and strengthen historic preservation standards and procedures;
308
-2-
b. The proposed amendment(s) would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City because historic resources improve local character and identity, communicate local history, and celebrate unique and distinguished architectural and cultural achievements. The amendments would update standards and procedures to designate and protect historic resources, including historic districts; create effective and streamlined permit review processes; and create a more detailed and comprehensive list of incentives and benefits, resulting in the preservation of historic resources;
c. The proposed amendment(s) is internally consistent with Chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with Chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code because they improve clarity, consistency, and usability. The amendments create effective and streamlined permit review processes, clarify designation and permit procedures, update eligibility criteria, and provide additional incentives and benefits for the preservation of historic resources while maintaining consistency with the City’s historic preservation framework; and
d. The proposed amendment(s) is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed amendment(s) is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Class 8), which applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment through a regulatory process that includes procedures for environmental protection. The proposed amendments update and strengthen the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance by clarifying the procedures and standards for identifying, designating, and preserving historic resources, thereby enhancing their protection. The proposed amendments do not relax existing standards for the protection of historic resources or authorize development or other activities that could result in environmental degradation. Approval of the Ordinance will not result in any property being removed from the Register. The Ordinance requires review of substantive changes to historic resources, which will be subject to additional CEQA review.

SECTION 2. Repeal and Replacement of Division 15 (Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources) of Article XVI (Zoning Ordinance Administration) of Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the Mountain View City Code. Division 15 (Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources) of Article XVI (Zoning Ordinance Administration) of Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the Mountain View City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:

DIVISION 15.

DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.

SEC. 36.55. - Designation and preservation of historic resources. 309
-3-
SEC. 36.55.01. - Purpose.

The city council finds and declares that the recognition, preservation, protection, use and adaptive reuse of historic resourcesisin the best interest of the health, prosperity,social, cultural and economic enrichment and general welfare of the city. The Mountain View Register of Historic Resources and associated regulations established by this Chapter provide a program and procedures to support and guide the maintenance, rehabilitation, enhancement and protection of historic resources in Mountain View.

SEC. 36.55.02. - Definitions.

For the purpose of this Division, the following words shall have the meanings set forth in this Section:

Alteration. Any physical change to the interior or exterior of a building, structure, object or site subject to the provisions of this Division.

Character-defining feature. The distinctive, tangible and physical features or elementsthat contribute to the overall historic character of a building and were present during its period of significance.

Director. The community development director or designee, unless otherwise stated.

Exempt alteration. An alteration to a historic resource that does not have the potential to adversely affect the resource’s integrity or character-defining feature(s) and does not require a historic resource evaluation to so determine.

Historic district. An area within the City of Mountain View with defined physical boundaries that possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development and that the city council has designated for inclusion in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources pursuant to this Division. The area encompassed by the boundary of a historic district includes properties that are primary contributors and limited contributors to the district’s significance.

Historic district primary contributor. A parcel that contains one (1) or more building(s), structure(s) or object(s) that contribute to the significance of a historic district and possesses sufficient integrity to convey that significance. Multiple condominium parcels within a single structure shall be considered one (1) primary contributor. This is equivalent to “contributor” in the evaluation of historic districts for the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places.

Historic district limited contributor. A parcel that is within the boundaries of a historic district that does not contain a building, structure or object that contributes to the district’s significance, either by the absence of any such building, structure or object or by same’s lack of 310
-4-
sufficient integrity to convey thatsignificance. Multiple condominium parcelsin a single structure shall be considered one (1) limited contributor. Although the parcel may not contribute directly to the historic district’s significance, altering it may detract from the district’s overall ability to convey itssignificance. Thisis equivalent to “noncontributor” in the evaluation of historic districts for the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places.

Historic resource. Any building, structure, object, site, district or other improvement that the city council has designated for inclusion in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources as an individual resource, historic district or primary contributor to a historic district as well as those which have been listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places. This definition includes, but is not limited to, built environment resources, cultural landscapes and landscape elements, archaeological sites and deposits and traditional cultural properties. Historic district limited contributors are not historic resources, but their alteration may detract from the district’s overall ability to convey its significance.

Historic resource evaluation. A report prepared by a qualified professional that evaluates the significance of a historic resource within its historic context, explains how the historic resource meets the eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds as established by the local, state or federal government and establishes a period of significance and character-defining feature(s).

Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance, typically evidenced by the retention of attributes or a character-defining feature(s), that existed during its period of significance and including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The Mountain View Register of Historic Resources may apply integrity thresholds appropriate to the applicable resource type, period of significance and historic context which may differ from those applied by the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places, specifically for resources constructed prior to 1939 and resources in the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street and side streets within one (1) block thereof.

Any integrity threshold that differs from the threshold ordinarily applied to the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places shall be identified and explained in the historic resource evaluation supporting designation.

Major alteration. An alteration to a historic resource that is not “exempt” and does not qualify as a minor alteration and affects or modifies its character-defining feature(s) or integrity.

Minor alteration. An alteration to a historic resource that is not “exempt,” but where the alteration would not affect or modify any character-defining feature(s) or impact the resource’s integrity, or would only affect or modify a character-defining feature(s) that is not visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property.

Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (or Historic Register). The inventory of buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts (including primary and limited contributors) and other improvements designated by the city council as historic resources pursuant to the 311
-5-
provisions of this Division. The Historic Register shall be adopted and amended by city council resolution. In addition, properties listed on the California Register of Historical Resources and/or the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 36.55.25. The Mountain View Register of Historic Resources shall be the city’s “local register of historical resources” as defined in the California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

Period of significance. The span of time which a historic resource attained the characteristics or associations for which it meets the significance criteria to be considered a historic resource or historic district.

Qualified professional. An individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A) in history, architectural history, historic architecture or archaeology, as appropriate to the property type, whether a historic resource or being evaluated as such.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOIS). The latest edition of the standards and guidelines maintained by the National Park Service for the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of historic properties.

SEC. 36.55.05. - Preservation of historic resources.

No person shall alter, modify, remove or destroy, or allow any other person to alter, modify, remove or destroy, any historic resource designated and included in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources except as provided herein.

SEC. 36.55.10. - Designation findings.

A building, structure, object, site, district or other improvement may be designated as a historic resource and placed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources if the city council finds all of the following:
a. The resource is significant under one (1) or more of the following significance criteria:

1. Is directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to history and cultural heritage within the City of Mountain View;

2. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the city;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction significant to the city’s history or cultural heritage, or represents of the work of an architect, design professional or builder of merit, or possesses high artistic value; or 312
-6-

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the city’s precontact era or history.
b. The resource retains historic integrity as defined in this Division and as specified for historic resources of the same type and period of significance in any historic context statement applicable to the resource.
c. The resource is at least fifty (50) years old, except if a potential historic resource is less than fifty (50) years old, documentation of its significance must demonstrate that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance within appropriate context. d. If the resource is a historic district, there is adequate concentration, linkage and/or continuity of historic district primary contributorsto convey the historic district’ssignificance and historic district limited contributors do not disproportionately detract from the district’s overall ability to convey its significance. For a proposed historic district requested by a property owner application, the proposed district comprises at least twice as many historic district primary contributors as historic district limited contributors. e. Each designation finding shall identify the substantial evidence supporting the finding as applied to the particular resource.

SEC. 36.55.15. - Designation process for historic register—Individual resources.

The city council may consider the designation of a building, site, structure, object or other improvement as a historic resource and place same on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources pursuant to one (1) or more of the permissible methods described in subsections a., b. and/or c. to initiate such consideration and pursuant to the public hearing action in subsection d. to designate the historic resource.
a. Initiation by owner application. The property owner may request designation of a building,site,structure, object or other improvement as an individual historic resource. Requests for designation must be accompanied by a historic resource evaluation that demonstrates the property’s significance and integrity relative to the findings for designation as defined in Section 36.55.10. The application shall be filed with the director. The director may require a thirdparty peer review of a submitted application and may require an applicant to provide a deposit for payment of expenses associated with the peer review. b. Initiation by the city council. The city council may initiate the designation of a building, site, structure, object or other improvement as an individual historic resource. Within thirty (30) days of the initiation of the designation by the city council, the director shall notify the property owner, as such owner’s name and address appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the county assessor, in writing by first-class and certified mail. 313
-7-
The notice shall describe the consequences of designation, identify the anticipated hearing date if known and explain the property owner’s opportunity to submit written materials and qualified professional evidence.

Prior to the public hearing required by subsection d., the director shall ensure the preparation of documentation that supports the designation, which shall at minimum include a historic resource evaluation that demonstrates the property’s significance and integrity relative to the findings for designation as defined in Section 36.55.10.

The director shall provide the property owner with notice of availability of the completed historic resource evaluation and other materials upon which staff intends to rely no fewer than sixty (60) days before the public hearing and shall make such information available to the property owner upon request. The property owner may submit written comments, factual materials and a qualified professional response for inclusion in the hearing record. c. Initiation by survey. The city may initiate the designation of any building, site, structure, object or other improvement identified as eligible for listing on the historic register through a city-initiated survey. The survey used for initiation pursuant to this subsection shall remain valid for five (5) years from the date of evaluation, provided the director determines before the designation hearing that no material alteration or other changed circumstance affects the survey’s conclusions concerning significance or integrity.

At least sixty (60) days before the public hearing in subsection d., the director shall notify all property owners under consideration for designation in writing by first-class and certified mail.
d. Public hearing before city council. Prior to any action to designate a building, site, structure, object or other improvement as an individual historic resource in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the city council shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the noticing and procedural requirements described in Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article. The city council shall only take action to designate a building, site, structure, object, or other improvement as an individual historic resource if such action has been initiated pursuant to one of the methods described in this Section or brought forward pursuant to Section 36.55.39 and upon making the required findings for designation in Section 36.55.10. e. Designation is a discretionary action. The provisions of this Division shall not create a duty for the city council to designate any building, site, structure, object or other improvement as an individual historic resource. Notwithstanding any evidence that supports designation, the city council may, in its sole discretion, determine not to designate a building, site, structure, object or other improvement as an individual historic resource after taking into account property owner or community sentiment, differing qualified professional opinions of significance, eligibility for removal pursuant to Section 36.55.35 and other relevant factors. 314
-8-
f. Failure to notify. Failure of any property owner to receive notice sent by mail to the address shown on the last assessment roll for the property in question shall not invalidate proceedings if the city complied with the notice requirements of this Division.

SEC. 36.55.20. - Designation process for historic register—Historic districts.

The city council may consider the designation of a historic district and place the same on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources pursuant to one (1) or more of the permissible methods described in subsections b., d., and/or e. to initiate such consideration and pursuant to the public hearing action in subsection g. to designate the historic district. a. Districts generally. The designated boundary must be contiguous and shall not contain nondistrict parcels wholly enclosed within the district boundary. b. Initiation by property owners’ application. A group comprising the owners or authorized agents of at least fifty (50) percent of the parcels and at least fifty (50) percent of the privately owned land area therein may request designation of a historic district. “Parcels” shall include condominiums, but the land area of the condominium lot must be divided equally among owners based on their affirmative participation in the request. A request for a historic district designation shall be filed with the director and must include the required application materials in subsection c. The director may require a third-party peer review of a submitted application and may require an applicant to provide a deposit for payment of expenses associated with the peer review.

As an additional protection against unreasonable applications, historic districts initiated by property owners shall have at least twice the number of primary contributors as limited contributors, which shall be established prior to the public hearing in subsection g. c. Required application materials. The following items are required application materials for any historic district designation requested by property owners:

1. A historic resource evaluation of the proposed historic district’ssignificance and integrity relative to the required findings for designation as defined in Section 36.55.10;

2. A map depicting the boundary of the proposed historic district;

3. A list and/or map and photographs of primary contributors and limited contributors to the proposed historic district, including buildings, structures, objects, landscape features and infrastructure elementssuch as public rights-of-way, lighting and signage. All parcels within the district boundary must be identified as primary contributors or limited contributors and include the property address(es) and assessor parcel number(s); and 315
-9-

4. A list and photographs of character-defining features of the proposed historic district as a whole, including those architectural characteristics shared by primary contributors that convey the proposed historic district’s significance. d. Initiation by the city council. The city council may initiate the designation of a historic district by majority vote. Within thirty (30) days of the initiation of the designation by the city council, the directorshall notify the owners of all properties within the boundary of the proposed historic district, as such owners’ names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the county assessor, in writing by first-class and certified mail. Prior to the public hearing required by this Section, the director shall ensure the preparation of documentation that supports the historic district designation, which shall, at a minimum, include a historic resource evaluation that demonstrates the proposed district’s significance and integrity relative to the findings for designation as defined in Section 36.55.10. e. Initiation by survey. The city may initiate the designation of any district identified as eligible for listing on the Historic Register through a city-initiated survey. The survey used for initiation pursuant to this subsection shall remain valid for five (5) years from the date of evaluation.
f. Notice and owner response. At least sixty (60) days before the public hearing described in subsection g., the city shall mail a notice and an owner response by first-class and certified mail to owners of all properties in the proposed historic district, as such owners’ names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the county assessor, identifying the proposed boundary, the proposed classification of the owner’s property, the local regulatory consequences of designation and the procedure and deadline for submitting written comments.

The owner response form is advisory and does not constitute a vote or establish an owner consent requirement. Staff shall report the number and percentage of owners supporting, opposing and not responding.
g. Public hearing before city council. Prior to any action to designate a historic district in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the city council shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the noticing and procedural requirements described in Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article. The city council shall only take action to designate a historic district if such action has been initiated pursuant to one (1) of the methods described in this Section or brought forward pursuant to Section 36.55.39 and upon making the required findings for designation in Section 36.55.10.
h. Designation is a discretionary action. The provisions of this Division shall not create a duty for the city council to designate any historic district. Notwithstanding any evidence that supports designation, the city council may, in its sole discretion, determine not to designate a historic district, or designate only a portion of a proposed historic district, after taking into account property owner or community sentiment, differing qualified professional opinions of significance, eligibility for removal pursuant to Section 36.55.35 and other relevant factors, and 316
-10-
further provided the designated portion independently satisfies Section 36.55.10 and affected owners received notice of the boundary materially under consideration. i. Failure to notify. Failure of any property owner to receive notice sent by mail to the address shown on the last assessment roll for the property in question shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. j. Additions to historic districts. This Section shall also be used to consider the addition of properties to existing historic districts. Initiation by property owners’ application as described in subsection b. shall require a request by a group comprising the owners of at least fifty (50) percent of the parcels and at least fifty (50) percent of the privately owned land area of the addition as well as all other criteria based upon the proposed amended historic district as a whole.

SEC. 36.55.25. - Designation of state and national register resources.

Any resource listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places shall also be included on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. Such inclusion shall be by reference and shall not require a separate local designation hearing. Within thirty (30) days after receiving notice of the listing, the director shall notify the property owner of the listing, its local regulatory consequences and the procedure for correcting an error concerning the identity or listing status of the property.

SEC. 36.55.30. - Removal from historic register or reclassification of primary contributors— Ineligible properties.
a. Applicability. Owner(s) of property designated on the historic register may submit an application to the director for removal from the historic register pursuant to this Section.

Requests for removal must be accompanied by a historic resource evaluation that demonstrates the property’s significance and integrity relative to the findings for designation as defined in Section 36.55.10. The director may require a third-party peer review of a submitted application and may require an applicant to provide a deposit for payment of expenses associated with the peer review. Owner(s) may, but are not required to, submit an application pursuant to this Section concurrently with an application for any other permit required by this Chapter. This Section may only be used under the following circumstances:

1. Loss of integrity due to accident or disaster. The property has lost its integrity due to damage or deterioration beyond the owner’s control. Qualifying circumstances may include, but are not limited to, a natural disastersuch as a flood or earthquake. The circumstances shall have damaged the property to the extent that it no longer possesses sufficient integrity to convey its significance and justification for inclusion in the historic register. Loss of integrity due to neglect, failure to maintain, or alterations completed in a manner inconsistent with the city code shall not be considered a qualifying basis for removal from the historic register pursuant to this Section.
317
-11-

2. New information. Evidence not included in the documentation supporting the original designation demonstrates that a property does not meet the findings of subsections a., b., c. or, if applicable, d. in Section 36.55.10.
b. Historic district primary contributors. Owner(s) of a historic district primary contributor may submit an application to the director pursuant to this Section to convert their property from a historic district primary contributor to a historic district limited contributor. If removal of the property would retain the contiguousness of the historic district within which the property islocated, the application may include a request to amend the historic district boundary to remove the property from the district. Applications pursuant to this subsection shall include updated documentation as required in subsection c. of Section 36.55.20. c. Historic districts. A group comprising the owners of at least fifty (50) percent of the parcels and at least fifty (50) percent of the privately owned land area within a historic district, as calculated in subsection b. of Section 36.55.20, may submit an application to the director pursuant to this Section for removal of the historic district from the historic register. Applications pursuant to this subsection shall include updated documentation as required in subsection c. of Section 36.55.20.
d. Public hearings. Upon receipt of a complete application and following departmental review and any review required under Section 21000, et seq., of the Public Resources Code (the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)), the zoning administrator shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article.

Following such hearing, the zoning administrator shall forward a written recommendation to the city council, which shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article. The city council shall review the zoning administrator’s recommendation and the evidence in support of termination of designation, modification of historic district boundary or conversion from historic district primary contributor to historic district limited contributor.
e. Findings. The city council shall approve a request for removal from the historic register or conversion from a historic district primary contributor to a historic district limited contributor or the modification to a historic district boundary pursuant to this Section if it makes the following required findings:

1. Based on substantial evidence, including a current historic resource evaluation, the property does not meet one or more of the findings of subsections a., b., c. or, if applicable, d. in Section 36.55.10;

2. For removal or reclassification of a contributor to a historic district, the resulting district boundary and classifications continue to satisfy Section 36.55.10(d) or the city council concurrently modifies or removes the district designation as necessary; and 318
-12-

3. The removal from the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources or reclassification complies with CEQA.

SEC. 36.55.35. - Removal from historic register or reclassification of primary contributors— Exemptions.
a. Applicability. The owner(s) of property designated on the historic register may submit an application to the director for removal from the historic register pursuant to this Section.

Requests for removal must be accompanied by evidence of the circumstances applicable to this Section. The director may require a third-party peer review of a submitted application and may require an applicant to provide a deposit for payment of expenses associated with the peer review. The owner(s) may, but is not required to, submit an application pursuant to this Section concurrently with an application for any other permit required by this Chapter. This Section may only be used under the following circumstances:

1. Economic hardship. The applicant has presented facts that clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city council that failure to remove the historic resource from the historic register would result in an immediate and substantial hardship because of conditions peculiar to the particular structure or other feature involved. In determining whether substantial hardship exists, the city council shall consider evidence that demonstrates that the following factors, considered together, establish that continued designation would deny all reasonable economic use of the property or otherwise impose an unconstitutional burden under applicable law:
(a) Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject structure or property so as to leave substantially no value.
(b) Sale or rental of the property is impractical, infeasible or uneconomic when compared to the cost of holding such property for permitted uses. (c) Improvement of the property in a manner which would preserve its character-defining features is impractical, infeasible or uneconomic. (d) In addition, the city council shall consider reasonably probable permitted uses, market value and return with and without removal, supported rehabilitation and maintenance costs, available incentives and feasible preservation alternatives, reasonable investment-backed expectations when the property was acquired and whether the asserted hardship was caused or materially increased by neglect, unlawful alteration or failure to maintain the resource. A reduction in value, reduced profitability or a more profitable alternative use shall not, standing alone, establish hardship. Any relief shall be limited to the minimum necessary to avoid the demonstrated hardship.

Penalties, corrections or other enforcement measures pursuant to Section 36.55.70 shall not be considered costs in the determination of economic hardship. 319
-13-

2. Free exercise of religion. The applicant has presented facts that clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city council that the inclusion in the historic register would impose a substantial burden on the applicant’s free exercise of religious liberty. The city council shall consider the nature of the religious exercise, the manner and degree of the burden and whether less restrictive relief would avoid the burden while preserving the resource.

Qualification under California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 207 may be considered as evidence of religious use but does not, by itself, establish a substantial burden or entitlement to removal. Any relief shall be limited to the minimum necessary to remedy the demonstrated burden.
b. Historic district primary contributors. The owner(s) of a historic district primary contributor may submit an application to the director pursuant to this Section to convert their property from a historic district primary contributor to a historic district limited contributor. If removal of the property would retain the contiguousness of the historic district within which the property islocated, the application may include a request to amend the historic district boundary to remove the property from the district. Applications pursuant to this subsection shall include updated documentation as required in subsection c. of Section 36.55.20. c. Historic districts. A group comprising the owners of at least fifty (50) percent of the parcels and at least fifty (50) percent of the privately owned land area within a historic district, as calculated in subsection b. of Section 36.55.20, may submit an application to the director pursuant to this Section for removal of the historic district from the historic register. Applications pursuant to this subsection shall include updated documentation as required in subsection c. of Section 36.55.20.
d. Public hearings. Upon receipt of a complete application and following departmental review and any review required under Section 21000, et seq., of the Public Resources Code (the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)), the zoning administrator shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article.

Following such hearing, the zoning administrator shall forward a written recommendation to the city council, which shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article. The city council shall review the evidence in support of the request for removal of the resource and the zoning administrator’s recommendation.
e. Findings. The city council may approve a request for removal from the historic register or conversion from a historic district primary contributor to a historic district limited contributor 320
-14-
or the modification to a historic district boundary pursuant to this Section only if it makes the following required findings:

1. The removal from the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources is no broader than necessary to remedy the economic hardship or legally cognizable burden on religious exercise established under this Section; and

2. The removal from the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources complies with CEQA.

SEC. 36.55.39. - Other modifications to the historic register.

Nothing in this Division shall be interpreted to prevent the director from initiating a modification to the historic register for city council consideration, including, but not limited to, a modification to add or remove one (1) or more properties, revise a property’s status as a historic district primary contributor or historic district limited contributor or expand or contract one (1) or more historic districts, when the director determines that information available to the city indicates that the modification may be warranted under the standards and criteria of this Division. Initiation by the director by itself shall not modify the historic register or alter a property’s designation or classification. Before city council action, the director shall ensure preparation of the documentation necessary to evaluate the proposed modification and compliance with the notice and public hearing procedures applicable to the proposed modification. The city council may approve the modification only upon making the findings required for the applicable action.

The director may initiate correction of a clerical, mapping, address, ownership or other nonsubstantive error in the historic register after written notice to affected property owners. A correction may not add or remove a resource, modify a historic district boundary or change a contributor classification.

SEC. 36.55.40. - Historic preservation permits.
a. Applicability. No person shall make any alteration to any individual historic resource, historic district primary contributor or historic district limited contributor, except alterationsthat are “exempt” pursuant to subsection h., without first obtaining a historic preservation permit (HP permit), which shall prohibit substantial adverse change to the integrity of the historic resource. An HP permit and any other coincidental permitsshall remain in effect forfour (4) years from the date of approval and shall be eligible for a permit extension pursuant to Section 36.56.65.
b. Application requirements. In addition to the application requirements of Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article, including, but not limited to, current photographs and architectural drawings, specifications or other descriptive materials necessary to illustrate the proposed alteration, the HP permit application shall include a list of character321 -15-
defining features and an SOIS analysis by a qualified professional. An alteration to a historic resource must be in substantial compliance with the SOIS.

The city shall determine whether a minor HP permit or major HP permit is required upon receipt of a complete application, pursuant to the provisions in subsections c. and e. of this Section. Notwithstanding the listed improvements in subsections c. and e., the zoning administrator shall have the authority to approve any application affecting character-defining features (major alterations) pursuant to subsection f., and the director shall have the authority to approve any application not affecting character-defining features(minor alterations) pursuant to subsection d.
c. Minor HP permit applicability. Minor HP permits are required for minor alterations to historic resources. The director may establish and maintain a list of alterations they have determined to typically require a minor HP permit.

The following are examples of alterations to individual historic resources and historic district primary contributors that would typically require a minor HP permit.

1. Construction of an addition to the principal structure that is not visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

2. Alteration of or construction of an addition to an existing accessory structure that does not contribute to the property’s significance;

3. Relocation within the parcel of an accessory structure that does not contribute to the property’s significance;

4. Removal of nonhistoric additions or features on the principal structure;

5. Replacement of historic or compatible nonhistoric windows or doors in-kind with matching material, type, configuration and/or operability;

6. Replacement of incompatible, nonhistoric windows or doors with windows or doors that match the original or historically documented examples on the building or are consistent with the architectural style and period of significance, including material, size, muntin pattern, operation, profile and finish;

7. Creation of new window or door openings not visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

8. Foundation and structural repair or replacement that does not remove or alter character-defining features;
322
-16-

9. Installation of awnings or canopies that do not remove, damage or permanently alter character-defining features;

10. Installation of rooftop photovoltaic panels based on compliance with the SOIS (i.e., to minimize visibility from public rights-of-way while preserving reasonable solar efficiency).

The city may require an alternative location only when it would not substantially impair the system’s cost-effectiveness or energy production and when it would avoid material impacts to significant historic features;

11. Installation of skylights; or

12. Installation of new commercial signs in new locations.

The following are examples of alterations to historic district limited contributors that would require a minor HP permit. Such actions may require development review approval pursuant to other provisions of this Article (which may include a public hearing).

13. New or additional principal building on the site;

14. Demolition of a principal building on the site; or

15. Vertical addition to an existing principal building. d. Minor HP permit process. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director may approve or disapprove a minor HP permit administratively with no public hearing or public notice required.
e. Major HP permit applicability. Major HP permits are required for major alterations to historic resources. The following are examples of alterations that would typically require a major HP permit.

1. New or additional principal building on the site;

2. Construction of a new accessory structure, such as a garage, trash enclosure or pergola, visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

3. Construction of an addition to the principal structure that is visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

4. Relocation of a principalstructure orstructure that contributesto the property’s significance within its parcel;

5. Relocation of a historic district primary contributor to a different parcel within the historic district;
323
-17-

6. Alteration or addition to a principal structure or accessory structure that contributes to the property’s significance that would remove, alter or permanently obscure a character-defining feature;

7. Full or partial change in exterior cladding material (e.g., wood siding to stucco) where the change is more extensive than what would be associated with minor alterations;

8. Replacement of windows or doors with new windows or doors of differing material, type, configuration and/or operability;

9. Replacement of incompatible windows or doors with matching, incompatible windows or doors;

10. Painting or coating previously unpainted or uncoated character-defining features or materials (e.g., brick, stone, concrete, shingles);

11. Full or partial replacement of roofing with different material, if visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property, and where the change is more extensive than what would be associated with minor alterations;

12. New window or door openings visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

13. Foundation and structural repair or replacement that alters or removes a character-defining feature;

14. Relocation of a principal structure or accessory structure which contributes to the property’s significance to a different parcel within the City of Mountain View. Upon relocation, the historic resource shall remain on the historic register, identified with its new address, which shall require a modification to the historic register pursuant to Section 36.55.39.

Relocation outside of city limits shall be reviewed as demolition; or

15. Any other alteration, project or activity not applicable to subsection c. or i. of this Section.
f. Major HP permit process. Upon receipt of a complete application, the zoning administrator shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article. The zoning administrator may approve or disapprove the major HP permit, subject to appeal to the city council. g. Finding. An HP permit may be approved or conditionally approved if the approval body or official finds that the proposed alteration will not result in a substantial adverse change in the integrity of the historic resource. This may be established by confirming that the proposed 324
-18-
alteration is consistent with the SOIS. A proposed alteration that would result in a substantial adverse change may be approved only pursuant to Section 36.55.45. h. Appeals. Decisions made under this Section may be appealed to the city council in accordance with Section 36.56.50 (Appeals).
i. Exempt alterations. No HP permit isrequired for an exempt alteration. Any alteration limited to one (1) or more scopes of work included in this subsection shall be considered an exempt alteration. The director may establish and maintain a list of other alterations that, based on objective characteristics and substantial evidence documented in writing, the director determines categorically meet the definition of an exempt alteration. The director may not exempt an alteration that may remove, materially alter or permanently obscure a characterdefining feature. In addition to any HP permit exemption provided in this subsection, nothing in this Division shall be construed to prevent or require an HP permit for an alteration involving the ordinary repair and maintenance of any architectural feature of a historic resource pursuant to Section 36.55.50, or actionsrequired for public safety pursuant to Section 36.55.55. An alteration that is exempt from the requirement to obtain an HP permit pursuant to this subsection may remain subject to other permit requirements, including, but not limited to, the permit requirements in Chapter 8 and other permit requirements in Chapter 36 of the City Code.

1. Maintenance and repair of existing windows and doors to retain operability and performance;

2. Painting or coating of previously painted or coated surfaces, including in a different color;

3. In-kind maintenance and replacement of siding, trim and light fixtures;

4. Full or partial replacement of roofing material in kind or with different material in areas not visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

5. Installation or replacement of roof equipment when fully obscured behind an existing screen or parapet;

6. Installation of underground utilities;

7. Interior renovation or remodeling that does not alter an interior feature identified as a character-defining feature;

8. Seismic strengthening not visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

9. Minor sign installations (e.g., address numbers, commemorative plaques); 325
-19-

10. Replacement signage installed in the same location as existing, approved signage;

11. Construction of a new detached accessory structure, such as a garage, trash enclosure or pergola, that is not visible from public rights-of-way or other publicly accessible property;

12. Changes to site or landscape features that do not alter, remove or obscure a character-defining feature, including, but not limited to, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and other mechanical equipment not visible from a public right-of-way or other publicly accessible property; walkways; driveways; minor landscape improvements; patio dining areas; and backyard landscaping and site features; or

13. Work which would otherwise not require the issuance of a building permit pursuant to Chapter 8 of the City Code provided the work does not remove, materially alter or permanently obscure a character-defining feature.

In addition to the examples above, the following are examples of exempt alterations specific to historic district limited contributors. Such actions may also require development review approval pursuant to other provisions of this Article.

14. Horizontal addition to a principal building on the site;

15. New or demolished accessory structures; or

16. Changes to exterior materials, including, but not limited to, windows, doors, siding, trim and roofing.
j. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Division, where state law requires application of strictly objective standards or ministerial approval, the city shall not impose a discretionary or nonobjective historic preservation standard on a housing development project.

Nothing in this subsection limits review authorized by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) where CEQA legally applies. This Division shall not be applied to deny, condition, delay or otherwise regulate a housing development project to the extent preempted by state law.

SEC. 36.55.45. - Demolition or other substantial adverse change. a. Applicability. No historic resource (except a historic district limited contributor, provided that such demolition is eligible for an HP permit) shall be demolished or altered in a manner that would result in a substantial adverse change in the integrity of the historic resource unless approved pursuant to this Section. “Demolition” shall mean total destruction of a historic resource or an alteration that removes or destroys such a substantial portion of the resource’s character-defining features that the resource no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance. Inconsistency with the SOIS is relevant evidence but does not by itself 326
-20-
establish demolition or another substantial adverse change. Property owners may submit an application to the director under this Section for approval of the proposed demolition or other substantial adverse change and any associated removal from the historic register. b. Concurrent project required. Demolition or other substantial adverse change to the integrity of a historic resource shall not be approved unless concurrent alterations to or improvements or modifications in the location of the historic resource are also approved. c. Additional materials. In addition to any required application materials for the concurrent project, an application pursuant to this Section shall include:

1. Documentation of the benefits and general plan implementation offered by the concurrent project. “Benefits” shall be limited to identifiable benefits arising from the proposed use, design, or operation of the concurrent project and shall not require an unrelated monetary payment, dedication or improvement. “General plan implementation” shall include how preservation of the historic resource prevents effective implementation of the general plan.

2. Documentation of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that would avoid demolition or materially reduce loss of the historic resource, including preservation, rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, relocation, incorporation into the project or reduced alteration and the rationale for rejection.

3. An acknowledgment of the repayment requirements for any tax incentive received forthe preservation of the historic resource and the loss of future tax incentives or other benefits pursuant to Section 36.55.60.
d. Public hearings. Upon receipt of a complete application pursuant to this Section and following departmental review and any review required under Section 21000, et seq., of the Public Resources Code (the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)), the zoning administrator shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article.

Following such hearing, the zoning administrator shall forward a written recommendation to the city council, which shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Division 16 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals) of this Article. The city council shall review the evidence in support of the request and the zoning administrator’srecommendation. Pursuant to subsection f.3., if the historic resource would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the historic register, the city council shall not remove the historic resource from the historic register until after construction has commenced and the resource no longer meets the findings of subsections a., b., c. or, if applicable, d. in Section 36.55.10. 327
-21-
e. Findings. The city council may approve a demolition or other substantial adverse change to the integrity of a historic resource pursuant to this Section only if it makesthe following required findings:

1. The concurrent project advances specifically identified general plan policies and provides identifiable benefits that, after consideration of feasible preservation alternatives, outweigh the loss of the historic resource, considering consistency with the vision established by the general plan and other City policies, impacts on surrounding properties, design quality and other factors; and

2. The concurrent project that would modify or replace the historic resource complies with the general plan, applicable provisions of Chapter 36 of the city code and any applicable precise plan and is concurrently receiving approval for any necessary discretionary permits; and

3. The proposed project complies with CEQA.

These findings are in addition to any findings required for the concurrent application. f. Postapproval actions.

1. Prior to any construction activity, the applicant shall provide documentation of the historic resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-style outline report and HABS-style digital photographs prepared by a qualified professional. These materials shall be provided to the Mountain View Public Library in digital and hard copy formats.

2. No demolition permit or building permit shall be issued to demolish or alter the historic resource, and such demolition or construction activities may not commence until a building permit(s) to construct the replacement project pursuant to subsection b. is issued.

3. If the historic resource would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the historic register, the historic resource shall remain on the historic register until the authorized demolition of the historic resource, after which the director shall bring a modification to the historic register to the city council pursuant to Section 36.55.39, to reflect the change in status of the property in question.

SEC. 36.55.50. - Duty to maintain.

All property owners of historic resourcesshall keep in good repair all of the portions ofsuch resources whose maintenance is necessary to prevent the deterioration and decay of the historic resource’s character-defining features. It shall be the duty of the chief building official to enforce this Section. For purposes of this Division, the term “chief building official” shall have the same meaning as “building official” as defined in Chapter 8 of the city code. 328
-22-
SEC. 36.55.55. - Hazardous conditions.

None of the provisions of this Division shall be construed to prevent any measures of construction, alteration, removal, demolition or relocation necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition of any structure, other feature or part thereof that presents an imminent hazard to surrounding properties or occupants and where such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous by the chief building official or the fire chief; provided, however, that when the structure is a historic resource and where the proposed measures have been declared necessary by the chief building official or the fire chief to correct the condition, only such work as is necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition that presents an imminent hazard to surrounding properties or occupants may be performed pursuant to this Section.

If the hazardous condition was the result of the neglect or failure of the current or prior owner(s) to maintain, secure or stabilize the building in accordance with the applicable requirements, enforcement provisions pursuant to Section 36.55.70 shall apply.

SEC. 36.55.60. - Incentives and benefits available to historic resources on the historic register.

Property owners of historic resources are eligible for special incentives and benefits to encourage historic preservation and investment, improvement and maintenance of historic resources, as described in this Section and as more specifically detailed by city council policy.

Unless otherwise stated, the following incentives are available to individual historic resources and primary contributors to historic districts. Any proposed alteration resulting from benefits shall adhere to the SOIS and shall not impact public health and safety. a. Historic plaque program. Individual historic resources listed on the historic register shall be provided with a plaque suitable for mounting on or near the property, if requested by the owner. Historic districts shall receive one (1) sign for each public street intersection serving the district for installation subject to applicable requirements of the city code, if requested by a majority of district owners or directed by city council. b. Zoning benefits. Properties on the historic register are eligible for exceptions to zoning provisions of this Chapter or of an applicable precise plan, including the following:

1. Nonconformance. All existing structures, site conditions and character-defining features that also existed on the site during the historic resource’s period of significance shall be considered conforming with respect to this Chapter. New additions, changes of use and other modifications governed by this Chapter shall comply with the provisions of this Chapter;

2. Previous use. Any use that existed on the site during the historic resource’s period of significance, which is not currently a permitted use, shall be an allowable use on the site subject to approval of a conditional use permit; and

3. Minimum parking. Reduction in minimum parking requirements of this Chapter. 329
-23-
c. Other city code requirements. Properties on the historic register are eligible for exceptions and special provisions applicable to other requirements, including the following:

1. Building code. Historic resources shall have use of the currently adopted California Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8 of the California Building Standards Code) and any local amendmentsthereto adopted in Chapter 8 (Buildings) of the City Code for maintenance, alterations and changes of use that comply with the SOIS which offer alternative solutions intended to protect historic buildings from the adverse impacts of certain requirements of the regular building code.

2. Condominium conversions. Historic resourcesshall be eligible for condominium conversions of six (6) residential units or fewer in a single historic resource pursuant to subsection c. (Exclusions) of Section 28.12.10 (Permit) of Article VII (Residential Condominium Conversions) of Chapter 28 (Subdivisions).

3. Park land dedication requirements. Historic resources shall be eligible for reductionsto park land dedication requirements per Chapter 41 of the city code. Reductionsshall be determined by city council policy or resolution.

4. Other impact fees. Projects on historic register properties are eligible for reductions to impact fees and fees in lieu of other requirements, including, but not limited to, below-market-rate housing program in-lieu fees, housing impact fees, transportation impact fees and water and sewer capacity fees. Reductions shall be determined by city council policy or resolution.

5. Green building requirements. Historic resources shall be exempt from locally adopted mandatory green building requirements.
d. Permit fee reductions. Projects on historic register properties are eligible for reductions to planning, public works and building permit processing fees. Reductions shall be determined by city council policy or resolution.
e. Mills Act contract. The property owner of a historic resource may be eligible to submit an application and enter into a contract with the City of Mountain View for rehabilitation and maintenance of historic resources pursuant to the Mills Act, Government Code Section 50280, et seq.
f. Tax rebate. The city council may, by adopted policy, establish a program to provide a rebate of the City of Mountain View portion of the historic resource’s property tax. g. Historic building rehabilitation loan fund. The city council may establish a historic building rehabilitation loan fund by resolution, which may be amended from time to time.

Nothing in this policy shall obligate the city to fund, capitalize or continue such a program. 330
-24-
h. Cancellation of benefits. Approval by the city council of a request for removal of a historic resource from the historic register, including requests for demolition or substantial adverse change which would result in removal from the historic register, shall constitute cancellation of any contract or agreement which confers an incentive. Repayment of the tax rebate in subsection f. shall be required if any were provided between the approval and the end of the tax period on a pro rata basis.

SEC. 36.55.65. - Application of other laws.

Nothing in this Division shall be construed to abrogate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or any other state, federal or local law relative to the preservation of historical resources or the environment.

SEC. 36.55.70. - Enforcement.
a. Any person who knowingly violates a requirement of this Division or knowingly fails to obey an order or permit issued pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the enforcement provisions and procedures of Section 36.58.55, et seq. (Enforcement of provisions) of this Article.
b. Any person who constructs, alters, removes or demolishes a historic resource in violation of this Division shall be required to reconstruct or restore the historic resource to its appearance prior to the violation to the extent such restoration is physically possible and to the extent the city determines, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, that restoration is technically feasible, lawful and reasonably proportionate to the violation. If full restoration is infeasible, the city may require a remedial plan addressing the remaining resource, documentation of lost features, stabilization and other measures reasonably related to the violation. This remedy shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal prosecution and penalties or other remedies provided by law.
c. If the historic resource is demolished or altered in a manner that would result in a substantial adverse change in its integrity, the affected parcels shall remain on the historic register unless and until the city council approves a development project or modification pursuant to Section 36.55.45 and construction of the project has commenced. Following a determination of a violation, the director shall provide the property owner written notice identifying any required corrective action and a reasonable period to submit an application for restoration or remedial work, an application pursuant to Section 36.55.45 or another application appropriate to resolve the violation. If the property owner does not submit the required application within the period specified in the notice, the applicable application is denied or the violation otherwise remains unresolved, the city may convene a code enforcement hearing pursuant to Section 36.58.55, et seq. Following a final determination that a person knowingly demolished a historic resource or knowingly caused the irreversible destruction of one or more character-defining features in violation of this Division, the hearing officer may, after making 331
-25-
written findings concerning culpability, the extent and irreversibility of the harm, economic benefit obtained, prior violations, cooperation, feasibility of restoration and proportionality of the remedy and that lesser remedies are inadequate, direct that the city shall not issue a permit authorizing new construction in place of the historic resource other than restoration or remedial work for a period of up to fifteen (15) years from the date of violation. The duration and scope of the restriction shall be no greater than reasonably necessary to address the violation and shall account for any change in ownership occurring after the violation. The restriction shall terminate earlier upon completion of an approved restoration or remedial plan or approval of an application pursuant to Section 36.55.45. After the administrative order becomes final, the city shall record notice of the final order against the affected property. Upon expiration or earlier termination of the restriction, the city shall promptly record a notice of release. d. Affected parcels shall be ineligible for benefits under Section 36.55.60 unless the historic resource is restored. Repayment of the city tax rebate benefit in subsection f. of Section 36.55.60 may be required for up to the previous five (5) years before the enforcement action is taken, with interest, to the extent authorized by the agreement or policy under which the benefit was granted and after notice and an opportunity to be heard. e. All remedies contained in this Section for the handling of violations or enforcement of the provisions of this Division shall be cumulative and not exclusive of any other applicable provisions of city, county or state law.

SEC. 36.55.75. - Other provisions.
a. SB 79 temporary exclusion. In accordance with Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), all properties designated on the historic register on or before January 1, 2025 shall be excluded from applicability of Government Code Section 65912.157 until one (1) year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the housing element of the general plan.

Such properties shall be identified on the zoning map with an icon designated as “Properties excluded from Government Code Section 65912.157 (SB 79) until one yearfollowing the adoption of the seventh revision of the housing element.”
b. Previous historic register. The Mountain View Register of Historic Resources in effect on the effective date of the ordinance adopting this subsection shall remain in effect and continue to be the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources pursuant to this Division. c. State and national eligible resources—Single-family dwellings and duplexes.

1. Any single-family dwelling or duplex in an “R” zoning district identified in Exhibit A adopted concurrently with this ordinance which has been identified as eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places as of the effective date of the ordinance adopting this subsection shall also be subject to the HP permit requirements of Section 36.55.40 and the procedural requirements of Section 36.55.45, except subsection f.3.
332
-26-

2. No property may be added under this subsection after the effective date of the ordinance. If a property under this subsection is subsequently listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the provisions applicable to listed historic resources shall prevail over the provisions of this subsection.

3. This subsection shall cease to apply to an identified property upon the earliest of: (1) city council designation or a final decision not to designate the property under Section 36.55.15; or (2) completion of applicable environmental review specifically evaluating cessation of interim protection for the property; or (3) June 30, 2028. Staff shall present the status of each property identified in Exhibit A to the city council no later than June 30, 2028 together with a recommendation concerning designation, continued interim protection or completion of environmental review addressing cessation of interim protection. Failure to meet this deadline shall not terminate the requirements of this subsection.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the other remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. Publication. Pursuant to Section 522 of the Mountain View City Charter, it is ordered that copies of the foregoing proposed Ordinance be posted at least two (2) days prior to its adoption in three (3) prominent places in the City and that a single publication be made to the official newspaper of the City of a notice setting forth the title of the Ordinance, the date of its introduction, and a list of the places where copies of the proposed Ordinance are posted.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 519 of the Mountain View City Charter, this Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption. – – – – – – – – – – –
CDD/EK-09-22-26o
Exhibit: A. Properties Subject to Section 36.55.75(c)
333
Exhibit A
Single-Family Dwellings and Duplexes in “R” Zoning Districts, Eligible for California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places August 2026
This exhibit implements Section 36.55.75(c) (State and National eligible resources – singlefamily dwellings and duplexes) of the Mountain View City Code.

The following properties are single-family dwellings and duplexes identified as eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places, which are subject to the HP permit requirements of Section 36.55.40 and the procedural requirements of Section 36.55.45, except Subsection (f)(3).

These properties are not on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources as of the effective date of the ordinance adopting Section 36.55.75(c). If subsequently listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the City Code provisions applicable to listed historic resources shall prevail over the provisions of Section 36.55.75(c). 177 ADA AVENUE (APN 160-46-057)
272 BUSH STREET (APN 158-22-048)
415 BUSH STREET (APN 158-30-020)
537 BUSH STREET (APN 158-25-074)
97 CHURCH STREET (APN 158-04-056)
334 CHURCH STREET (APN 158-25-075)
655 EUNICE AVENUE (APN 197-32-002)
280 LESLIE COURT (APN 160-29-021)
340 PALO ALTO AVENUE (APN 154-08-041)
604 PETTIS AVENUE (APN 154-31-048)
462 SLEEPER AVENUE (APN 197-37-026)
395 VELARDE STREET (APN 158-29-084)
344 VIEW STREET (APN 158-23-021)
1209 VILLA STREET (APN 154-09-043)
334
Attachment 3
-1-
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO EXCLUDE PROPERTIES DESIGNATED ON THE MOUNTAIN VIEW REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2025 FROM GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65912.157 (SENATE BILL 79) AND

FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3),

AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 79, signed into law on October 10, 2025 and codified in Government Code Sections 65912.155 to 65912.162, will make a qualified transit-oriented housing development project, as defined, an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development that is located within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development stop, as defined, in urban transit counties (defined as a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations), which includes Santa Clara County, if the development complies with applicable requirements, as specified in the statute; and WHEREAS, SB 79 (Gov. Code § 65912.161(b)(1)(F)) allows a local agency to defer the application of SB 79 for any historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025 on a local register until after adoption of the next housing element by adopting an ordinance to exclude such sites; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council directed City staff to evaluate and prepare potential amendments to the City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map to preserve locally designated historic resources from the application of SB 79, consistent with the authority provided under Government Code Section 65912.161, and to return to the City Council with recommended implementing ordinances; and
WHEREAS, 24 parcels (as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein) within the areas affected by SB 79 were designated as historic resources on the local register prior to January 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with the procedures and requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65853, et seq., and Section 36.52.40, et seq. (Zoning amendments), of the Mountain View City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 2026 and recommended the City Council approve the Zoning Map Amendment; and 335
-2-
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 22, 2026 on this Ordinance and received and considered all information, documents, and comments presented at said hearing regarding the amendment to the Zoning Map, including the recommendation from the Environmental Planning Commission, the City Council report, and project materials; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the findings for a Zoning Map Amendment pursuant to Section 36.52.70 of the City Code:
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan because it implements the General Plan’s goals and policies supporting the preservation and protection of the City’s historic and cultural resources. The amendments are consistent with General Plan Policy LUD 11.1 (Historical Preservation) as they exclude existing locally designated historic resources and properties from the application of SB 79 until the City’s next Housing Element update. This approach preserves the City’s ability to identify, evaluate, and protect historic resources while maintaining consistency between the Zoning Code and the General Plan. The amendment implements the authority provided in Government Code Section 65912.161 to exclude qualifying historic resources from the application of SB 79. At the same time, SB 79 continues to apply in eligible areas that are not subject to the exclusion, thereby preserving opportunities for housing development consistent with state law. The amendment does not alter the General Plan land use designations, underlying Zoning Districts, or permitted land uses and, therefore, maintains consistency with the General Plan’s land use policies while ensuring that implementation of SB 79 does not inadvertently compromise the preservation of significant historic and cultural resources during the interim period before the next comprehensive Housing Element update; b. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as it implements the authority provided under Government Code Section 65912.161 to exclude locally designated historic resources from the application of SB 79. The amendment supports the public interest by preserving the City’s historically significant resources while maintaining implementation of SB 79 in all other eligible areas. Because the amendment does not modify the underlying Zoning Districts, permitted land uses, or development standards applicable to the affected properties, it will not adversely affect the public health, safety, convenience, or general welfare; c. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation and anticipated land use development. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation and anticipated land use development because the proposed amendment does not change the 336
-3-
underlying zoning designation, General Plan land use designation, permitted land uses, or development standards applicable to the affected properties. Rather, the amendment identifies locally designated historic resources that are excluded from the application of SB 79 pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161. Existing access, public utilities, surrounding land uses, and physical site conditions will remain unchanged, and the amendment will not affect the physical suitability of the properties for development otherwise allowed under the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and
d. The proposed amendment is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project, including the amendment, complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common sense exemption, which provides that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The amendment does not approve any physical development, increase development intensity, change existing land use designations, or modify underlying zoning regulations or development standards. As a separate and independent basis, Government Code Section 65912.160(c)(2) states that an ordinance consistent with the provisions of SB 79 shall not be considered a project under CEQA. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Map amendment is not a project under CEQA and does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 2. The Zoning Map Amendment, identifying 206 Bush Street (APN 158-22-032), 445 Calderon Avenue (located on the common lot shared by APN 158-57-001 through 158-57-019), 124-126 Castro Street (APN 158-15-038), 142-156 Castro Street (APN 158-15-038), 169-175 Castro Street (APN 158-20-012), 201 Castro Street (APN 158-22-011), 228 Castro Street (APN 158-13-039), 298 Castro Street (APN 158-13-047), 350 Franklin Street (APN 158-12-020), 394 Franklin Street (APN 158-12-024), 403 Hope Street (APN 158-23-049), 425 Hope Street (APN 158-23-067), 302 Loreto Street (APN 158-30-047), 484 Loreto Street (APN 158-30-060), 157 Moffett Boulevard (APN 158-44-001), 372 Mountain View Avenue (APN 154-08-023), 360 Oak Street (APN 158-12-007), 390 Palo Alto Avenue (APN 154-08-039), 472 South Shoreline Boulevard (APN 154-25-052), 322 View Street (APN 158-23-020), 327 View Street (APN 158-23-015), 1043 Villa Street (APN 158-13-007), 515 Villa Street (APN 158-22-031), and 1074-1076 Wright Avenue (APN 150-23-009) as “Properties excluded from Government Code Section 65912.157 (SB 79) until one year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the housing element,” as shown in Exhibit A, is hereby approved.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the other remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
337
-4-
SECTION 4. Publication. Pursuant to Section 522 of the Mountain View City Charter, it is ordered that copies of the foregoing proposed Ordinance be posted at least two (2) days prior to its adoption in three (3) prominent places in the City and that a single publication be made to the official newspaper of the City of a notice setting forth the title of the Ordinance, the date of its introduction, and a list of the places where copies of the proposed Ordinance are posted.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 519 of the Mountain View City Charter, this Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption. – – – – – – – – – – –
CDD/EK-09-22-26o-1
Exhibit: A. Zoning Map Amendment
338
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
kj

ROCK ST

VIEW ST

EASY ST

BUSH ST

W DANA ST
OAK ST

HOPE ST

PETTIS AVE

NILDA AVE

BEGEN AVE

HANS AVE

ROSE AVE

SAN LUIS AVE

FRANKLIN ST

CLYDE AVE

MERCY ST

ALVIN ST

ARNOLD AVE

SLADKY AVE

ORTEGA AVE

DIERICX DR

PEAR AVE

FERGUSON DR

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

BAYSHORE PKWY

BURGOYNE ST

PALO ALTO AVE

GRETEL LN

CENTRE ST

ADA AVE

ALTA AVE

TODD ST

ALICE AVE

CHIQUITA AVE

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

BONITA AVE

HACKETT AVE

EVANDALE AVE

WALNUT DR

MONTALTO DR

SPRING ST

EMILY DR
OAK LN

WYANDOTTE ST

TRUMAN AVE

FORDHAM WAY

LEONA LN HUFF AVE

CHESLEY AVE

PLYMOUTH ST

MARICH WAY

COLONY ST

FLYNN AVE

LOGUE AVE

CRITTENDEN LN

YUBA DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

LOLA LN

DALMA DR

STIERLIN CT

SAN RAMON AVE

MACON AVE

RAVENDALE DR

DELL AVE

WALKER DR

BORANDA AVE

N BERNARDO AVE

MORGAN ST

MARIPOSA AVE

CRISANTO AVE

MARTENS AVE

JOAQUIN RD

PARK DR

MORTON CT

SNOW ST

GEST DR

SHOREBIRD WAY

FAY WAY

SAN PIERRE WAY

MAUDE AVE

MEADOW LN

LIMETREE LN

ALISON AVE

CLARK RD

YOSEMITE AVE

KITTOE DR

PRESTON DR CAROL AVE

BLOSSOM LN

SAN LEANDRO AVE

LAURA LN

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

NORTH DR

SUN MOR AVE

SOLANA DR

KAREN WAY

LORETO ST

MURLAGAN AVE

YALE DR

KATRINA WAY

LANE AVE

WILLOWGATE ST

FAIRMONT AVE

LUBICH DR

JACKSON ST

MARILYN DR

SIERRA AVE

ISABELLE AVE

VICTORY AVE

OAK AVE

LINDA VISTA AVE

WHITNEY DR

APRICOT LN

VELARDE ST

FAYETTE DR

SAN RAFAEL AVE

ERNESTINE LN

JUDSON DR

ORANGETREE LN

FAIRBROOK DR

ANNA AVE

KENT DR

GOLDEN WAY

TAMI WAY

PAUL AVE

MAYFIELD AVE
LEE DR

NATIONAL AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

LIDA DR

BEVERLY ST

MILLER AVE

LINCOLN DR

CAMILLE CT

E DANA ST

BROOKDALE AVE

SALADO DR

PACIFIC DR

PIAZZA DR

MINARET AVE

COLLEGE AVE

RUSTIC LN

SEVELY DR

FAIR OAKS ST

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

APPLETREE LN

SPACE PARK WAY

MADISON DR

MUIR DR

SOUTH DR

WAVERLY PL

SHADY SPRING LN

BETLO AVE

BONNY ST

AWALT DR

ELSIE AVE

LANDINGS DR

CRESTVIEW DR

CONTINENTAL CIR
BAY ST

EHRHORN AVE

NITA AVE

IVAN WAY

JARDIN DR

ADELE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

BENTLEY SQ

VASSAR AVE

EDNAMARY WAY

PAMELA DR

SAW MILL LN

SULLIVAN DR

TROPHY DR

JESSIE LN

GEMINI AVE

DIABLO AVE

PLAZA CT

GREENVIEW DR

BARBARA AVE

EICHLER DR

RICH AVE

VAQUERO DR

RAINBOW DR

LASSEN AVE

CHURIN DR

SONIA WAY

GLENBOROUGH DR

CARMELITA DR

PALMER AVE

COLUMBIA DR

GABRIEL AVE

FOXBOROUGH DR

DREW AVE

DEVONSHIRE AVE

MORA DR

PEACOCK AVE

BEATRICE ST

TYLER PARK WAY

DE FRANCE AVE

HOSPITAL DR

HIGDON AVE

DOANE AVE

WENTWORTH ST

WASATCH DR

ELDORA DR

HORIZON AVE

JACKSON ALY

TERMINAL BLVD

TOWNE CIR

BENJAMIN DR

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

LA SALLE DR

ORMONDE DR

WAGNER AVE

ORCHARD AVE

PACCHETTI WAY

POLARIS AVE

VINCENT DR

NOTRE DAME DR

COAST AVE

BROWER AVE

MORAGA DR

YORKTON DR

HAMILTON AVE

SAN DOMAR DR

DE VOTO ST

SAN PABLO DR

MONTEBELLO AVE

CAMP AVE

BORELLO WAY

TAMALPAIS ST

MCCARTY AVE

LELAND AVE

TOFT ST

VICTOR WAY

YARDIS CT

WAKE FOREST RD

REINERT RD

STARR WAY

PACIFIC AVE

MONROE DR

CORNELL DR

NICHOLAS DR

KITTYHAWK WAY

MARDELL WAY

ELKA AVE

VERNON CIR

POLK CT

WILLIAMS WAY

LLOYD WAY

SHARY AVE

POST ST

PASTEL LN

DOYLE PL

SUNNYVIEW LN

PEARTREE LN

GRANADA DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

SAN CLEMENTE WAY

DENNIS LN

EMMONS DR

DOVERTON SQ

S WHISMAN RD

FORDHAM CT

HARPSTER DR

RIDGEMONT DR

CIRCULO

SAN LUCAS AVE

SAN CARLOS AVE
OAKJEWELL PL

VILLAGE CT

MAGNOLIA LN

ESTRADA DR

TRYNA DR

WALTHAM ST

RAMOS CT

THE AMERICANA

TELFORD AVE

RUTH AVE

STANFORD AVE

FERRY MORSE WAY

WOODSTOCK LN

HOUGHTON ST

SAINT GILES LN

YORKSHIRE WAY

CREEDEN WAY

LAUREL WAY

CUERNAVACA

ADAMS CT

WESTFORD WAY

KENZO CT

GAMEL WAY

HILARY AVE

SUSSEX SQ

FRONT LN

S OAK ST

THADDEUS DR

CRANE AVE

VILLA ROBLEDA DR

BEAUMONT SQ

CHERRYTREE LN

CHETWOOD DR

LORENE CT

SOLANA CT

TULANE CT

ALLEY WAY

ALDEAN AVE

WHITS RD

SAN SIMEON DR

WILSON CT

CORNELIA CT

AITKEN AVE

CECELIA WAY

ORMONDE WAY

MOON BEAM DR

SERENA CT

BEACON ST

ANDRE AVE

SAN ARDO WAY

JASON WAY

VILLA NUEVA WAY

LILAC LN

CLYDE CT

MINTON LN
OUR LN

C ASSANDRA WAY

WHISMAN PARK DR
GARDEN

JEFFERSON DR

EATON LN
CT

VARSITY CT

WILDROSE WAY

CRAIG CT

LAMBERT WAY

MELBA CT

POPPY PL
MONTEBRENTON CT

WILD CHERRY LN

TYRELLA CT

FRANKLIN AVE

ANTHONY CT

ANDSBURY AVE

JAMES DR

LEVIN CT

SAN VERON AVE

NEWMAN PL

ROCK CT

E SAN MARCOS CIR

BRODERICK WAY

JUNCTION AVE

COTTAGE CT

BOND WAY

THOMPSON CT

PORTERFIELD CT

SAN MARCOS CIR

VAN BUR EN CIR

KELLER DR

LYNWOOD AVE

CHATHAM WAY

WASHINGTON ST

MONTGOMERY ST

CANNA CT

AMALFIWAY

MILTON CT
DON CT

DRUCILLA DR

EL RANCHITO WAY

PILGRIM AVE

BRUCKNER CIR

WOODLEAF

THOMPSON SQ

ARMAND AVE

WHISMAN CT

DEVONSHIRE CT

OWENS CT

SAN CARRIZO WAY

SILVERWOOD AVE

DORCHESTER DR

STACEY CT

OLIVE CT

DEVRI CT

SKYVIEW CT

CAPPELLETTI CT

FOREST GLEN ST

KATIE CT

MIDDLEFIELD AVE

MANSFIELD DR

GANTRY WAY

PROMETHEAN WAY

STARLITE CT

KENTMERE CT

RUNNINGWOOD CIR

GOLF CT

RIALTO CT

BLUELAKE SQ

LESLIE CT

MOUNTAIN LAUREL CT

FLOWER LN

ANDERSON CT

TIANA LN

ST JULIEN WAY

QUINCY DR

ANNIE LAURIE AVE

LUCE CT

DIERICX CT

BRYN MAWR CT

CARVER PL

PERMANENTE WAY

JENNIFER CT

MCCARTHY AVE

RICH PL

SOLACE PL

BEDFORD LOOP

ST JULIEN CT

LEKSICH AVE

LOTUS LN

STRATFORD CT

IRENE CT

VILLA NUEVA CT

MOUNT VERNON CT

NEWTON DR

DEL MEDIO CT

CORTO ST

WINSTON PL

ASHLEY PL

NEDSON CT

PLUMTREE LN

WOBURN CT

TAYLOR CT

BONITA CT

HEARTWOOD LN

WOODGREEN

MERIDIAN WAY

GLADYS CT

SHEILA CT

PERICH CT

REDCLIFF CT

PALMITA PL

TAHOE TER

TOWN SQUARE DR

SAN LUCAS CT

OAK HAVEN PL

STAMM AVE

MARGO DR

TREE DR

EXCELL CT

KATHY WAY

ORCHARD GLEN CT

HAMWOOD TER

HEDGEROW CT

WINDROSE PL

HILO CT

THOMAS CT

CHESLEY CT

ST EMILION CT

MARJORIE CT

MELBA WAY

CHRISTOBAL PRIVADA

BROOK PL

ASTOR CT

FRANCES WAY

FRANKLIN CT

CAMBRIDGE LN

PHYLLIS CT

SPENCER CT

COLLINS CT

HOLLAND CT

BEDFORD DR

PLUM CT

BRIGHTON PL

LAUELLA CT

SAN RAMON CT

BORANDA CT

WINFIELD DR

WARNER CT

PERIMETER RD

GLEN UNA CT

CONCORD CIR

MORNING SUN CT

GRANADA PARK CIR

ROSLYN CIR

JENKINS LN

SHELBY DR

ARBOR CT

LAYLA CT

PARK CT

MIDROCK CORNERS

MILANO WAY

PARKER CT

PATRICIA CT

RATHMORE LN

HEATHER CT

FAIRHAVEN CT

GARY CT

NANCY CT

WHELAN CT

MARILYN CT

CHATHAM CT

THATCHER DR

REDWOOD CT

SHOWERS CT

MARCIA CT

PEPPERWOOD CT

PENNY LN

CLAIRE CT

SILVA AVE

WHITNEY CT

SAN RAMON AVE

PARKER ST

ELMWOOD ST

TRIPIANO CT

CAMILLE LN

SAN LUPPE DR

SONDGROTH WAY
TER

ALAMO CT

WORTHAM

WHISMAN STATION DR

PETIE WAY

SWANSON WAY

HOLLY CT

LENA CT

SANTA ROSA AVE

CHARMAIN CIR

SNYDER LN

JACARANDA DR

DUKE WAY

WOODHAVEN PL

BOURBON CT

BELSHAW DR

W SAN MARCOS CIR

CARLA CT

MORGAN CT

FREEDOM LN

MARCELYN AVE

KERN CT

SANTA CLARA AVE

DARYA CT

BELLA CORTE

CALISTOGA WAY

SORRENTO CT

EICHLER CT

SERRA SAN BRUNO

MARIANNE CT

EMERSON LN

ESPINOSA LN

RONDEN CT

FILOMENA CT

ABRAHAM CT

N SAN ANTONIO RD

PRISCILLA CT

GLEN ALPINE CT
WAY
WAY

CALAVERAS CT

PEACHTREE CT

SHERLAND CT

SHERLAND CT

AMHERST CT

LEMONTREE CT

ST EMILION WAY

MAYFLOWER CT

ASBURY WAY

WELLESLEY CT

MARILYN PL

FARREL CT

RHONE CT

BEAUME CT

BARCELONA CT

RICHARD CT

PRESTON CT

MEDOC CT

TAAFFE ST

DISTEL CIR

DISTEL DR

MARINER DR

MARINER DR

INDUSTRIAL AVE

COMMERCIAL ST

SAN ANTONIO WAY

JORDAN AVE

SHERWOOD AVE

VILLA ST

LATHAM ST

LEVIN AVE

FARLEY ST

FAIRCHILD DR

MONTECITO AVE

SIERRA VISTA AVE

BRYANT AVE

TYRELLA AVE

SYLVAN AVE

LEGHORN ST

CALDERON AVE

DALE AVE

SHOWERS DR

CUESTA DR

ESCUELA AVE

SLEEPER AVE

MOORPARK WAY

TERRA BELLA AVE

CLARK AVE

STIERLIN RD

THOMPSON AVE

BRYANT ST

INDEPENDENCE AVE

E DANA ST

LEONG DR

DEL MEDIO AVE

LA AVENIDA AVE

GLADYS AVE

MIRAMONTE AVE

GARCIA AVE

PIONEER WAY

MARINE WAY

E CHARLESTON RD

JANE LN

CASEY AVE

CHURCH ST

EUNICE AVE HEATHERSTONE WAY

SAN ANTONIO CIR

CALIFORNIA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

GRANT RD

N WHISMAN RD

N RENGSTORFF AVE

CUESTA DR

W EVELYN AVE

S SHORELINE BLVD

MIRAMONTE AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

PHYLLIS AVE

CENTRAL EXPY

W EL CAMINO REAL

N SHORELINE BLVD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

CASTRO ST

E EVELYN AVE

CHARLESTON RD

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

E EL CAMINO REAL

OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY

SAN ANTONIO RD

8. 2.

3. 14.

6. 1.

16. 17.

9. 5.

4. 10.

2. 3.

2. 4.

4. 1.

3. 2.

4. 3.

3. 1.

2. 4.

19. 12.

1. 11.

7. 15.

18. 5.

13. 4.

3. 6.

3. 2.

1. 1.

2. 1.

5. 5.

3. WINDMILL PARK LN

2. CARLOS PRIVADA

3. ELENA PRIVADA

1. COMSTOCK QUEEN CT

8. GEORGETOWN DR

2. MOUNTAIN SHADOWS DR

3. CAMPBELL DR

1. CEDARBROOK WAY

5. WINWOOD CT

19. PASEO CT

4. SUTTER CREEK LN

4. WINDINGWOOD CT

1. BAYWOOD CT

11. HART CT

14. JASMINE CT

3. HILLWOOD CT

16. KASRA DR

3. WOODGREEN LN

4. COTTONWOOD CT

2. WILDFLOWER PARK LN

4. WOODLAND PARK LN

1. EMPIRE CT

15. JORDAN CT

17. OBERG CT

2. DEERWOOD CT

18. PARVIN DR

3. PARAGON CT

12. HUNTINGTON CT

2. CAMERON DR

4. ROYAL OAK CT

9. GOLI CT

5. FABLE CT

3. SAW MILL CT

2. GLENMEAD CT

1. BEL AIR CT

1. ANA PRIVADA

5. SHEFFIELD CT

6. WELLINGTON CT

6. FREDERICK CT

2. GLENWOOD CT

13. ISIS CT

1. FOUNTAIN PARK LN

7. GEORGETOWN CT

10. GREYHAWK CT

4. MARIA PRIVADA

5. REBECCA PRIVADA

SPRINGER RD

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

EL MONTE AVE

W EL CAMINO REAL
£¤101
}85
}237
}82
Fire
Station 3
Fire
Station 1
Fire
Station 2
Fire
Station 5
Fire
Station 4
Municipal
Operations
Center
Whisman
Sports
Center
Senior Center
Performing
Arts Center
Library
City Hall
Mtn. View
Sports
Pavilion
Police-Fire
Administration
El Camino
Hospital
Bayshore
NASA Station
Middlefield
Station
Whisman
Station
Mountain View
Transit Center
Crittenden
Middle
School
Theuerkauf
Elementary
School
Castro
Elementary
School
Landels
Elementary
School
Graham
Middle
School
Bubb
Elementary
School
Springer
Elementary
School
Alta Vista
High School
Mountain View
High School
Community
Center
San Antonio
Station
Imai
Elementary
School
Varsity
Park
Springer Park
Gateway
Fairmont Park
Eagle Park
McKelvey Park
Castro Park
Jackson
Park
Thaddeus Park
Wyandotte/Reinert Park
San Veron
Park
Gemello Park
Rex-Manor
Park
Chetwood Park
Creekside
Park
Eldora Park
Charleston
Park
Magonolia
Park
Klein
Park
Dana Park
Pioneer Park
Mercy-Bush
Park
Sylvan Park
Bubb Park
Cuesta Park
Cooper
Park
Sleeper Park
Rengstorff
Park
Crittenden
Hill
Vista slope
Landels Park
Shoreline
Amphitheatre
Willowgate
Garden
Whisman Park
San Antonio
Transit
Center
Monta Loma
Elementary
School
Sierra
Vista Park
Mariposa Park
Stevenson
Elementary
School
Stevenson
Park
Del Medio
Park
Devonshire
Park
Teen Center
Imai Park
Monta
Loma Park
Senior Garden
Shoreline at
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Medical
Foundation
Kaiser
Permanente
Mountain View
Vargas
Elementary
School
Heritage Park
Wyandotte Park
Evandale Park
A
A
A
A
AW
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CO
CO
CO
CRA
CRA
CRA
CRA
CRA
CS
CS
CS
F
ML
ML
ML
ML
MLsd
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM-40
MM-40
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P(13)
P(14)
P(17)
P(18)
P(19)
P(23)
P(24)
P(25)
P(26)
P(27)
P(28)
P(29)
P(30)
P(30)
P(30)
P(31)
P(32)
P(35)
P(37)
P(38)
P(38)
P(38)
P(39)
P(40)
P(41)
P(41)
P(5)
P(6)
P(7)
P(8)
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PRE PF
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1-10
R1-10
R1-10sd
R1-20
R1-7
R1-7.5
R1-7.5
R1-7.5
R1-7.5
R1-7.5
R1-7.5
R1-8
R1-8
R1-8
R1-8
R1-8
R1-8
R1-8
R1-8.5
R1-8.5h1s
R1-8h1s
R1-9
R1-9
R1h1s
R1h1s
R1sd
R1sd
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2-10
R2-10sd
R2-9
R2-9
R2-9
R2-9sd
R2h1s
R2h1s
R2h1s
R2sd
R2sd
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1.25
R3-1.25
R3-1.25
R3-1.25
R3-1.25
R3-1.25
R3-1.25
R3-1.25
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5h1s
R3-1h1s
R3-1h1s
R3-1h1s
R3-1h1s
R3-1h2s
R3-1h2s
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2.2
R3-2.2
R3-2.2
R3-2.2h1s
R3-2.2sd
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5h1s
R3-2.5h1s
R3-2sd
R3-2sd
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3sd
R3-3sd
R3-4
R3-D
R4
R4
R4
R4
R4
RMH
RMH
RMH
RMH
RMH
R3-1.5
County of Santa Clara, ParcelQuest, City of Mountain View EXHIBIT A - Historic Properties Excluded
from SB 79
Map Copyright October 2008 City of Mountain View, California. Data sources: Santa Clara County GIS, City of Mountain View GIS. Parcel-level map accuracy not implied; this map is not to be used for ¯
property transactions. Note that with the exception of some private streets, zoning is parcel-based and is not shown extending to the centerline of rights-of-way.

Precise Plans
P(5) 460 N. Shoreline Blvd
P(6) San Ramon
P(7) Mayfield
P(8) San Antonio Station
P(13) California-Ortega
P(14) 2100 California St
P(17) Villa-Mariposa
P(18) Evelyn Ave Corridor
P(19) Downtown
P(23) Castro-Miramonte Triangle
P(24) El Camino Medical Park
P(25) Grant-Phyllis Triangle
P(26) Grant-Martens
P(27) Grant-Phyllis
P(28) 1101 Grant Road
P(29) 111 Ferry-Morse Wy
P(30) Sylvan-Dale
P(31) Mora-Ortega
P(32) Evandale Area
P(35) Whisman Station
P(37) South Whisman
P(38) El Camino Real
P(39) North Bayshore
P(40) San Antonio
P(41) East Whisman
July 2026
City of Los Altos
City of Palo Alto
Town of Los Altos Hills
City of Sunnyvale

NASA AMES

RESEARCH CENTER

MOFFETT FIELD
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
a
Height/Story Limitations
Special Design Combining
Overlay Zones
PF - Public Facility
P - Planned Community/Precise Plan
F - Flood Plain
A, AW - Agriculture
Special Purpose Zones
MM - General Industrial
ML - Limited Industrial
Industrial/Manufacturing Districts
CRA - Commercial/Residential-Arterial
CS - Commercial-Service
CO - Commercial-Office
CN - Commercial-Neighborhood
Commercial/Professional Districts
! ! !RMH - Mobile Home
! ! !
! !
R4 - High Density
R3 - Multiple Family
R2 - One and Two Family
R1 - Single-Family
Residential Districts
Legend
SB 79
TOD Zones *
Properties excluded from Government Code Section
65912.157 (SB 79) until one year following the
adoption of the seventh revision of the Housing
Element
H
* Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and subject to change without notice.
sd
h,s
339
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
n
n
kj

VIEW ST

BUSH ST

W DANA ST
OAK ST

HOPE ST

PETTIS AVE

FRANKLIN ST

MERCY ST

CENTRAL AVE

PALO ALTO AVE

CENTRE ST

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

YUBA DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

DALMA DR

BORANDA AVE

PARK DR

SNOW ST

YOSEMITE AVE

BLOSSOM LN

LORETO ST

LANE AVE

WILLOWGATE ST

FAIRMONT AVE

JACKSON ST

MARILYN DR

SIERRA AVE

VELARDE ST

PAUL AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

CAMILLE CT

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

BONNY ST
BAY ST

EHRHORN AVE

VASSAR AVE

TROPHY DR

JESSIE LN

GEMINI AVE

EICHLER DR

SONIA WAY

BEATRICE ST

WENTWORTH ST

ELDORA DR

HORIZON AVE

JACKSON ALY

ORCHARD AVE

POLARIS AVE

VINCENT DR

MCCARTY AVE

VICTOR WAY

PACIFIC AVE

SHARY AVE

GRANADA DR

HARPSTER DR

HOUGHTON ST

FRONT LN

S OAK ST

JASON WAY

LILAC LN

MINTON LN

WILDROSE WAY POPPY PL

WILD CHERRY LN

ANDSBURY AVE

WASHINGTON ST

MONTGOMERY ST

CANNA CT

EL RANCHITO WAY

OLIVE CT

PROMETHEAN WAY

MOUNTAIN LAUREL CT

ANDERSON CT

MCCARTHY AVE

LOTUS LN

CORTO ST

HEARTWOOD LN

MERIDIAN WAY

PALMITA PL

OAK HAVEN PL

STAMM AVE

ORCHARD GLEN CT

FRANCES WAY

PLUM CT

GRANADA PARK CIR

LAYLA CT

PARK CT

PATRICIA CT

FAIRHAVEN CT

GARY CT

NANCY CT

MARCIA CT

ELMWOOD ST

CAMILLE LN

PETIE WAY

SANTA ROSA AVE

SANTA CLARA AVE

EICHLER CT

ABRAHAM CT

CALAVERAS CT

ASBURY WAY

MARINER DR

MARINER DR

VILLA ST

CALDERON AVE

STIERLIN RD

BRYANT ST

CHURCH ST

W EVELYN AVE

S SHORELINE BLVD

CENTRAL EXPY

W EL CAMINO REAL

CASTRO ST

3. 4.

1. 2.

3. 2.

1. 3. WINDMILL PARK LN

2. MOUNTAIN SHADOWS DR

1. CEDARBROOK WAY

4. SUTTER CREEK LN

3. WOODGREEN LN

2. WILDFLOWER PARK LN

4. WOODLAND PARK LN

3. SAW MILL CT

2. GLENWOOD CT

1. FOUNTAIN PARK LN
}85
}82
Fire
Station 1
Performing
Arts Center
Library
City Hall
Police-Fire
Administration
Mountain View
Transit Center
Landels
Elementary
School
Graham
Middle
School
Gateway
Fairmont Park
Eagle Park
McKelvey Park
Jackson Park
Rex-Manor
Park
Eldora Park
Dana Park
Pioneer Park
Mercy-Bush
Park
Landels Park
Willowgate
Garden
Mariposa Park
Kaiser
Permanente
Mountain View
A
CN
CN
CN
CO
CRA
CRA
CRA
CS
CS
ML
MM
P
P
P
P
P(17)
P(18)
P(19)
P(23)
P(38)
P(5)
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PRE PF
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1-8
R1h1s
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2-9
R2-9
R2-9sd
R2sd
R2sd
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1 R3-1
R3-1
R3-1
R3-1.25
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1.5
R3-1h1s
R3-1h1s
R3-1h2s
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2
R3-2.2
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5
R3-2.5h1s
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3
R3-3sd
R3-4
R4
R4
RMH
County of Santa Clara, ParcelQuest, City of Mountain View EXHIBIT A - Historic Properties Excluded
from SB 79
Map Copyright October 2008 City of Mountain View, California. Data sources: Santa Clara County GIS, City of Mountain View GIS. Parcel-level map accuracy not implied; this map is not to be used for ¯ property transactions. Note that with the exception of some private streets, zoning is parcel-based and is not shown extending to the centerline of rights-of-way.

July 2026
City of Los Altos
City of Palo Alto
Town of Los Altos Hills
City of Sunnyvale

NASA AMES

RESEARCH CENTER

MOFFETT FIELD
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
a
340
Attachment 4
341
342
343
344
345
346
Attachment 5

MOUNTAIN VIEW REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
August 2026
The following table represents those properties that remain on the Register after the April 12, 2005, voluntary removal deadline.

ADDRESS Name
±
Year
Built
Property
Type
Bonita Avenue, 1181
(City Property Tax Rebate) 1930 1 unit
Bush Street, 206
(Mills Act) James Shower house 1890 1 unit
Calderon Avenue, 445 Bakotich house 1880 1 unit
Calderon Avenue, 725 Willie Garliepp house 1910 1 unit
California Street, 1560 1900 2 units
California Street, 1610 1900 3 units
California Street, 1690
(Mills Act) 1920 1 unit
Castro Street, 124 Weilheimer Store 1874 commercial
Castro Street, 142-156
(Mills Act)
Rogers Building
(Mountain View Hotel) 1906 commercial
Castro Street, 169-175
(City Property Tax Rebate) Ames building 1903 commercial Castro Street, 201
(aka 761 Villa Street)
Farmers & Merchants Bank
building 1905 commercial
Castro Street, 228 Mountain View Theater 1926 commercial Castro Street, 298 Scarpa’s Meat Market 1908 commercial Chiquita Avenue, 251
(City Property Tax Rebate) 1915 1 unit
Church Street, 595
(Mills Act) 1930 1 unit
Diericx Drive, 2715
(Mills Act) Levin Huff house 1925 1 unit
Franklin Street, 350
(Mills Act) 1905 1 unit
Franklin Street, 394
(Mills Act) 1890 1 unit
Hope Street, 403
(Mills Act) 1915 1 unit
Hope Street, 425
(City Property Tax Rebate) 1906 1 unit
Latham Street, 1390
(Mills Act) James Cochran House 1912 1 unit
Lloyd Way, 1655
(City Property Tax Rebate) 1920 1 unit
Loreto Street, 302
(Mills Act) 1927 1 unit
Loreto Street, 484
(Mills Act) 1924 1 unit
Mariposa Avenue, 336
(Mills Act) Camp house 1900 1 unit
Mariposa Avenue, 496
(Mills Act) 1920 1 unit
Miramonte Avenue, 1855 Sister’s House 1927 convalescent 347
- 2 -
ADDRESS Name
±
Year
Built
Property
Type
Moffet Boulevard, 157
(on NRHP) Adobe Building 1934 public facility
Mountain View Avenue, 372 (Mills Act) 1905 1 unit
Oak Street, 360
(Mills Act) 1924 1 unit
Palo Alto Avenue, 390
(Mills Act) 1930 1 unit
Pettis Avenue, 562
(Mills Act) 1920 1 unit
Rengstorff Avenue, N. 771 Immigrant house 1888 public facility Shoreline Boulevard S., 472
(Mills Act) 1910 1 unit
Shoreline Boulevard N., 3070
(on NRHP) Rengstorff House 1867 public facility
1247 Springer Road Walter House 1920 1 unit
Tyler Park Way, 1531
(Mills Act) 1925 1 unit
View Street, 322
(Mills Act) McPheeters house 1910 1 unit
View Street, 327 1925 1 unit
Villa Street, 515 1890 1 unit
Villa Street, 1043
(Mills Act) 1904 1 unit
Villa Street, 1643 1915 4 units
Villa Street, 1645 1915 1 unit
Villa Street, 1655 1915 1 unit
Wright Avenue, 1074-1076 1875 1 unit
Yosemite Avenue, 680
(Mills Act) 1923 1 unit
46 TOTAL
(43 privately-owned properties plus 3 cityowned properties)

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
August 2026
• 444-492 Castro Street – IED Office Building (CRHR)
• 157 Moffett Boulevard – Adobe Building (NHRP & CRHR)
• 3070 North Shoreline Boulevard – Rengstorff House (NHRP & CRHR) • 938 Villa Street – Weilheimer House (CRHR)
• 954 Villa Street – Air Base Laundry (NHRP & CRHR)
348
Attachment 6

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND REGISTER UPDATE PROJECT CHRONOLOGY City Council Meeting—April 12, 2022
At the April 12, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed and approved the project scope of work and consultant contract with Page & Turnbull, Inc., to update the Zoning Ordinance standards and procedures for the designation and preservation of historic resources (Mountain View City Code Section 36.54.45 through Section 36.54.97) and MV Register of historic resources.

The City Council also directed staff to review up to eight buildings in downtown to analyze whether they would be eligible to be nominated to the National Register and to determine if Area H could be considered a historic district.

Community Workshop—September 6, 2022
Staff held a virtual community workshop and introduced the project tasks, and sought input on history, significant places, and topics or themes that are important and unique to the history of Mountain View.

Community Workshop—October 30, 2023
Staff held a hybrid community workshop on October 30, 2023. Eleven (11) community members attended in person, and approximately 30 community members attended the meeting virtually.

Community members asked questions about the process and requirements. Some concerns were raised by property owners regarding requests for clarity about who is affected by this project, fear of excessive property owner obligations, and information on what structure modifications are possible on historic properties.

City Council Study Session—December 12, 2023
A City Council meeting was held on December 12, 2023, to receive additional direction on the goals and scope of the project. The following goals were identified:
• Reflect the community’s preservation priorities. Updating the MV Register to create a comprehensive list of historic resources that the community wishes to preserve. • Provide clarity about historic status and requirements. Create a comprehensive list of historic properties so that property owners are aware of their historic status and process requirements before they develop plans to modify them. Additionally, this will also allow the community to be aware of the historic properties and requirements to avoid confusion. • Streamline the process of determination and review. A Citywide survey will reduce the need for individual applicants to conduct their own analysis and additional time for a peer review by the City.
349
• Provide incentives that support preservation, maintenance, and integrity improvement.

If property owners are not given adequate incentives, they may let their historic property degrade over time. Listing all historic properties on the MV Register will provide clarity and make properties eligible for incentives.
• Create local district criteria for a Downtown Preservation District. Since downtown Mountain View does not meet the criteria for the California or National Registers, local district criteria could be created to adopt a Downtown Preservation District.

In addition, Council directed staff to evaluate and conduct an intensive survey for the following properties:
• All properties currently listed on the Mountain View, California, or National Registers and all properties located within Area H of the Downtown Precise Plan (100-300 blocks of Castro Street).
• Single-family properties that were previously identified as eligible for the California or National Registers or those located in Precise Plan areas. • Commercial, institutional, civic, and multi-family properties that were previously identified as eligible for the Mountain View, California, or National Registers or identified as potentially eligible during the reconnaissance survey.

Community Workshop—August 13, 2024
Staff held an in-person community workshop regarding the Historic Context Statement.

Virtual Question and Answer Session—August 25, 2025
In early August, letters were sent by the City to the property owners whose properties were identified as potentially eligible for the MV Register as well as those whose properties may be delisted. On August 25, 2025, the project team held a virtual presentation and question-andanswersession. The meeting was attended by 27 community members. Key questions concerned CEQA and other state laws, details regarding the listed properties, historic districts, incentives, and upcoming project activities and events.

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. The following is a summary of the comments from this workshop, organized by topic in this report:
350
• Criteria and Draft Register. Community members expressed concerns that being on the MV Register could reduce property value, limit development flexibility, and create a barrier for construction or modification. Participants emphasized the importance of ensuring that historic property designation supports, rather than hinders, the vitality of buildings and districts. Concerns were raised that commercial properties can become underutilized once listed and that the fear of designation has grown due to perceived barriers to construction faced by current historic property owners. Feedback also underscored that historic resources should be established at both the building and district levels. • Nomination, Listing, and Delisting Process. Attendees expressed support for the historic preservation self-nomination process and opportunities for district nominations, noting that this could help capture the broader context of neighborhoods and historic figures and not just individual buildings. It was also recommended that properties that are added to the National Register also be added to the MV Register. Concerns were raised regarding the financial impacts of designation, and participants emphasized the need for additional resources to help property owners better understand these implications. • Development Review Process. There was support for updating the review process to base the review level on the scope of work for the project (i.e., small modification projects would be reviewed by staff or at an Administrative Zoning hearing instead of by Council).

Participants requested clarification regarding CEQA, particularly as some property owners who have opted off the MV Register may not be aware that they remain subject to CEQA requirements. Comments also highlighted the importance of transparency and accessible information for property owners and the community. Suggestions included making hard copies of the Historic Context Statement available at the Planning Counter and Mountain View Public Library, preparing a “how-to” guide outlining permitting and designation procedures, and providing clear timelines, checklists, and expectations for applicants. • Other topics. Participants suggested consideration of a heritage zoning overlay for the downtown area. Participants value the Mills Act as an important incentive for maintenance and preservation and suggested additional measures, such as plaques, markers, and signage, to promote community awareness and pride in historic resources. Requests were also made for greater transparency and accessibility of materials, including timelines, checklists, guidance documents, and the Historic Context Statement. Participants also requested more information on tax rebates and the Mills Act program along with practical support for property owners through access to qualified consultants, engineers, and maintenance professionals.

New Business Items--October 1, 2025 (EPC) and December 9, 2025 (City Council) These public meetings focused on key topics for the Ordinance. The EPC provided recommendations to inform the City Council's direction on October 1, 2025. City Council direction included the following:
351
• Do not seek listing of religious properties unless the property owner requests it. • Continue to utilize the City’s significance criteria with minor changes (such as order and terminology) to improve consistency with state and national historic preservation best practices.
• Adopt integrity thresholds consistent with state and national historic preservation best practices, defined as “the authenticity of a historic resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” with a focus on location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. • Return at adoption with additional information regarding the eligible sites, including State and/or National Register eligibility, the significance criteria for each site (with a focus on which sites meet only the design criterion vs. the design criterion and other criteria), and more information about property owner sentiment.
• For properties already listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources that do not meet the draft integrity thresholds, allow property owners up to four years to submit a restoration plan. Those who do should have an additional three years to complete it. • Carry forward the following process updates related to nominations, listing, and delisting of historic resources, with additional analysis and options related to the district nomination and approval process (specifically the City Council/technical role and how to ensure ample noticing and participation):
o Remove the unilateral owner opt-off provision and the required owner approval within the Council nomination process.
o Create a process for neighborhoods or districts to nominate themselves, subject to Council approval. At least 50% of owners should be included as signatories on the application. The review process should include a mailed ballot to all contributing properties to notify the property owners of the potential district nomination and allow for comments on the matter.
o List properties on the MV Register if an official determination of eligibility is made by the California Office of Historic Preservation or the National Parks Service. o Provide delisting procedures that consider findings, including reassessment of eligibility through further analysis, if a listed property becomes a safety hazard, is 352
damaged by a natural disaster, or an owner faces an economic hardship related to a property’s listing. Also, provide a delisting procedure, consistent with CEQA, whereby the City Council can delist a property from the MV Register, such as due to demolition, if there is an overriding consideration (for example, if the value of the resource is outweighed by public benefits like open space or affordable housing).
• Carry forward the following updates to the development review process for historic resources, with additional consideration of streamlining, such as rear additions and other improvements that don't alter the front façade, and ADUs. o Clarify and adopt a comprehensive list of exempt alterations. o Define “minor alterations” (e.g., in-kind replacement of doors and windows, alterations not visible from the public right-of-way, such as rear additions, and changes to non-character-defining features) and provide a staff-level review process.
o Define “major alterations” (e.g., relocation, new openings, visible additions, and alterations that would alter, remove, or obscure character-defining features) for review through an Administrative Zoning public hearing. o Create a process for delisting a property from the MV Register, such as when demolition of a structure is required.
o Incorporate enforcement measures for property neglect, unauthorized alterations, or demolition without permits.
o Align permit review procedures with environmental review requirements under CEQA.
o Require contributing properties in a historic district to adhere to the review processes for individually listed resources.
353
From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: 555 Ellis Street
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 11:16:57 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Elaheh –
On behalf of the owner of 555 Ellis Street, we are responding to the recent letter concerning the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The property has been included in the draft register and we have completed the Property Owner Input Survey. The owner of the property is NOT interested in being included in the register.

Based on a review of the information in the register, 555 Ellis was selected as an example of architectural features for the Brutalist style. Although it may appear to mimic this style, the design behind the style of the building was functional and was not intended to be in the Brutalist style of architecture. When 555 Ellis was designed and built, the concrete tilt up building was designed to hold solar panels so the blocky style and thick concrete walls were utilitarian, and not architectural elements. We understand that a current drive by of the property may lead someone to an incorrect conclusion, but the fact remains that it was not built in the Brutalist style of architecture and is not a valid example for a historic resource register.

It would be like including a Taco Bell restaurant as an example of Spanish style architecture! Please let me know if you need any further information to remove 555 Ellis from the MV Register.

Thank you,
Alice Holmes
CFO & Principal
Attachment 7
354
355
356
From:

To: [email protected]; Anderson, Eric B.

Subject: feedback about historic preservation ordinance Date: Friday, August 7, 2026 6:08:41 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

I got the flyer about the historic preservation ordinance meeting in a week and a half; I won't be able to attend the meeting, but I wanted to provide feedback.

After reading the FAQ, I'm nervous about the update. I want a downtown Mountain View that as many people as possible can live in, that people can easily visit, that people can dine and shop in, and that companies can be located in. We should take advantage of the vibrancy that's already there combined with the possibilities that the train station allow.

The FAQ, however, leads off with "Historic preservation of the built environment is at the heart of creating vibrant and meaningful places." And I simply don't think that that's true, especially the vibrant part. What makes a downtown vibrant is the people there, which will happen if people live there, work there, and shop there. And historic preservation is more likely to interfere with all of those than to help with that, because buildings get trapped in inefficient uses. For example, right now there are a bunch of store fronts on Mountain View that are empty, and my understanding is because of difficulties with redeveloping those buildings; that's the opposite of being vibrant! (And the buildings in question aren't nearly attractive enough to provide a historical charm that will be an active draw.) Looking at the list of nominated building at the end of the FAQ, 124-126 Castro Street in particular stood out. That's right next to the Caltrain station, so it's one of the main gateways to the city; and it's a perfectly nice little cafe, but not one that's special in any way. Why would we want to freeze that building in its current state, instead of allowing the possibility of redevelopment into a gateway location that shows off the city and downtown? Or 301 Castro Street - that's a completely architecturally undistinguished building, and while I like Bloomsgiving (I actually had a matcha latte there last Tuesday), they're a weird tenant for that space. So that space feels like a prime location for redevelopment that rethinks the street-level space, and adds in housing and/or office space on floors above it. If our goal really is to create vibrant and meaningful spaces, then I don't think that list of buildings is a good list. --
David Carlton
357
Staff Notes – Telephone conversation with Eric Hertzberg, Owner, August 7, 2026
In general, he is in favor of historic preservation of buildings such as his. He supports the ordinance and favors remaining on the Register. He wants to ensure that such regulations are not too problematic for those who need to do improvements to their buildings.

Previously, he has had issues with permit requirements for improvements to his building.

For example, in one instance, he had construction delays because the relevant City staff were unaware that it was a historic building. Other improvements have been needlessly complex in order to comply with building codes.

He recommended that there be flexibility in building code permitting requirements when modifying portions of a building, so that historic parts of the structure do not need to be altered.
358
From:

To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Objection to Inclusion of 355-365 E. Middlefield in the City’s Register of Historic Resources Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:22:55 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

On behalf of Essex Property Trust, Inc. (Essex), the owners of property located at 355- 365 E. Middlefield (Property) in Mountain View, CA (City), we are writing to inform the Planning Commission of our formal request for the Property to be excluded from the City’s Register of Historic Resources.

We have completed the Input Survey and express our strong desire that this Property not be listed now in light of the fact that 1) the Property has been identified and designated for mixed-use redevelopment for years as part of the East Whisman Precise Plan and 2) Essex’s residential project of over 500 much-needed housing units is within a few months of approval by the City (Project).

Such a designation will subject the Property to burdensome restrictions in a worst-case scenario of Essex’s inability to deliver the Project because of market uncertainties or other unknowns. We are at the finish line for a project that the City has long envisioned for the Property and this designation now only will serve to create uncertainty in the future as to any entity’s ability to redevelop the site. Note that, for example, Essex is the third developer to attempt to develop the Property for a residential use. Residential housing is badly needed in the City and we wish continue to support the efforts to make this a reality, not create unnecessary hurdles.

Essex supports the City’s efforts to recognize the importance of its past, but listing properties without any owner consent creates an unfair burden, especially in light of the long planning process we have gone through to get our Project finally approved. We would be happy to discuss with staff the possibility of honoring the Property’s Intel history with a commemorative plaque, but we again respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend that this Property be excluded from listing in the Register of Historic Resources.

Thank you for your consideration.
359
Sincerely,
Lauren Krause
_________________________________________
Lauren Krause | Vice President, Development
Essex Property Trust, Inc.

Disclaimer: This message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or believe that you have received this correspondence in error, please contact the sender through the information provided above and permanently delete this message. 360
1 City of Mountain View City Council August 18, 2026
City Hall, 500 Castro Street
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
RE: Strengthening Mountain View’s Historic Preservation Program Dear Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, Chair, and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission,
Mountain View has long recognized that preserving its historic resources serves an important public interest. The City’s Historic Ordinance also recognizes that preservation is most successful when supported through incentives that encourage owners to maintain and protect historic properties. My wife and I share those goals.

We have intentionally invested substantial time and resources into preserving our historic home. We are lifetime members of the Mountain View Historical Association, have conducted extensive archival research on our property’s history, and have consistently maintained and improved our home in a manner that respects its historic character. We believe preservation enriches Mountain View and contributes to the character that makes our community distinctive.

For that reason, this letter is not intended to question the value of historic preservation.

Instead, it seeks to identify an important gap in the City’s preservation program and propose a practical solution that would strengthen—not weaken—Mountain View’s longterm preservation efforts.

Preservation Is a Partnership
Historic preservation succeeds because private property owners agree to become stewards of assets valued by the community. Property owners accept restrictions that do not apply to comparable non-historic properties in order to preserve architectural and historical resources of interest to the broader public.

When preservation restrictions significantly limit redevelopment opportunities, owners also relinquish economic options that remain available to comparable non-historic properties. Many owners willingly accept this responsibility because they value preservation and appreciate the City's commitment to protecting its historic resources.

The Mills Act has been an important and successful component of that partnership. The property tax relief it provides helps offset many of the higher costs associated with maintaining historic properties and creates an incentive for preservation rather than demolition.
361
2 However, the Mills Act was never intended to address every consequence of preserving old structures.

Furthermore, The Mills Act does not differentiate very old properties (100+ year old) from much newer structures of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s that reflect very different construction standards, technology and structural integrity.

Extraordinary Structural Failures Present a Different Challenge Historic homes that have stood for a century or more potentially face issues that newer homes seldom encounter to the same extent: Foundation deterioration. Seismic deficiencies. Structural settlement. Drainage failures affecting structural integrity.

These are not cosmetic improvements, nor are they discretionary upgrades. They are essential life-safety investments necessary to preserve the building itself.

Unlike routine maintenance, these projects potentially require expenditures measured in many tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Our own home now faces precisely this circumstance. Independent engineering evaluations have identified significant foundation, drainage, and structural deficiencies affecting the long-term seismic and structural integrity of the building. Correcting these issues will require an investment far beyond what decades of Mills Act tax savings were intended to offset.

Our situation is not unique. As Mountain View’s oldest homes continue to age, similar structural challenges will inevitably become more common.

Preservation Should Not Create an Unsustainable Financial Burden Historic preservation is, at its core, a partnership between private property owners and the community. Owners agree to preserve resources that provide benefits extending well beyond their own property. The community, in turn, provides incentives that encourage responsible stewardship.

That partnership functions well so long as the responsibilities remain proportional.

Extraordinary structural, seismic, and safety issues upset that balance.

At some point, owners of designated historic properties may face repair costs that substantially exceed both the financial assistance provided through the Mills Act and the economic flexibility available to owners of comparable non-historic properties. In those circumstances, preservation can unintentionally place homeowners in the difficult position of choosing between responsible financial stewardship and preserving a community asset.

That is not a choice that serves either preservation or the public interest. 362
3 Indeed, if prospective buyers conclude that ownership of a historic property carries potentially catastrophic and largely uncompensated structural liabilities, the City’s preservation objectives could ultimately become more difficult to achieve.

A preservation program should not place owners in the difficult position of choosing between preserving an irreplaceable historic resource and making prudent financial decisions for their families.

Nor should preservation policies unintentionally discourage future owners from purchasing or maintaining historic homes because of concerns about unpredictable structural liabilities.

A Historic Preservation Assistance Fund
For these reasons, we respectfully encourage the Environmental Planning Commission to recommend, and City Council to consider, directing staff to study the creation of a Historic Preservation Assistance Fund.

Rather than replacing the Mills Act, such a program would complement it by addressing circumstances that the Mills Act was never intended to solve.

The program could provide grants, matching grants, forgivable loans, or low-interest financing for extraordinary preservation projects involving:
• foundation stabilization;
• seismic retrofits;
• structural rehabilitation;
• drainage improvements necessary to preserve structural integrity; and • other major life-safety improvements essential to preserving designated historic resources.

Eligibility should be limited to independently documented structural deficiencies requiring substantial capital investment beyond ordinary maintenance obligations. This would ensure that public assistance remains carefully targeted toward exceptional preservation challenges rather than routine upkeep.

Mountain View would not be breaking new ground by expanding its preservation toolkit.

Examples may be found in Sacramento's Historic Places Grant, Fresno's Historic Preservation Mitigation Program, San Fernando's Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program, etc.

As Mountain View's own Facade Improvement Grant Program is administered for visual (aesthetic) improvements for commercial properties, it seems reasonable to consider a program for structural and seismic issues (safety and structural integrity) on residential historic properties.
363
4 The phrase “Historic building rehabilitation loan fund” was formally incorporated into Mountain View's Historic Preservation Ordinance Section §36.54.80(b). It specifically says the Council may, by resolution or on a case-by-case basis, provide a “Historic building rehabilitation loan fund.” However, a fund does not appear to have ever been established.

Now is a good time to revisit, strengthen, and implement City assistance for extraordinary historic property situations.

Conclusion
Historic preservation succeeds because private owners willingly become long-term stewards of resources that enrich the entire community. Most preservation costs appropriately remain the responsibility of those owners.

Extraordinary structural, seismic and safety issues, however, are different. They present infrequent but potentially overwhelming financial burdens that threaten not only individual properties, but also the long-term sustainability of the City’s preservation program itself.

A carefully designed Historic Preservation Assistance Fund would reinforce the partnership between the City and historic property owners, promote seismic safety, encourage continued investment in historic neighborhoods, and help ensure that preservation remains economically sustainable for future generations.

We respectfully ask the City Council to direct staff to evaluate the feasibility of such a program and consider it as an important enhancement to Mountain View’s historic preservation policies.

We would be happy to share details of our property (issues, costs, maintenance, tax benefits received, etc.) if it's helpful for your consideration.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for your continued commitment to preserving Mountain View’s historic heritage.

Respectfully,
Jonathan Davis
Lubab Sheet-Davis
364
From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Cc:

Subject: - Property Owner Input Survey
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 2:29:38 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Elaheh,
Please note that I just submitted the Historic Register Survey for our home at Drive. Please confirm that you received it.

Please feel free to reach out anytime as we are glad to have our property listed as a historic resource.

Thanks,
Jonathan Gentin
365
From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 10:47:01 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Elaheh
I live at and I received mail that you had not received my response to the Property Owner survey. I submitted it a few weeks ago and submitted it again just now.

Can you confirm that you've received my response. I opted out of the Mountain View Register.

Question for you: About 15 years ago, we found out that our house was listed on the State Register of Historic Resources and since there was no ability to opt out. This subjected our home to CEQA compliance and as a result we decided to go ahead and enter a Mills Act Contract with the City. Will opting out of the Mountain View Register change the status of our existing Mills Act Contract?
Thanks
Tracy Chu
366
From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Survey response
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:16:13 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
regarding 990 California street.
the survey input is NO
Mark Li
owner
BTW, the "https://forms.office.com/g/nHA7AEUvrT" does not work on my macbook. 367
From:

To: City Council
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 4:54:10 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Council members,
I feel it is vitally important to officially preserve all buildings and locations in Mountain View that have historic integrity and are listed on the city's list of historic properties that . I believe that at a minimum, all the properties listed that are located on Castro Street should be included. Hopefully this will help us to preserve these buildings from "builder's remedy" projects that will damage or destroy our town's unique character and history which makes us a magnet for tourism and commerce.

Thank you,
Laurie Bonilla
37 year resident of Mountain View
368
From:

To: City Council
Subject: Regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance and Map Amendment Date: Saturday, September 12, 2026 12:35:28 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Mountain View City Council,
As a 9 year resident of Mountain View, I appreciate the city council's efforts in evolving the zoning ordinances over the years to adapt to modern times. Regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Map Amendment of 2026, upon reviewing the list of eligible properties myself, I wholly oppose these amendments specifically as it aims to exclude properties from Senate Bill 79.

As you know, Mountain View is experiencing a housing crisis like much of California, and Senate Bill 79 is a crucial part of expanding the housing supply and ensuring everyone has an affordable place to live that is close to transit. Furthermore, transit oriented development is a critical part of reducing congestion, revitalizing downtown, and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

We must strike a balance between historic preservation and alleviating immediate concerns of affordability and climate change. In my opinion, designating properties near Mountain View Caltrain, such as 169, 292, 301, 492 Castro St, will hinder the development of much needed housing, deprive property owners of the right to develop their property, and increase traffic by pushing development outside transit accessible areas. Unlike properties such as 157 Moffett Blvd, these properties are not especially historically significant or unique to the Bay Area and their preservation should not outweigh the need for more housing in Mountain View.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Jason Chiu
369
From:

To: City Council
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Sunday, September 13, 2026 1:40:31 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Council Members,
I am writing in support of the Historic Preservation Ordinance as I will not be able to attend the meeting on September 22. I am the owner of 395 Velarde St, one properties added to the historic register as part of this update. The ordinance as drafted offers an appropriate balance of protection for historic structures and flexibility for me as a property owner to modify or sell my property. I hope to see this passed.

Regards,
David Greene
(38 year Mountain View resident)
370
From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Cc:

Subject: Mountain View Register of Historic Resources - 492 Castro St. (444 Castro St.) - Do Not Add Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 9:20:29 AM
Importance: High
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Elaheh,
Please accept this email as notification that 492 Castro is NOT interested in being listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic References.

Please confirm receipt of this email, thank you.

Elaine Dell’Aquila
Vice President | Asset Management
The Swig Company
371
From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: re: 1414 W El Camino Real
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:50:40 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Elaheh,
We recently received a letter from the city asking if we would be interested to list our property referenced above on the MV Register. Sorry for the late response. We just got back over the weekend.

Please register our request as "NO", we do not want our property to be listed on the MV Register of Historic Resources. Thank you.

Jill Lo, Trustee
September 15, 2026
372
From:

To: Kerachian, Elaheh; , Planning Division; [email protected] Subject: FORMAL OBJECTION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY DESIGNATION: Historic Register Nomination for 696 California Street
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:07:43 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

FORMAL OBJECTION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY DESIGNATION: Historic Register Nomination for 696 California Street — EPC Meeting August 19, 2026
Dear Environmental Planning Commission,
I am writing to file a formal, written objection to the nomination of my property located at 696 California Street on the draft City Historic Register or any inventory of potentially eligible historic resources. I explicitly do not consent to this nomination.

This objection is based on several critical factors. The factual error, still in the city’s database (see primary record) that no remodel was done and it retains all aspects of historic integrity, combined with the severe, unmitigated negative impacts this involuntary designation will impose on my finances and property rights.

The original structure on this property was destroyed by a catastrophic fire in 2011. Following that disaster, the building underwent a two-year modern reconstruction from foundation to roof, utilizing 21st-century building materials and finishes. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Register guidelines, a property must retain physical "historic integrity" to legally qualify for a designation. Because the authentic historic fabric no longer exists, this building is a modern structure less than 15 years old. It is legally ineligible for historic designation.

The city's concurrent move to eliminate a homeowner’s right to "opt off" the register strips away my fundamental property rights. My property was removed from the register years ago based on design because it was so altered it no longer qualified. Having to constantly battle a bureaucratic loop— where I am forced to repeatedly defend my rebuilt home against a generic, automated city survey is an unfair burden. I request that city planning staff pull the 2012 remodeling permit MV #2012-0914- 1 for APN# 158-23-026 immediately to verify all plans, permits, guidelines and inspections were followed and approved for the 2012 remodel.

I ask that this formal objection be entered into the official public record for the August 19, 2026 EPC meeting, and that 696 California Street be permanently removed from the eligibility list.

I ask this Commission to protect my property rights, acknowledge the factual absence of historic integrity due to the 2011 fire, and explicitly direct staff to remove my address from the final recommendation.
373
From:

To: [email protected]
Cc: Kerachian, Elaheh; , Planning Division; City Council; , City Clerk Subject: EPC Item 5.1 - 472/482 View Street, APN 158-23-059 - Formal Owner Opposition, Request for Exclusion or Property-Specific Deferral, and Notice of Intended Housing Development Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 7:37:11 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Re: EPC Item 5.1 — 472/482 View Street, APN 158-23-059 — Formal Owner Opposition, Request for Exclusion or Property-Specific Deferral, and Notice of Intended Housing Development --------------------
Dear Chair and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission, City Council members, and City Staff:

I am an owner of the property identified by the City as 472 View Street, with 482 View Street listed as an alternate address, APN 158-23-059.

This communication constitutes:

1. My formal opposition to inclusion of this property in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources;

2. To the extent the current Historic Preservation Ordinance applies, my express rejection of any City-initiated nomination of the property, consistent with the owner-rejection procedure described in the City’s July 7, 2026 FAQ;

3. My request that the City immediately record the owner’s position as “Does Not Support Listing” rather than “Unknown/Other”;

4. My primary request that the property be removed from the draft Register; and

5. Alternatively, my request that the property be separated from any collective or omnibus Register action and continued to a later, property-specific hearing.

1. The August 3 survey date was not a meaningful
opportunity to investigate and respond
The City’s letter was dated July 7, 2026 and requested completion of the owner survey by August 3, 2026. The letter described the survey as taking approximately five to ten minutes and stated that responses received by August 3 would be considered during the City Council’s September discussion.

I do not contend that it was physically impossible to complete a short online survey. I contend that the period provided was not a meaningful opportunity to investigate and respond to the underlying technical and regulatory proposal.

An informed response required locating and reviewing a lengthy set of online materials; 374
determining which of several structures and addresses was being evaluated; understanding the applicable local, state, and national criteria; investigating the property’s construction and alteration history; evaluating the report’s assertions concerning rarity and integrity; understanding the consequences of designation; and consulting an architectural historian, land-use professional, or attorney.

Significant health issues during this limited period further prevented me from conducting that investigation and retaining appropriate professional assistance.

The July 7 communication did not state that August 3 was a deadline for opposing designation, presenting evidence, requesting a continuance, preserving legal objections, or exercising any right under the current ordinance. Failure to complete the voluntary survey by August 3 must not be characterized as consent, neutrality, waiver, or absence of opposition.

2. The proposed historic resource remains inadequately
identified
The July 7 letter identified the property only as 472 View Street. The City’s List of Eligible Resources identifies 472 View Street and lists 482 View Street as an alternate address.

The Page & Turnbull DPR evaluation identifies both addresses, describes multiple buildings on the parcel, and refers to a building possibly formerly identified as 478 View Street.

Although the DPR photograph appears to depict the north/right street-facing cottage, the photograph does not resolve the legal and regulatory scope of the proposed designation.

The City has not supplied a marked parcel plan identifying:

The precise building proposed for designation;
The official address assigned to each structure;
The footprint and boundary of the proposed historic resource; Whether the rear ell is included;
Whether the land surrounding the cottage is included;
Which buildings are noncontributing or excluded; and
Whether future development elsewhere on the parcel would be restricted because of the proposed resource.

Please provide a current, marked site plan and a written description defining the precise historic-resource boundary. Please also confirm that no other cottage, rear building, improvement, or portion of the parcel is included unless separately identified, evaluated, noticed, and supported by property-specific findings.

3. The existing record does not adequately establish the required local findings
375
The Page & Turnbull DPR evaluation expressly concludes:
“The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.”
The City’s List of Eligible Resources likewise identifies the property as eligible only for the Mountain View local register and only under the design criterion. The property is not claimed to be significant because of an important person, organization, event, or historical activity.

I understand that ineligibility for the National and California Registers does not, by itself, prohibit a local designation. It does, however, make it essential that the City independently establish every local requirement with substantial property-specific evidence.

Proposed City Code Section 36.55.10 requires findings that:

1. The resource embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction significant to Mountain View’s history or cultural heritage, represents the work of a designer or builder of merit, or possesses high artistic value;

2. The resource retains historic integrity;

3. The resource satisfies the applicable age requirement; and

4. Each finding is supported by substantial evidence applied to the particular resource.

Age alone is not architectural significance.

The existing DPR report states that the cottage is a “rare extant example” of Folk Victorian architecture and is “likely one of the oldest surviving residential properties” in Mountain View. The report, however, does not identify the comparative inventory or analysis supporting those assertions. It does not state:

How many Folk Victorian or National Folk residences survive in Mountain View; Which comparable properties were examined;
Why this cottage is more distinctive or more intact than those properties; What objective characteristics make it significant to Mountain View rather than merely old;
Whether the porch, trusses, piers, posts, siding, and other asserted characterdefining features are original; What physical investigation established that the siding is original and likely redwood; or
What evidence supports the conclusion that this is one of the City’s oldest surviving residences.

The DPR also acknowledges that:
376
All windows and doors on both street-facing buildings appear to have been replaced;
A rear ell was added;
The architect is unknown;
The builder is unknown; and
The other buildings on the parcel are not eligible.

Nevertheless, the report concludes that the cottage retains sufficient integrity without providing a factor-by-factor analysis of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

These facts do not automatically determine the outcome, but they materially undermine the report’s conclusory findings and require independent investigation. The current record does not adequately explain how replacement of all windows and doors, construction of the rear ell, and any porch or siding alterations affect integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

4. Requested action concerning the proposed Register
My primary request is that the City remove 472/482 View Street from the draft Register and decline to initiate or approve its designation.

Even if staff continues to believe that the property is technically eligible, proposed Section 36.55.15 expressly makes designation discretionary and permits the City Council to decline designation after considering owner sentiment, differing qualified professional opinions, and other relevant factors.

If the City does not immediately remove the property, I request that it:

1. Identify the property as “Owner Opposes Listing—Eligibility and Resource Boundary Contested”;

2. Separate the property from any collective or omnibus Register resolution;

3. Continue it to a separate property-specific hearing;

4. Provide corrected notice identifying the exact structure and resource boundary;

5. Provide the complete property-specific evidentiary record;

6. Provide the proposed findings and all substantial evidence intended to support each finding;

7. Allow at least 60 days after production of corrected notice and the complete supporting record for an owner and qualified professional response; and

8. Take no final designation action until the factual, architectural, procedural, and state-housing-law issues raised in this letter have been addressed.

The City’s proposed ordinance itself calls for at least 60 days’ notice before a surveybased designation hearing and permits an owner to submit written comments, factual materials, and a qualified professional response. The July 7 owner survey should not be treated as a substitute for that property-specific designation process. 377

5. Actual notice of intended housing development and
SB 79 implications
This letter also gives the City actual notice that I am actively evaluating substantial housing development involving the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel under common ownership located at [INSERT ADJACENT ADDRESS AND APN].

Based on the City’s SB 79 mapping, I understand the properties to be located in the TOD2 area associated with a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop. If the City disagrees with that classification, please identify the City’s classification and supporting map in writing.

My current preliminary development concept contemplates approximately 40 housing units and potentially up to approximately 70 housing units, depending on parcel consolidation, site design, applicable SB 79 standards, the State Density Bonus Law, affordability requirements, available incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and project feasibility.

These unit numbers are preliminary and do not constitute a final project application.

They do establish that redevelopment is concrete and under active consideration rather than merely hypothetical.

Government Code Section 65912.162 declares that removal of barriers to housing production and expansion of housing supply are matters of statewide concern. The City’s August 19, 2026 staff report also recognizes that:

SB 79 supersedes certain local standards for qualifying transit-oriented housing projects;
A housing project involving demolition of a structure already placed on a local historic register may lose an otherwise available AB 130 CEQA exemption; An eligible but unlisted structure may be treated differently under AB 130; and Historic resources newly designated after January 1, 2025 are not included in SB 79’s temporary historic-resource exclusion unless addressed through a compliant TOD Alternative Plan.

A new local-only designation of this property could therefore impose significant additional preservation review, demolition restrictions, CEQA exposure, processing requirements, delay, cost, uncertainty, and potential reduction in feasible housing capacity.

I am not asserting in this letter that SB 79 categorically prohibits all local historic designations in transit-oriented areas. I am asserting that the City should not impose a new, local-only, design-only designation on a Tier 1 transit-oriented housing site without first identifying and publicly analyzing its consequences for:

Applicable SB 79 density, height, floor-area-ratio, and use standards; 378
Eligibility for streamlined or ministerial review;
The AB 130 CEQA exemption;
State Density Bonus Law concessions, incentives, and waivers; Demolition and historic-preservation review;
The feasibility and capacity of the contemplated 40-to-70-unit housing development;
Treatment of the site under any future TOD Alternative Plan; and Compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and other applicable state housing laws.

Please provide written answers to the following:

1. Does the City agree that the parcel is within the Tier 1 TOD2 area?

2. Will the parcel remain subject to the applicable SB 79 standards if it is placed on the local Register in 2026?

3. Could designation cause a future project to lose an AB 130 CEQA exemption?

4. Would designation cause an otherwise streamlined or ministerial project to become subject to discretionary historic review?

5. Could designation be used to reduce the parcel’s capacity through a future TOD Alternative Plan?

6. What number of housing units and amount of residential floor area could be rendered infeasible by designation?

7. How will the City ensure that the Historic Preservation Ordinance is not applied where preempted by state housing law?
The City should not designate the property first and defer consideration of these housing consequences until after a development application is submitted.

6. Preservation of the administrative record and
reservation of rights
Please include this letter and its attachments in the complete administrative record for:

EPC Agenda Item 5.1;
The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance;
The draft Mountain View Register;
Any City Council discussion or action concerning 472/482 View Street; Any SB 79 zoning or TOD Alternative Plan action affecting the property; and Any subsequent property-specific designation proceeding.

Nothing in this letter constitutes consent to designation, acceptance of the DPR evaluation, waiver of any procedural or substantive objection, or waiver of rights under SB 79, the Housing Accountability Act, the State Density Bonus Law, CEQA, due-process requirements, or other applicable law.
379
Please confirm in writing:

1. That the owner’s position has been changed to “Does Not Support Listing”;

2. That this submission will be included in the EPC and City Council records;

3. Whether the City will remove the property from the draft Register;

4. If not, that it will be segregated and continued to a separate property-specific hearing; and

5. That no final action will occur without corrected notice, production of the complete record, and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Sincerely, Sincerely,, Roman Kagarlitsky, Owner, 472–482 View Street, APN 158-23-059 380
1 From: Serge Bonte
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 8/17/26 EPC Meeting Historical Ordinance
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or aƩachments.

Dear Commissioners:

Honoring and preserving our history is deeply important. I am very grateful that I got to learn so much history in my hometown (Nice, France). My high school was a former Belle Epoque palace, we had school visits to preserved prehistoric settlements, Greek and Roman ruins (including an arena), a medieval castle, etc etc
I realize that Mountain View's history is not as old nor rich. But I feel like the bar set in your historical criteria is far too low.

Take the Hertz rental car office on El Camino Real (corner of El Monte). It's listed because of a motif on its facade (hinting at a postmodern architecture) and because of its historical context of automotive related services. Both are quite a stretch, that building architecture is really quite ordinary but the historical context is puzzling. Every town in America had and still has some automotive related services, Further, El Camino Real is not Route 66 and Mountain View is not Detroit. By that measure, maybe historical context should be used for the video stores or music stores of the past (Blockbuster, Videoscope, Tower Records....) :)
I understand you will not be discussing the list of additions tonight but I'd like you to review it to validate/invalidate/revise some of the criteria used for inclusion.

I also feel that honoring history is not just about preserving buildings. For example, I lived for a while in Aix en Provence on the street where Paul Cezanne was born. There was no public access to the building and the building itself was not really noteworthy (in Aix en Provence that is :) ) but there was a plaque commemorating his birth which I walked by everyday. Again Mountain View's history is not as rich, but what about putting a plaque or sign near the Mountain View house Steve Jobs grew up in for instance...

Sincerely
Serge Bonte
PS: I haven't had time to check if the single family home/former farm property on Huff in North Bayshore was listed or considered for addition. To me it's an example of history worth preserving, maybe not the building itself but at least some plaque and photographs of what this whole area looked like way before the arrival of tech.
381
The Honorable Emily Ann Ramos
Mayor
Mountain View City Council
Mountain View, California
September 14, 2026
Dear Mayor Ramos,
Our home at 537 Bush Street is currently on the proposed list of properties to be added to the Historic Register. We are writing you to respectfully request that it be removed from the list of eligible properties and therefore not added to the Historic Register.

Our home is, we think, a beautiful family home. We fail to see what makes it historic.

The designation criteria detailed in the City Ordinance closely mirror the requirements for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or CRHR. The Ordinance specifies that a building, structure, site or other improvement may be designated as a historic resource and placed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources if the city council finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the City of Mountain View;

2. Is the site of a significant historic event in the city's past;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the city in terms of a type, period, region or method of construction or representative of the work of a master or possession of high artistic value; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the city's prehistory or history.

Criteria 2 and 4 clearly do not apply to our property, and have never been cited in any of the professional studies the City has commissioned over the years.

With regards to criterion 1: Our home is also known as the Minton House. Earl Minton’s father purchased what became the Minton Lumber Company in 1911 as a wedding gift for young Earl. Earl and the Minton Company developed Palmita Park in the 1920’s and in the late 1920’s Earl became mayor of Mountain View. The Page & Turnbull report is factually inaccurate on two accounts: the Minton’s purchased 537 Bush Street in the mid 1940’s, not 1940, and Earl Minton never lived at 537 Bush Street. At the time of his death, Earl Minton 382
resided at 536 Anza St. Also of notice is that 537 Bush Street was not developed by Mr.

Minton or the Minton Company, as it was built by Mr. John Ward, its first owner, in 1912. 537 Bush Street was the home for 45 years, from 1946 until 1991, for Earl’s son Owens and his wife Diane, from whom my wife and I purchased the property in 1991. Owens and Diane raised their four children in the house, and we later raised two of our own. We would agree with Owens and Diane that the house is a wonderful family home, but that does not mean it meets criterion 1. The Turnbull & Page report does ultimately agree with this assessment.

As mentioned, the home was built by Mr. John Ward for himself and his family. He was clearly a skilled carpenter, but the house was not designed by a famous architect and appears to be Mr. Ward’s personal creation. The house does not fit any specific architectural style – it is more like a hodgepodge of a few different ones. It resembles an Asymmetrical Colonial Revival style with Victorian accents, such as the shingle siding and dormers in the rear. It has elements of the Queen Anne style with its curved front entryway, but it lacks other critical Queen Anne features such as an open porch and a tower. We rebuilt the chimneys because they were irreparably damaged by the 1989 earthquake – they are now zero clearance (no bricks). We also removed the fake brick veneer skirting as termite damage and dry rot had developed underneath. We disagree with Page & Turnbull:
the house is not a good example of Queen Anne style and qualifying for the CRHR is a dubious proposition. The overall blend of styles is, in our opinion, pleasing to the eye but it is not a distinctive example of any architectural style. We do not see Mr. Ward’s work meeting the definition of criterion 3.

In summary, we do not believe our property merits being listed on the Historic Register based on the four adopted criteria. Being a beautiful house is not a defining criterion for the Historic Register.

We trust that you and the Council will accommodate our request and remove 537 Bush Street from consideration.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,
Barbara Krzyczkowska and Massimo Prati
Owners, 537 Bush Street
383
Property Owner Survey Responses – Incentives (27 Responses) Properties on the MV Register are eligible to receive benefits. These benefits will be updated and refined with the update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. How would you rank your interest in accessing the following benefits if they were included in the updated Ordinance? Responses in order from most preferred to least preferred A Mills Act Contract: the Mills Act is a State law allowing reductions to property taxes to help cover historic property restoration and preservation costs (requires a contract with the City)
A Mountain View Property Tax Rebate would allow property owners to receive a rebate on some or all of the City’s share of the historic resource’s property tax (the City’s share of the property tax bill is approximately 13% of the total tax bill) Exceptions to zoning standards: For example, structural improvements may be allowed to walls within setbacks, or development projects may be allowed reductions in minimum setbacks or required open area to help better preserve a historic resource Permit fee reductions, such as building permits for reroofing or kitchen remodels Development impact fee reductions when new development on the property preserves the historic resource (“impact fees” are fees for the construction of public improvements, such as utilities, transportation and parks)
Historic plaque program: The City would provide a plaque for your building or property A loan to help historic property owners to rehabilitate their properties Attachment 8
First choice Last choice
384
Eligible Resources DPR Forms (Historic Evaluations)
Resource Page
177 Ada Ave 4
1181 Bonita Ave 46
206 Bush St 49
272 Bush St 52
415 Bush St 55
537 Bush St 58
445 Calderon Ave 61
711 Calderon Ave/97 Church St 64
725 Calderon Ave 67
696 California St 70
990 California St 73
1560 California St 76
1610 California St 79
1690 California St 82
124 Castro St 85
134 Castro St 88
169 Castro St 91
191 Castro St 94
194 Castro St 97
201 Castro St 100
228 Castro St 103
292 Castro St 106
301 Castro St 109
331 Castro St 112
492 Castro St 115
501 Castro St 118
655 Castro St 121
799 Castro St 124
251 Castro St 127
300 Chiquita Ave 130
334 Church St 133
595 Church St 136
890 Church St 139
Cuesta Park 142
2715 Diericx Dr 145
96 W El Camino Real 148
624 W El Camino Real 151
749 W El Camino Real 154
1051 W El Camino Real 276
Attachment 9
385
1414 W El Camino Real 279
1901 W El Camino Real 282
2674 W El Camino Real 285
2690 W El Camino Real 288
555 Ellis St 291
655 Eunice Ave 294
350 Franklin St 297
394 Franklin St 300
570 Franklin St 303
574 Franklin St 306
392 Hope St 309
403 Hope St 312
425 Hope St 315
782 Hope St 318
1390 Latham St 321
280 Leslie Ct 325
1655 Lloyd Wy 328
302 Loreto St 331
484 Loreto St 334
201 Mariposa Ave 337
250 Mariposa Ave 340
496 Mariposa Ave 343
355 E Middlefield Rd 346
1855 Miramonte Ave 365
157 Moffett Blvd 368
243 Moffett Blvd 371
252 Monroe Dr 374
372 Mountain View Ave 377
360 Oak St 380
340 Palo Alto Ave 383
390 Palo Alto Ave 386
562 Pettis Ave 389
604 Pettis Ave 392
771 N Rengstorff Ave - Immigrant House 395
771 N Rengstorff Ave - Steel Star Windmill 398
987 N Rengstorff Ave 401
3070 N Shoreline Blvd 404
472 S Shoreline Blvd 407
462 Sleeper Ave 410
1247 Springer Rd 416
432 Stierlin Rd 419
1531 Tyler Park Wy 422
395 Velarde St 425
322 View St 428
386
327 View St 431
344 View St 434
472 View St 437
361 Villa St 440
515 Villa St 443
831 Villa St 446
895 Villa St 449
938 Villa St 452
954 Villa St 455
1043 Villa St 458
1200 Villa St 461
1209 Villa St 464
1645 Villa St 467
1655 Villa St 470
253 N Whisman Rd 473
680 Yosemite Ave 476
387
DRAFT
170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Imagining change in historic environments through
design, research, and technology

MEMORANDUM
DATE May 18, 2022 PROJECT
NUMBER
22036
TO Stephanie Williams, Planning
Manager
PROJECT 177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View
Peer Review
OF City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California 94039
FROM Stacy Kozakavich, Cultural
Resources Planner, Page & Turnbull
CC Peter Birkholz, Page & Turnbull VIA Email
REGARDING 177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum

INTRODUCTION
This Peer Review Memorandum has been prepared by Page & Turnbull at the request of the City of Mountain View regarding the property at 177 Ada Avenue (APN 160-46-057). 177 Ada Avenue is located on the east side of Ada Avenue, between Serena Court and Brenton Court, in the eastern part of the City of Mountain View. The roughly rectangular, 0.4-acre parcel includes one two-story residence built ca. 1899-1900, with a one-story rear wing. The property additionally includes six sheds of varying sizes located to the rear of the residence. The original owner, architect, and builder of the house are not known.

The property is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The property at 177 Ada Avenue was listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Mountain View Register) until April 12, 2005, after which it was voluntarily removed from the register at the request of the property owner.

The building is not included in the most recent version available of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Santa Clara County, issued March 2020, indicating that no record of a previous survey or evaluation is on file at an information center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

In December 2007, Carey & Co., Inc. prepared State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms for the subject property as part of the Citywide Historic Property Survey completed for the City of 388
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Mountain View. The DPR 523 forms evaluated the property’s historic significance and eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources.

Carey & Co., Inc. found that the property appeared to be eligible “under Criteria C/3 as a good example of National Folk/Colonial Revival architecture from the early twentieth century,” with a high level of integrity.1
In January 2022, Anthony Kirk prepared DPR 523A and 523B forms for the subject property at the request of the property owner. The DPR 523 forms evaluated the property’s eligibility for listing in the National Register and California Register, as well as the Mountain View Register. Kirk found that the property appeared ineligible for listing at the state or federal level under any criterion, and recommended that “the property should be removed from the Mountain View Register of Historical Resources.”2
At the request of the City, Page & Turnbull peer reviewed the DPR 523 forms prepared by Carey & Co., Inc. in 2007 and by Anthony Kirk in 2022.

Summary of Findings
Page & Turnbull concurs with Carey & Co. Inc.’s finding that the property appears eligible for listing on the National Register and California Register under Criterion C/3 (Architecture), and retains integrity as a good representative example of a late nineteenth- or early twentieth-century singlefamily residence of a type once common in Mountain View’s formerly agricultural areas. Additionally, Page & Turnbull’s research identified an association with a significant pattern in Mountain View’s history: the development of fruit and flower growing by Japanese American families from the early through the mid-twentieth century. However, due to the subdivision and residential development of much of the original parcel, as well as surrounding properties, the residence no longer conveys its significant association with Mountain View’s fruit and flower growers.

Methodology
Page & Turnbull reviewed the following documents for this memorandum:
• Carey & Co., Inc., State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, December 2007 (Appendix A); • Anthony Kirk, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, January 7, 2022. (Appendix B). 1 Carey & Co., Inc., State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View (San Francisco, December 2007), 3.
2 Anthony Kirk, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View (January 2022), 3.
389
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit of the subject property on April 21, 2022 to take photographs and observe existing conditions. Where additional research or analysis needs were identified in either of the two reports, as outlined in the Peer Review sections that follow, Page & Turnbull conducted supplemental research and has provided additional information in the Additional Research Findings section. Research regarding the subject property was conducted at the City of Mountain View Building Division, and using online databases including Newspapers.com, the UC Riverside California Digital Newspaper Collection, the UC Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder website, HistoricAerials.com, and Ancestry.com.

PEER REVIEW OF HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATIONS
DPR 523 Forms, Carey & Co., Inc. (2007)
DPR 523 forms prepared in December 2007 by Carey & Co., Inc. were completed as part of the larger Citywide Historic Properties Survey, Mountain View, California. The evaluation found the property at 177 Ada Avenue to be eligible for the National Register and California Register under Criterion C/3, with a period of significance of ca. 1911-1921.

Page & Turnbull finds the overall level of detail included in Carey & Co., Inc.’s DPR 523 forms for the subject property to be consistent with accepted professional standards for documentation of individual properties as part of a large, citywide historic resources survey. However, the finding of eligibility would be better supported with additional contextual and property-specific information.

The following section focuses on those portions of the DPR 523 forms for which Page & Turnbull has additional comments.

AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/DISCUSSION
Page & Turnbull’s review found that the following sections/topics would benefit from additional development as discussed below:

Property Description
Carey & Co., Inc.’s property description section provides only a brief description of the primary façade of the subject property, as the survey was completed from the public right-of-way. The section would benefit from the inclusion of a more complete description of the building, including photographs of all façades of the residence, as well as brief descriptions of site features, accessory buildings, and the surrounding neighborhood. A more thorough description of the building’s architectural character would contribute to the significance evaluation and analysis of the property’s historic integrity.
390
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Architectural Style
Carey & Co., Inc.’s description of the architectural style of the residence at 177 Ada Avenue identifies the building as being of a “National Folk / Colonial Revival” style. However, neither the DPR 523 forms nor the larger Citywide Survey provide a definition or description of this style’s general features or significance in Mountain View or California at the time of the building’s construction. The Citywide Survey includes only a brief overview of the building type represented by the subject property in its summary of pre-1900 architectural styles:

The houses of this era that do survive are primarily found singly and at a distance from one another, reflecting the rural aspect of the area at that time and the organization of a single farm house located on large tracts of farmland. […] They range in style from Queen Anne Victorian, to Gothic Revival, to Italianate. They also exhibit a broad range in size, from large houses like those named above, to more modest Victorian cottages or small Folk Victorian houses. No matter the size, however, Victorian era architecture typically demonstrated ornate and abundant detailing. These Victorian era styles often lap over the turn of the century and continued to be used during the early years of the 1900s.3
The DPR 523 forms for 177 Ada Avenue and the associated Citywide Survey could be improved by including a brief description of the development and aesthetics of the National Folk and Colonial Revival architectural styles, as well as a summary list of features and characteristics that are typical of these styles as they were expressed in single-family residences during the early decades of the twentieth century. This information would provide the necessary context to understand the degree to which the house at 177 Ada Avenue is significant as a representative of the National Folk and Colonial Revival styles in this local context.

Historic Context
As the DPR 523 forms prepared for 177 Ada Avenue by Carey & Co., Inc. were completed as part of a larger survey project, the building’s DPR 523 forms do not include a discussion of the broader historic context of Mountain View or agricultural development within the region. The Citywide Survey document does include an adequate historic overview of Mountain View and its economic reliance on agriculture until the mid-twentieth century. Including a summary of these contexts directly in the DPR 523 forms would allow the forms to be useful as a standalone document, and provide 3 Carey & Co., Inc., Citywide Historic Properties Survey, City of Mountain View (San Francisco: Prepared for the City of Mountain View, September 2008), 28.
391
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 necessary information to support the evaluation of the property’s significance under Criterion A/1 (Events).

Site Development History
The site history prepared by Carey & Co., Inc. provides insufficient information to understand the overall development of 177 Ada Avenue as part of a once-larger agricultural property. More thorough information regarding the development of Ada Avenue and the subject property would provide needed context for evaluating its significance under Criterion A/1 (Events) and Criterion B/2 (Persons).

Occupancy History
Carey & Co., Inc. attribute the initial construction of the residence at 177 Ada Avenue to owner Frederick G. Houseman, based on a 1911 newspaper article announcing the construction of a residence for Houseman, and a 1926 city directory listing which appears to list the Houseman family as the ”only occupant on Ada Avenue.”4. While stating that “additional research would need to be conducted to establish this connection,” the discussion is otherwise unequivocal in stating that the building is associated with Houseman and his family.5 Carey & Co., Inc. do not discuss the ownership of and residence at the property of the Tachibana family, aside from one mention of the family’s application in 1982 to build condominiums on adjacent, formerly orchard land. Page & Turnbull conducted additional research, including a review of United States Census schedules for Mountain View and historic newspaper articles, which provided additional information regarding Ada Avenue’s residents during the first decades of the twentieth century. The additional findings are discussed in the Additional Research Findings section below.

Significance Evaluation
As the building description, architectural style discussion, historic context, site history, and occupant history are not fully developed in documentation for 177 Ada Avenue, expansion of these areas in the forms would better support the findings of the significance evaluation. Under Criterion A/1 (Events), the evaluation should include additional discussion of the property’s association with Mountain View’s agricultural development in the early years of the twentieth century, particularly in relation to Japanese American families. Under Criterion B/2 (Persons), the evaluation should clarify the relative importance of the Tachibana family and their agricultural operation in order to justify the finding of ineligibility. As noted above, additional discussion of the associated architectural 4 Carey & Co., Inc., DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 2. 5 Carey & Co., Inc., DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 2. 392
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 styles, specifically within the context of Mountain View’s development and existing historic building stock, would support the findings under Criterion C/3 (Architecture).

Character-Defining Features
For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. Thus, Carey & Co., Inc.’s finding that 177 Ada Avenue is eligible for listing on the National Register and California Register should be followed by a list of the character-defining features that convey the property’s historic significance.

DPR 523 Forms, Anthony Kirk, 2022
The significance evaluation included in the forms prepared in January 2022 by Anthony Kirk found the property at 177 Ada Avenue to be ineligible for listing on the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register under any criterion.

Page & Turnbull finds the overall level of detail included in Kirk’s DPR 523 forms for the subject property to be adequate in its presentation of local historic context for Mountain View. However, property-specific information, including the description of the property and information regarding its ownership history is not sufficient to refute the previous 2007 finding and support the new 2022 finding of ineligibility. In addition, as DPR 523A and 523B forms had been prepared for 177 Ada Avenue in 2007, it was not strictly necessary for Anthony Kirk to prepare new forms as part of the 2022 evaluation of the property. Continuation sheets (523L) could have been prepared to include the additional information and reevaluation, which could be attached to the 2007 forms.

The following section focuses on only those portions of the DPR 523 forms for which Page & Turnbull has additional comments.

AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/DISCUSSION
Page & Turnbull’s review found that the following sections/topics would benefit from additional development as discussed below:

Property Description
The physical description of the property prepared by Anthony Kirk includes a satisfactory level of general detail, but should include clear photographs of all façades, as well as brief descriptions and photographs of accessory buildings, site features, and the surrounding neighborhood. One error in the information presented in Kirk’s description concerns the foundation material: while the 2022 393
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 DPR 523A states that the building sits on a concrete perimeter foundation, portions of brick foundation were observed at the north side of the two-story portion of the building during Page & Turnbull’s April 21, 2022 site visit.

A long paragraph at the end of the Description section discusses the Santa Clara County Improvement Appraisal Record and the owner and occupant history of the residence. This information should be included in the Significance section of the DPR 523B form, not the property description.

Architectural Style
In the Architectural Style field of the DPR 523B form, Kirk identifies the style of 177 Ada Avenue as “Craftsman; no style.” No support for this attribution is provided. The building does not display characteristic features of Craftsman architecture,.

Historic Context
The general historic context for the City of Mountain View and its economic reliance on agriculture provides an adequate introduction to the broader history of the area. Kirk’s description of the sitespecific history is not well supported by research, however, and there appear to be some errors in the interpretation of sources. For example, Kirk cites a statement from Eugene T. Sawyer’s 1922 History of Santa Clara County, California, that flower growing was abundant “just outside the corporation limits” of Mountain View. In response, Kirk states that the author “unfortunately, fails to mention anything about the growing of flowers in the town.”6 At the time the 1922 History of Santa Clara County was written by Eugene T. Sawyer, however, the subject property was located well outside of the town limits of Mountain View. City of Mountain View information indicates that this particular parcel was not annexed until 1981. Further, as discussed below, the subject property appears to have been used for fruit-growing – not flower growing - until after World War II.

Kirk’s criticism of the 2008 Citywide Historic Properties Survey is also erroneous in stating that there is “but a single mention of agriculture” in the report.7 Kirk is correct that searching the text of the PDF document for the word “agriculture” locates only one result, in the “Chinese and Japanese in Mountain View” section of the Historic Context. However, there is considerable discussion of Mountain View and Santa Clara County’s agricultural history in the broader Historic Context, including post-Gold Rush agriculture, as well as fruit growing through the later nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century.8 Kirk is correct that previous context statements which have 6 Anthony Kirk, DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 2.
7 Anthony Kirk, DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 2-3.
8 Carey & Co., Inc., Citywide Historic Properties Survey, 12-14, 19, 22, 26. 394
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 been written for the City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County do not include adequate discussion of the economic role of floriculture. An evaluation of an individual property associated with flower growing, such as 177 Ada Avenue, provides a researcher with the opportunity to contribute to developing this context.

Site Development History
The site history prepared by Anthony Kirk provides insufficient information to understand the overall development of 177 Ada Avenue as part of a once-larger agricultural property. More thorough information regarding the development of the properties adjacent to Ada Avenue, and the subject property itself would provide needed context for evaluating its significance under Criterion A/1. Kirk notes in the significance evaluation for the property that “there were no greenhouses on the land owned by Tachibana and later Hayamizu and […] no greenhouses appear on the pages of Google Earth Pro, which provides an excellent view of the Ada Avenue area dating back to 1948.”9 As will be discussed further in the Additional Research Findings section, the current parcel was subdivided from what was previously a much larger parcel which contained greenhouses and row plantings.

Occupancy History
In both the description and significance sections of the DPR forms, Kirk posits that the subject property was built for Motokichi Tachibana, and that Tachibana acquired land on Ada Avenue in around 1900. As will be discussed in the following section on Additional Research Findings, the Tachibana family do not appear to have been the original owners of the subject property at 177 Ada Avenue. Kirk does not address the 2007 DPR forms’ assertion that the original owner of the property was Frederick G. Houseman.

Significance Evaluation
As noted above, the site development and association with the context of agriculture in the vicinity of Mountain View is not well-developed in the DPR 523 forms prepared by Kirk for 177 Ada Avenue.

Thus, the evaluation of the subject property under Criterion 1/A (Events) appears to be based on a lack of information more than a lack of significance. Similarly, the evaluation under Criterion 2/B (Persons) appears to be based on minimal research regarding resident families. With respect to the building’s architectural style, although Kirk uses the term “Craftsman” at an earlier point in the DPR 523B form to identify the building’s style, the evaluation under Criterion 3/C (Architecture) states that 177 Ada Avenue “possesses no pattern of physical features, or attributes, associated with a particular style” and “lacks meaningful architectural interest and is not significant, even at the local 9 Anthony Kirk, DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 3.
395
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 level.”10 This finding does not contextualize the house within its period of construction as a residence associated with a larger agricultural property, or as a particular residential property type in Mountain View.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
Page & Turnbull conducted supplementary research to illustrate the property's existing conditions and architectural style, the development of its original property and surroundings, and biographical information regarding its previous owners and occupants. The results of this research have informed Page & Turnbull's opinion regarding the significance of the property in relation to its eligibility for listing on the national, state, and local registers.

Property Description
As noted above, Kirk’s 2022 building description provides sufficient general detail, but lacks photographs of all façades of the house and associated outbuildings. The photographs in Figure 1 through Figure 11 taken by Page & Turnbull on April 21, 2022, provide additional views of the property. A few additional details regarding the property were not included in the previous evaluations. The majority of windows at the main, original portion of the residence appear to be original double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, with divided-lite upper sash at the second story.

Secondary entrances are located on the west and east façades of the rear wing, accessed by concrete steps, and at the rear of the original residence building. The latter entrance opens to a nonoriginal low wood deck. The rear wing, at the northeast side of the original residence, appears to have been originally built with an open or screened rear porch spanning its width. A small shedroofed addition with a domed skylight protrudes from its east side.

Carey & Co.’s 2007 building description states that “Four additional one-story structures associated with the greenhouse are located at the rear of the lot.”11 Kirk describes these buildings as “six outbuildings, all less than fifty-years old.”12 Page & Turnbull identified six sheds, including a mix of plywood, corrugated fiberglass, and corrugated metal construction, as well as temporary vehicle and equipment shelters (Figure 12 through Figure 16). A small wood-frame shed to the immediate south of the residence has siding matching that of the residence, and resembles an outhouse (Figure 17). None of the other five sheds appear to be contemporaneous with the residence. 10 Anthony Kirk, DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 3.
11 Carey & Co., Inc., DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue. 12 Anthony Kirk, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 3. 396
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 1. Primary facade, view east. Figure 2. Interior of porch, view east.

Figure 3. Porch window with leaded glass transom,
view southeast.

Figure 4. North and west (primary) facades, view
southeast.
397
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 5. Brick visible at foundation of north facade,
below cross-gabled portion, view southwest.

Figure 6. Rear one-story wing with double-hung and
screened windows, view southwest.

Figure 7. North and east facades, including small
shed-roofed addition to larger rear wing. View
southwest.

Figure 8. East façade, view west. Note small
outhouse-like shed to south of building, at left.
398
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 9. South facade of rear wing with double-hung
windows, east facade of original residence, wood
deck. View north.

Figure 10. South and east facades, view northwest.

Figure 11. Example of shingle details and eave returns in cross gable at south facade, view northwest. 399
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 12. Contemporary shed to east of residence,
view east.

Figure 13. Contemporary shed and vehicle shelter at
rear of property to east of residence, view east.

Figure 14. Shed at northeast corner of property, view
east.

Figure 15. Shed to north of residence, view
northwest.
400
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 16. Shed to north of residence, view
northwest.

Figure 17. Shed to south of residence, view west.
177 Ada Avenue is deeply set back on its lot relative to neighboring properties to the north and south. The neighborhood setting of the property at 177 Ada Avenue is residential in character.

Single-family homes and condominiums built between the 1980s and 1990s are arranged in groupings facing small crescents and cul-de-sacs branching to the east and west of Ada Avenue. The residential buildings are typically one and two stories in height, and display contemporary interpretations of Colonial Revival and Craftsman architectural styles.

Figure 18. Front yard of 177 Ada Avenue, view southwest toward neighboring residences. 401
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Architectural Style
While the DPR 523 forms by Carey & Co., Inc. identify the house at 177 Ada Avenue as “National Folk” and “Colonial Revival,” the subject building could most accurately be described as a vernacular residence incorporating some Greek Revival and Folk Victorian features. Residential buildings in the Greek Revival style typically include low-pitched gabled or hipped roofs with wide trim, partial or fullwidth porches supported by square or rounded columns, pedimented openings, and primary entrances with sidelites and transoms.13 While most popular for civic and residential buildings in the United States in the first half of the nineteenth century, Virginia and Lee McAlester note that Greek Revival style as expressed in the gable-front and gable-front and wing varieties of National Folk style houses remained popular in some rural areas as late as the 1930s.14 Less elaborate than the Queen Anne style with which it bears some similarity, Folk Victorian residences constructed between the 1870s and 1910s are characterized by combinations of architectural elements in often asymmetrical and varied compositions. Character-defining features may include steeply-pitched gabled, pyramidal, or cross-gabled roofs, usually with dominant frontfacing gable; asymmetrical massing; wood clapboard siding; patterned shingles, especially in gable ends; and first-story porches.

With its gabled and columned detail at the primary entrance, suggesting Colonial Revival influence, and Folk Victorian elements such as the shingled and ornamented gable ends, asymmetrical fenestration, and steep, cross-gabled roof, the house at 177 Ada Avenue combines elements of these two residential architectural styles which were popular in the decades around the turn of the twentieth century. Yet, as evident in both Carey & Co., Inc. and Kirk’s evaluations of the property, the house does not adhere strictly to a specific architectural style.

While not a full expression of a definable, formal architectural style, however, the building at 177 Ada Avenue is an example of the type of rural residence that would have been common in the agricultural properties surrounding Mountain View, and other Santa Clara County communities through the end of the nineteenth and first decade of the twentieth centuries. Review of the surveyed properties in the 2008 Citywide Survey completed by Carey & Co., Inc. and of the properties included in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources indicates that, while there are several historic homes in Mountain View dating from the 1870s through 1910, there are a relatively small number which represent the type of residential building associated with the small family-owned farms and orchards which were economically significant in Mountain View’s development. Variations of the front-gabled, two-story house originally built as part of an agricultural property appeared in 13 Virginia McAlester and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Knopf, 1995), 90-93; 179. 14 Virginia McAlester and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Knopf, 1995), 184. 402
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 images of the area’s growth as early as the 1870s, but appears today to be represented by few extant examples, such the house at 462 Sleeper Avenue, formerly listed on the Mountain View Register but voluntarily removed at the owner’s request (Figure 19 through Figure 21). With its elaborated gable ends and pedimented porch, the subject property was built with, and retains, more architectural detail than many rural family homes of its era.

Figure 19. The residence of W.H. Bubb, Mountain View,
pictured in Thompson & West's Historical Atlas Map of
Santa Clara County, 1876. Source: David Rumsey Map
Collection.

Figure 20. The Richardson Farrell Theuerkauf
House, photographed ca. 1900. Formerly located
on Stevens Road, the house was destroyed by fire
in 1976. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 21. 462 Sleeper Avenue, built ca. 1900
403
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Historic Context
Settlement of Properties on Ada Avenue
The 2007 DPR 523 Forms prepared by Carey & Co., Inc. attribute original ownership of subject property to Frederick G. Houseman based on a newspaper announcement that he had, in 1911, built a “commodious residence” on Ada Avenue and the observation that the “city directory published in 1926 lists Frederick G. Houseman as the only occupant on Ada Avenue.”15 Page & Turnbull’s research, however, identified a greater number of residents and earlier period of development for properties on Ada Avenue. The Houseman family was neither the first, nor at any point the only, household residing on Ada Avenue.

Among the first residences built on Ada Avenue in Mountain view was that of Isaac Milner, who arrived from North Dakota in 1899, and planted a prune orchard at his ten-acre Ada Avenue property. In that year, Milner planned to build a “seven-room, story and a half house and a barn,” and were occupying “the neat little cottage of Mr. Yan opposite their place” while waiting to build.16 The presence of this cottage indicates that Milner was among the first, but not the first to build on Ada Avenue. The 1900 United States Census lists Milner in Fremont Township of Santa Clara County (parts of which would later be incorporated as Mountain View); however, no street names are included in the census.

By 1910, the United States Census enumerated five families on Ada Avenue: the family of Fred G.

Houseman, a fruit farmer; the family of Graham A. Baker, a printer; Joseph P. Merrill, a eucalyptus tree farmer; and the households of Isaac Milner, a farmer and retail merchant, and his adult son Fred, a retail clothing merchant.

In 1920, eight households were enumerated on Ada Avenue, including those of five fruit growers.17 The greatest number of households recorded on Ada Avenue between 1910 and 1950 was in 1930, with 14 families, including eight fruit growers. The families residing on Ada Avenue in 1930 included adults born in the United States, Japan, England, Yugoslavia, and Switzerland.

By 1940, the residents of Ada Avenue included families headed by Japanese, Italian, and Yugoslavian immigrants. For the first time, there were no American-born heads of household listed in the census for that year on Ada Avenue.18
15 Carey & Co., Inc., DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 2. 16 San Jose Mercury News, October 30, 1899.
17 United States Census Bureau, Fourteenth Census of the United States, Population Schedules for Fremont Township, Santa Clara County, Enumeration District 132, Sheet 3A, 1920
18 United States Census Bureau, Sixteenth Census of the United States, Population Schedules for Fremont Township, Santa Clara County, Enumeration District 43, Sheet 8B, 1940.
404
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Original Ownership of 177 Ada Avenue
Census information and land records from the early 1930s conflict with Carey & Co., Inc.’s preliminary finding that the house at 177 Ada Avenue was built by Fred G. Houseman. After Houseman died in 1921, his widow, Kate, continued to live until at least April of 1930 at a property which she owned on Ada Avenue, and which was valued at $12,000.00. As of January 1930, while Kate Houseman still resided on Ada Avenue, Wasaburo Tachibana was recorded as trustee of a property on Ada Avenue which includes the subject property, a five-acre parcel referred to as Lot Number 13 in Block J of the Miramonte Subdivision. Tachibana held the land in the names of his two eldest sons, pursuant to California’s Alien Land Law of 1923. 19 In 1932, Fred R. and Leona Milner, the
son and daughter in law of Isaac Milner, who had built a house on Ada Avenue in 1899, sold the 5- acre Lot 13 of Block “J” in the Miramonte tract, to Hideo and Masao Tachibana. 20 Based on the
continued residence of the Houseman family at the time the Tachibana family moved to Ada Avenue, and that the Tachibana Family purchased the subject property from Fred R. Milner, it is most likely that the house at 177 Ada Avenue was built by the Milner family. It may be the family’s original, 1899 residence.

Japanese American Floriculture in California
Like many of their neighbors of different backgrounds and nationalities, the earliest growing operations undertaken at the subject property by the Tachibana Family focused on fruit growing. As recalled by Sei Tachibana in 1977, the family grew apricots, strawberries, and tomatoes in the years before World War II. Beginning in the 1950s, the family appears to have shifted their agricultural focus to floriculture, and by 1977 grew chrysanthemums at the Ada Avenue property.

Japanese immigrants to California began growing flowers in the San Francisco Bay Area in the last decades of the nineteenth century. It was in the San Francisco Bay Area that the state’s Japanese American cut flower industry originated with growers such as the Domoto Brothers, Yohnoshin and Kanetaro, from the Wakayama prefecture in Japan, who began their nursery in Oakland around 1885. With brothers Motonoshin and Mitsunoshin, the Domotos bought two acres of land in Oakland in 1895 and soon employed a large workforce of Japanese-born laborers. 21 In the first decades of the industry’s growth, the Bay Area’s flower producers were located in two concentrations of activity: the East Bay, including Richmond, Berkeley, and Oakland; and the San 19 Written report filed by Wasaburo Tachibana, Trustee, January 29, 1930. 20 Grant deed, Fred R. Milner and Leona Milner to Hideo Tachibana and Masao Tachibana, January 4, 1932. Records of the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder, Book 599, Page 242.
21 Noritaka Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture: A Study of Japanese Floriculture and Truck Farming in California. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, 1982), 39. 405
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Francisco Peninsula, with growers in the areas surrounding San Mateo, Belmont, Redwood City, and Mountain View. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the East Bay had nearly three dozen Japanese American-owned nurseries, most specializing in chrysanthemums, carnations, and roses.22 Redwood City had become the early center of chrysanthemum growing in the region, with the city claiming itself in 1926 to be the Chrysanthemum Center of the World, boasting more than seven million dollars in annual income from the flowers’ sale.23 In the depression years of the early 1930s, individual growers on the Peninsula experienced difficulty securing payment on their orders from shippers, who were expected to collect payment from the flowers’ purchasers. In response to these pressures, the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association was founded in Redwood City and formally incorporated on April 6, 1932. With its membership entirely consisting of Japanese American growers, the organization was one of many ethnic cooperatives in northern California’s floriculture industry established in the early decades of the twentieth century.24
After the end of World War II, when many chrysanthemum growers returned to their peninsula farms following forced relocation and internment, production of the flower resumed growth in the area. In the 1950s, Peninsula growers adopted the use of black cloth and artificial lighting to extend the blooming season of chrysanthemums, whose harvest had originally been limited to a short period in the fall.25 Greenhouse growers could harvest three times each year, using steam sterilization and fungicides to prevent root diseases as they reused growing sites.26 Site Development History
When first developed, the current, 0.4-acre subject property was part of the five-acre property referred to as “Lot number 13 in Block J” of the Miramonte subdivision (Map Book G, P 14-15, 1892) (Figure 23). While the owner and use of the subject property is not conclusively known prior to 1929, when the Tachibana family’s ownership of the subject property began, some information regarding the Tachibanas’ general use of the parcel can be understood based on aerial photographs.

The earliest available aerial photograph, dating to 1939, shows the residence and yard at its current location, with the remainder of the larger surrounding parcel subdivided into eight rectangular “fields,” likely corresponding to different crops (Figure 24). In an oral history interview recorded by 22 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 46. 23 Jagruti Patel, Japanese Americans in Redwood City: A Local History (Master of Arts Thesis, Department of History, San Jose State University, 2004), 5.
24 Brian Niiya, Japanese American History: An A-to-Z Reference from 1868 to the Present. (New York, NY: The Japanese American National Museum, 1993).
25 California Chrysanthemum Growers Association, Kiku Kumiai, Fifty Years, edited by Hiroji Kariya (Palo Alto: 1981), 9. 26 Gary Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers: The California Flower Market History. (San Francisco: California Flower Market, 1993), 72. 406
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 the Mountain View Public Library, Sei Tachibana, Wasaburo Tachibana’s wife, recalled that the family grew tomatoes and strawberries at their Mountain View property, and also operated an apricot ranch.
27 A 1949 joint tenancy deed in the records of the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder28 documents that Masao and Hideo Tachibana deeded a 125-foot by 70-foot (0.2-acre) rectangular lot at the northwest corner of their property to Kikuyo and Takashi Sugimoto, however, there is no indication in the aerial photographs or later deeds that the property was developed separately from the Tachibana’s other lands.

In 1956, a row of what appear to be greenhouses were constructed near the center of the parcel to the southeast of the residence (Figure 25). In 1965 and 1968, most of the land within the parcel outside of the residence’s yard was occupied with greenhouses and planted rows, some covered with temporary shade structures (Figure 26 and Figure 27). The difference in appearance between 1965 and 1968 indicates changing uses in different areas of the parcel, potentially corresponding to changing crops and/or seasonally-based shade needs. When Sei Tachibana was interviewed in 1977, she stated that the property was, at that time, used only for growing chrysanthemums.29 In the early 1980s, the Tachibana Nursery belonged to the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association, and was represented by Sei Tachibana, her son and daughter-in-law, Shig and June Tachibana, and sonin-law Sam Hayamizu (Figure 22). 30 The change from open crops to a mixture of open crops and greenhouses can be seen outside of the subject parcel as well, with a similar pattern of development across Ada Avenue to the west. In 1980, though the subject parcel and its neighbors facing Ada Avenue remained largely agricultural, suburban residential development bordered the rear of the subject property to the east (Figure 28).

The Tachibana’s five-acre parcel on Ada Avenue appears to have first been subdivided in March 1986 when owners Masao, Shigeru, and Hideo Tachibana filed a parcel map with the County of Santa Clara for Tract No. 7879. This parcel subdivision split the rectangular lot into two parts: an approximately one-acre lot, “Lot 2”, at the southwest corner of the parcel, which included the residence; and the remainder of the property, “Lot 1,” on which 19 detached residential buildings containing a total of 49 condominium units were constructed. In 1997, the southern portion of Tract No. 7879, Lot 2, owned by Hideo Tachibana, was subdivided as Tract No. 8968, Ada Gardens, for 27 Interview with Sei Tachibana, recorded by the Mountain View Public Library, October 10, 1977, electronic resource at https://archive.org/details/cmv_001200, accessed April 28, 2022. Interpreted from Japanese by Aisha Sawatsky. 28 Joint Tenancy Deed, from Masao Tachibana and Hideo Tachibana to Kikuyo Sugimoto and Takashi Sugimoto, October 17. 1949. Records of the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder, Book 1866, Page 598. 29 Interview with Sei Tachibana, recorded by the Mountain View Public Library, October 10, 1977, electronic resource at https://archive.org/details/cmv_001200, accessed April 28, 2022. Interpreted from Japanese by Aisha Sawatsky. 30 California Chrysanthemum Growers Association, Kiku Kumiai, Fifty Years, edited by Hiroji Kariya (Palo Alto: 1981), 33; nursery worker Sam Hayamizu married Masako Tachibana, Wasaburo and Sei Tachibana’s daughter, between 1955 and 1962. 407
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 construction of eight residential buildings facing a private road, Serena Court. The remaining 0.4- acre parcel which contains the house was, by the end of the 1990s, surrounded on three sides by condominium developments on the land which the Tachibana family and the property’s original owners grew fruit and flowers.

Figure 22. Members of the Tachibana Nursery pictured in Kiku Kumiai, ca. 1981. From left, Sam Hayamizu, Shig Tachibana, Sei Tachibana, and June Tachibana.
408
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 23. Detail of 1892 map of Miramonte Subdivision, County of Santa Clara Volume G, Page 15. Original 5-acre parcel shaded red. Source: County of Santa Clara, edited by Page & Turnbull. 409
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 24. Aerial view of subject property, 1939. Original five-acre parcel indicated by dashed line. Current parcel indicated by yellow line. Approximate footprint of house shaded yellow. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-5750, Frame 285-82. Collection of University of California, Santa Barbara Libraries, edited by Page & Turnbull.
410
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 25. Aerial view of subject property, 1956. Original five-acre parcel indicated by dashed line. Current parcel indicated by yellow line. Approximate footprint of current house shaded yellow. Source: Aero Services Corporation, Flight CIV-1956, Frame 2r-36. Collection of University of California, Santa Barbara Libraries, edited by Page & Turnbull.
411
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 26. Aerial view of subject property, 1965. Original five-acre parcel indicated by dashed line. Current parcel indicated by yellow line. Approximate footprint of house shaded yellow. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 5-111. Collection of University of California, Santa Barbara Libraries, edited by Page & Turnbull.
412
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 27. Aerial view of subject property, 1968. Original five-acre parcel indicated by dashed line. Current parcel indicated by yellow line. Approximate footprint of house shaded yellow. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight CAS-2310, Frame 1-107. Collection of University of California, Santa Barbara Libraries, edited by Page & Turnbull.
413
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 28. Aerial view of subject property, 1980. Original five-acre parcel indicated by dashed line. Current parcel indicated by yellow line. Approximate footprint of house shaded yellow. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight GS-VEZR, Frame 1-148. Collection of University of California, Santa Barbara Libraries, edited by Page & Turnbull.

Alterations to the residence itself are more difficult to discern from aerial photographs, due to the resolution of available images and the presence of large, mature trees close to the building through much of its history. The date of construction of the rear wing identified by Kirk as an addition is not known though, based on aerial photographs, it was present by at least 1964. With shingle detail matching that of the house in its east-facing gable, the wing may have been an original one-story rear wing, or may have been constructed as a cottage or accessory building at the time the house was built and later relocated to its current position. Permits on file at the City of Mountain View do not provide information regarding alterations to the property, in part because the parcel was not annexed by the City until 1981, and in part because there appear to have been few changes made to the building itself. The metal roof tiles are visibly non-original, as is the deck at the corner of the east façade of the original building and south façade of the rear wing. Second-story windows on the east, north, and south facades lack header trim, instead intersecting directly with a horizontal band of trim beneath the gable or soffit. It is unclear if this is an original condition, or if it reflects replacement of trim at some point in the building’s history. A barn set to the rear of the house, 414
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 located at the rear boundary of the current parcel, was demolished after 1980. According to Kirk, a tank house formerly located at the rear of the property was demolished in 1988.31 The location of this tank house cannot be discerned from available aerial photographs.

Occupancy History
Milner Family
Born in England in 1840, Isaac Milner moved with his family to the United States as a child, where they settled in upstate New York by 1850, and in Minnesota by 1857.32 Enlisting in the Union Army in Minnesota, Milner served between 1862 and 1866, mustering out as a Corporal. Milner married his wife, Hester, in 1867 and in 1870 lived in St. Paul, Minnesota where he worked as a “peddler.” 33 Ten
years later, the Milner family lived and farmed in Cass County in the Dakota Territory. 34 When the
Milners moved to Ada Avenue in 1899, the couple was already 59 years old, and brought with them their only child, Fred Rowntree Milner, then 20 years old, and a 25-year-old niece, Lillian Milner. Prior to 1906, Isaac and Fred Milner opened a men’s clothing and “furnishings” store, “Milner & Son,” which was destroyed by the April 1906 earthquake which devastated San Francisco.35 The father and son opened a new store on Castro Street in Mountain View in 1907 (Figure 29). The store appears to have operated until December of 1915, when Milner & Son advertised the sale of all store and office fixtures.36 Also in December 1915, Isaac Milner, then 74 years old, married Lovina Greiner of Mountain View. While operating their clothing store in Mountain View, the Milners grew apricots and prunes at their Ada Avenue property.37 Isaac Milner died at his Ada Avenue home in 1917.38 His son, Fred R. Milner and daughter in law, Leona Milner had moved to Vallejo, California by 1920.39 31 Anthony Kirk, DPR 523 Forms for 177 Ada Avenue, 3.
32 United States Census Bureau, Population Schedules for White Creek, Washington County, New York, 1850; Minnesota Territorial and State Census, Ramsey County,1857.
33 United States Census Bureau, Population Schedules for St. Paul, 4th Ward, Ramsey County, Minnesota, 1870. 34 United States Census Bureau, Population Schedules for Cass County, Dakota Territory, Enumeration District 62, Page 12, 1880.
35 “Mountain View Suffered Heavily by the Earthquake,” San Jose Mercury News, April 21, 1906. 36 Advertisement, San Jose Mercury News, December 30, 1915. 37 “Mr. Milner’s Orchard,” San Jose Mercury News, July 20, 1913. 38 “Isaac Milner Dies at Home, Mountain View,” San Jose Mercury Herald, January 17, 1917. 39 United States Census Bureau, Fourteenth Census of the United States, Population Schedules for Vallejo Township, Solano County, Enumeration District 207, Sheet 4B, 1920
415
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 29. Fred Milner at the entrance of the Milner & Son clothing store, Mountain View, ca. 1907.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Tachibana Family
In 1920, the family of Wasaburo Tachibana (born in 1902), which included his father, Motokichi (born in 1872) and mother, Ko (born in 1873), lived on University Avenue, Los Altos.40 Both Wasaburo and Motokichi worked as farm laborers. All three were born in Japan, with Motokichi coming first to the United States in 1902, followed in 1916 by Ko and Wasaburo. Wasaburo Tachibana returned to Japan in 1922, where he married Sei (born 1903) in December of that year. The couple returned to California, and by 1930 lived on Ada Avenue with five California-born children: Masao (born in 1924), Hideo (born in 1925), Kikuye (born in 1926), Shigeru (born in 1928), and Masako (born in 1930). As of 1930, the five-acre parcel which included the subject property, referred to as “Lot number 13 in Block J” of the Miramonte subdivision (Map Book G, P 14-15, 1892), was legally held in the names Hideo and Masao Tachibana, Wasaburo Tachibana’s two eldest sons (then six and four years old).

This arrangement had been necessitated by exclusionary land ownership laws, most recently the 1923 passage of the Alien Land Law (Chapter 441, Page 1020, Statutes of California). According to 40 United States Census Bureau, Fourteenth Census of the United States, Population Schedules for Fremont Township, Santa Clara County, Enumeration District 125, Sheet 7B, 1920. 416
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]

PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 the documentation of ownership, which was filed annually, the property was acquired by the Tachibana family on August 9, 1929.

As of 1940, the Tachibana family operated a berry farm at their Ada Avenue property. The household still consisted of Wasaburo and Sei Tachibana, their five children between the ages of 16 and 10, and Wasaburo’s parents, Motokichi and Ko Tachibana.41 Following passage of Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, the Tachibana family faced mandatory relocation and internment. Sei, the five Tachibana children, and Wasaburo’s parents, Motokichi and Ko, were held at the Santa Anita Assembly Center from approximately June until September 1942, after which they were interned at the Heart Mountain, Wyoming relocation center, at the address 30-19-C, until 1945. Wasaburo Tachibana was held at a detention camp in Santa Fe, New Mexico until he was transferred to Heart Mountain in December 1943. During their time at the camp, the Tachibana family published announcements in the camp’s newsletter, the Heart Mountain Sentinel, thanking neighbors for the send-offs given for their sons Hideo and Masao as they each departed for active service in the United States Army. 42 By 1950, most of the Tachibana family had returned to their property at 177 Ada Avenue and resumed farming. Wasaburo Tachibana helped found the Mountain View Buddhist Association in 1954, which helped provide a post-war organizational and cultural focus for some Japanese American residents of Mountain View.43 Masao (“Mas”) Tachibana, the eldest son of Wasaburo and Sei Tachibana, moved to Santa Cruz in the 1950s, where he contributed to the establishment of a flower nursery. Mas Tachibana was a partner in Sakae Brothers nursery, which grew carnations in Capitola and La Selva Beach. This nursery opened in 1955 when “smog became a problem” at the Sakae Brothers’ Mountain View nursery, which was located near the intersection of Alviso Road South and Whisman Avenue, not far to the southeast of the subject property. 44 Between 1962 and
1968, nursery worker Sam Hayamizu and the Tachibana Nursery were listed in Mountain View city directories at 177 Ada Avenue. Shig Tachibana, who had taken over ownership of the family’s nursery, lived across the street at 172 Ada Avenue.45
41 United States Census Bureau, Sixteenth Census of the United States, Population Schedules for Fremont Township, Santa Clara County, Enumeration District 43, Sheet 8B, 1940.
42 Heart Mountain Sentinel, August 5, 1944; April 7, 1945. 43 Mountain View Buddhist Temple, “Our History,” electronic resource at https://mvbuddhisttemple.org/about-mvbt/ourhistory/, accessed May 8, 2022. 44 Margaret Koch, “Cut-Flower Grower’s Life is Far From Being Bed of Roses,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 17, 1961; Mountain View City Directory, 1964.
45 As of a 1964 survey map filed with the County of Santa Clara for a Portion of Block “N” of the Miramonte Subdivision in Mountain View, Shigeru Tachibana owned a one-acre parcel at 172 Ada Avenue, across the road to the west of the subject property. The parcel was subdivided for condominiums in 1989 as Lot 1 of Tract No. 8242. The ownership and development history of this property has not been researched further as part of this peer review. 417
DRAFT
177 Ada Avenue, Mountain View, Peer Review Memorandum [22036]