Agenda packet — Mountain View City Council, September 22, 2026 (part 6 of 7)

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
Other alterations include the installation of solar panels to the roof of the detached garage, and possibly the replacement of hung windows at the front of the building. The garage appears to be a later addition, or altered.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.

While the property does not rise to the level of significance for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is listed on the local Mountain View Register. The property remains eligible for listing in the Mountain View Register under Criterion c as a rare example of the English Cottage style by a local builder, with a period of significance of 1928, the year of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Jerkinhead roof with rounded edges
Arched, recessed entryway
Brick chimney with rounded edges
Stucco siding
Fenestration pattern
Tri-partite picture window with shaped surround on the primary facade Cast plaster facade ornamentation
Lunnette window at the gable end.

Continuation of B12. References:
“Instruments on File: Santa Clara County.” Daily Palo Alto Times, May 15, 1928.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

United States Federal Census (1930). Accessed online June 2024, Ancestry.com.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
772
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 562 PETTIS AV City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1832 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15424030 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Vernacular Bungalow Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Fixed, Double-Hung Window Material: Vinyl Porch: Partial Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Turned wood balustrade at central, partial-width porch; wood lattice vent in gable end. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1925; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

GAUTHRON CHRISTOPHE AND PURNIMA, 562
PETTIS AVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
773
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 562 PETTIS AV
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular Bungalow
*B6. Construction History: 562 Pettis was built in 1925. The property first appears on the 1943 Sanborn map, which shows the residence with a square footprint, central front porch, and rear porch aligned to the left (south) corner of the building.

Seventh-day Adventist families who moved to the area with the business built their homes in the blocks along Mariposa Street, Pettis Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue, and Mountain View Avenue. According to historian Nick Perry, about 100 Seventh-Day Adventist families moved to Mountain View along with the Pacific Press Association, establishing an industrial enterprise in a town that previously had a population of around 600 and whose economy was based on agriculture. In subsequent decades, members of the Seventh-day Adventist community established to the southwest of the Pacific Press Association built local institutions such as the Mountain View Academy high school, established in 1922, and became active in local politics. By the start of World War II, the neighborhood consisted of dense residential blocks interspersed with patches of orchards remaining from its previous agricultural use. The publishing plant remained in operation in Mountain View until 1984.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. Property has an active Mills Act contract.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
774
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
Aerial photographs show that a two-story addition was added to the rear facade around the 1990s. Several alterations were made at an unknown date, including: the replacement of the original front door, the replacement of original double-hung and fixed wood sash windows with simulated divided lite vinyl sashes, the installation of a garden kitchen window, and the replacement of the original porch flooring with tile pavers. A detached garage is set back at the northern side of the property and appears to be a later addition or altered.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria. It is not associated with persons, events, or broad patterns important to local, California, or national history, nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. The property has not been identified as the work of a notable architect or builder and does not possess high artistic merit. While the property does not rise to the level of significance for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is currently listed in the Mountain View Register. 562 Pettis Avenue retains eligibility for the Mountain View Register under Criterion c (Design) as a good local example of a small vernacular bungalow with Craftsman influences, built during a period of increased housing development for local employees of the Pacific Press Association. Due to exterior alterations including the replacement of wood sash double-hung windows with incompatible vinyl multi-lite windows, along with the installation of a garden window and an incompatible front door, the property does not retain sufficient historic integrity for listing in the National Register or California Register. As currently written, the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance does not provide a definition of historic integrity or threshold for integrity assessment, and a somewhat lower threshold of historic integrity compared to National Register and California Register-eligible properties may be utilized in assessing properties of local significance for the Mountain View Register. The two-story rear addition is setback such that the overall form and massing of the original bungalow remains legible, and enough original materials and features are intact to convey the bungalow design. As such, the property retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its local significance for Mountain View Register eligibility. The period of significance is 1925, the year of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Low-pitched gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed beam ends Wood lattice vent in the gable end
Partial-width central porch with simple square columns and turned-spindle balustrade Horizontal wood clapboard siding
Flat wood window surrounds.

Continuation of B12. References:

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

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online October 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Perry, Nicholas. "Mountain View." Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2006.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
775
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 604 PETTIS AV City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1834 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15431048 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Drop/Groove Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Engaged, Full Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Paired, square columns support engaged, full-width front porch with removable sunshades; wood knee brace brackets at the gable ends.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1888-1900; "Now and Then: Exploring Mountain
View’s Architectural Heritage," 1979
*P7. Owner and Address:

KOELLER GILBERT C AND JANET M, 604 PETTIS
AVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
776
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 604 PETTIS AV
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk
*B6. Construction History: The exact date of construction of 604 Pettis is unknown; however, the parcel was recorded ca.1888 as part of the Snow and Pettis Addition and based on the architectural style, the date of construction can be estimated to this period of the late 19th century. The property appears on the 1921 Sanborn insurance map with a rectangular plan footprint with full-width porch and two rear ancillary buildings, including a barn in the northwestern corner of the parcel.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

Property was previously listed on the Mountain View Register, but was later voluntarily removed from the Register by the property owner. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
777
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
In 1990, a new concrete foundation was poured. The two rear auxiliary buildings were eventually replaced by a garage sometime after 1956.

No further exterior alterations were noted from visual inspection.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
604 Pettis Avenue appears eligible for the National Register and California Register under Criterion C/3 and as an early surviving National Folk style single-family residence built during a period of early residential expansion. The residence includes distinctive features of the style, including the simple form, lack of added ornamentation, and engaged (recessed) porch. The symmetrical facade arrangement and prominent porch columns subtly evoke Colonial Revival influences in this vernacular National Folk building. No major exterior alterations were identified; therefore the property retains sufficient overall historic integrity for listing in the National Register and California Register. The period of significance is ca.1888-1900, the estimated period of construction. This evaluation does not address Mountain View Register eligibility.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Engaged, full-width front porch
Paired, square porch columns
Side-gable roof with knee brace brackets
Wide tongue and groove horizontal wood siding
Fenestration pattern, including one-over-one double-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs and flat wood surrounds.

Continuation of B12. References:

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

City of Mountain View Planning Department, "Now and Then: Exploring Mountain View's Architectural Heritage." City of Mountain View, April 1979.

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

Perry, Nicholas. "Mountain View." Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2006.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
778
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 771 N RENGSTORFF AV City: Mountain View Zip: 94043-2411 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15304028 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Vernacular Bungalow Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Wood Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Drop/Groove Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Full Width Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Simple two-room building with and exterior doors on each end of the building. Building is set on a platform that provides ADA-compliant access around three sides. A large metal windmill is located next to the building. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

August 17, 2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1888; Mountain View Register
*P7. Owner and Address:

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, 500 CASTRO ST,
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
779
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # IMMIGRANT HOUSE
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name: Immigrant House
B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Museum *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular Bungalow
*B6. Construction History: The Immigrant House was built sometime in the 1880s before 1888. In 2013, the building was moved from its original location in 166 Bryant Street and temporarily stored at the City of Mountain View maintenance yard. It was moved again in 2016 to its current location at 771 N Rengstorff Avenue within Mountain View's Heritage Park.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? No ✓ Yes Unknown Date: 2013; 2016 Original Location: 166 Bryant Street *B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme:

Agricultural & Industrial Development
(1851-1909)
Area: Mountain View
Period of Significance: ca.1888 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: A/1 (Events),
C/3 (Design)
Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion b (Events), MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:
771 N Rengstorff Avenue is a two-room vernacular building originally located just a block west of Castro Street and relocated to Heritage Park in 2016. The building is associated with the theme of Agricultural & Industrial Development (1851-1909) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The subject building, known as "Immigrant House," was built in the 1880s as a vernacular cottage to provide housing for migrant agricultural workers and laborers within Mountain View's early orchard industry. The front room served as a bedroom and the rear room as a kitchen. As was typical of the construction methods of the period, the building has board-and-batten single-wall construction with wallpaper directly on the interior sides of the walls.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
780
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
Documentation of previous alterations was not found during the course of research. However, sections of siding, roofing, and doors appear to have been repaired and/or replaced in-kind to match historic features. When the building was relocated to its current location, the accessible ramp and platform were built.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
771 N Rengstorff Avenue is currently listed on the Mountain View Register and is eligible for the National Register and California Register under Criterion A/1/b (Events) for its association with Mountain View's early agricultural industry and history of multi-cultural immigration, and under Criterion C/3/c (Design) as a rare surviving local example of 19th-century vernacular housing built for agricultural workers using board-and-batten single-wall construction. The property was moved from its original location just a block from Castro Street. Despite the loss of integrity of location and setting due to relocation, the building retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The building still can convey its significance as a rare extant example of a 19th-century methods of construction, and its association with Mountain View's immigrant population. As such, the property retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its local significance for eligibility on all three registers. The period of significance is ca.1888, the estimated time of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing as a two-room building
Gable roof with wood shingles
Single-wall construction
Board-and-batten and drop wood siding
Original fenestration pattern and doors at either end
Two-over-two double-hung wood-sash windows.

Continuation of B12. References:

Craig Baker. “Immigrant House.” Historical Marker Database (blog), October 10, 2021. https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=183435.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
781
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

Architectural Style: Not Applicable Plan Shape: N/A
Construction Type: Steel Frame Number of Stories: N/A
Roof Style: N/A Roof Material: N/A
Exterior Material: N/A Primary Door Material: N/A
Window Style: N/A Window Material: N/A
Porch: N/A Garage: N/A
Other Architectural/Site Features: The Star Steel Windmill has a 30-foot steel tower with an eight-foot-diameter mill. Painted letters on the rudder read "FLINT & WALLING MFG CO KENDALLVILLE IND USA." *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP11. Engineering structure
*P4. Resources Present: Building ✓ Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

August 17, 2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1936; Interpretive Panel On-Site
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
782
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # STEEL STAR WINDMILL
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name: Steel Star Windmill
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Interpretive *B5. Architectural Style: Not Applicable
*B6. Construction History: Constructed and installed in 1936. In use until the 1970s to pump water. Relocated in 2016 to Heritage Park (771 N. Rengstorff Ave).
*B7. Moved? No ✓ Yes Unknown Date: 2016 Original Location: 944 San Leandro Avenue *B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: None b. Builder: None
*B10. Significance: Theme:

Agricultural & Industrial Development
(1910-1944)
Area: Mountain View
Period of Significance: 1936 Property Type: Agricultural Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion b (Events) Statement of Significance:

The windmill is associated with the theme of Agricultural Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The Steel Star Windmill was installed in 1936 by German immigrants Karl and Emilie Gabler behind their residence at 944 San Leandro Avenue, where it was used to pump water for the house and a small orchard of over 60 fruit trees. Purchased from Geo. W. Sohler & Son Company at 500 California Street, the windmill was manufactured by the Flint & Walling Manufacturing company of Kendallville, Indiana.

The windmill functioned with a pump rod that pump installed at the bottom of a well, 30 feet below the surface. The windmill was used until the late 1970s, when the property was connected to the municipal water service.

The windmill does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria. While the structure does not rise to the level of significance or historic integrity for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it does appear to be eligible for listing in the Mountain View Register under Criterion a for association with the city's agricultural past. It is a rare extant example of a steel windmill in Mountain View--such windmills were once a common feature of Mountain View.

Despite relocation and loss of integrity of location and setting, including the associated pump rod, the windmill retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeing. The structure retains sufficient historic integrity for listing in the Mountain View Register.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Steel frame tower
Steel blade mill
Steel rudder with painted lettering.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
783
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B12. References:
"Steel Star Windmill." The Historical Marker Database. Accessed online December 2024, https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=183428.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
784
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 987 N RENGSTORFF AV City: Mountain View Zip: 94043-1713 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15302041 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Vernacular Plan Shape: Irregular
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Flat, Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle, Built Up Roof/Tar and Gravel Exterior Material: Wood - Drop/Groove Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: None Garage: Carport
Other Architectural/Site Features: Complex composed of several connected buildings with a mix of flat and low gable roofs. Building is primarily one story with a rear two-story portion that has a painted sign reading "Ambra Olive Oil." A round water tank is located on the roof.

Italian cypress trees line the property along Rengstorff Avenue. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP8. Industrial building
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1926-1930; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

AMBRA MARIO L, 987 N RENGSTORFF AVE,
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94043
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
785
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 987 N RENGSTORFF AV
B1. Historic Name: Ambra Olive Oil Company Building
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Industrial B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The property at 987 N Rengstorff is a complex of connected buildings constructed from ca. 1926- 1930.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Water tank, Italian cypress trees B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agricultural & Industrial Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View
Period of Significance: ca.1926-1953 Property Type: Industrial Applicable NR/CR Criteria: A/1 (Events), B/2 (Persons)
Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion a (Persons), MVRHR Criterion b (Events) Statement of Significance:
987 N. Rengstorff Avenue is a former residence and olive oil processing facility located in northwest Mountain View, associated with the theme of Agricultural & Industrial Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. Around 1926, Mario Ambra (1887–1968) founded the Ambra Olive Oil Company in Mountain View and began operating the business from his residence at 987 N. Rengstorff Avenue, which later expanded over time as a processing facility. A native of Pachino, Italy, Ambra immigrated to the United States in 1906 and settled in Mountain View with his wife, Rosaria (1890–1981), by the 1920s. Ambra was a carpenter and likely the builder of the complex (however this could not be confirmed during the course of research). Ambra had one of the largest olive orchards in Mountain View and brought his olives to the facility at 987 N. Regstorff Avenue for processing into olive oil. Following Ambra's retirement in 1953, his son Concetto took over operations, and his grandson, also named Mario Ambra, went on to be mayor of Mountain View. The factory has been continuously family-owned and operated since ca.1926, however, it no longer produces olive oil and instead manufactures other food items.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

Property was previously listed on the Mountain View Register, but was later voluntarily removed from the Register by the property owner. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
786
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
A fire took place at the factory in 1997, however, the extent of the damage and any subsequent alterations are not known. Several windows on the rear east facade appear to have been replaced with metal or vinyl sash at an unknown date. Many original features including wood sash windows with ogee lugs, shiplap siding, and water tower are extant and the main building complex appears much as it did in a 1995 photograph, prior to the fire. Ancillary buildings on the site, now addressed 925 and 927 N Rengstorff Avenue appear in a 1948 aerial. A smaller metal storage building west of the main building complex was built at an unknown date prior to 1995.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The former Ambra Olive Oil Factory at 987 N Rengstorff Avenue appears eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register under Criteria A/1/b (Events) as a rare surviving agricultural property associated with the primary period of growth in the canning and packing industries in Mountain View; and under Criterion B/2/a (Persons) for its association with the Ambra family, who were prominent members of the community and significant for their contributions to the agricultural industry in Mountain View. The building complex has a vernacular style which is typical for an industrial building of the era, but is not distinctive of a particular architectural style or construction method for eligibility under Criterion C/3/c (Architecture). While some alterations were likely made following damage from a fire in 1997, the property continues to convey its original use as an agricultural facility and retains its overall form and most original elements including wood sash windows, shiplap siding, and the tank house. Therefore, the property retains sufficient historic integrity necessary for all three registers. The period of significance is ca.1926 to 1953, beginning with the approximate year of the factory's opening through Mario Ambra's retirement.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Complex form and multi-story massing
Flat and gabled roofs with overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails Shiplap horizontal wood siding
One-over-one original wood sash windows with ogee lugs
Round water tank
Painted "Ambra Olive Oil" sign
Ancillary buildings built during period of significance (addressed 925 and 927 N. Rengstorff Ave.) Continuation of B12. References:

Ambra Olive Oil Co. 1995. Photograph. California Revealed from Mountain View Public Library. https://californiarevealed.org/do/f28adc3f-b3a1-4031-a51e-bb60dfe2c232#page/1 Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online September 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
787
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 3070 N SHORELINE BL City: Mountain View Zip: 94043 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 11604007 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Italianate Plan Shape: Rectangle with rear L-shaped wing Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Hipped with centered gable Roof Material: Wood Shingle Exterior Material: Wood - Drop/Groove Primary Door Material: Wood - Panel Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Portico Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Symmetrical facade includes bay windows at first story with balconies above and a balcony above the portico. Segmental-arched and rectangular double-hung windows with hooded, pedimented, and segmental-pediment crowns. Ornamental wood details include molded lintels and carved wood brackets at the cornice. Flat portion at the center of the hipped roof has a wood balustrade widow walk flanked by two interior brick chimneys. The two-story rear wing has a hipped roof with a hipped eave at the first story, and a third interior brick chimney. Tank house and windmill at the rear of the property have been reconstructed. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1867; National Register of Historic Places,
Nomination Form
*P7. Owner and Address:

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, 500 CASTRO ST,
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
788
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 3070 N SHORELINE BL
B1. Historic Name: Rengstorff House
B2. Common Name: Rengstorff House
B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Municipal Park *B5. Architectural Style: Italianate
*B6. Construction History: The property was built ca.1867 by Henry Rengstorff on a site located at 1737 Stierlin Road. A foundation was added to the building in 1906, along with several other unrecorded alterations. The rear and side porches were enclosed, likely during the 1950s from visual analysis of materials and style. From the 1950s through the 1980s, the property fell into disrepair and many elements of the exterior were destroyed or removed as a result of vandalism and vacancy. Most windows, and balustrades, along with posts at the entry portico, the widow's walk, chimneys, and sections of wood siding along the rear, were removed or damaged during this time.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? No ✓ Yes Unknown Date: ca.1979-1980; 1986 Original Location: 1737 Stierlin Road *B8. Related Features: Tank house (reconstructed); windmill (reconstructed).

B9a. Architect: None b. Builder: Henry Rengstorff
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1851-1909) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1867-1906 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: B/2 (Persons),
C/3 (Design)
Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion a (Persons), MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The Rengstorff House is an institutional building designed in the Italianate style located in Mountain View's Shoreline Park, that is associated with the theme of Residential Development (1851-1909) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The Rengstorff House was constructed ca.1867 by Henry Rengstorff, a prominent businessman who operated a ferry between San Francisco and Mountain View. The property is one of the earliest known extant examples of the Italianate style on the West Coast, and the oldest extant building in Mountain View. The property was moved in the 1980s to its current location in Shoreline Park from a previous site on 1737 Stierlin Road.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed in the Mountain View Register, California Register, and National Register.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
789
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
In 1978, the property was purchased by the City of Mountain View and efforts to restore and relocate the property were initiated. The building was moved twice in the following decades: in the vicinity of Shoreline Park ca.1979-1980, and again to its current location in Shoreline Park in 1986. Damaged and missing features and materials on the house were repaired or replaced. Additionally, the deteriorated tank house and windmill were reconstructed on the new site. The rehabilitated Rengstorff House was dedicated in 1991. The property is currently used as a house museum and event space.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The Rengstorff House is currently listed on the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register. The National Register nomination was prepared using an older nomination format and does not explicitly call out significance criteria or a period of significance.

However, based on review of the nomination form and other archival sources, the property appears to be eligible under Criteria B/2/a (Persons) for its significance as the original home of Henry Rengstorff, one of Mountain View and Santa Clara County's most important early pioneers and businessmen; and under Criteria C/3/c (Design) as an excellent, rare example of local Italianate architecture. Despite relocation, the property continues to retain historic integrity and eligibility for the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register with a period of significance of 1867, the approximate year of construction, through 1906, the year of Henry Rengstorff's death.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Overall fenestration pattern, including symmetrical fenestration at the primary facade Hipped roof with centered gable, eave returns, and flat central widow's walk Bracketed cornice
Double-hung wood windows
Wood entrance door with transom
Entry portico with paired sets of chamfered square wood columns Matching one-story bay windows
Pointed and segmental wood window pediments and wood window surrounds Clapboard siding with quoining
Balconies with balustrades
Interior brick chimneys
Rear L-shaped wing with hipped roof and hipped eave at first story Reconstructed tank house and windmill.

Continuation of B12. References:

Ken Alsman, Marlene Sarnat, Phyllis Butler, Emily Lyon, and John Carlson. “Henry A. Rengstorff House.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. National Park Service, June 13, 1978.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
790
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 472 S SHORELINE BL City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1928 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15425052 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk Plan Shape: Irregular Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Drop/Groove, Wood - Shingle Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Bay Window, Casement, Hung Window Material: Wood Porch: Partial Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Flared gable eave on one side of projecting front bay; decorative wood brackets at turned wood porch posts; exterior brick chimney; wood shingles (scalloped and straight) in gable ends. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1910; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

STAFFORD DIANE E AND ROBERT K, 472 S
SHORELINE BLVD, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
791
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 472 S SHORELINE BL
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk
*B6. Construction History: 472 S Shoreline Boulevard was built in 1910. It first appears on the 1921 Sanborn Insurance map, which shows the original building footprint with an L-shaped front porch, an open rear porch, as well as a rear ancillary building and a water tank house.

The residence was part of the larger pattern of residential development in surrounding blocks spurred by the need to house employees of the Pacific Press Association, whose printing facility was located nearby at 1340 Villa Street. The neighborhood now referred to as "Shoreline West" grew as a residential area at what was then the west edge of Mountain View following the 1904 relocation of the Seventh-day Adventist publisher, the Pacific Press publishing company from Oakland, where it was established in 1874. Some 100 Seventh-day Adventist families moved to the area with the business, building their homes in the blocks along Mariposa Street, Pettis Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue, and Mountain View Avenue. The Pacific Press Association established an industrial enterprise in a town which previously had a population of around 600 and whose economy was based in agriculture. In subsequent decades, members of the Seventh-day Adventist community also built local institutions such as the Mountain View Academy high school, established in 1922, and became active in local politics. By the start of World War II, the neighborhood consisted of dense residential blocks interspersed with patches of orchards remaining from its previous agricultural use. The publishing plant remained in operation in Mountain View until 1984, when operations relocated to Idaho and the site was redeveloped.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
792
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
By 1943, the water tank house was removed, and a small detached garage was constructed. From visual analysis, several alterations and additions were noted including removal of part of the L-shaped front porch, installation of a bay window at the primary facade, and two one-story hipped roof additions to the rear facade. The windows appear to have been replaced in-kind.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
472 S Shoreline Boulevard is currently listed in the Mountain View Register and retains eligibility for listing under Criterion c as a surviving and rare local example of an early 20th-century transitional Folk Victorian cottage. Due to the removal of part of the original front porch, installation of a bay window, and two additions to the rear facade, the property does not retain sufficient historic integrity for listing in the National Register and/or California Register. As currently written, the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance does not provide a definition of historic integrity or threshold for integrity assessment, and a somewhat lower threshold of historic integrity compared to National Register and California Register-eligible properties may be utilized in assessing properties of local significance for the Mountain View Register. The residence retains its original roofline and enough of its original design and materials to sufficiently convey its local significance for Mountain View Register eligibility. The period of significance is 1910, the year of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing (excluding rear additions)
Flared gable eave on the projecting front bay
Decorative wood brackets at turned wood porch posts
Horizontal tongue and groove wood siding
Wood shingle siding (scalloped and straight) in gable ends Multi-lite wood sash windows.

Continuation of B12. References:

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

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online September 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Perry, Nicholas. "Mountain View." Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2006.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1904, 1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
793
DRAFT

Page 1 of 6 ends

P1. Other Identifier:

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2.Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 462 Sleeper Avenue City: Mountain View Zip: 94040 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number 197-37-026 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk
Construction Tyle: Wood Frame
Roof Style: Gable
Exterior Material: Wood – Drop/Grove
Window Style: Double Hung, Casement
Porch: Wraparound with Hip Roof
Plan Shape: Rectangular
Number of Stories: 2.5
Roof Material: Asphalt Shingle
Primary Door Material: Wood
Window Material: Wood
Garage: Detached Rear Carport
Other Architectural/Site Features: Gabled dormer on west roof slope, stickwork on primary roof gable-end.

Alterations: It appears that the east portion of the wraparound porch and a rear porch have been enclosed. On the primary (south) façade, a second entry door with transom has been added, indicative of internal subdivision for use as a multi-family residential dwelling.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single Family Property
*P4.Resources Present:  Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: Primary
façade, looking northwest. June 5,
2023.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age, Source:

Historic Prehistoric Both
Circa 1900; City of Mountain View
Historic Resources List
*P7. Owner and Address:

Anthony Wills
PO Box 4891
Mountain View, CA 94040
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane,
5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

September 21, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: City of
Mountain View, Register of Historic
Resources (March 13, 2002).
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):

P5a. Photograph
794
DRAFT

Page 2 of 6 ends

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
Sketch Map – Property Boundary
B1. Historic Name: 462 Sleeper Avenue
B2. Common Name: 462 Sleeper Avenue
B3. Original Use: Residential – Single-family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-family *B5. Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk
*B6. Construction History: It appears that the east portion of the wraparound porch (wrapping the primary/south and east façades) and a rear porch were enclosed at an unknown date. A detached rear carport is located near the north property boundary, fronting Sunnyview Lane, and it is unclear if this structure is original to the construction of the farmhouse or was constructed at a later date.
*B7. Moved? ☒No ☐Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development, Agriculture Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1900 Property Type: Residential – Single-Family Applicable Criteria: None Mountain View HCS Era of Development: Early Twentieth Century (1900-1928) Statement of Significance:

The residence at 462 Sleeper Avenue was built circa 1900 at the end of the Late American Period/Period of Horticultural Development for the Santa Clara Valley (1870-1900). At this time, orchards dominated much of the landscape within the Mountain View vicinity (Figure 1). Aerial photographs from the 1930s and 1940s suggest the orchard associated with 462 Sleeper Avenue was likely a smaller family operation (non-commercial). These aerial images also show various outbuildings within the orchard parcel. The subject property’s proximity to Stevens Creek (to the east) suggests this water source may have been utilized for irrigation.

While the original architect or builder are unknown, the two-and-a-half-story, wood-framed Folk Victorian farmhouse has a rectangular plan and a gable roof clad in non-historic asphalt shingles with simple stickwork at the gable end. An altered wraparound porch sits under a hipped roof, also clad in non-historic asphalt shingles, supported by square wood posts. Like many of the early residences in Mountain View, 462 Sleeper Avenue has a rural character, given its agricultural setting during the period of its construction, and is a more vernacular expression of the Victorian era and Classical styles that were popular at the time. (See Continuation Sheet.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: None
*B12. References: See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator: Maggie Nicholson, Page & Turnbull
170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: September 21, 2023
795
DRAFT

Page 3 of 6 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date September 21, 2023 ☒ Continuation ☐ Update DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The original owners and/or residents of 462 Sleeper Avenue are unknown. However, Robert W. Lambert appears to be the owner from at least 1949 to 1968 with various tenants residing there during this time. Tenants include Mrs. Orell Watt and her daughter Carolyn Blanchett in 1957, Fred F. Closson in 1962, the Johnson family (Mr. and Mrs. Ray E. Johnson and a daughter) in 1963, L.H. Allen in 1964, Terry A. Gale in 1966, the Cavanah family (Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Cavanah and a son) in 1967, Robbie Lambert in 1968, and the Ralston family in 1970. The property is currently owned by Antony Wills.

While fruit production in the Santa Clara Valley peaked in the 1920s, it continued as a dominant industry and land use pattern in Mountain View until the early 1950s. As seen in Figure 2, the majority of the land area surrounding the subject property was planted with orchards with minimal development. As the technology and defense industries grew in the Santa Clara Valley following World War II, orchard lands were often sold off and subdivided for tract housing to accommodate the booming population. The subject property abutted the Sunnydale Tract (Tract No. 352) on its west boundary, which was subdivided in July 1946 to create 20 residential lots accessed by the newly created Carol Avenue. The Tripiano Tract (Tract No. 602) bordered the subject property on its north and east boundaries, which was subdivided in March 1949 to create 13 residential lots accessed by the newly created Sunnyview Lane (Figure 3). Today, the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood of Mountain View, of which the subject property now belongs, is predominately comprised of modest Midcentury tract housing.

Figure 1: Detail of an 1876 Thompson & West map edited to show the two nodes of Mountain View development, Old Mountain View (center) and New Mountain View (upper left) with the approximate location of the subject property marked with a red star. Source: Thompson & West via David Rumsey Map Collection.

Edited by Page & Turnbull.
796
DRAFT

Page 4 of 6 ends

CONTINUATION SHEET
Figure 2: Aerial photo with the subject property outlined in red, 1948. Source: California Division of Forestry. Flight CDF5, Frame 2-81, 1948. Courtesy of UCSB Library
Geospatial Collection. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Figure 3: Aerial photo with the subject property outlined in red, 1965. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys. Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 5-73, 1965. Courtesy of UCSB Library Geospatial Collection. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Folk Victorian/National Folk Style
Many of the early residences in Mountain View, generally constructed between the 1850s and 1910s, have a rural character, given the agricultural setting of the period, and are more vernacular expressions of the Victorian era and Classical styles that were popular at the time. These single-family residences, often farmhouses with ancillary outbuildings associated with the agricultural operations of the property, are loosely grouped under the heading of Folk Victorian or National Folk. Examples of the Folk Victorian in Mountain View include vernacular interpretations applied to residential homes and farmsteads and may include decorative or stylistic references to other architectural styles such revival styles. In the case of 462 Sleeper Avenue, its Folk Victorian style is attributed to the following character-defining features. • Two-stories in height
• Wood construction with wood siding
• Front-gable roof
• Gable-end stickwork
• Boxed eaves
• Front porch with square posts
• Simple, Victorian detailing
• Half-lite wood paneled entry door
• Wood-frame, multi-lite double-hung and casement windows.

Sleeper Avenue Sleeper AvenueCarol Avenue Carol Avenue
Sunnyview Lane
797
DRAFT

Page 5 of 6 ends

CONTINUATION SHEET
Evaluation
While the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register, it appears to rise to the level of significance necessary to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events). Based on aerial photographs, the residence at 462 Sleeper Avenue was originally part of a larger rectangular parcel predominately comprised of an orchard. The original parcel was organized as a typical homestead in which a modest residence was located close to the road frontage (Sleeper Avenue) with the farmable land stretching behind the house. When orchards were removed in the post-agricultural period (1949 in the case of the subject property), the lands were typically subdivided for residential development, and the original farmhouse and its reduced lot size became part of the fabric of the newly constructed surrounding suburb.

The subject property perfectly exhibits this evolution, which was seen across the Santa Clara Valley. The orchard at 462 Sleeper Avenue would have contributed to the horticultural economy that made the Santa Clara Valley renowned as the “Valley of Heart’s Delight.” Though the property does not appear to be associated with any singular event or person of local, California, or national significance, the extant farmhouse is a rare remnant from Mountain View’s agrarian past and serves as a visual reminder of the once vast orchard-row patterns of that once shaped the Santa Clara Valley landscape.

The subject property also appears eligible for the local Mountain View Register under Criterion B (Events) for its association with the city’s broad patterns of early horticulture, specifically orchards. Originally located far outside the urban center of early twentieth century Mountain View, family-operated orchards were common in the outlying areas and utilized the industries (canning and drying facilities) and transportation services (rail transport) of the nearest downtown area to sell and ship their produce. As one of the few remaining horticultural-related residences, it also appears eligible for the local Mountain View Register under Criterion C (Architecture). While the original architect or builder are unknown, the modest farmhouse is an exemplary local example of the Folk Victorian/National Folk style from the early twentieth century and appears to be in fair condition.
798
DRAFT

Page 6 of 6 ends

CONTINUATION SHEET
Continuation of B12. References:
• Archives & Architecture, LLC. “County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement” (Revised February 2012). Accessed online September 13, 2023,
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/HHP_201202_Historic_Context.pdf. • Mountain View city directories, accessed via Ancestry.com. • Page & Turnbull, “City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement (Public Review Draft),” June 2, 2023.
• Peninsula Times-Tribue, “Area Births,” April 17, 1963, accessed via Newspapers.com. • Peninsula Times-Tribue, “Area Births,” December 20, 1967, accessed via Newspapers.com. • Peninsula Times-Tribue, “Area boy hurt in freak fall,” July 25, 1961, accessed via Newspapers.com. • Peninsula Times-Tribune, “Hit-run mob battle police at Stanford; windows broken,” May 1, 1970, accessed via Newspapers.com.
• Peninsula Times-Tribue, “Miss M.V. Crowned by Mayor,” August 1, 1957, accessed via Newspapers.com.
• Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). • Santa Clara County Office of the Recorder, “Tract No. 602: Tripiano Tract” (map), March 7, 1949. • Santa Clara County Office of the Recorder, “Tract No. 352: Sunnydale Tract” (map), July 1946. • UCSB Library Geospatial Collection, “FrameFinder” Aerial Photographs. o Aero Services Corporation, Flight CIV-1956, Frame 839, 1956. o California Division of Forestry, Flight CDF5, Frame 435, 1948. o Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 7-73, 1965. • US City Directory. “Mountain View, California,” 1962, 1964, 1966, and 1968. Accessed online September 13, 2023, www.ancestry.com.
799
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 1247 SPRINGER RD City: Mountain View Zip: 94040-2955 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 18958005 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Prairie Plan Shape: Irregular
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Flat Roof Material: Not Visible
Exterior Material: Stucco Primary Door Material: Wood
Window Style: Casement, Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Recessed Entrance Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Flat eaves at first and second stories and flat parapet at second story. Irregular, rectilinear footprint is comprised of two rectangular volumes at the first story and an approximately T-shaped second story. The residence, located on a flag lot, is deeply set back from Springer Road. Detached rear ancillary building may be a converted garage. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1920; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

SMITH IAN O AND WITT LESLIE R TRUSTEE, 1247
SPRINGER RD, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
800
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 1247 SPRINGER RD
B1. Historic Name: Walter House
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Prairie
*B6. Construction History: The primary building and ancillary building were both originally constructed in 1920. Solar panels have been added to the roof, but lie flat and are not visible from the public right of way. No other notable exterior alterations were uncovered during the course of research.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Rear ancillary building
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1920 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: C/3 (Design) Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The property is a two-story, single-family residence located in what is now known as the St Francis Acres neighborhood designed in the Prairie style that is associated with the theme of Residential Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The building was originally constructed in 1920 for Louis Edward Walter, a successful orchardist who, among other ventures, operated Grant Road Nurseries from 1920 through 1936. Grant Road Nurseries encompassed the subject property, so upon completion in 1920 the subject building was surrounded by Walter's orchards. The Walter family occupied the building through the 1940s. In the 1950s, the former Grant Road Nursuries surrounding the subject property were sold, subdivided, and developed as single-family tract housing.

Although Louis Walter was a prominent and successful businessman, he does not appear to have had a significant impact on local, regional, state, or national history, and all of the orchards associated with Walter have been demolished, and therefore the property is not individually eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or Mountain View Register of Historic Resources under Criterion B/2/b. No significant events are known to have taken place at the property, and therefore the property is not eligible under Criterion A/1/a.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
801
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The property does appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register, and continued listing in the Mountain View Register under Criterion C/3/c at the local level. The building is an excellent and rare example of the Prairie style in Mountain View, and appears to have good integrity based on limited observations due to the distance of the building from the public right-of-way. Based off of available observations, the setting has been altered as it was transformed from an orchard to residential subdivision, but exterior alterations to the residence appear limited and the building overall retains integrity for listing in the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register. The period of significance is the year the building was constructed, 1920.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Stucco cladding
Flat roof with wide eave overhangs at first and second stories Original fenestration pattern and original wood windows with divided lites Recessed primary entrance
Detached ancillary/garage building.

Continuation of B12. References:

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder, historic aerials (1930, 1948, 1968). Accessed online November 2024, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
802
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 432 STIERLIN RD City: Mountain View Zip: 94043-4622 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15325014 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Plan Shape: Irregular Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable, Parapet Roof Material: Spanish Clay Tile Exterior Material: Stucco Primary Door Material: Not Visible Window Style: Fixed Window Material: Metal
Porch: Arcade Garage: Surface Parking Lot
Other Architectural/Site Features: The building complex contains four main gabled volumes, each with a flat, stucco facade with a stepped parapet. The largest, central volume has a wood frame awning, supported by wood posts and clad with clay tiles, and a sign on the parapet reading "I.F.E.S. Hall No. 1." The complex also appears to have three ancillary buildings with gable roofs, including one that appears to be a caretaker's residence.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP13. Community center/social hall *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

April 26, 2024
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1931; Mountain View Historical Society
*P7. Owner and Address:

IRMANDADE DA FESTA DO DIVINO, 432
STIERLIN RD, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94043
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
803
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 432 STIERLIN RD
B1. Historic Name: Irmandade da Festa do Espirito Santo (IFES) Hall No.1 B2. Common Name: IFES Society
B3. Original Use: Institutional B4. Present Use: Institutional *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: 432 Stierlin Road was built in 1931 as a social hall for the Irmandade da Festa do Espirito Santo (IFES). The original building complex footprint was roughly U-shaped. By 1956, the northern wing was expanded eastward towards the parking lot with a wood awning clad in clay tile facing the central entry courtyard.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Civic Growth and Social, Religious & Cultural Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View
Period of Significance: 1931-ca.1975 Property Type: Institutional Applicable NR/CR Criteria: A/1 (Events) Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion b (Events) Statement of Significance:

The property is a Spanish Colonial Revival style social hall located in the Moffett Boulevard neighborhood and associated with the theme of Civic Growth and Social,Religious & Cultural Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The property was built as a social hall by Mountain View's Portuguese community for the Irmandade da Festa do Espirito Santo (IFES) in 1931 and has been continuously used as a social hall and event space.

In the mid-19th century, Portuguese settlers began migrating in large numbers to California, with many families settling in the Santa Clara Valley, where they worked in the agricultural industry. Many immigrant communities established organizations such as benevolent societies and social halls to gather and celebrate the cultural heritage and religious traditions of their native regions. Mountain View is one of few California towns of comparable size to boast two Portuguese social halls. In 1926, the Irmandade da Festa do Espirito Santo (IFES) was established to carry on Azorean traditions associated with the Holy Spirit Festival. Originally, the organization hosted this event, which occurs on the sixth Sunday after Easter, at the Costa family’s dairy farm on Charleston Road. In 1929, the organization split, and the Sociedade da Festa Velha (SFV) was created and constructed a social hall at 361 Villa Street in 1937. IFES constructed its own social hall in 1931.

During the post-World War II period, Mountain View actively celebrated its multiculturalism, including in city-wide festivals and events. The Portuguese community, represented by the IFES and SFV societies, continued their traditional annual Holy Ghost festival and parade, which had begun in 1926.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP36. Ethnic Minority Property (Portuguese/Portuguese American) *B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
804
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
In the mid-1980s, the primary hall was enlarged at the rear (toward the west), and a small gabled building was removed from the central courtyard. An ancillary attached building along the northern side of the property appears to have been expanded over several decades, from review of historic aerial photographs. Full assessment of specific materials and features such as windows and doors could not be made from the public right-of-way.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
432 Stierlin Road appears eligible for the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register under Criterion A/1/b (Events) as an important cultural organization established by the Mountain View Portuguese and Azorean community, and for its association with elements of Azorean intangible cultural heritage such as the annual Holy Ghost festival and parade. The property is associated with a larger community and does not appear to be associated with any individual person significant to local, state, or national history, therefore it does not appear eligible under Criterion B/2/a (Persons). Furthermore, the property has not been identified as the work of a notable architect or builder or as a distinctive example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, and does not possess high artistic merit, therefore it does not appear eligible under Criterion C/3/c (Design). A lower threshold of integrity can be applied for local listing if a civic, cultural, or institutional property is of particular significance to the community in Mountain View and if the property retains integrity of location, feeling, and association.

Therefore, despite several alterations and additions to the property, it retains sufficient integrity for listing in the National, California, and Mountain View registers. The period of significance is 1931, the year of construction through c. 1975. The property has an ongoing association with the Portuguese community in Mountain View and further research may lead to a refined endpoint for the period of significance as a historic resource.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form, massing, and siting, including a roughly U-shaped footprint building complex with a central courtyard Clay roof tiles
Stucco cladding
Stepped parapet rooflines
Wood frame awnings with wood posts and clay tile roofs
Original signage.

Continuation of B12. References:
“About,” IFES Society of Mountain View, accessed online November 2024, https://ifessociety.org/about/.

Mountain View Historical Association. “Mountain View Historical Association.” Mountain View Historical Timeline (blog), 2024. https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/mountain-view-history-timeline/.

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online October 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
805
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 1531 TYLER PARK WY City: Mountain View Zip: 94040-3716 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 19351001 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Craftsman Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Stucco Primary Door Material: Wood
Window Style: Fixed, Hung Window Material: Vinyl, Wood
Porch: Partial Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Overhanging eaves with carved rafter tails; battered stuccoed columns at central front porch. A non-original tall brick privacy wall blocks the former front facade facing Grant Rd; access to the house is now primarily from the rear/side on Tyler Park Way.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1922; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

CHIEN JAMES AND WAN NING TRUSTEE, 1531
TYLER PARK WAY, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
806
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 1531 TYLER PARK WY
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: The building was originally constructed in 1922 as a farmhouse associated with a small orchard that encompassed the property and the adjacent property to the north, facing Grant Road.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Detached Garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1920 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion b (Events), MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The property is a one-story single-family Craftsman style residence located in what is known as the Cuesta Park neighborhood, associated with the theme of Residential Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The building was originally constructed in 1922 as the farmhouse for a small orchard that encompassed the property. The earliest known owner and occupant of the property were Antone and Annie Rokovich in 1935. They lived at the subject property until the early 1960s.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. Property has an active Mills Act contract.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
807
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
Around 1980, the portion of the property north of the subject building was sold, driveway and pedestrian access to the building was reconfigured to connect to Tyler Park Way, and a detached garage was constructed at the south corner of the property.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.

While the property does not rise to the level of significance for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is currently listed in the Mountain View register. It is a good local example of a Craftsman style residence from the 1920s and remains eligible for local listing under Mountain View Register Criterion c. The period of significance is the year the building was constructed, 1920. The integrity of the property's setting is impaired by the development of multifamily housing on the former orchard groves to the north, and the reconfiguration of pedestrian and automobile access away from Grant Road to Tyler Park Way, but the residence retains all other aspects of integrity with few exterior building alterations. As such, the property retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its local significance for Mountain View Register eligibility.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Cross-gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed, carved rafter tails Stucco Cladding
Partial-width front porch with battered, stuccoed columns Original fenestration pattern and original wood windows with divided lites Knee braces
Wood lattice vents in gable ends
Exterior stuccoed chimney with dentil detail.

Continuation of B12. References:

City of Mountain View, "1531 Tyler Park Way input form," Mountain View Historic Register, March 15, 2002.

University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder, historic aerials (1930, 1939, 1960, 1985). Accessed online October 2024, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

United States Federal Census (1940, 1950). Accessed online June 2024, Ancestry.com.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
808
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 395 VELARDE ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-2243 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15829084 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Moderne/Streamline Moderne Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Flat with Parapet Roof Material: Asphalt - Rolled Exterior Material: Stucco Primary Door Material: Wood
Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Recessed Entrance Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Curved corner at front projecting bay and incised speed lines at the parapet, groupings of low, horizontal rectangular windows. Recessed entryway with curved corners. Small angled bay window at the northwest side facade. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1938; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

GREENE DAVID O AND TRACY A TRUSTEE, 450
ANZA ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
809
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 395 VELARDE ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Moderne/Streamline Moderne
*B6. Construction History: 395 Velarde Street was built in 1938. The property was constructed by the Minton Lumber Company within the Palmita Park planned subdivision.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Minton Lumber Company *B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1938 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: C/3 (Design) Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: Not Evaluated for Mountain View Register Statement of Significance:
395 Velarde Street is a Streamline Moderne single-family residence located in Old Mountain View, associated with the theme of Residential Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. 395 Velarde Street was built in 1938 as part of the development of Palmita Park, a subdivision planned and built by the Minton Lumber Company. Palmita Park subdivision is a residential neighborhood bounded by Bush, Dana, and Velarde Streets and Calderon Avenue. It was developed over 20 years, beginning in 1924, by the Minton Lumber Company and Bert Holeman, a local businessman. The Minton Lumber Company was founded in 1911. Bert Holeman was a Kansas native who arrived in Mountain View in 1912. He founded the First National Bank in Mountain View, for which he served as president until 1925. In 1923, the Minton Lumber Company bought 9.5 acres fronting Calderon Avenue from W. A. Goodpasture and 4.5 acres fronting Bush Street from Bert Holeman. Holeman collaborated with the Minton Company to promote residential development on the combined 14 acres. A contest to name the new subdivision elicited the name Palmita Park; palm trees were planted along the Bush Street frontage in honor of the subdivision’s new name. In March 1924, Palmita Park was annexed to Mountain View. Between 1924 and 1925, the developers graded, curbed, paved, and installed sewer, water, gas, electric and telephone service for lots along the frontage on Bush, Loreto, Anza, and Velarde Streets. In 1926, the Minton Company added Westinghouse electroliers (streetlights) to the subdivision. Lots were sold only to buyers who, at the time of purchase, made a contract with the Minton Company for the construction of a home. The contract included the planting of lawns and shrubbery, and house sites were established with a common setback and uniform distance from lot lines.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
810
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
The garage door appears to have been replaced. No other major exterior alterations are visible.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
Construction started from Bush Street at Loreto and moved east toward Calderon Avenue. Advertisements in the Mountain View Register Leader in 1924 and 1925 suggest that some of the subdivision’s early houses were built on speculation by the Minton Company for immediate purchase while others were built according to the Minton company's plan books from which buyers could select a plan and style for customized construction. The Palmita Park houses built in the 1920s exhibit the range of cottage and period revival styles popular in that decade; however, the Great Depression interrupted the full build-out of the subdivision. Houses from the late 1930s and the post-World War II building boom in the Minimal Traditional style appear to have filled out the remaining blocks.

Overall form and massing
Flate roof with flat parapet
Smooth exterior facade with rounded corners
Incised horizontal speed lines
Recessed entryway with curved corners
Stucco cladding
Corner window arrangement without thick corner mullion
Two-over-two double-hung wood sash windows with horizontal divided lites Small bay window with one-over-one double-hung windows
Detached garage and site wall.

Continuation of B12. References:
"Boom makes rapid progress in Palmita Park," Mountain View Register, May 1, 1925.

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

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

Kayne, Melanie and Kyle Hartzell. "Palmita Park: Clippings that reveal the rich history of home." Self-published, 2024.

Perry, Nicholas. "Mountain View." Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2006.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
811
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 326 VIEW ST
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 322 VIEW ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041
d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15823020 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Craftsman Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1.5
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel, Wood - Shingle Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Partial Width Garage: Not Visible
Other Architectural/Site Features: Gabled roof has hipped skirt at the sides and large gable dormers at the front and rear; overhanging eaves with exposed rafters. Detached second residential building at the rear of the parcel. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP3. Multiple family property *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1910; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

MCNAMARA DENISE TRUSTEE, 322 VIEW ST,
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
812
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 322 VIEW ST
B1. Historic Name: McPheeters House
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: 322 View Street was built in 1910. The building footprint appears unchanged from its first appearance on the 1921 Sanborn Map through the 1960s.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: None b. Builder: J.L. McPheeters
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1910 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion a (Persons), MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The property is a single-family residence designed in the Craftsman style located in the Old Mountain View neighborhood and associated with the theme of Residential Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. It was built in 1910 by J. Luther McPheeters as a personal residence for his family. McPheeters was a builder and worked as a mill foreman for the Minton Lumber Company. He also served on Mountain View's city council. The property remained in the McPheeter family through at least the 1960s.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. Property has an active Mills Act contract.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
813
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
No documentation of any previous alterations are on file; however, comparison with Sanborn maps and an early photo, indicates that after the 1960s an open rear porch was replaced with a larger one-story addition with a roof deck and the rear dormer was enlarged.rear outbuildings were replaced or enlarged with a new accessory dwelling unit.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
322 View Street retains eligibility for the Mountain View Register at the local level under Criterion a (Persons) for its association with J.

Luther McPheeters, an early civic leader and employee of Minton Lumber Company; and under Criterion c (Design) as a good local example of a Craftsman single-family residence. The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria. While the property does not rise to the level of significance for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is locally listed in the Mountain View Register. Several additions have been made to the rear facade and detached garage, however, these changes are not visible from the public-right-of-way and therefore do not compromise the overall integrity of the property. The original overall form, design and materials remain intact. The period of significance is 1910 to 1953, the year of construction through J.L. McPheeters' death.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Gable roof with hipped skirt at sides, and prominent gable dormer Overhanging eaves with exposed rafters
Recessed partial-width porch with simple square posts
Horizontal wood clapboard siding
Original one-over-one wood sash windows with ogee lugs
Picture window with divided-lite transom.

Continuation of B12. References:

City of Mountain View Planning Department, "Now and Then: Exploring Mountain View's Architectural Heritage." City of Mountain View, April 1979.
"Historic Resources Inventory Form: 322 View Street." City of Mountain View, March 13, 2002.

Mountain View city directories. Accessed online September 2024, Ancestry.com.

N.d. Aerial Photograph. Mountain View Public Library.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1888, 1891, 1897, 1904, 1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

United States Federal Census (1930, 1940, 1950). Accessed online October 2024, Ancestry.com.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
814
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 327 VIEW ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1345 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15823015 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Craftsman Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Partial Width, Secondary/Rear Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Projecting, central porch has a low-pitched gable roof supported by paired, square wood columns. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1921; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

HARRIS GEORGE W JR AND VALERIE E, 327 VIEW
ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
815
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 327 VIEW ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: The residence was originally constructed in 1921. By 1956 a detached garage was constructed at the rear of the parcel. Between 1956 and 2009, alterations were made to the side porch, removing a west-facing wall and possibly removing a side entrance.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1921 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The property is a one-story, single-family Craftsman style home located in Old Mountain View associated with the theme of Residential Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The building was originally constructed in 1921. The earliest known owner and occupant was Waldo Cadwell in 1930, a maintenance worker for Stanford University. Subsequent known occupants include William Davis in the 1940s, a building contractor, and Perry McPheeters in the 1960s, an instructor for PanAm airlines.

The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.

While the property does not rise to the level of significance and historic integrity for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. The building is a good local example of a Craftsman style bungalow.

While modest in scale, the bungalow expresses the distinctive features of the style including a low gable roof, exposed rafter tails, wood lattice vent in gable ends, and a small projecting porch. Therefore, the building continues to be eligible for the Mountain View Register under Criterion c (Design).

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
816
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The period of significance is the year the building was constructed, 1921. Due to foliage on the property, and the distance of some features from the public right of way, it was difficult to observe whether common alterations such as replacement windows were conducted on this property. Observed alterations at a side porch on the north facade are, alone, minor impairments to the integrity of the building.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails Wood clapboard siding
Wood lattice vent in gable end
Porch with paired square posts and arched beam
Original fenestration pattern and any original windows
Gabled, projecting side porch.

Continuation of B12. References:

City of Mountain View, "327 View Street input form," Mountain View Historic Register, March 15, 2002.

Google Street View (2009, 2022).

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1908, 1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

United States Federal Census (1930, 1940, 1950). Accessed online June 2024, Ancestry.com.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
817
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 344 VIEW ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1346 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15823021 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Craftsman Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1.5
Roof Style: Hip Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Partial Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Gabled roof projecting porch; blind, gabled dormer with flared eaves at primary facade; gabled dormer at side facade; and interior brick chimney. In the north corner of the backyard, there is an ancillarydwelling unit with jerkinhead roof and shingle siding that was converted from a one-story garage with attached two-story shed. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1908; Mountain View Register of Historic
Resources
*P7. Owner and Address:

SUTHERLAND SYLVIA R TRUSTEE, 386 VELARDE
ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
818
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 344 VIEW ST
B1. Historic Name: Swall House
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: 344 View Street was built ca.1908. From comparison with an early historic photograph, it appears that several minor alterations were made to the primary facade including the replacement of turned spindles along the balustrade of the entry porch, removal of bracketed window boxes, and removal of small finials at the gable peaks.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Wolfe & McKenzie b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1851-1909) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: ca.1908-1935 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: B/2 (Persons), C/3 (Design)
Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: Not Evaluated for Mountain View Register Statement of Significance:
344 View Street is a Craftsman style single-family residence located in Old Mountain View, associated with the theme of Residential Development (1851-1909) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The residence was designed by Wolfe & McKenzie for George and Ellen G. ("Nellie") Swall ca.1908. George H. Swall was a prominent local butcher and banker in early Mountain View. The residence was designed by the San Jose-based firm Wolfe & McKenzie in the Craftsman style. Wolfe & McKenzie was a prolific firm founded by master architect Frank Delos Wolfe (1863-1926) and Charles S. McKenzie (1874-1957). The firm operated throughout the Santa Clara Valley from 1899 to 1910, however, the majority of their work was concentrated in San Jose. While they produced designs in a range of styles, the partnership was known for a signature style that utilized hipped or gable-and-hipped roofs, small dormers, wide overhanging boxed eaves, wood sash double-hung or picture windows with simple divided lites at the upper sash, and second-story decks or balconies. In Mountain View, the firm designed the Richardsonian Romanesque-style Farmers & Merchants Bank building on Castro Street in 1905. The original property owner of 344 View Street, George Swall (1858-1935), was a prominent local butcher and banker in early Mountain View, and his wife Nellie (1859-1944). Swall opened Swall's Meat Market at Castro and Villa Streets in 1884 before eventually becoming a banker and rising to the role of president of the Farmers and Merchants Bank (opened in 1905). He also served as a Mountain View City Council Member from 1902 through 1911. The subject property was the third house built for the Swalls in Mountain View, following a house built in 1888 at the southeast corner of Villa and Hope Streets (non-extant) and a second house built in 1901 at 224 Hope Street (non-extant). The Swalls occupied 334 View Street through 1944, when Nellie Swall died.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

Property was previously listed on the Mountain View Register, but was later voluntarily removed from the Register by the property owner. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
819
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
At an unknown date, a gabled dormer was added at each of the side facades and the rear facade. The building footprint otherwise remained unchanged through 1956, after which at least two additions were made to the rear porch, enclosing the existing portion and adding an additional one-story volume. The one-story garage with an attached two-story shed, built at an unknown date, was later converted to residential use, but appears to have its original form, massing, and overall design. A separate detached two-car garage shelter was added at an unknown date. No further exterior alterations were noted.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
344 View Street appears eligible for the National Register and California Register under Criteria B/2 for its association with pioneering early resident of Mountain View George Swall and as the only surviving residence of the Swall family. The property is also eligible under C/3 as an excellent local example of Craftsman architecture designed by master architects Wolfe & McKenzie. The subject property conveys most of its original characteristics and materiality as designed by Wolfe & McKenzie in 1908. Several small features, including finials and window boxes, were removed and the balusters replaced at the primary facade, but other original materials and features remain intact. The building retains its hipped roof, front porch with distinctive battered columns, blind dormer with flared gable roof, and original fenestration pattern and wood windows. Three dormers were added to the secondary facades at an unknown date, however, they appear to be compatible with the overall form, massing, and stylistic motifs of the original design. Therefore, 344 View Street retains sufficient overall integrity for listing in the National Register and California Register. The period of significance is c.1908-1935, spanning the year of construction through the year of George Swall's death. This evaluation does not address Mountain View Register eligibility.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing (excluding dormer additions)
Hipped roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails Partial-width porch with gabled roof, battered piers above square columns, bargeboard with simple dual linear elements, and a peaked arched opening facing east
Dormer with a vented gable end and flared gable roof
Fenestration pattern and roupings of three wood double-hung windows with a simple divided-lite upper sash Tongue and groove with watertable
Detached rear former garage.

Continuation of B12. References:

California, U.S., Death Index, 1905-1939. Accessed online September 2024, Ancestry.com. Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

George Swall Home. Unknown. Photograph. California Revealed from Mountain View Public Library. https://californiarevealed.org/do/6ae02803-c1c7-4077-869c-fb31a2cd7ece#page/1.

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online September 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1904, 1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder, historic aerials (1965). Accessed online September 2024, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
820
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 482 VIEW ST
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 472 VIEW ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-2040 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15823059 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk Plan Shape: L-Shape Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Fixed, Double-Hung Window Material: Vinyl Porch: Full Width Garage: Surface Parking Lot
Other Architectural/Site Features: Front gabled roof, recessed porch, and rear ell. Large mature date palm on the property. The adjacent residential property features a low-pitched roof and overhanging eaves. Parcel features two buildings set back to the rear behind a shared parking area.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP3. Multiple family property *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

April 26, 2024
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1899; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

KAGARLITSKY ROMAN AND VALENTINA ET AL,
641 FULTON ST, PALO ALTO CA 94301
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
821
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 472 VIEW ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Multi-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Folk Victorian/National Folk
*B6. Construction History: The single-family house located at the north (right) side of the parcel was built in 1899 and appears on the 1908 Sanborn map as a small wood-frame dwelling with front porch. By 1921, the rear ell of the residence was added. The 1943 Sanborn map shows the footprint of the adjacent residential building located at the southern (left) side of the parcel, formerly labeled with the address 478 View Street. From visual analysis of the adjacent building's style and materiality, it was likely constructed during the 1930s.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Prominent or Unusual Tree
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1851-1909) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1899 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The property is a multi-family residential property located in the Old Mountain View neighborhood designed in the Folk Victorian style and associated with the theme of Residential Development (1851-1909) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The property is comprised of four buildings built over a period beginning 1899 to approximately the 1960s. The earliest structure on the parcel is a modest Folk Victorian cottage that is likely one of the oldest surviving residential properties in Mountain View.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP3. Multiple family property
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
822
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
In addition to the two residences facing the street, the parcel includes two other residential buildings set back to the rear behind a shared parking lot, which are not visible from the public right-of-way. These buildings appear in historic aerial photographs beginning around the 1960s. All windows and doors on both buildings fronting View Street appear to have been replaced at an unknown date.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.

While the property does not rise to the level of significance for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is a rare extant example of the Folk Victorian style in Mountain View and an example of early residential construction patterns. Thus, the property is eligible for the Mountain View Register under Criterion c (Architecture) with a period of significance of 1899, the year of construction. The ancillary buildings on the property built ca. 1930s and 1960s are not eligible, due to lack of significance. Despite the construction of a rear ell and alterations to doors and windows, the e 1899 residence retains sufficient historic integrity.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Front gabled roof
Original clapboard siding, likely redwood
Covered front porch with wood-frame trusses, square clapboard piers, and wood posts Continuation of B12. References:

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online June 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1908, 1921, 1943). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder, historic aerials (1965). Accessed online July 2024, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
823
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 361 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1320 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15835021 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Compound, Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle, Clay Tile Exterior Material: Stucco Primary Door Material: Wood
Window Style: Double-Hung, Fixed Window Material: Vinyl Porch: None Garage: Surface Parking Lot
Other Architectural/Site Features: Concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall along street topped with bricks; stone veneer at base and wide entry steps leading to a large arched entrance.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP13. Community center/social hall *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1937; Bettencourt, p. 235
*P7. Owner and Address:

SOCIEDADE DA FESTA VAELHA DE OF MT VIEW,
361 VILLA ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
824
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 361 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name: Sociedade da Festa Velha (SFV) do Divino Espirito Santo No. 1 Hall B2. Common Name: S.V.F. Portuguese Hall of Mountain View/S.V.F. Lodge B3. Original Use: Institutional B4. Present Use: Institutional *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: 361 Villa Street was built in 1937 as a social hall for the Sociedade da Festa Velha do Divino Espirito Santo. At the time of construction, the parcel was located in a semi-rural unincorporated part of Santa Clara County that was surrounded by orchards until around the 1960s. Sanborn maps from 1943 show the original configuration of buildings comprising a main social hall, detached chapel, and detached kitchen.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Civic Growth and Social, Religious & Cultural Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View
Period of Significance: 1937-ca.1975 Property Type: Institutional Applicable NR/CR Criteria: A/1 (Events) Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion b (Events) Statement of Significance:
361 Villa Street is a Spanish Colonial Revival style social hall located in the Old Mountain View, associated with the theme of Civic Growth and Social,Religious & Cultural Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The property was built as a social hall by Mountain View's Portuguese community.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP36. Ethnic Minority Property (Portuguese/Portuguese American) *B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
825
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
By the late 1940s, a large addition was added to the kitchen building at the rear southeast corner of the parcel, and additional auxiliary buildings were constructed at the rear southwest corner of the property by the 1980s. From visual analysis of the exterior, it appears that stone veneer wainscotting was added and many windows were replaced at an unknown date. The entry steps to the chapel also appear to have been replaced.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
In the mid-19th century, Portuguese settlers began migrating in large numbers to California, with many families settling in the Santa Clara Valley, where they worked in the agricultural industry. Many immigrant communities established organizations such as benevolent societies and social halls to gather and celebrate the cultural heritage and religious traditions of their native regions. Mountain View is one of few California towns of comparable size to boast two Portuguese social halls during the early 20th century. In 1926, the Irmandade da Festa do Espirito Santo (IFES) was established to carry on Azorean traditions associated with the Holy Ghost Festival. In 1929, the organization split, and the Sociedade da Festa Velha (SFV) was created. SFV constructed their own Portuguese Hall of Mountain View at 361 Villa Street in 1937. Since opening, SVF has hosted an annual Holy Ghost festival with an elaborate parade and other rituals associated with Aezorean Portuguese and Catholic cultural heritage, and continues to serve the community in this capacity today.

Overall form and massing of the detached social hall and chapel Clay roof tiles
Stucco cladding
Arched openings
Arched alcove with metal crown and grille above the primary entrance to the chapel Gabled portico entrance with arched openings to the social hall.

Continuation of B12. References:

Bettencourt, Joe. “Mountain View (Sociedade da Festa Velha), 1926.” In The Holy Ghost Festas: A Historic Perspective of the Portuguese in California, ed. Tony P. Goulart, 235-7. San Jose, CA: Portuguese Heritage Publications of California, 2003.

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online October 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
826
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 515 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1355 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15822031 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Vernacular Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Hip Roof Material: Asphalt - Rolled
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung, Fixed Window Material: Vinyl Porch: Full Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Residential building consists of a front volume with similar appearance to a tank house; attached to a rear volume with hipped roof and rectangular plan.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1921-1943; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

KUTTNER RICHARD B AND SCHMIDT KATRIN,
515 VILLA ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
827
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 515 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: From analysis of Sanborn Insurance maps, the property appears to have been constructed between 1921 and 1943. The earliest available documentation of the building on the 1943 Sanborn map indicates it as a narrow residence that was two-stories at the front and one-and-a-half stories at the rear, with a small one-story room at the back. Based on a 1979 photo, the rear portion of the building originally had a gabled roof. The 1943 Sanborn also shows a detached rear garage. The lot was originally part of a larger parcel with several residences and rear outbuildings, including the James Shower House at 206 Bush Street. The larger parcel was subdivided during the 1920s or 1930s.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
828
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
A review of historic photographs and aerials indicates that the small one-story addition to the west side facade and one-story addition to the rear facade were added sometime after 1979. Other alterations noted from visual analysis include replacement doors and vinyl sash windows.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
While the subject property resembles the massing of a water tank house, analysis of Sanborn fires insurance maps indicates that the property appears to have been originally constructed as a residential building. The subject building cannot be identified as the work of an architect or designer of merit. Furthermore, 515 Villa Street does not appear to be associated with persons, events, or broad patterns important to local, California, or national history, nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria. While the property does not rise to the level of significance or integrity for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, the property is currently listed in the Mountain View Register. It is a unique local example of early 20th-century vernacular housing in Old Mountain View and therefore retains eligibility for local listing under Mountain View Register Criterion c (Architecture) with a period of significance of ca.1921-1943, the estimated date range of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Two-story height
Pyramid hipped roof
Wood frame full-width entry porch with Tuscan columns and wood spindle baluster Tongue and groove horizontal wood siding
Original fenestration pattern.

Continuation of B12. References:

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

City of Mountain View Planning Department, "Now and Then: Exploring Mountain View's Architectural Heritage." City of Mountain View, April 1979.

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online July 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1897, 1904, 1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
829
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 833 VILLA ST
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 831 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1233 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15813034 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Number of Stories: 1 Roof Style: Gable, Parapet Roof Material: Built Up Roof/Tar and Gravel Exterior Material: Concrete - Precast, Stucco Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Storefront Window Material: Wood
Porch: Recessed Entrance Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Applied precast plaster ornament above divided-lite wood transom, and red clay tile along stepped parapet and pent eave.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1928; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

TOPLAND ASSOCIATES, 786 W DANA ST,
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
830
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 831 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Commercial B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: The building was originally constructed in 1928. In 2014, minor original fixtures including door handles were replaced. In 2015, the center pane of the transom window over each storefront was replaced with an external air conditioning unit. *B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Commercial Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1928 Property Type: Commercial Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The property is a one story commercial building located in downtown Mountain View designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style and is associated with the theme of Commercial Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The building was originally constructed in 1928. The building has been occupied by a variety of stores and businesses since its construction through 2024. In 1931 and 1932, it was listed as the office of the Minton Company.

As elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement, the Minton Company was a major employer in Mountain View in the early 20th century. Their lumber yard was located on Bush Street between Evelyn Avenue and Villa Street, three blocks northeast of the subject property. The Minton Company expanded into the general construction industry in the 1920s, and is responsible for the construction of many high-style houses and buildings of the decade in Mountain View and surrounding cities like Palo Alto. The Minton Company sold off its construction department in 1931 due to the Great Depression, and relocated its headquarters from Palo Alto back to Mountain View to refocus on the lumber business. The Minton Company operated from its Bush Street location in Mountain View until 1996, and the Minton Company shut down in 2010. Research suggests that it was unlikely that the office at the subject building was the primary office for the Minton Company in 1931 and 1932. While the purpose or role of the Minton Company office at the subject building was not uncovered through research, it may have been related to the chaotic reconsolidation of the company during those years when the building department was sold off and ownership of the Minton Company appears to change several times. As such, the subject building does not appear to be significantly related to the Minton Company.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

Located in Downtown Precise Plan Area H.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
831
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.

While the property does not rise to the level of significance for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is an example of a Spanish Colonial style commercial building from the 1920s in downtown Mountain View, and is eligible for local listing under Mountain View Register Criterion c.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall one-story rectangular massing
Stepped parapet
Red clay tiles on parapet and pent eave
Precast plaster ornaments
Divided-lite wood clerestory windows
Wood-frame storefront windows and doors
Wood-frame transom windows
Configuration of storefronts with angled entrances to the east.

Continuation of B12. References:
"Company Moves Headquarters," The Peninsula Times Tribune, January 30, 1932.

Google Street View (2007, 2014, 2015, 2023).
"Minton Company Is Facing Change," The Peninsula Times Tribune, April 10, 1931. "Minton Firm To Concentrate On Construction Activities," The Peninsula Times Tribune, April 18, 1931.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

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

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
832
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 895 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1233 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15813053 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Moderne/Streamline Moderne Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Number of Stories: 1 Roof Style: Barrel Vault, Flat with Parapet Roof Material: Asphalt - Rolled Exterior Material: Concrete - Board Formed Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Fixed, Storefront Window Material: Steel, Wood Porch: None Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Fixed steel windows in the barrel vault. Non-original stone cladding is located along the main facade and an outdoor dining patio is located along the west side of the building. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1939; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

KAO YO-JU TRUSTEE, 725 GAIL AVE, SUNNYVALE
CA 94086
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
833
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 895 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name: Purity Stores
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Commercial B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Moderne/Streamline Moderne
*B6. Construction History: The subject building was originally constructed in 1939. It originally featured aluminum storefront windows with tile bulkheads and a cloth awning along the primary (north) facade. The building was expanded to the west with a flat-roofed addition in 1959. By 2007, the original storefront windows and doors were removed.

The property is a one-story commercial building located in downtown Mountain View associated with the theme of Commercial Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement.

The building was originally constructed in 1939 as a Purity Stores grocery store. It was occupied by Purity Stores through at least 1965, and by 1969 it was occupied by the Villa Plaza grocery store. In 1974 the building was occupied by Hon's Palace restaurant, and has continued to be occupied by a variety of restaurants since 1974 through 2024.

The building was originally constructed in the Streamline Moderne style including features such as the barrel roof and streamline grooves at the top of the corners of the parapet on the primary facade. This original design is one of many concrete, barrel vault roof stores constructed by the Purity Stores grocery chain. This was a signature design that helped visually identify Purity stores, and create brand identity. Purity Stores were established in San Francisco in 1929, and had locations throughout the Bay Area and north California. The design featured in the subject building is typical of their purpose-built grocery stores, and was used, with small variations, in many of their locations in the late 1930s and 1940s. Some former Purity Store buildings still exist with various degrees of integrity. The closest extant former Purity Stores buildings of this design are in Burlingame, Pacific Grove, and Livermore. The subject building appears to be the only remaining Purity Store building utilizing its iconic barrel vault roof design within Santa Clara County.

The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.

While the property does not rise to the level of significance and historic integrity for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, it is an increasingly rare regional example of a Streamline Moderne barrel vault style Purity Stores building, and is eligible for local listing under Mountain View Register Criterion c (Design).

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

Located in Downtown Precise Plan Area H.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
834
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
In 2012, the primary facade was altered again, adding a vertical ribbed steel marquee, stone cladding at the corners, and adding three sets of glazed wood-frame accordion-style folding doors in new openings.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
As currently written, the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance does not provide a definition of historic integrity or threshold for integrity assessment, and a somewhat lower threshold of historic integrity compared to National Register and California Register-eligible properties may be utilized in assessing properties of local significance for the Mountain View Register. As 895 Villa Street retains some character defining features including, most importantly, the iconic barrel vault roof, concrete construction, and steel clerestory windows, the property retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its local significance for Mountain View Register eligibility.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

One-story massing
Barrel vault roof
Concrete Construction
Original steel clerestory windows withinthe end of the barrel vault roof Other remaining Streamline Moderne style details and ornaments, such as grooved speedlines in concrete parapet wall (if extant behind non-original metal cladding at the northeast corner).

Continuation of B12. References:
"Base Hotel, 857 Villa Street," Photograph, Mountain View Public Library, ca. 1954.

David Gwynn, “Purity Stores (California),” Groceteria.com, February 5, 2009, accessed October 4, 2024, https://www.groceteria.com/store/regional-chains/purity-stores/.

Debra Jane Seltzer, “California Art Deco & Streamline Moderne Buildings: Purity Stores: RoadsideArchitecture.Com,” Roadside Architecture, accessed October 4, 2024, https://www.roadarch.com/deco/capurity.html.

Google Street View (2007, 2009, 2013).
"Purity Stores," Mountain View Register-Leader, December 7, 1939.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

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

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
835
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 938 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1236 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15815022 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Queen Anne Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1.5
Roof Style: Gable-on-Hip Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel, Wood - Shingle Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Bay Window, Double-Hung, Slider Window Material: Wood, Metal Porch: Wraparound Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Compound roof form with front gable and hipped volume; Palladian window and wood shingle cladding at the gable end; partial-width wrap-around porch with Tuscan columns and low walls; front and side angled bay windows; non-original outdoor patio structures and pergola.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1894; Jean McCloskey, Livable Mountain View.
"Weilheimer House." National Register of Historic
Places Registration Form. National Park Service,
October 2018.
*P7. Owner and Address:

AVIET THOMAS G ET AL, 938 VILLA ST,
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
836
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 938 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name: Weilheimer House
B2. Common Name: Chez TJ Restaurant
B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Queen Anne
*B6. Construction History: 938 Villa Street was built in ca.1894 as a single-family residence for Julius Weilheimer. Sanborn maps dating to 1888, 1897, 1904, and 1908 show that the original footprint of the property was changed sometime between 1897 and 1904 from a smaller T-plan building to its current, more rectangular footprint with angled bay windows and a corner porch.

The family was also prominent in Santa Clara Valley's early wine industry. Julius Weilheimer played an important role in the formation of Mountain View's early government; serving as postmaster between 1886 and 1889, a founder of the Farmers & Merchants Bank (201 Castro Street), and a member of the first Mountain View Board of Trustees until 1907. The family sold the property and moved to San Francisco in 1908. In the 1980s, the property was converted to commercial use and has since been occupied by the Chez TJ restaurant.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP2. Single family property
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

On April 22, 2019 the property was determined eligible with owner objection by the Keeper of the National Register; the property was automatically listed in the California Register. Property was previously listed on the Mountain View Register, but was later voluntarily removed from the Register by the property owner. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
837
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
A review of a 1905 photograph shows that 938 Villa Street retains its overall historic massing and exterior materials, apart from the replacement of the original turned spindle balustrade with a solid low wall and removal of knee brace brackets beneath the eave of the front gable. In the 1980s, the property was converted to use as a restaurant and several alterations were made including the construction of small additions to the rear facade, replacement of the Palladian window glazing with stained glass, and the replacement of original stair treads with slate pavers. An outdoor patio dining area and fence were added in 2020. Other windows may have been replaced on the side and rear facades.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
954 Villa Street is currently listed in the California Register, and appears to to retain eligibility for the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register at the local level under Criterion B/2/a for its direct association with important early Mountain View civic leader and businessperson Julius Weillheimer; and under Criterion C/3/c as a rare and distinctive surviving residential example of the Queen Anne style. With only several minor exterior alterations since the building was expanded by Weilheimer c. 1904 including the replacement of the original Palladian window with stained glass, alterations to the balustrade of the front porch, and additions to the rear facades, the property appears to retain most of its historic architectural features and materials. While the property has also changed in use from residential to commercial, it remains readable as a residential building. Therefore, 938 Villa Street appears to retain all aspects of integrity and has sufficient overall historic integrity for listing in the National Register, California Register, and the Mountain View Register with a period of significance of 1894, the estimated year of construction, to 1908, when the Weilheimer family moved to San Francisco.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Gable-on-hipped roof
Palladian window (excluding stained glass)
Wood lap siding and wood shingle cladding at the gable end Partial-width wrap-around porch with Tuscan columns
Original fenestration including front and side projecting bay windows Original one-over-one double-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs.

Continuation of B12. References:

Bridget Maley. “938 Villa Street, Mountain View.” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record Forms. State of California, January 2018.

Jean McCloskey, Livable Mountain View. "Weilheimer House." National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. National Park Service, October 2018.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1888, 1891, 1897, 1904). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

Sarah M. Dreller, Nancy Goldenberg, and Connor E. Turnbull. “938-970 Villa Street.” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record Forms. State of California, February 2003.

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

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
838
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 954 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15815023 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Number of Stories: 1 Roof Style: Flat with Parapet, Monitor Roof Material: Spanish Clay Tile Exterior Material: Concrete - Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU), Stucco Primary Door Material: Fully Glazed Window Style: Casement, Storefront Window Material: Steel, Wood Porch: Recessed Entrance Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Recessed arched entryway, corbeled cornice; and gable monitor center with steel windows. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

April 26, 2024
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1931; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

M AND J LAND AND EQUIPMENT LEASING
COMPANY, 954 VILLA ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA
94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
839
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 954 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name: Air Base Laundry
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Commercial B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: 954 Villa Street opened as Air Base Laundry in 1931. Following the change in use from industrial to restaurant and brewery in the late 1980s, the building underwent alterations to the interior and exterior.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Carl Lindholm & Sons *B10. Significance: Theme: Commercial Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1931-1935 Property Type: Commercial Applicable NR/CR Criteria: C/3 (Design) Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:
954 Villa Street is a commercial building located in Old Mountain View, associated with the theme of Commercial Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The property opened as Air Base Laundry in 1931 through 1935 and has continued to be used as a laundry under various occupants through the 1960s, after which it became vacant. In 1968, the building was occupied by an electric warehouse, followed by a restaurant and brewery in 1988. The original business name appears to be a reference to the nearby Air Base Sunnyvale, that had just opened. It is now home to a commercial office space.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

On April 22, 2019 the property was determined eligible with owner objection by the Keeper of the National Register; the property was automatically listed in the California Register.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
840
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
Alterations to the exterior consisted of the replacement of the storefront door and windows, excluding those at the clerestory level. The primary facade originally featured two large plate glass windows, replaced with multi-lite sash industrial windows. Other minor exterior alterations include the addition of new commercial signage and triangular shades at the side setback.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
954 Villa Street is currently listed in the California Register and is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C/3 as an excellent example of a commercial building in the Spanish Colonial Revival style reflective of the architecture, planning, and development patterns implemented at Air Base Sunnyvale. The property is also eligibility for the Mountain View Register under Criterion c. With only several minor alterations including the replacement of storefront windows and doors, the property retains all aspects of integrity and has sufficient overall historic integrity for listing in the National Register, California Register, and the Mountain View Register with a period of significance of 1931, the year of construction. The following Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph was provided in the Draft National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (2018): "The building at 954 Villa Street in Mountain View, California is significant under National Register of Historic Places Criterion C in the area of architecture at the local level of significance as an excellent example of its type and style. The small-scale, Spanish Revival style commercial building, is located in downtown Mountain View’s commercial center. Built during a period of expansion in Mountain View directly related to the establishment of the nearby AirBase Sunnyvale (now Moffett Field), the building, historically known as the Air Base Laundry, reflects the fervor over the selection, planning and development of Air Base Sunnyvale, including the selected style of architecture for the base’s first buildings, Spanish Revival. The period of significance for the property is 1931 through 1935, its date of construction through the end of operation by Air Base Laundry, which also falls within the time frame that the Spanish Revival style was immensely popular in California, from 1915 to into the 1930s." The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Stucco cladding at the primary facade and concrete side walls Pent parapet with clay roof tiles
Arched corbeled cornice below the parapet
Arched, recessed entryway with fully glazed, metal frame semi-circular transom and sidelights Symmetrical placement of five recessed clerestory windows on either side of the main facade, with six lites Monitor roof
Divided-lite steel sash industrial windows with awning operability at the side facades.

Continuation of B12. References:

Bridget Maley. “Tied House-954 Villa Street, Mountain View.” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record Forms. State of California, January 2018.

Jean McCloskey. “Air Base Laundry.” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. National Park Service, Draft, October 2018.

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

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
841
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 1043 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1237 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15813007 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Queen Anne Plan Shape: Irregular
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Compound Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel, Wood - Shingle Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Bay Window, Casement, Double-Hung Window Material: Wood Porch: Partial Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Cross-gabled roof with hipped rear volume; pedimented gable dormer at primary facade; patterned shingle siding with alternating rows of scalloped and square shingles; and partial-width porch with tapered square posts. The bay window and porch have hipped gabled.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1904; The Leader
*P7. Owner and Address:

PURDON SIMON J AND WILSON KATE, 1043
VILLA ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
842
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 1043 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Queen Anne
*B6. Construction History: The property was constructed in 1904. The front porch is not original and was added sometime after 1956. A detached rear garage, likely built concurrently with the main residence, was expanded by 1943. *B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Mahlon K. Taylor
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1851-1909) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1904 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:

The property is a single-family home located in Old Mountain View designed in the Queen Anne style that is associated with the theme of Residential Development (1851-1909) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. It was built by Mahlon K.

Taylor in 1904 in the Bailey Tract subdivision along with the neighboring house at 1025 Villa Street, which has a similar design. The residence was first occupied by Pierre and Victoria Klein. Pierre Klein was a native of Alsace, France, and a renowned winemaker in San Francisco and on the San Francisco Peninsula.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. Property has an active Mills Act contract.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
843
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

Apart from its ownership by Pierre Klein, whose winemaking endeavors are not directly associated with 1043 Villa Street, it is not associated with persons, events, or broad patterns important to local, California, or national history, nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. The property has not been identified as the work of a notable architect or builder and does not possess high artistic merit. While the residence does not rise to a level of historic significance for listing in the National Register or California Register, 1043 Villa Street is currently listed in the Mountain View Register under Criterion c (Architecture) as a rare surviving example of the Queen Anne style in Mountain View, and continues to retain eligibility. The building exhibits distinctive features of the style, including the asymmetrical arrangement of the facade, steep pitched roof, decorative shingle patterning, bargeboard, and partial-width porch with tapered porch columns. Very few exterior alterations are visible; therefore, the property retains all aspects of overall historic integrity for listing in the Mountain View Register with a period of significance of 1904, the year of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Cross-gabled roof with steep pitch and eave returns
Belt course
Horizontal wood and patterned shingle siding
Pedimented gable dormer
Decorative bargeboard elements framing either side of the dormer Original partially glazed wood-paneled front door
Fenestration pattern and original double-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs Square bay window with hipped roof
Exterior brick chimney.

Continuation of B12. References:
“Brief Notes.” 1904. The Leader II (3).

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
844
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 1240 VILLA ST
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 1200 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1126 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15404012 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Spanish Clay Tile
Exterior Material: Stucco Primary Door Material: Fully Glazed Window Style: Arched Window Material: Metal
Porch: Recessed Entrance Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Metal balconettes; wrought iron metal light fixtures; plaster ornamentation with roundel reading "Pacific Press"; and tall, narrow arched openings with glass block. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP13. Community center/social hall *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 1, 2024
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1948; Mountain View Public Library
*P7. Owner and Address:

GOOGLE INC, 1600 AMPHITHEATRE PKWY,
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94043
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
845
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 1200 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name: Pacific Press Auditorium
B2. Common Name: 1240 Villa Street
B3. Original Use: Institutional B4. Present Use: Tech/Corporate Campus *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: The subject building was built in 1948. An aerial photograph of the Pacific Press campus dating to approximately the 1950s shows that the subject building has retained its footprint, massing, and roof form. However, the building was shown with no fenestration along the south facade. Seven arched windows have since been installed along the south facade, each with black metal mullions.

A Sanborn map from 1956 labels the building as the "church auditorium" and notes a wood truss roof.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Civic Growth and Social, Religious & Cultural Development (1945-1979) Area: Mountain View
Period of Significance: 1948-1983 Property Type: Institutional Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion b (Events) Statement of Significance:

The property is a Spanish Colonial Revival-style auditorium on the former Pacific Press campus located in the Shoreline West area of Mountain View. It is significant under the theme of Civic Growth and Social, Religious & Cultural Development (1945-1979) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The subject building was built in 1948 for the Pacific Press Publishing campus to serve as an auditorium and convention space for religious and employee programming. Damage was repaired and buildings rebuilt immediately following, and the facilities continued to expand over the subsequent years.

The Pacific Press was founded in 1904 in Mountain View as a Seventh-Day Adventist publishing business and was a major employer in Mountain View, and stimulated the residential development of the surrounding Shorline West neighborhood. The campus was severely damaged by the 1906 Earthquake and subsequent fires two months later.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP16. Religious building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
846
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
From visual analysis of the building and comparison with an undated color postcard, it appears likely that newer glazed window and door systems were installed within the existing recessed arched entryways. An accessible ramp was added in recent years.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The subject building was purpose-built in 1948 as an auditorium and was not known to provide any direct function related to the operation of the printing press business. Rather, the auditorium was used for employee gatherings and gatherings of the wider Seventh-day Adventist community. Other Pacific Press buildings have been demolished or substantially altered such that the full property does not retain historic integrity for listing in the National Register or California Register. As the auditorium served a more ancillary, social function to the Pacific Press printing facilities, the building does not appear to rise to a level of individual significance for listing in the National Register or California Register. However, the building is eligible for listing in the Mountain View Historic Register, as it was used by printing press employees for programming and is the last remaining extant building associated with the wider local Seventh-day Adventist community and Pacific Press campus, which was very significant to the development of Mountain View. The period of significance is 1948, the year of construction, through 1983, when the Pacific Press moved to Nampa, Idaho. Large arched windows have been installed along the south facade of the subject building, diminishing integrity of design, and the setting has been impacted as other Pacific Press buildings have been demolished or substantially altered and the site redeveloped for a tech campus. However, the building retains all other aspects of integrity including location, association, and feeling, which are most relevant to Criterion b (Events).

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall footprint and massing
Gable roof with clay tiles and no eaves
Stucco cladding and brick base
Three arched openings at ground level at northwest facade Arched windows with metal mullions in recessed niche, above north facade main entrance Wrought iron balconette
Wrought iron and art glass decorative fixtures on the northwest facade Tall, narrow arched openings with glass block on northwest facade Decorative plaster ornament with roundel reading "Pacific Press" in gable end of the northwest facade.

Continuation of B12. References:

Aerial photograph of Pacific Press., ca.1950s. Mountain View Public Library. Accessed May 8, 2024. https://calisphere.org/item/46989a230c917422e1c82a5b5a360b5e/.

Colored Postcard Showing the Pacific Press Auditorium, Built in 1948. Undated. Mountain View Public Library. http://archive.org/details/cmv_001037.

Sanborn Map Company. “Insurance Maps of Mountain View, California.” Sanborn Map Company, 1956. Fire Insurance Maps Online.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
847
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 1209 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1123 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15409043 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Dutch Colonial Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Gambrel Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel, Wood - Shingle Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Portico Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Cross-gambrel roof at the gambrel roof ends; wood sash double-hung windows with divided upper lites; and interior brick chimney.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1907; Mountain View Register-Leader
*P7. Owner and Address:

LENTCZNER MARK TRUSTEE & ET AL, 1209 VILLA
ST, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
848
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 1209 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name: Malone House
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Dutch Colonial
*B6. Construction History: 1209 Villa Street was built in 1907.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
849
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
In 1999, the property underwent a renovation that included the replacement of most windows in-kind, installation of a new door and sidelites at the primary entrance, the addition of square columns beneath the existing portico, and two projections to the rear south facade.

Between 1908 and 1921, a rear ancillary building was converted and enlarge (or replaced with) a garage; the garage appears to have been altered since.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
1655 Villa Street appears eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3 as an excellent local example of the Dutch Colonial Revival style with elements of the Queen Anne style, including wood shingles at the gable ends and double-hung windows with geometric muntins at the upper sash. It was common for residences of this period to include eclectic influences and to see Queen Anne style features in Colonial Revival homes, which are distinctive for their gambrel roofs. Apart from its period of ownership by Pierre Klein, whose winemaking endeavors are not directly associated with 1655 Villa Street, it is not associated with persons, events, or broad patterns important to local, California, or national history, nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. Any alterations to exterior facades appear to be in-kind or closely compatible, and therefore the property retains sufficient overall historic integrity for listing in the California Register.

The period of significance is 1907, the year of construction. This evaluation does not address Mountain View Register eligibility.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Cross-gamble roof
Horizontal wood clapboard siding with shingles in the gambrel roof ends Fenestration pattern and wood sash double-hung windows with divided lites Demi-lune wood vents
Entrance portico
Continuation of B12. References:

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

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

Perry, Nicholas. "Mountain View." Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2006.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
850
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 1645 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1136 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15410004 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Craftsman Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Slider Window Material: Vinyl
Porch: Partial Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails; and round Tuscan columns at porch. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1924; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

JAYASINGHE NILANHI AND WEERASINGHE
VAJIRA E, 10757 S BLANEY AVE, CUPERTINO CA
95014
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
851
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 1645 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: The property was built in 1924. From visual analysis, many original wood windows have been replaced with vinyl sliders.

Seventh-Day Adventist families who moved to the area with the business built their homes in the blocks along Mariposa Street, Pettis Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue, and Mountain View Avenue. According to historian Nick Perry, about 100 Seventh-Day Adventist families moved to Mountain View along with the Pacific Press Association, establishing an industrial enterprise in a town that previously had a population of around 600 and whose economy was based on agriculture. In subsequent decades, members of the Seventh Day Adventist community established to the southwest of the Pacific Press Association built local institutions such as the Mountain View Academy high school, established in 1922, and became active in local politics. By the start of World War II, the neighborhood consisted of dense residential blocks interspersed with patches of orchards remaining from its previous agricultural use. The publishing plant remained in operation in Mountain View until 1984.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

None
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
852
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
Other alterations include the replacement of the front and garage doors. A comparison of historic aerial photographs shows that a gabled, one-story rear addition was constructed sometime after 1968. Research could not confirm if the garage is original or altered.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
1645 Villa Street does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria. While the property does not rise to the level of significance and historic integrity for individual designation in the National Register or California Register. It is not associated with persons, events, or broad patterns important to local, California, or national history, nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. The property has not been identified as the work of a notable architect or builder and does not possess high artistic merit. As a modest bungalow it does not rise to a level of distinction as an example of the Craftsman style for listing in the National Register or California Register. However, the property is currently listed in the Mountain View Register. 1645 Villa Street retains eligibility for the Mountain View Register under Criterion c as a good example of a Craftsman bungalow built during a period of increased housing development for local employees of the Pacific Press Association in Shoreline West. As currently written, the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance does not provide a definition of historic integrity or threshold for integrity assessment, and a somewhat lower threshold of historic integrity compared to National Register and California Register-eligible properties may be utilized in assessing properties of local significance for the Mountain View Register. 1645 Villa Street has a rear addition that is minimally visible from the public right-of-way, is compatible in scale and design with the original building, and does not detract from the historic integrity.

Replacement of original windows with vinyl-sash sliders has impacted historic integrity, but the overall Craftsman bungalow form, massing, and design remain legible and other original features such as the front porch are intact. As such, the property retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its local significance for Mountain View Register eligibility. The period of significance is 1924, the year of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing
Low-pitch gabled roof with wide overhanging eaves and exposed rafter and beam ends Partial-width porch with Tuscan columns
Horizontal wood clapboard siding
Vented gable.

Continuation of B12. References:

Ignoffo, Mary Jo. "Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California." Cupertino, CA: California History Center, 2002. NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online September 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Perry, Nicholas. "Mountain View." Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2006.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder, historic aerials (1968). Accessed online September 2024, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
853
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 1655 VILLA ST City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-1136 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15410003 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Craftsman Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Vinyl, Wood
Porch: Partial Width Garage: None
Other Architectural/Site Features: Partial-width projecting porch has battered columns. Low-pitched roof with wide overhanging eaves and exposed beam ends. A one-story rear addition has a gabled roof with a steeper pitch than the original building. A detached garage is set back at the rear of the property.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1928; Santa Clara County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

CHEN PING TRUSTEE & ET AL, 22064 BAXLEY CT,
CUPERTINO CA 95014
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
854
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 1655 VILLA ST
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: 1655 Villa Street was built in 1928.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1928 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:
1655 Villa Street is a Craftsman-style single-family residence located in the Shoreline West neighborhood, associated with the theme of Residential Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. 1655 Villa Street was built as part of the larger pattern of residential development in surrounding blocks spurred by the need to house employees of the Pacific Press Association, whose printing facility was located less than a half mile to the northeast of the property. The neighborhood now referred to as "Shoreline West" grew as a residential area at what was then the west edge of Mountain View following the ca. 1904 establishment of the Seventh Day Adventist publisher, the Pacific Press publishing company. The publishing company's plant was located on Villa Street west of what is now South Shoreline Boulevard, having moved to Mountain View from its previous location in Oakland. where it was established in 1874. Seventh-Day Adventist families who moved to the area with the business built their homes in the blocks along Mariposa Street, Pettis Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue, and Mountain View Avenue. According to historian Nick Perry, about 100 Seventh-Day Adventist families moved to Mountain View along with the Pacific Press Association, establishing an industrial enterprise in a town that previously had a population of around 600 and whose economy was based on agriculture. In subsequent decades, members of the Seventh Day Adventist community established to the southwest of the Pacific Press Association built local institutions such as the Mountain View Academy high school, established in 1922, and became active in local politics. By the start of World War II, the neighborhood consisted of dense residential blocks interspersed with patches of orchards remaining from its previous agricultural use. The publishing plant remained in operation in Mountain View until 1984.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
855
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
From visual analysis, it appears that the original wood sash windows were replaced with vinyl or wood windows. A one-story rear addition with a steeper pitched gable roof was likely added in the 1990s, from analysis of aerial photographs.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register. It is not individually associated with persons, events, or broad patterns important to local, California, or national history, nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. The property has not been identified as the work of a notable architect or builder and does not possess high artistic merit. While the property does not rise to the level of significance for individual designation in the National Register or California Register, the property is currently listed in the Mountain View Register. The property retains eligibility for local listing under Mountain View Register Criterion c (Design) as a good example of a vernacular bungalow associated with the residential development of Shoreline West following the arrival of Pacific Press. The bungalow, while modest in scale, has several distinctive Craftsman style features, including the prominent front porch with battered columns, exposed beam ends, and wood lattice roof vents. Although the roofline of the rear addition is somewhat visible, the addition is at the rear of the building and the overall original form, massing, and design of the residence remain legible, and other original cladding and architectural features are intact. As such, the property retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its significance for listing in the Mountain View Register. The period of significance is 1928, the year of construction.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall form and massing (excluding rear addition)
Low-pitched roof with wide overhanging eaves and exposed beams Partial-width porch with battered columns
Beveled horizontal wood siding
Fenestration pattern and double-hung windows with divided-lite upper sash Wood lattice vents in gable ends.

Continuation of B12. References:

NETR Online, aerial photographs, 1948-2020. Accessed online September 2024, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Sanborn Map Company, fire insurance maps (1921, 1943, 1956). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
856
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 247-255 N WHISMAN RD
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 253 N WHISMAN RD City: Mountain View Zip: 94043-3911 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 16052009 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Vernacular Plan Shape: Rectangle
Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 1
Roof Style: Gable Roof Material: Asphalt - Shingle
Exterior Material: Wood - Clapboard/Lap/Bevel Primary Door Material: Wood - Panel Window Style: Double-Hung Window Material: Wood
Porch: Partial Width Garage: Detached Garage
Other Architectural/Site Features: Appears to have six single-family residences on site (description refers to central front residence at 253 N Whisman Road). Other buildings include a detached garage and other ancillary/storage buildings. Behind the buildings is an unmaintained apricot orchard.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP3. Multiple family property, HP33. Farm/ranch *P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object ✓ Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

April 26, 2024
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
ca.1930s-1940s; Aerial photographs
*P7. Owner and Address:

FRANCIA GABRIEL TRUSTEE & ET AL, 1454
LEWISTON DR, SUNNYVALE CA 94087
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
857
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 253 N WHISMAN RD
B1. Historic Name: Francia Orchard
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Residential - Multi-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The Francia Orchard was planted with apricot trees to its current extent in 1935. By 1939, historic aerial photographs show that several small buildings had been constructed in the northwest corner of the site. By the 1940s, several larger buildings (including the central residence) had been constructed with gable roofs in the center of the furthest western edge of the lot, along with a cluster of smaller buildings constructed at the southwestern corner.

See Continuation Sheet.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage, Orchard, Outbuildings.

B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Francia Family
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agricultural & Industrial Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View
Period of Significance: 1935-1968 Property Type: Agricultural Applicable NR/CR Criteria: A/1 (Events), B/2 (Persons)
Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion a (Persons), MVRHR Criterion b (Events) Statement of Significance:

The property is an apricot orchard with residential and agricultural support buildings in the North Whisman neighborhood that is associated with the theme of Agricultural & Industrial Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The orchard at 253 N Whisman Road was established by orchardists Mike and Serafina Francia in 1935. Mike and Seraphina Francia were both natives of Italy and longtime Mountain View residents. Mike Francia arrived in Crescent City, California from Italy in 1913, eventually moving to San Jose in 1918 and settling in Mountian View in the 1930s. Serafina, also a native of Italy, settled in Mountain View prior to 1920. In 1935, the Francia family started their own apricot orchard at 253 N. Whisman Road, where they also resided until Mike's death in 1967 and Serafina's death the following year. The family's apricot orchard has since remained in the Francia family, and is significant as the only remaining apricot orchard in the city of Mountain View. Although not currently operational, the apricot trees remain extant in the orchard behind the residences along N Whisman Road. What is now the City of Mountain View was once predominately covered in agricultural land and was part of what was know as the Santa Clara "Valley of Heart's Delight." In 1919, the county had 91,152 acres of fruit tree orchards alone. However, the population growth and influx of aerospace, electronics, and other high-tech industries in the post-World War II period led to most of this agricultural land being redeveloped.

See Continuation Sheet.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

None
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
858
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B6. Construction History
From visual analysis, it appears that two larger residential buildings replaced existing structures at the north and southwestern corners of the property in the 1980s or 1990s. Other extant agricultural and residential buildings appear minimally altered.

Continuation of B10. Statement of Significance
Francia Orchard appears eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources at the local level under Criteria A/1/a (Events) as the only remaining orchard in Mountain View and for its association with Mountain View's important early agricultural development history. Francia Orchard also appears eligible under Criteria B/2/b (Persons) for its association with the family of Mike and Serafina Francia and their legacy as important local orchardists. While it is likely that several original residential buildings on the property have been replaced with new construction, the property retains the orchard and overall agricultural character and has sufficient overall historic integrity for listing in the National Register, California Register, and the Mountain View Register. The period of significance is 1935 to 1968, the year the orchard was established through the year of Serafina Francia's death.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Overall siting and landscape design
Apricot tree species and planting patterns
Agricultural outbuildings and residences that date to the period of significance.

Continuation of B12. References:

Brandon Roth. “Old Orchard Represents Mountain View’s Last Connection to Its Agricultural Past.” Los Altos Town Crier 77, no. 15 (April 10, 2024): 7.

California Division of Forestry. Flight CDF5, Frame 435. April 1, 1948. Photograph. University of California, Santa Barbara Special Collections. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/apcatalog/report/report.php?filed_by=CDF5.

Fairchild Aerial Surveys. Flight C-5750, Frame 3965. January 1, 1939. Photograph. University of California, Santa Barbara Special Collections. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/apcatalog/report/report.php?filed_by=C-5750. “Mike Francia.” Palo Alto Times, July 10, 1967, 4.
“Mrs. Francia.” Palo Alto Times, March 3, 1968, 4.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
859
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mountain View (Date: 2021)
c. Address: 680 YOSEMITE AV City: Mountain View Zip: 94041-2159 d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 15809058 *P3a. Description:

Architectural Style: Tudor Revival/English Cottage Plan Shape: Rectangle Construction Type: Wood Frame Number of Stories: 2
Roof Style: Cross-gabled Roof Material: Flat Clay Tile
Exterior Material: Stucco Primary Door Material: Wood
Window Style: Bay Window, Dormer, Double-Hung Window Material: Wood Porch: Recessed Entrance, stoop Garage: Detached Garage Other Architectural/Site Features: Steeply pitched cross-gabled roof covered with flat clay tiles. Twin dormers with steep gable roofs on the first floor with an inset demilune motif. Recessed entrance with curved walls. Dormer with shed roof at the second floor. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo
P5b. Description of Photo:

May 3, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
✓ Historic Prehistoric Both
1928; Previous documentation
*P7. Owner and Address:

CAMPIONE RICHARD J AND MARY E TRUSTEE,
680 YOSEMITE AVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
*P8. Recorded by:

Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San
Francisco CA 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:

January 2, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Page & Turnbull, "City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement," prepared for City of Mountain View, Final Draft, October 1, 2024.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map ✓ Continuation Sheet ✓ Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
860
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 3 ends

*Resource Name or # 680 YOSEMITE AV
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Residential - Single-Family B4. Present Use: Residential - Single-Family *B5. Architectural Style: Tudor Revival/English Cottage *B6. Construction History: 680 Yosemite Street was built in 1928 by builder P.N. Doyle. Clay roof tiles replaced the original roofing at an unknown date. Detached garage appears to be original.
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Pat N. Doyle
*B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944) Area: Mountain View Period of Significance: 1928 Property Type: Residential - Single-Family Applicable NR/CR Criteria: None Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Criteria: MVRHR Criterion c (Design) Statement of Significance:
680 Yosemite Avenue is a Tudor Revival-style single-family residence located in Old Mountain View, associated with the theme of Residential Development (1910-1944) as elaborated in the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. 680 Yosemite was the first residence built in the Nelson Manor Tract, which originally included 150 lots. It was constructed by Pat N. Doyle, a notable local contractor and designer who built several other residences in the Nelson Manor Tract. The property was the personal residence of Doyle from 1928 to 1929, however, it was sold to George Batten in 1929 and then sold back to Doyle from 1930 to 1934.

The subject property retains eligibility for the Mountain View Register under Criterion c (Architecture) as an excellent local example of Tudor Revival architecture and the work of notable local builder Pat N. Doyle. The property has been minimally altered and retains a high level of integrity. The period of significance is 1928, the year of construction. The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria, as it is not associated with persons, events, or broad patterns important to local, California, or national history, nor is it likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. While it is a good local example of Tudor Revival residential architecture, it would not be considered high-style or possessing artistic merit.

The character-defining features of the resource include:

Cross-gabled roof with steep pitch
Stucco cladding
Twin gabled and shed dormers
Recessed, curved entrance
Bay window
Detached garage.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:

HP4. Ancillary building
*B12. References:

See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks:

The property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register. Property has an active Mills Act contract.
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
*Date of Evaluation: January 2, 2025
Sketch Map
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
861
DRAFT
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 3 ends

*Recorded by: Page & Turnbull *Date: January 2, 2025 ✓
Continuation Update
Continuation of B12. References:

Carey & Co. Inc, "Citywide Historic Properties Survey Mountain View, California." Vols. I and II. Prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
862
Eligible Resources
Design Significance Only
In order by Local, State, or National Register Eligibility Attachment 10
Address Alternate Addresses
Resource Eval Form
Doc. Pg. No. Criteria NRHP/CRHR Eligibility Owner Comments MV Register Status Property Name Year Built Historic Context Statement Typology (Use) 1181 BONITA AV 1195 BONITA AV 46 Design MV Only On ca.1930 Residential - Single-Family 725 CALDERON AV 67 Design MV Only Yes On Willie Garliepp House 1910 Residential - Single-Family 990 CALIFORNIA ST 73 Design MV Only Do not list E.Z. Hitchcock House 1904 Residential - Single-Family 1560 CALIFORNIA ST 76 Design MV Only On 1900 Residential - Single-Family 1610 CALIFORNIA ST 79 Design MV Only On 1900 Residential - Single-Family 1690 CALIFORNIA ST 82 Design MV Only Yes On 1928 Residential - Single-Family 169 CASTRO ST 169-175 CASTRO ST 91 Design MV Only Do not list On Ames Building 1904 Commercial 292 CASTRO ST 106 Design MV Only Knight's Pharmacy 1932 Commercial 251 CHIQUITA AV 127 Design MV Only Undecided On ca.1910-1920 Residential - Single-Family 2715 DIERICX DR 145 Design MV Only Yes On Levin Huff House 1929 Residential - Single-Family 624 W EL CAMINO REAL 151 Design MV Only Do not list Joe Musso Motor Service 1958 Auto-Related Commercial/Light Industrial 1051 W EL CAMINO REAL 276 Design MV Only Do not list 1955 Commercial 1901 W EL CAMINO REAL 282 Design MV Only Do not list Walt's Texaco Service 1958 Auto-Related Commercial/Light Industrial 2674 W EL CAMINO REAL 285 Design MV Only 1948 Agricultural 350 FRANKLIN ST 297 Design MV Only On 1916 Residential - Single-Family 394 FRANKLIN ST 300 Design MV Only Yes On Campbell House 1899 Residential - Single-Family 403 HOPE ST 312 Design MV Only Undecided On 1922 Residential - Single-Family 425 HOPE ST 315 Design MV Only Yes On ca.1900 Residential - Single-Family 302 LORETO ST 331 Design MV Only On 1927 Residential - Single-Family 201 MARIPOSA AV 209 MARIPOSA AV 337 Design MV Only Do not list Off Pierre Klein House 1920 Residential - Single-Family 250 MARIPOSA AV 340 Design MV Only ca.1900-1920 Residential - Single-Family 496 MARIPOSA AV 343 Design MV Only Undecided On 1915 Residential - Single-Family 252 MONROE DR 374 Design MV Only Do not list ca.1931 Agricultural 372 MOUNTAIN VIEW AV 377 Design MV Only Do not list On 1905 Residential - Single-Family 360 OAK ST 380 Design MV Only Yes On 1923 Residential - Single-Family 390 PALO ALTO AV 386 Design MV Only On 1928 Residential - Single-Family 562 PETTIS AV 389 Design MV Only Do not list On 1925 Residential - Single-Family 472 S SHORELINE BL 407 Design MV Only Yes On 1910 Residential - Single-Family 327 VIEW ST 431 Design MV Only On 1921 Residential - Single-Family 472 VIEW ST 482 VIEW ST 437 Design MV Only Do not list 1899 Residential - Single-Family 515 VILLA ST 443 Design MV Only Undecided On ca.1921-1943 Residential - Single-Family 831 VILLA ST 833 VILLA ST 446 Design MV Only 1928 Commercial 895 VILLA ST 449 Design MV Only Do not list Purity Store 1939 Commercial 1043 VILLA ST 458 Design MV Only On 1904 Residential - Single-Family 1645 VILLA ST 467 Design MV Only On 1924 Residential - Single-Family 1655 VILLA ST 470 Design MV Only Yes On 1928 Residential - Single-Family 680 YOSEMITE AV 476 Design MV Only Yes On 1928 Residential - Single-Family 1209 VILLA ST 464 Design CRHR Eligible Yes Protected Single-Family Malone House 1907 Residential - Single-Family - R District 177 ADA AV 4 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off (Protected Single-Family) ca.1899-1900 Residential - Single-Family - R District 272 BUSH ST 52 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list Protected Single-Family ca.1900 Residential - Single-Family - R District 415 BUSH ST 55 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Undecided Protected Single-Family 1935 Residential - Single-Family - R District 537 BUSH ST 58 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list Off (Protected Single-Family) Ward-Minton House 1912 Residential - Single-Family - R District 97 CHURCH ST 711 CALDERON AVE 64 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off (Protected Single-Family) E.T. Johnson House ca.1900 Residential - Single-Family - R District 696 CALIFORNIA ST 690 CALIFORNIA ST 70 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list Off McDonald House 1906 Residential - Single-Family 301 CASTRO ST 109 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Bank of America Building 1946 Commercial 501 CASTRO ST 118 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Mountain View Home Savings & LoanAssociation 1959 Commercial 595 CHURCH ST 136 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Yes On 1930 Residential - Single-Family 890 CHURCH ST 139 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off American Legion Memorial Building 1931 Institutional 615 CUESTA DR 142 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible City-owned Cuesta Park 1967-1972 Landscape - Designed 749 W EL CAMINO REAL 154 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Home Savings & Loan Association 1977 Commercial 2690 W EL CAMINO REAL 288 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Lozano Car Wash 1962 Auto-Related Commercial/Light Industrial 782 HOPE ST 786 HOPE ST 318 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible 1948 Residential - Multi-Family 280 LESLIE CT 113 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 325 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Undecided Off (Protected Single-Family) Robledad 1914 Residential - Single-Family - R District 1655 LLOYD WY 328 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Yes On 1920 Residential - Single-Family 484 LORETO ST 334 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Yes On Alfred and Emily Olsen House 1924 Residential - Single-Family 1855 MIRAMONTE AV 365 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list On Wright Residence 1927 Residential - Single-Family 340 PALO ALTO AV 383 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off (Protected Single-Family) 1908 Residential - Single-Family - R District 604 PETTIS AV 392 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list Off (Protected Single-Family) ca.1888-1900 Residential - Single-Family - R District 1247 SPRINGER RD 416 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Yes On Walter House 1920 Residential - Single-Family 395 VELARDE ST 425 Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Yes Protected Single-Family 1938 Residential - Single-Family - R District 492 CASTRO ST 444 CASTRO ST 115 Design Listed CRHR Do not list International EnvironmentalDynamics (IED) Building 1971 Office Building 954 VILLA ST 455 Design Listed NRHP/CRHR Air Base Laundry 1931 Commercial 863
Eligible Resources
Persons or Events Significance
In Order By Local, State, or National Register Eligibility Address Alternate Addresses
Resource Eval
Form Doc. Pg. No. Criteria NRHP/CRHR Eligibility Owner Comments MV Register Status Property Name Year Built Historic Context Statement Typology (Use) 445 CALDERON AV 61 Persons MV Only On Abbott/Bakotich House ca.1885 Residential - Single-Family 134 CASTRO ST 88 Events MV Only Do not list 1967 Commercial 228 CASTRO ST 103 Events MV Only On Mountain View Theater 1926 Commercial 331 CASTRO ST 329 CASTRO ST 112 Events MV Only Do not list Mountain View Register-Leader Building 1930 Commercial 655 CASTRO ST 121 Events, Design MV Only Do not list 1930 Commercial 300 CHIQUITA AV 130 Persons, Events MV Only Off 1905 Residential - Single-Family 96 W EL CAMINO REAL 148 Persons MV Only Cusimano Family Colonial Mortuary 1960 Mortuary 1414 W EL CAMINO REAL 279 Events, Design MV Only Do not list Jane's Steak House; El Zarape Drive-in 1953 Commercial 570 FRANKLIN ST 572 FRANKLIN ST 303 Events, Design MV Only 1940 Residential - Multi-Family 574 FRANKLIN ST 576 FRANKLIN ST 306 Events, Design MV Only 1940 Residential - Multi-Family 1390 LATHAM ST 321 Persons, Events MV Only Yes On James H. Cochran Residence 1912 Residential - Single-Family 771 N RENGSTORFF AV STEEL STAR WINDMILL 398 Events MV Only City-owned Steel Star Windmill (Hertiage Park) 1936 Agricultural 1531 TYLER PARK WY 422 Events, Design MV Only Yes On 1922 Residential - Single-Family 322 VIEW ST 326 VIEW ST 428 Persons, Design MV Only Yes On McPheeters House 1910 Residential - Single-Family 1200 VILLA ST 1240 VILLA ST 461 Events MV Only Do not list Pacific Press Auditorium 1948 Institutional 355 E MIDDLEFIELD RD 346 Events CRHR Eligible Do not list 1964 Tech/Corporate Office Park 462 SLEEPER AV 410 Events, Design (MV) CRHR Eligible Off (Protected Single-Family) ca.1900 Residential - Single-Family - R District 206 BUSH ST 49 Persons, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible On James Shower House 1904 Residential - Single-Family 124 CASTRO ST 124-126 CASTRO ST 85 Persons, Events NRHP/CRHR Eligible On S. Weilheimer & Sons; S. Rummelsburg & Sons 1874 Commercial 191 CASTRO ST 94 Persons, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off Mockbee Building 1906 Commercial 194 CASTRO ST 198 CASTRO ST 97 Persons, Events, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Undecided Off Odell & Jurian; A. Jurian & Co. 1913 Commercial 201 CASTRO ST 761 VILLA ST 100 Events, Design (MV) NRHP/CRHR Eligible On Farmers & Merchant's Bank 1905 Commercial 799 CASTRO ST 124 Persons, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list Spangler Mortuary 1931 Mortuary 334 CHURCH ST 133 Persons, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off (Protected Single-Family) Mancini House 1949-1952 Residential - Single-Family - R District 555 ELLIS ST 291 Events (MV), Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list 1979 Tech/Corporate Office Park 655 EUNICE AV 294 Events NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off (Protected Single-Family) Blue and Gold Kennel Club; Whitehall Distillery; Burton's Gold Medal Distillery 1924 Residential - Single-Family - R District 392 HOPE ST 309 Events, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible California Apartments ca.1928 Residential - Multi-Family 243 MOFFETT BL 371 Events NRHP/CRHR Eligible Do not list Arrow Development Building 1946 Industrial 771 N RENGSTORFF AV IMMIGRANT HOUSE 395 Events, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible City-owned On Immigrant House (Heritage Park) ca.1888 Residential - Single-Family 987 N RENGSTORFF AV 401 Persons, Events NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off Ambra Olive Oil Company Building ca.1926-1930 Industrial 432 STIERLIN RD 419 Events NRHP/CRHR Eligible Irmandade da Festa do Espirito Santo (IFES) Hall No.1 1931 Institutional 344 VIEW ST 434 Persons, Design NRHP/CRHR Eligible Off (Protected Single-Family) Swall House ca.1908 Residential - Single-Family - R District 361 VILLA ST 440 Events NRHP/CRHR Eligible Sociedade da Festa Velha (SFV) do Divino Espirito Santo No. 1 Hall 1937 Institutional 253 N WHISMAN RD 247-255 N WHISMAN RD 473 Persons, Events NRHP/CRHR Eligible Francia Orchard ca.1930s-1940sAgricultural 938 VILLA ST 452 Persons, Design Listed CRHR Off Weilheimer House ca.1894 Residential - Single-Family 157 MOFFETT BL 368 Events, Design Listed NRHP/CRHR City-owned On Mountain View Adobe 1934 Civic/Government 3070 N SHORELINE BL 404 Persons, Design Listed NRHP/CRHR City-owned On Rengstorff House ca.1867 Residential - Single-Family 864
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206047, Version: 1
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
Adopt the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan.

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™865
DATE: September 22, 2026
CATEGORY: New Business
DEPT.: Public Works Department
TITLE: Active Transportation Plan Adoption

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan.

BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2020, Council directed staff to integrate and update the Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP), adopted by Council on January 28, 2014, and the Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP), adopted by Council on November 17, 2015. The combined plan is the Active Transportation Plan.

In the new Active Transportation Plan, competing uses within the public right-of-way would be evaluated with a more holistic approach. On May 24, 2022, Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with NN Engineering, Inc. (Project Team), for the development of a Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP), Project 21-36.

Plan Purpose
The MVATP is a long-range plan that sets a vision for the future of walking, bicycling, and rolling in Mountain View. It summarizes the current conditions in the City, including community perspectives and experiences. It identifies and prioritizes projects, policies, and programs that the City can implement to promote and support walking, bicycling, and rolling. It will serve as a guide and resource for City staff’s day-to-day work and provide context for decisions and direction made by the City’s advisory bodies and City Council for the next 10 to 20 years. This plan is intended to be complementary to other precise plans, specific plans, regional plans, and local plans, such as Vision Zero, Safe Routes to School, the Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan, and the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, among others.

Plan Development
The Plan was developed through a multi-year process that included technical analysis, extensive community engagement, and interdepartmental collaboration. As the plan progressed, staff 866
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 12 ends

provided updates and requested feedback from various stakeholders and committees. This includes:
● Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): comprised of 13 staff members from Public Works, Community Services, Fire, and Community Development Departments, and City Manager’s Office.
● Active Transportation Public Advisory Committee (ATPAC): comprised of representatives from 12 community-based organizations, nonprofit entities, or advisory bodies, and Valley Transportation Authority.
● Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC): a five-member committee established to address a variety of issues associated with promoting a safe and positive environment for bicyclists and pedestrians in Mountain View, including transportation, safety and access. ● Council Transportation Committee (CTC): a three-member City Council subcommittee established to oversee programs and activities intended to improve and enhance the City’s transportation systems.

Staff also provided periodic updates to City Council. Table 1 lists meetings and topics discussed at BPAC, CTC, and City Council.

Table 1: Committee, Commission, and Council Meetings
Date Body Topic
May 24, 2022 City Council Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with consultant for development of Active
Transportation Plan
February 22, 2023 BPAC Receive presentation on scope of work and provide input to vision statement
October 25, 2023 BPAC Review and provide feedback on existing conditions report
April 24, 2024 BPAC Review and provide feedback on draft scoring criteria May 28, 2024 City Council Review and approve scoring criteria, with changes September 3, 2024 CTC Recommend approval for funding, revised scope, and direction on vision statement
October 22, 2024 City Council Approve funding, revised scope, and direction of vision statement
April 1, 2025 CTC Recommend staff proceed with ATP, with holistic network maps and revised scoring criteria
March 4, 2025 CTC Project update
March 11, 2025 BPAC Scoring criteria and Holistic Network Map 867
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 12 ends

Date Body Topic
April 29, 2026 BPAC Review and comment on Public Draft Active Transportation Plan
June 16, 2026 CTC Review and comment on Public Draft Active Transportation Plan
August 18, 2026 BPAC Recommend Final Plan for adoption
August 31, 2026 CTC Recommend Final Plan for adoption
Public Engagement
Public and stakeholder participation was a critical component of the MVATP’s development.

Public engagement was multi-lingual (English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian), with translation and interpretation services for key events.

The project team hosted multiple community engagement efforts to understand walking and biking conditions in Mountain View and to allow opportunities for the community to comment on plan development. These included:
● Guided walking and biking tours focused on vulnerable users and challenging areas ● A multilingual online map-based survey with 655 respondents, used to identify favorite areas and challenges
● Targeted small-group multilingual meetings to reach underrepresented communities ● Analysis of roughly three years of public feedback from the City’s AskMV platform, which allows people to submit concerns to the City
● Soliciting comments on the Public Review Draft Plan through CollaborateMV and an in-person public meeting Input from these activities informed the plan recommendations and the criteria for selecting the top-priority projects. Comments included specific location-based suggestions as well as larger themes, including support for the trails and protected bikeways, recognition that major streets are both important routes and barriers, a desire to improve intersections and reduce driver speed, and the fact that people walk and bike for everyday travel, not just recreation.

Vision and Guiding Principles
The Vision and Guiding Principles of the MVATP were developed in collaboration with the ATPAC, the city’s BPAC, and City staff. The BPAC provided input into the Vision at the February 22, 2023 868
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 12 ends

meeting. CTC reviewed the Vision and recommended revisions to City Council on September 3, 2024. City Council approved the revised Vison on October 22, 2024:

Guiding Principles:
● Mobility and Connectivity streets that are easy to use and well-connected for walking, biking, and rolling purposes.
● Safety and Comfort: Trails, sidewalks, bikeways, intersections, and crosswalks that are safe, inviting, and easy to use.
● Access and Equity: Policies and programs that engage and protect vulnerable populations and increase mobility choices.
● Sustainability and Biodiversity: Green streets that improve access to nature and open spaces while promoting sustainability via native habitats and stormwater management. ● Innovative and Action-Oriented: An implementable plan with clear standards that are updated and aligned with adopted policies

ANALYSIS
This report summarizes the contents of the Final MVATP, how staff addressed the comments received on the Public Review Draft MVATP, how staff addressed the comments from BPAC and CTC on the Draft Final MVATP, and next steps.

Plan Contents
The Final MVATP includes the following content:

Existing Conditions
The MVATP began with a review of background documents and analysis of existing conditions and community survey input. The analysis examined active transportation conditions across demographics, mode share, network connectivity, collisions, access, equity, biodiversity, and user perceptions. The Draft Existing Conditions and Needs Summary report was presented to 869
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 5 of 12 ends

and reviewed by BPAC on October 25, 2023. A summary of existing conditions is presented in Chapter 2 of the MVATP, and the Final Existing Conditions and Needs Summary report is included as Appendix E.

Chapter 2 also includes holistic network maps, which illustrate Mountain View’s existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, drawn from the City’s specific plans, corridor studies, master plans, and bicycle, pedestrian or Vision Zero related planning efforts. The intention is to bring together on a single map all proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, to identify gaps, and to show a long-term vision for the City’s walking and bicycling networks.

Recommendations
The recommendations presented in Chapter 3 and Appendices A and B of the MVATP align with the plan’s vision and focus on providing safer, more comfortable, and separated facilities for people walking and biking. The pedestrian recommendations include new and/or upgraded Class I shared-use paths, sidewalks, and crossing improvements. The bicycle recommendations include Class I shared-use paths, Class II bicycle lanes, Class III bicycle routes and boulevards, and Class IV separated facilities. Tables 2 and 3 below provide a summary of the proposed new facilities.

Table 2: Pedestrian Recommendations
Recommendation Mileage Number
Crossing improvements 30
Class I shared-use path 10.5
Sidewalk widening 5.4
New sidewalk on one side 1.5
New sidewalk on both sides 0.3
Table 3: Bicycle Recommendations
Recommendation Mileage
Class I shared-use path 10.5
Class II bike lane 4.9
Class III bike route 4.3
Class IIIB bicycle boulevards 20.7
Class IV separated bikeways 22.3
This chapter also includes a set of program and policy recommendations to support active transportation. These program and policy recommendations were developed to align with MVATP’s Vision and Guiding Principles and to support safer, more accessible walking and biking.

They were also informed by related programs and policies in other adopted City plans, including the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Roadway Safety Plan. 870
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 6 of 12 ends

The proposed programs and policies include improving intersection safety (e.g., increasing sightlines at corners and leading pedestrian intervals), strengthening education and enforcement (e.g., road safety education programs and targeted enforcement), enhancing the public realm (e.g., improving tree canopy and waste bin placement policy), and supporting behavior change through programs (e.g., implementation of Safe Routes to School programs and community walk and bike events). The plan also recommends updating standards and policies (e.g., bicycle parking requirements and standard details) and using data-driven approaches to evaluate effectiveness over time.

Prioritization
Projects were prioritized using seventeen metrics distributed across five criteria: Access and Equity, Safety and Comfort, Mobility and Connectivity, and Sustainability and Biodiversity and Feasibility. The first four criteria relate directly to the MVATP guiding principles and the fifth criteria, Feasibility, was added at the direction of CTC and City Council. Each scoring criterion had an associated metric that allowed for measurement of the criterion using objective data, community comments, or professional judgment, depending on the criterion. Mountain View staff across several departments, the TAC, ATPAC, BPAC, CTC, and City Council provided input into the scoring and prioritization process.

The existing conditions analysis and the development of a holistic network map identified over 100 potential opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects across the City.

These projects were scored and prioritized using the criteria above.

Staff reviewed the 24 highest-ranked project opportunities and selected twenty as priority projects for the City to lead in the near term. The four that were not selected already have final design underway (1) or are in Caltrans right-of-way (3). For the projects within Caltrans right-of-way, the plan notes that the City will coordinate with the lead agency—Caltrans or VTA— to support improvements. The list of priority projects and the conceptual designs are provided in Appendix B of the MVATP.

Implementation
Chapter 4 of the MVATP outlines the steps, resources, and decisions needed to move priority projects from concept to construction. It also notes the validation step needed at the start of each project to evaluate the feasibility of the concepts proposed for the priority projects. 871
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 7 of 12 ends

Resurfacing and Reconstruction Concepts
To balance the need for near-term improvements with the higher cost and longer timeline associated with major capital projects, the plan includes two alternatives for priority projects:
● Resurfacing alternatives present improvements that could be included in routine maintenance projects, including grind and overlay. These alternatives do not involve moving curb lines; therefore, the existing curb-to-curb width defines the space available for reallocation. For recommendations that reallocate roadway space, the validation step will be necessary to determine feasibility.
● Reconstruction alternatives assume the street is fully demolished and rebuilt within the existing right-of-way, typically as part of a major capital project triggered by utility replacement or a similar scale of work. These alternatives present visionary concepts that may affect drainage patterns, trees, medians, and other existing features. These concepts will require additional validation, feasibility analysis, and community engagement.

Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were developed for resurfacing alternatives of priority projects only. Cost estimates for resurfacing alternatives were developed using generalized unit costs and frequency assumptions. The estimated costs for these resurfacing projects are approximately $55 million.

Green Street Infrastructure
The Plan provides recommendations for improving green street infrastructure in Mountain View.

Green streets deliver measurable benefits that extend far beyond aesthetics. They provide space for natural elements to support biodiversity, incorporate sustainable stormwater strategies, create inviting environments through complementing traffic-calming efforts, and prioritize active transportation modes for people of all ages and abilities. Recommendations are conceptual in nature and did not include feasibility review.

Smaller-Scale Safety Improvement Projects
The Plan notes that the City will continue advancing pedestrian and bicycle safety through smaller-scale projects that require limited design and can be implemented by City maintenance staff. Improvements may include signage, striping, pavement markings, rubber curbs, flexible 872
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 8 of 12 ends

delineators, sidewalk repairs, temporary bulbouts, and refuge islands, either as individual projects or grouped across multiple locations.

Public Input
The Plan includes a discussion of public input and the City’s commitment to continued engagement as MVATP projects advance. The level of outreach will generally reflect the size and impact of the project, with smaller projects following the City’s standard design review process and larger or more significant projects receiving additional analysis, community engagement, and potentially a feasibility study before design.

Funding
Funding to support active transportation infrastructure and programming is available from many different sources at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. The Plan provides a non-exhaustive list of potential funding options in Chapter 4.

Comments on Public Review Draft Plan
As part of the public engagement process for the review of the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP), City staff presented the draft document in a series of meetings including:
● Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on April 29, 2026 ● Public Workshop on May 4, 2026
● Council Transportation Committee (CTC) on June 16, 2026 The Plan was also available for public review on Collaborate MV from April 20, 2026, through May 18, 2026. The City used email subscription lists and social media to invite people to the meetings and share the opportunity to comment on the public draft plan.

During the public review period, staff spoke with community members and received written input via the project website and email. The City received over 200 individual comments on the public draft plan. During the BPAC and CTC meetings, members offered positive feedback on the plan’s thoroughness and readability and recommended additions to the recommended policies and programs.

The key themes raised by BPAC, CTC, and community members included:
● Request the Final Plan be reviewed by BPAC and CTC prior to bringing to City Council ● Strengthen the Programs and Policies section by referencing adopted local plans ● More focus on pedestrian improvements in MVATP
873
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 9 of 12 ends

● Greater consistency across sections of the plan
● Better highlight the MVATP’s role in advancing sustainability ● Add performance metrics, defined outcomes, and better multimodal data collection Attachment 2 identifies where and how these themes have been addressed in the Final Plan.

CTC Comments on the Public Review Draft Plan
At the June 16, 2026, CTC meeting, the committee requested several modifications to the plan, which staff incorporated into the Final MVATP:
● Strengthened language in the implementation chapter describing how we coordinate with Caltrans, County, VTA, and neighboring jurisdictions.
● Clarified that the Carol Avenue sidewalk recommendation is subject to the City’s Unimproved Streets Policy.
● Added a section discussing how the City will seek public input as project recommendations move forward.
● Added language related to e-bikes.
● Revised narrative in Latham Street cut sheets to indicate that proposed sidewalk widening may consist of spot improvements, and that the City’s intention is to retain mature trees. ● Added disclaimer to maps noting that sidewalk widening could consist of spot improvements.
● In recommended programs and policies, it is noted that strong design standards are tools to ensure that developments construct adequate pedestrian infrastructure. ● Added section on private development and the MVATP to the implementation chapter. ● Expanded discussion of how the MVATP will coordinate with other City plans. ● Added appendix listing Vision Zero non-infrastructure recommendations.

Advisory Committee Discussion and Recommendation
Staff presented the Draft Final MVATP to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee on August 18, 2026. The BPAC voted unanimously to recommend the plan for adoption to the City Council with modifications:
874
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 10 of 12 ends

● Edits to text and photos to further emphasize pedestrians. ● Clarification that delivery bots do not currently use City sidewalks. ● Addition of language recommending small-scale construction projects that support safety. ● Noting that the intersections of El Camino Real with Rengstorff and Showers should be included in future projects and planning.

Staff presented the Draft Final MVATP to the CTC on August 31, 2026. Staff recommended incorporating the changes requested by BPAC and presented additional recommended changes.

The CTC voted to recommend the plan for adoption to City Council with the staff recommended modifications and added three new changes:
● Enhance Greening/Tree Canopy Improvements description in Table 7 ● Make the disclaimer more obvious in the cut sheets in Appendix B ● Enhance discussion of bicycle boulevards/shared streets in the plan Attachment 3 lists the requested changes and how they were addressed in the Final MVATP being presented to the City Council.

NEXT STEPS
After adoption, staff will begin implementation of the plan. City staff will develop reporting metrics to measure the plan's success and begin collecting data. The first report on the progress of ATP implementation will be presented to BPAC in Fall 2027.

The MVATP is a visionary, long-range plan, and each capital project is expected to require further public engagement and engineering review to validate assumptions and confirm feasibility prior to implementation. Staff will recommend new priority projects and programs be added to the Capital Improvement Program based on opportunities, Council priorities, and funding availability.

Several priority projects are already underway or will be shortly. These include, but are not limited to:

Underway
21-40 – California Street (West) Complete Street Improvements, Pilot 22-01 – Middlefield Complete Streets
25-28 – Miramonte Avenue Improvements
25-39 – Rengstorf Avenue Complete Street Study
875
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 11 of 12 ends

Funded
27-27 – Mountain View Design Standards Update
27-24 – Evelyn Avenue Complete Streets Study

FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting the plan will have no direct fiscal impact.

LEVINE ACT
California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant within the last 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ Competitively bid contract

CONCLUSION
The Mountain View Active Transportation Plan is a long-range plan that sets a vision and guiding principles for the future of walking, bicycling, and rolling in Mountain View. It identifies and prioritizes projects, policies, and programs that the City can implement to promote and support walking, bicycling, and rolling.

The plan was developed through a multi-year process involving technical analysis, community engagement, and interdepartmental collaboration. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Council Transportation Committee, and City Council provided guidance and direction at key decision points. The Final MVATP presented to City Council reflects revisions in response to community input and comments from BPAC and CTC members.

The plan includes holistic maps of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to show a long-term vision for the City’s walking and bicycling networks. Additionally, the plan prioritizes 20 projects for the City to focus on in the near-term. The Plan also discusses incorporating green street infrastructure into active transportation projects. Priority projects are 876
Active Transportation Plan Adoption
September 22, 2026

Page 12 of 12 ends

conceptual and will require additional validation, including technical analysis and community input. Future project development will consider active transportation benefits together with vehicle operations, parking, trees, drainage, utilities, right-of-way constraints, funding, and other site-specific conditions.

The plan recommends over 20 policies and programs for the City to implement to support walking, bicycling, and rolling. Recommendations include the continuation or expansion of existing policies and programs, as well as new ones.

If adopted, the MVATP will guide City staff’s day-to-day work and provide context for decisions and direction made by the City’s advisory bodies and City Council for the next 10 to 20 years.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the Mountain View Active Transportation plan with additional modifications.

2. Do not adopt the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan.

3. Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING—Agenda posting
Prepared by:

Lauren Ledbetter
Transportation Manager
Allison Boyer
Assistant Public Works Director
Approved by:

Kimbra McCarthy
City Manager
Attachments: 1. Active Transportation Plan and Appendices

2. Response to Comments on Public Review Draft Plan

3. Changes Requested and How Addressed
877
ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
SEPTEMBER 2026
FINAL
Attachment 1
878

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ii MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
879

DEDICATION
This Active Transportation Plan is dedicated to the people of Mountain View who walk, bike, roll, and take transit through the city each day. It honors community members and partners who have advocated for safer streets, healthier neighborhoods, and equitable access to transportation for all. May this plan support a more connected, inclusive, and sustainable Mountain View for generations to come.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN iii
880

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the individuals and organizations that made the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan possible, as well as the many residents whose input is reflected in this document.

CITY COUNCIL
Chris Clark
Alison Hicks
Ellen Kamei
John McAlister
Lucas Ramirez
Emily Ann Ramos
Patricia Showalter
Margaret Abe-Koga*
Lisa Matichak*
*Denotes past council member

BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Terry Barton
Serge Bronte
Peggy Huang
James Kuszmaul
John (Isaac) Stone
Lada Adamic*
Valerie Fenwick*
*Denotes past committee
member
ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION

PLAN TECHNICAL

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Terry Barton, BPAC Member
Alisa Campbell, Santa Clara
County Public Health
Department
Thida Cornes, Mountain View
Los Altos High School Board
Jesse Cupp, Mountain View
Chamber of Commerce
Mary Dateo, Canopy Board
Member
Bruce England, Mountain
View Coalition for Sustainable
Planning
Peter Kartz, Mountain View
Chamber of Commerce
Ian Lin, VTA
Maria Marroquin, Day Worker
Center
Anna Marie Morales, MV
Mobile Home Alliance
Tom Myers, CSA Cares
Jaeden Pietrofeso, MVLA
Jennifer Stewart, MVWSD
Jennifer Sumant, Kaiser
Permanente
Mike Tkalcevic, VTA
April Webster, SVBC &
Canopy Board Member
Michelle Wexler, Santa
Clara County Public Health
Department
Rebecca Westover, MVWSD
Lauren Ledbetter,* VTA
*Denotes past ATPAC Members

CITY TEAM
Stephen Achabal
Priyoti Ahmed
Eric Anderson
Lauren Anderson
Ed Arango
Lisa Au
Brian Babcock
Allison Boyer
Quynh Byrer
Jennifer Cutter
Matthew Feisthamel
Darwin Galang
Chris Goff
Maureen Grzan-Pieracci
Russell Hansen
Joy Houghton
Lauren Ledbetter
Lorenzo Lopez
Jennifer Ng
Carrie Sandahl
Ria Lo*
Brandon Whyte*
*Denotes past city team member

CONSULTANT TEAM
Nelson\Nygaard
Metta Urban Design
iv MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
881

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary vi
Introduction 1
What is an Active Transportation Plan?
The Role of Public and
Stakeholder Engagement
Why Does This Plan Matter
and How Will It Be Used?
What’s It Like to Walk,
Bicycle and Roll In Mountain
View Today? 12
Community Characteristics
Existing Transportation Infrastructure
Safety
Key Takeaways
Recommendations 36
What’s Working?
Recommendations for the Future
Let’s Roll! Implementing
the ATP 58
Implementation Process Considerations
Funding Sources for Active
Transportation Projects
Appendix A: Project
Prioritization
Appendix B: Cutsheet
Development
Appendix C: Recommended
Improvements
Appendix D: VZAP/
LRSP Non-Infrastructure
Recommendations
Appendix E: Existing
Conditions and Needs
Summary
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN v
882

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
883
Mountain View
Active Transportation Plan
Mountain View envisions an active transportation network that is safe and comfortable for all users regardless of age, ability, income, race or language.

The Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP) is data and community-driven at its core, responding to the actual active transportation experiences, priorities, and vision of people who walk, bicycle and roll in Mountain View. It builds on the work of previous plans to recommend citywide projects, policies, and programs that can improve walking (including for people using wheelchairs or disability-related devices), bicycling, rolling (including e-scooters and other micromobility devices), and green streets in Mountain View.

WHAT IS AN ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN?
An Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
outlines projects, policies, and programs
that promote and support walking, bicycling,
and rolling for everyone in a community, and
provides an action plan for implementation
of the recommendations.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN vii
884

VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE MVATP
The MVATP is guided by a Vision Statement and five Guiding Principles.

Vision Statement:

DEVELOPING THE MVATP
The MVATP
involved a
multiphase
engagement and
analysis process,
including the
following phases:

The MVATP includes the following sections and content:

Chapter 1:

Introduction
This chapter introduces the MVATP and the process that
was followed throughout its development, including details on public and stakeholder engagement. It also outlines the MVATP’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles.

Chapter 2:

What’s it like to walk,
bicycle and roll in
Mountain View today?
This chapter provides an overview of the community of
Mountain View: the people who live and work there, how
they move about the community, the infrastructure,
services and policies that may influence active transportation and a holistic network vision for the future.

Chapter 3:

Recommendations
This chapter highlights current positive actions in Mountain View and recommended projects, programs and policies to further support active travel.

Chapter 4:

Let’s Roll!
Implementing
the MVATP
This chapter discusses ways to implement the
recommendations discussed in Chapter 3, including the
costs and benefits of green street infrastructure, project phasing considerations, funding support, and the importance of collaboration and commitment for actions to advance.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ix
886

TAKING ACTION
The MVATP recommends priority infrastructure projects focused on completing gaps in the all ages and abilities bicycle network and improving the safety, comfort and connectivity of people walking along the city’s pedestrian infrastructure (Figure 1). Several of the recommended projects include both a near-term, lower cost design to move an improvement forward, and a longer-term, more extensive reconstruction to lay out a vision for the future.

Additionally, the plan outlines a number of active transportation-focused programs and policies that align with the MVATP’s vision and guiding principles to improve mobility and connectivity, safety and comfort, access and equity, sustainability and biodiversity, and that are innovative and action oriented.

COMMITTING TO A SAFE AND ACTIVE COMMUNITY
Active transportation is an integral part of life in Mountain View. The MVATP is a commitment to creating an active transportation system that strengthens the community’s access to housing, employment, schools, parks, open spaces and other destinations and enhances biodiversity. The plan complements other Mountain View plans and initiatives that support active transportation, safety, sustainability, and biodiversity, including the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Roadway Safety Plan, the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, and the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan. The MVATP, together with these complementary city plans, provide accountability for the community’s commitment to these values.
x MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
887
Figure 1 MVATP PRIORITY PROJECTS xi
888

INTRODUCTION
01 889

INTRODUCTION
What is an Active
Transportation Plan?
Mountain View envisions an active transportation network that is safe and comfortable for all users regardless of age, ability, income, race, or language.

Chapter 1 outlines the multi-phase approach, summarizes public and stakeholder engagement methods, and presents the vision and guiding principles that shaped the plan’s recommendations.

It explains why the plan matters and how it will be used to improve active transportation throughout Mountain View.

PURPOSE AND PROCESS
Active transportation plans use data and community input to identify the gaps and opportunities to improve the environment for walking, bicycling/scootering and rolling (including use of wheelchairs or disability-related devices). The plans typically contain recommendations for infrastructure projects, programs and policies that support active travel and an implementation plan to help recommendations move toward action. Several state and federal funding programs require projects to be identified in documents like an active transportation plan to be eligible for grants.

The Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP) reflects the active transportation experiences and priorities of people who walk, bicycle, and roll in Mountain View. Building on previous City mode-specific plans (the 2014 Pedestrian Master Plan and the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan), the MVATP takes a holistic look at active transportation and the coordinated solutions that support both pedestrian and bicycle travel. Several other city, regional and state-level documents and planning processes informed the development of the MVATP such as the 2020 Access MV Comprehensive Modal Plan, the 2024 Mountain View Vision Zero Action Plan, various Mountain View Precise Plans, the 2019 Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 4, the 2026 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, the 2026 Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, the 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Active Transportation Plan and Complete Street Policy, and the 2024 Caltrans Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Complete Street design documents (various years), and District 4 Pedestrian (2021) and Bicycle Plans (2018).

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1
890

MULTI-PHASE PROCESS
The MVATP involved three primary phases: Figure 2 MVATP PROJECT PHASES Phase 1
‣ Reviewed over 30 local, regional, and state planning documents related to transportation, general planning and green streets/sustainability to provide a contextual understanding of past planning recommendations and support for active transportation within Mountain View, the region and state.
‣ Analyzed current conditions that affect the ease, safety and comfort of people who walk, bicycle and roll in Mountain View, including physical infrastructure and complementary transportation services such as transit.
‣ Developed holistic active transportation network maps that identified on-street and off-street gaps and opportunities for active transportation improvements. ‣ Reviewed Mountain View Municipal Code focusing on those that may impact recreation, walking, and bicycling.
‣ Conducted a best practice review of policy and programming activities to identify resulting transportation behavior and outcomes that could be improved. 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
891
Phase 2
‣ Developed scoring criteria to evaluate potential physical infrastructure projects based on the MVATP guiding principles.
‣ Identified a list of sustainable projects based on the scoring process that improve safe, equitable and comfortable connections across the city.
‣ Coordinated the review of projects by stakeholders.
‣ Accelerated a prioritized list of physical infrastructure projects for planning level design and preliminary cost estimates.
‣ Developed a list of active transportation supportive policy and programming efforts based on best practice, past planning documents, and city code review.

Phase 3
‣ Prepared planning level design and preliminary cost estimates for seventeen projects considering near-term improvements that could be done with resurfacing and longer-term reconstruction efforts to support active transportation. ‣ Evaluated the short and long-term costs and benefits of green street infrastructure through a series of project development scenarios.
‣ Identified implementation factors such as funding sources, department and interagency collaboration, and commitment to innovation and action.

The technical phases happened in parallel with and were informed by a robust community engagement process, described in the next section.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3
892
The Role of Public and
Stakeholder Engagement
Inclusive public and stakeholder participation was a critical component of the MVATP’s overall development. Activities were designed to engage the diverse Mountain View community, across ages, income, language, ability and how people travel. Multi-lingual (English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian) translation and interpretation services were available for key events such as community walk tours and small group meetings. Across the three project phases, multiple methods of public outreach and engagement were used.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Two project-specific committees and two city-wide committees provided input at key milestones of the project:
1) The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), an internal project committee with representatives from departments across the city with involvement in active transportation and green streets, such as Public Works, Community Development, Community Services, Police and Fire.
2) The Active Transportation Plan Advisory Committee (ATPAC), an external project committee whose members represent community-based organizations and public agencies working on active transportation, green streets, and issues of concern to vulnerable road users, such as Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Community Services Agency, Mountain View Day Worker Center, MV Mobile Home Alliance, Youth Advisory Committee, Mountain View Los Altos High School District, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, and Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. ATPAC members acted as liaisons with wider community networks, helped organize and participate in many of the ATP engagement activities, and provided input on the plan development. 3) The Mountain View Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), a committee appointed by City Council to represent the interests of people who walk and bicycle in the city, reviewed and provided input on ATP-related topics at BPAC meetings throughout the plan development.
4) The Council Transportation Committee (CTC), composed of three City Council members, provided input on city-wide and regional transportation planning topics. 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
893

LIVED EXPERIENCES
Lived experiences were critical to understanding the active transportation needs and opportunities in Mountain View. These insights were captured in Phase 1 by conducting three community walk tours, two bicycle tours, hosting a community-wide mapping survey, in-person small group meetings, and review of the AskMV platform comments. These insights both confirmed and highlighted community needs.
‣ Three walk tours were held to understand user experience for people who walk in Mountain View. Walk tours began at Rengstorff Park, Mistral Elementary school, Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park. Approximately 15-25 people representing a range of ages and abilities took part in each tour, walking the streets adjacent to these community and residential locations, to better understand the walking experience of vulnerable road users.
‣ Two bicycle tours were held to understand user experience bicycling in Mountain View. Approximately 40 adults and three children participated in a three-hour-long collaborative process that covered over 11 miles of Mountain View, and focused on areas identified (in AccessMV, AskMV and survey comments) as high-stress critical connections in the bicycling network.

Figure 3 BICYCLE TOUR
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5
894
‣ An online map-based community survey was developed in spring 2023 via Maptionnaire. The survey sought information on user experience related to walking, biking and rolling in Mountain View, including favorite places and routes, challenging spots and routes, and requested improvements. Participants digitally recorded responses on maps and provided qualitative comments and optional sociodemographic information.

The survey was available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian from May 15 until July 31, 2023. Six hundred fifty-five (655) people participated in the survey. ‣ Small multilingual group meetings with stakeholders to discuss Maptionnaire survey questions in person, with translators present. In-person meetings were held to connect with communities who were under-represented (relative to census demographics) in initial community survey responses. The meetings gathered input on experiences walking, biking and rolling in Mountain View.
‣ The City of Mountain View maintains an online comment platform, AskMV, where people share feedback on various topics. City staff monitors the platform for comments regarding walking and bicycling, and transportation safety. Approximately three years of feedback was gleaned to identify frequent concerns.

These engagement methods were designed to reach communities often under-represented in planning processes, meeting people where they live and travel and in the languages they speak.

The input gathered served as a project scoring criterion, with locations receiving the most comments scoring higher. The scoring process also prioritized projects in low- and mid-income census tracts and projects that close gaps in the sidewalk and all ages and abilities bicycle networks.

Figure 4 MULTI-LINGUAL MVATP SURVEY

PROMOTION (LEFT)
Figure 5 WALK TOUR (BELOW)
6 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
895

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS,

POP-UPS, AND

COMMENT PERIODS
Pop-ups, workshops and comments during
community events and public meetings
were used as opportunities to gather
additional feedback on MVATP findings and
recommendations.

Figure 6 MISTRAL WALK TOUR PARTICIPANT NOTES

PUBLIC OFFICIAL

ENGAGEMENT
Presentations to BPAC, CTC, and City
Council were conducted at project milestones,
including existing conditions, scoring criteria,
holistic maps, final recommendations, the
draft as well as final plan.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 7
896
Figure 7 COMMUNITY COMMENTS ON CHALLENGING PLACES
Note: a Key Locations table can be found in Chapter 2.
8 897

VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE MVATP
With input from the ATPAC, TAC, and BPAC, a Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were developed that reflected the goals, purpose and values of the MVATP. The Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were reviewed and approved by City Council.

Vision Statement:

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 9
898
Why Does This Plan Matter
and How Will It Be Used?
Achieving a future that supports sustainable active transportation for all in Mountain View requires a holistic approach and commitment to action. Through the development of an Active Transportation Plan, the City of Mountain View took an important step forward.

The MVATP helps the public and decision makers understand the importance of active transportation for community mobility, livability, health, and sustainability and its vision for it based on Mountain View values. The MVATP identifies a host of actions to create a truly active transportation system for Mountain View residents and visitors. The MVATP actions complement related actions in other city planning efforts, including the City’s Vision Zero Action Plan, Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, and Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Through these actions, the MVATP documents the community’s commitment to active transportation through policy, programming and infrastructure, laying the groundwork for financial and organizational support for active transportation projects.

In addition, the MVATP informs future Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs), helping prioritize investments in active transportation projects. It also serves as guidance for private development along priority corridors, encouraging alignment with planned improvements without establishing strict requirements. This plan will help guide collaborations with Caltrans, Santa Clara County, and VTA, all of which own and operate major transportation facilities within Mountain View.

Figure 8 DOWNTOWN MOUNTAIN VIEW STREETSCAPE
10 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
899
“We cannot achieve our climate,
pollution, and health goals
without replacing some individual
car trips with active or shared
transportation. Plus, we’ve got
the best climate in the world!”
“Mountain View should think
about this as a goal: ‘Active
Transportation should be the
preferred method of travel in
Mountain View.’ Think about
how it would change our street
and sidewalk design decisions if
we at least asked ourselves that
question every time a streetscape
design decision is made.”
“Mountain View has the potential
to create an active transit
Mecca given its size (5 miles)
and amenities. It will sustain us
through economic highs and lows
because people want to live where
they can walk whether they know
it or not.”
“Every bicyclist on a trail is
one fewer car on the road, so
while the infrastructure may be
expensive, it provides a benefit to
all Mountain View residents and
not only the ones who use it.”
Figure 9 COMMUNITY QUOTES

FROM MAPTIONNAIRE SURVEY
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 11
900
02 WHAT’S IT LIKE TO

WALK, BICYCLE AND

ROLL IN MOUNTAIN
VIEW TODAY?
901
Community Characteristics
Mountain View is a diverse community with a strong foundation of active transportation infrastructure and transit systems.

Through this ATP, the City aspires to be better. The existing system can be improved to increase connectivity, accessibility and safety, and provide more green infrastructure that can improve public and environmental health within the community by reducing heat exposure, improving air quality, stormwater retention, and biodiversity.

This chapter provides an overview of the existing conditions which is one of the first steps in the development of the MVATP. It describes key aspects of demographics, infrastructure, services, and other community characteristics that influence walking, bicycling, and green streets in Mountain View today. Unless otherwise noted, demographic data are drawn from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2021 5-year estimates.

THE PEOPLE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Mountain View is a jobs-rich Santa Clara County community that faces the opportunities and challenges of a strong Silicon Valley economy. The city’s population is approximately 82,000, yet it also has a daily influx of workers for more than 100,000 jobs. Two thirds of the population is under the age of 44, and 22% is under 18.

Figure 10 STREETSCAPE ALONG CASTRO STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 13
902
The city is ethnically diverse. Approximately 48% of Mountain View residents identify as white, 33% identify as Asian, with Chinese being the predominant Asian ethnicity, and 18%
identify as Hispanic or Latino (Table 1). Income in Mountain View spans a wide range. While almost 40% of households earn more than $200,000 per year and the median household
income is $158,104, approximately 6% of households live below the poverty level.

While the overall population density of Mountain View is low-to-medium, higher densities exist along and between key commercial and transit corridors such as Central Expressway/ Caltrain and El Camino Real, and between Rengstorff Avenue and Escuela and Sierra Vista Avenues (Figure 11). Those neighborhoods also have higher youth densities (Figure 12).

DATA SOURCES
for Existing Conditions Analysis:
‣ City Open Data Portal -
spatial data
‣ Geomate - satellite data
‣ U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey (ACS)
5-year estimates
‣ California Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) - crash data
‣ Transit Service Data (Santa
Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA)
‣ Mountain View Transportation
Management Association
(MTMA) and Caltrain
Source: ACS 2021 5-year estimate

RACE AND ETHNICITY

IN MOUNTAIN VIEW PERCENT OF RESIDENTS
White alone 48.4%
Asian alone 33.3%
Black or African American alone 2.4%
Native American, Native Alaskan alone 0.4%
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander alone 0.0%
Some other race alone 5.8%
Two or more races 9.6%

HISPANIC OR LATINO

POPULATION PERCENT OF RESIDENTS
Not Hispanic or Latino 82.0%
Hispanic or Latino 18.0%
Table 1 RACE AND ETHNICITY IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
14 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
903
Figure 11 POPULATION DENSITY (2020) 15
904
16 Figure 12 YOUTH (AGES 18 AND UNDER) POPULATION DENSITY (2020) 905
HOW DO WE MOVE ABOUT MOUNTAIN VIEW?
Mountain View is an active community. Census commute data from the ACS 5-year estimate shows that people bicycle to work at far higher rates than other communities in California and the United States. Approximately 3.8% of workers ages 16 and over in Mountain View bicycle to work, compared with 0.7% statewide and 0.4% nationally, while walking rates are comparable to state and national averages at 2.5% (Table 2). Mountain View residents also use public transportation at higher rates than the state and nation, with 3.9% of workers commuting by transit compared with 2.9% statewide and 3.2% nationally.

Journey to Work data from the U.S. Census only provides a snapshot of walking and bicycling rates by one trip purpose. The Mountain View Safe Routes to School Program conducts an annual Student Travel Tally, capturing how students actually get to and from school. The 2024–2025 findings show that 30% of public-school students in Mountain View get to school by walking, biking, rolling, or transit and 6% carpool. Refer to Table 3 for the breakdown of how students get to school.

Table 2 COMMUTE MODE COMPARISON

COMMUTE MODE MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES
Drove alone 51.8% 65.7% 68.8%
Carpooled 5.4% 9.5% 8.5%
Public transportation 3.9% 2.9% 3.2%
Walked 2.5% 2.4% 2.4%
Bicycle 3.8% 0.7% 0.4%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 1.9% 1.7% 1.5%
Worked from home 30.6% 17.2% 15.1%
Source: ACS 2024 5-year estimate
Table 3 STUDENT TRAVEL MODE SHARE (2024-2025)

PARENTS DROVE/

STUDENTS DROVE
ALONE

CARPOOL PUBLIC

TRANSIT
SCHOOL

BUS WALK BICYCLE

SCOOTER,

SKATEBOARD, OR

HOVERBOARD
64% 6% 3% 2% 17% 7% 1%
Source: Student Travel Tally Survey (2024-2025), Mountain View Safe Routes to School MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 17
906
Figure 13 SIDEWALK CONDITIONS
Existing Transportation
Infrastructure
This section summarizes current transportation conditions in Mountain View. It focuses on features that support walking and biking, highlights existing strengths in the active transportation network, and identifies key opportunities for improvement.

PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
Mountain View’s sidewalk network is 96% complete and supports walking and rolling throughout the city through a series of connected sidewalks, paseos, plazas, signalized and unsignalized crosswalks, and enhanced crosswalks. Many newer sidewalks provide comfortable pedestrian conditions, allowing two people to walk side by side; however, some older sidewalks and driveways are not up to current standards. While the city’s sidewalk network is nearly complete, there are scattered sidewalk gaps and some areas with a higher concentration of missing sidewalks.

Through community engagement, surveys, and field work conducted by Mountain View staff, several existing issues were identified, including uplifted sidewalks, obstructions, deteriorating concrete, and outdated driveway slope design. Community input also indicated that parked cars often block drivers’ views of pedestrians on the sidewalk as they pull into driveways. Some of these issues stem from standards that were acceptable at the time of construction but do not reflect current best practices.
18 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
907
Beyond sidewalks, Mountain View’s pedestrian network includes a host of paseos and trails that further support connectivity and mobility throughout the city.

Paseos are a valuable tool to provide public permeability for pedestrians and cyclists through private areas. These are often built as part of multi-family residences in Mountain View. They have the added benefit of providing “eyes on the street,” which increases visibility and promotes a sense of community. Survey respondents suggested more publicly accessible pathways, or paseos, through apartment and office complexes near schools and on routes to transit, such as the Caltrain stations, to increase active transportation accessibility.

Figure 14 CAR-FREE PASEO EXAMPLES
WHAT IS A PASEO?
A paseo is a short connection, often utilizing a public access easement that allows for increased pedestrian and cycling connections. Participants in the Rengstorff Park Walk Tour noted how the paseo connecting Latham to El Camino between Rengstorff and Ortega improved access to destinations on El Camino Real.

Paseos are typically located between buildings, through mid-block connections, and within residential or mixed-use developments. They are often found linking neighborhoods to parks, schools, transit stops, commercial areas, and other community destinations.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 19
908
Figure 15 MARKED CROSSWALKS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Mountain View has over 2,100 signalized intersections, marked crosswalks, High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK beacons (HAWKs), LED-enhanced crosswalks, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), all of which help draw attention to pedestrians crossing the roadway.

Crossings are a critical component of walking and bicycling routes throughout the city.

However, crossing roadways with higher speeds and multiple lanes was a recurring comfort and safety concern from Mountain View residents, particularly along larger arterial roads such as El Camino Real and Central Expressway. It is important to note that some of these larger arterial roads are under jurisdiction of Caltrans or Santa Clara County. This is particularly an issue where signalized crossing opportunities are more widely spaced, shown in Figure 16.

To improve the pedestrian network, the
City continues to enhance crossings and
intersections with features that support
pedestrian and bicycle safety, such as high
visibility crosswalks, raised crosswalks,
RRFBs, pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs),
wave-actuated pedestrian push buttons, and
removal of visual barriers near intersections.
20 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
909
Figure 16 DISTANCE BETWEEN MARKED CROSSWALKS 21
910

BICYCLE NETWORK
The city has a varied network of bicycle facilities (Figure 18), some of which are well connected and some of which are fragmented due to gaps or barriers. The city has 2.0 linear miles of Class IV protected bikeway, 24.3 miles of Class I trail, and 27.6 linear miles of Class II bike lanes.

People vary in their comfort, physical ability, and willingness to accept risk when traveling through the city. In Access MV, the City’s multimodal transportation plan, the City identified a future all ages and abilities (AAA) bicycle network comprising existing facilities and planned or funded projects (Figure 19). The network includes bicycle boulevards, trails such as Stevens Creek Trail—which provides a continuous AAA connection between the city’s northern and southern areas—protected bikeways, and bicycle lanes on lower-speed, lower-volume streets. The Access MV network map served as the foundation for developing this plan’s bicycle network. Mountain View will also consider implementing slow streets: low-traffic, shared streets that prioritize walking, bicycling, and community safety while limiting vehicle through traffic. These streets remain open to drivers accessing homes and businesses, but traffic-calming measures discourage through trips.

Parks and trails are among the community’s favorite places to walk, bicycle, and roll, serving as both routes and enjoyable, car-free destinations. Survey respondents described using the Stevens Creek Trail for recreational rides, commuting, and reaching everyday places such as grocery stores and the library. However, not all neighborhoods have good connections to the trail network.

Bicycle tour and survey participants noted difficult trail access conditions such as safety bollards, crossing challenges, a lack of trailheads and sidewalk gaps where Stevens Creek Trail meets major corridors such as Evelyn Ave, El Camino Real, Moffett Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, requesting or noting a need for improvements to the Permanente Creek Trail and its neighborhood connections.

Bicycle Parking and
End-of-Trip Facilities
A complete bicycle network includes other supportive
infrastructure and facilities including safe and secure bicycle parking, accurate bicycle detection, bicycle
maintenance stations, restrooms, drinking fountains,
and clear wayfinding for bicyclists.

Figure 17 EXAMPLE OF BICYCLE RACK
22 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
911
Trails (Class I) are shared-use bicycle and
pedestrian paths that are physically separated
from motor vehicle travel lanes, typically
through horizontal separation and/or grade
separation. In Mountain View, most Class I trails
are paved, though some may be unpaved or have
natural surface treatments.

Bicycle lanes (Class II) are striped bicycle
facilities that do not include a physical barrier
separating cyclists from motor vehicle lanes.

Bicycle boulevards (Class IIIB) and bike routes
(Class III) are shared streets with low motor
vehicle speeds and volumes, featuring design
elements and pavement markings intended
to prioritize bicycles. Slow streets could be
considered at some locations.

Protected bikeways (Class IV) are bicycle
facilities with physical barriers between bicyclists
and motorized vehicles. Physical barriers can be
provided with flexible plastic posts, concrete,
plants and trees, or other treatments.

Figure 18 TYPES OF BICYCLE FACILITIES IN MOUNTAIN VIEW’S

ALL AGES AND ABILITIES (AAA) BICYCLE NETWORK
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 23
912
Figure 19
EXISTING AND PLANNED/FUNDED AAA BICYCLE FACILITIES VS. EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK Note: This map shows the all ages and abilities network identified in the 2021 AccessMV analysis, which served as the starting point for this plan’s bicycle network development. The MVATP’s recommended bicycle network, presented later in this chapter (Figure 27), upgrades facility types on some of these corridors.

LTS (Level of Traffic Stress): a measure of how comfortable or stressful a roadway is for bicyclists based on traffic speed, volume, and bike facility conditions.
24 913

TRANSIT SERVICES

IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
‣ Caltrain commuter rail service
‣ VTA light rail service
‣ VTA bus service (including
Rapid Bus Route 522 on El
Camino Real)
‣ Mountain View Community
Shuttle service
‣ MVgo commute-hour shuttles

TRANSIT IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Transit connections are made by walking, biking and
rolling. Mountain View is well served by several high-quality regional and local transit services.

In most of the city, bus services on major roads and
arterials are connected to adjacent neighborhoods via
low-stress bicycle and pedestrian routes (Figure 20).

Survey respondents noted that the major arterials
are some of the more challenging routes and crossing
locations, making first and the last mile transit access important for active transportation infrastructure design.

Figure 20 TRANSIT ACCESS CONDITIONS

IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25
914
26 Figure 21 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
915
Safety
Between 2015 and 2022, Mountain View reported 563 crashes involving people walking and biking, including 11 fatal and 52 severe injury crashes. According to the 2024 Mountain View Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), 73% of fatal and severe injury (FSI) collisions occurred along arterials with higher vehicle speeds (35 mph or above), more vehicle lanes, and higher traffic volume.

Pedestrian collisions (typically involving a motor vehicle) were particularly concentrated along arterial roadways, which represent 20% of the city’s street network. FSI bicycle crashes were more distributed throughout the city. However, both pedestrian and bicycle FSI crash locations overlapped with locations that community members reported as challenging in the MVATP survey. (Figure 22 and Figure 23). The top community-identified challenging locations are summarized in Table 4. These ten challenging spots all involve a roadway owned and operated by Caltrans or Santa Clara County, making sustained collaboration with these partner agencies essential to improving safety in Mountain View.*
Crash types at
intersections included
conflicts during turning
movements and broadsides,
whereas crashes along the
road often involved vehicle
lane departures. There are
several potential roadway
improvements such as
protected bicycle lanes,
curb extensions, and/or
pedestrian interval phasing
and bicycle signals that
may reduce conflict points
and should be considered
when designing multimodal
streets.

Table 4 TOP 10 CHALLENGING SPOTS FOR WALKING, BIKING,

AND ROLLING AS INDICATED BY COMMUNITY INPUT

CHALLENGING SPOTS
Rengstorff Avenue & Central Expressway (and by extension:

Rengstorff Avenue & Leland Avenue/Crisanto Avenue)
Castro Street/Moffett Boulevard & Central Expressway
(and by extension: Castro Street & Evelyn Avenue)
El Camino Real & Castro Street
Central Expressway & Shoreline Boulevard
Grant Road & El Camino Real
Miramonte Avenue/Shoreline Boulevard & El Camino Real
SR-85 & El Camino Real
SR-101 & Shoreline Boulevard
SR-85 & Central Expressway
El Camino Real & Escuela Avenue
*As of mid-2026, Caltrans is leading a Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan for the segment of El Camino Real in Santa Clara County and the County is seeking funds for a study to explore the feasibility of improving bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Central Expressway. Both efforts will identify bicycle and pedestrian improvements. City staff are providing input into the Caltrans CMCP and will provide input into the County's study once it begins.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 27
916
Figure 22

FREQUENCY OF COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING AND CHALLENGING LOCATIONS 28 917
Figure 23

FREQUENCY OF COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE ON BICYCLE AND CHALLENGING LOCATIONS 29 918

GREEN STREETS
In 2021, the Mountain View City Council established a goal to “protect and enhance local ecosystems and biodiversity through rewilding and other measures” as part of their Sustainability & Climate Resiliency strategic priority. In 2026, the City adopted a Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (BUPF) to enhance the health of local ecosystems and prevent species loss through a multi-pronged approach. One element of this approach is planning for active transportation networks that double as wildlife corridors to preserve biodiversity assets, create new spaces for local native plants, and support local ecosystems.

Green Streets are a holistic approach that combines active transportation, biodiversity promotion, and green infrastructure development. Including Green Streets as a component of the MVATP presents a unique opportunity to support Mountain View’s sustainability and biodiversity goals by providing space for natural systems to thrive within the public right-of-way, while influencing how people use the street, often slowing motor vehicle traffic and increasing the comfort of pedestrians and cyclists of all ages and abilities by creating space and incorporating natural elements into the street. Metrics in the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan will evaluate green street projects for their contribution to canopy coverage, native species integration, habitat corridor function, and stormwater performance.

For the purpose of identifying possible improvements and developing project concepts (discussed in Chapter 3), the MVATP focused on two aspects of sustainability and biodiversity/green streets:
plantable space and impervious surface cover.

Figure 24 PUBLIC TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS
Source: City of Mountain View - Tree Technical Manual
30 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
919

PLANTABLE SPACE
Trees are a valuable community resource and an essential component of civic infrastructure. The City of Mountain View has been committed to preserving and enhancing its urban forest since 1960 when the City Council established tree care services. Street trees provide important shade, cooling, stormwater, water pollution reduction, and air purification services.

Approximately 2/3 of public trees are found in planting strips, which represents the biggest opportunity for additional community trees (Figure 24). Planting strips with trees adjacent to the roadway also provide an important physical buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular space, increasing comfort, safety and shade. Incorporating street trees into roadway capital projects can move the city toward realizing the 22.7 percent tree canopy coverage goal established in the 2015 Community Tree Master Plan and restated in the BUFP. Bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in the MVATP provide an opportunity to plant trees and shrubs in planting strips, medians, and bikeway buffers, directly contributing to that goal.

New plantings also present an opportunity to increase the proportion of local native species.

Native trees such as Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, and California Buckeye provide biodiversity benefits that common non-native species do not, supporting the pollinators and ecosystems of this region. The city’s BUFP establishes the city’s approach to native planting and canopy goals.

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
Impervious surfaces include concrete and asphalt surfaces, roofs, and other hard materials that do not allow water to soak into the ground. On the other hand, porous surfaces, like gardens and other unpaved areas, allow water to soak into the ground. Impervious surfaces affect the environment and natural systems in various ways, causing more stormwater runoff, flood risk and water pollution, and higher surface temperatures. Greening strategies, such as planting strips, tree wells, landscaped medians, and bicycle buffers, can increase pervious surfaces. These green street elements make a positive difference in areas filled with impervious surfaces by soaking up rainwater and cooling the surroundings, improving the overall environment in Mountain View neighborhoods, and are consistent with the BUFP.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31
920
Key Takeaways

COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
Mountain View is an active community. Through the survey, walk and bicycle tours, and data analysis, Mountain View residents noted the desire to walk, bicycle, and roll safely throughout the community. They desire access to key destinations such as shopping, schools, parks and transit.

They also want end-of-trip support, such as secure bicycle parking at locations throughout the city to make it feasible and desirable to travel by active modes.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR A HOLISTIC ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
As demonstrated in the findings presented in this chapter, Mountain View has a strong foundation for its active transportation network. However, opportunities for improvement exist, whether filling gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network or improving the quality of the existing infrastructure to increase connectivity, safety, comfort and sustainability. Holistic active transportation network maps were developed to highlight these future opportunities to expand the quantity and quality of the active transportation network in Mountain View (Figure 25, Figure 26, and Figure 27).

The holistic network maps serve several purposes. They represent the complete pedestrian and bicycle network the city is working toward over the life of this plan and beyond, a long-term vision rather than a committed project list. By mapping the full network, they ensure that individual improvements connect to one another and build toward a citywide system rather than isolated segments. The improvements shown on these maps formed the full set of over 100 potential projects that were evaluated and scored through the process described in Chapter 3, with the highest scoring improvements becoming the priority projects. The maps also guide decisions beyond the priority projects, informing the review of private development along the network, the design of street maintenance and repaving projects, and the pursuit of grant funding, so that each of these opportunities contributes to completing the network over time.

The holistic maps in this chapter present the full long-term network vision. Improvements shown on the holistic maps but not identified as priority projects remain part of the plan and may advance as opportunities arise.

Note: The Policy on Unimproved Streets adopted by City Council in 1993 affirms the direction to not construct sidewalks in residential areas unless homeowners initiate an assessment district to fund these sidewalk. The policy references resident desires to maintain the rural character of these streets by not improving streets to current standards. Many missing sidewalks shown on the holistic pedestrian network maps are in these unimproved areas and are not proposed for construction under current policy. 32 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
921
Figure 25 HOLISTIC PEDESTRIAN NETWORK (EXISTING) 33
922
34 Figure 26 HOLISTIC PEDESTRIAN NETWORK (PROPOSED)
923
Figure 27 HOLISTIC BICYCLE NETWORK 35
924
03 RECOMMENDATIONS
925
What’s Working?
The analysis of existing conditions, prior planning projects, existing policies and code and the development of the holistic network maps highlighted current strengths and areas of opportunity for improving active transportation in Mountain View.

The recommendations are grounded in the MVATP vision and guiding principles, identifying actions that improve mobility, connectivity, safety, comfort and access with a focus on equity, sustainability and biodiversity. The projects, programs and policies build on the strong foundation of innovation that exists in Mountain View, and an eye toward action.

CURRENT PROGRESS
Mountain View is no stranger to active transportation programs and projects. The city currently supports walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation through a combination of programs, policy decisions, and capital projects. These projects involve multiple departments, such as Public Works, Community Services, Police and Fire, Community Development, and local school districts/schools and transit partners. We highlight a few programs and projects that support the vision and guiding principles of this plan. ‣ Castro Street Pedestrian Mall: Originally created as a temporary COVID-19 response, the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall became a permanent feature of downtown Mountain View after City Council voted to make the closure permanent in 2024. Closing Castro Street between Evelyn and California Streets to vehicle traffic created vital outdoor space for gathering and recreation, improved pedestrian access to local businesses, and does not allow bicycling within the Pedestrian Mall. In December 2025, City Council also voted to extend the closure across the Caltrain tracks, further enhancing pedestrian connectivity in the downtown core.
‣ California Street Complete Streets Pilot Program (Shoreline to Showers): Constructed in 2025, the pilot program implemented reduced vehicle lanes, protected intersections, high-visibility crosswalks and midblock crossings, and parking-protected bikeways with a buffered section and green bicycle lane striping at conflict points. The project exemplifies complete streets design, balancing the needs of all road users while improving safety and comfort for people walking and biking. Upon completion of the pilot period, the project will be evaluated based on safety outcomes, operational data, and community feedback.

That evaluation will inform a decision to either advance the project to a permanent installation or implement revisions accordingly.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 37
926
‣ El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: In partnership with the City, in 2024/25, Caltrans implemented significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements on El Camino Real. The project upgraded curb ramps to current ADA standards, added No Right on Red signs at selected intersections, installed protected bikeways along El Camino Real, and installed three new pedestrian crossings with pedestrian hybrid beacons. The project improves pedestrian and bicycle travel along and across this major corridor, which is noted as a critical and challenging barrier in the existing conditions community survey. While the project is a significant improvement, Caltrans was limited in what they could incorporate into the repaving project that delivered the improvements. Community members have noted that the bikeway protection drops at intersections and bus stops to permit drivers to turn right and bus operators to pull to the curb. This is one of several permissible design options for protected bikeways at intersections. Future plans and projects along El Camino Real, including the El Camino Real Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (in progress 2026), and city-led targeted intersection improvements, will identify ways to provide safety improvements, such as protected intersections.
‣ Vision Zero Marketing and Outreach Campaign: The City has completed the first phase of the Vision Zero outreach and education campaign to promote safety across Mountain View. Through this effort, the City provided information on pedestrian and bicycle safety at major citywide events and the farmers’ market, and conducted a digital campaign. This effort also included safety videos explaining how to use the bicycle lanes on El Camino Real and the protected bicycle lane on California Street. This work is important for educating road users about the new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ‣ Safe Routes to School Program: Safe and active travel starts in childhood. Mountain View’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a cornerstone of the city’s active transportation strategy, using education, encouragement, engineering, and enforcement to promote walking and bicycling to school. The program is also responding to emerging travel trends, developing e-bike safety education materials for students as well as parents and caregivers. The program improves safety for students and families, helps establish lifelong active transportation habits, and maintains ongoing outreach and partnerships with school communities that should be continued and expanded. The MVATP builds on this foundation. School access is embedded in the plan’s project scoring, described later in this section, with additional points assigned to projects near schools, on suggested routes to school, or fronting a school. The plan’s recommended programs and policies, also described later in this section, support safe school travel, including school zone speed limit enforcement, expansion of the Safe Routes model to parks and transit, and community walks and rides organized through SRTS.
38 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
927
Mountain View also benefits from a network of existing multi-use trails (Stevens Creek Trail, Permanente Creek Trail, and Hetch Hetchy Trail) and integrated green street design elements, such as the protected bikeway with landscape on both sides of Charleston Avenue (top), planting strips with detached sidewalks on Martens Avenue (middle), and tree wells on Castro Street (bottom) (Figure 28). These provide safe, off-street, and low-stress connections for people walking, biking, and rolling in the city.

Figure 28 EXISTING GREEN STREET ELEMENTS
Other key successes demonstrate how programmatic tools and supportive programs help advance the ATP. The North Bayshore Precise Plan, for example, uses trip caps and regular monitoring to ensure transportation demand aligns with multimodal infrastructure investments, managing congestion while encouraging walking, biking, and transit use. Complementing this, initiatives such as the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, downtown bicycle-sharing partnerships, and free to ride Mountain View Community Shuttle further support safe, convenient, active and low-stress travel throughout the city.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 39
928
Recommendations for the
Future
Using the Guiding Principles of Mobility & Connectivity, Safety & Comfort, Access & Equity, Sustainability & Biodiversity, and Innovation & Action-Orientation, the MVATP identified projects that improve safe, equitable and comfortable connections across the city and programs and policies that continue to support active transportation.

Infrastructure projects went through a scoring and prioritization process using spatial, demographic, community input and organizational data, whereas policy and program recommendations went through an internal city review to finalize the list, based on planning precedent, best practice and state legislation and program research conducted in the first phase of the plan.

SCORING AND PRIORITIZING

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Scoring and prioritizing infrastructure projects is a standard exercise in transportation planning that grounds decision-making in data and community input. Projects are scored according to their potential to achieve the plan’s visions and goals, and prioritize practical aspects that may affect the feasibility of a project such as potential project costs, implementation timeline and the opportunity to leverage planned work or funding. While a scoring and prioritization process may evaluate an extensive list of potential projects, the goal of the exercise is to develop a list of projects that could be planned and/or implemented over the anticipated ten year time frame of the plan.

The MVATP scoring process used seventeen criteria distributed across four of the five guiding principles: Access and Equity, Safety and Comfort, Mobility and Connectivity, and Sustainability and Biodiversity, and a Feasibility category. Each scoring criteria had an associated metric that allowed for measurement of the criteria using objective data, community comments or professional judgment (Table 5). Mountain View staff across several departments, along with the TAC, ATPAC, BPAC, CTC, and City Council, all provided input into the scoring and prioritization process.

The prioritization scored over 100 potential pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure project opportunities identified through the existing conditions analysis and holistic network map development. Potential projects were initially screened to estimate the general scale and scope 40 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
929
of project types (for example, signage and striping projects versus major civil improvements) and categories of possible project types (pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements, green streets, etc.).

The potential projects were then scored based on the degree to which the anticipated improvements met each scoring criteria’s metric threshold. Potential project total scores ranged from a high of 88.5 to a low of 7, with a maximum of 100 possible. Additional details on the scoring methodology are provided in Appendix A.

City staff reviewed the list of potential projects. The highest scoring projects include improvements to both the pedestrian and bicycle holistic networks (Table 6 and Figure 29). Cut-sheets for sixteen of these projects are included in Appendix B. The full list of potential projects evaluated as part of scoring and prioritizing is contained in Appendix C.

Table 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA
DATA

SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Access and
Equity
Supports lower
income residents
U.S. Census
data
Project is not within a low- or low- to
mid-income census tract 0
Project is within a low- to mid-income
census tract defined as having more
than 14% of the population below 200%
of the federal poverty level (FPL).
7 Project is within a low-income census
tract defined as having more than 28%
of the population below 200% of FPL.
14 Fills a gap in
existing sidewalk
network
City of
Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close a sidewalk gap 0
Project partially closes a sidewalk gap 3
Project does close a sidewalk gap 6.5
Fills a gap in All
Ages and Abilities
(AAA) bicycle
network
City of
Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close a gap in the AAA
bicycle network 0
Project partially closes a gap in the AAA
bicycle network 3
Project does close a gap in the AAA
bicycle network 6.5
Maximum score for Access and Equity scoring criteria 27 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 41
930

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA
DATA

SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Safety and
Comfort
Addresses
community
concerns
GIS data
representing
an aggregation
of community
comments from
Maptionnaire
survey, walk
audits, other
community
events, and
Mountain View’s
online and 311
community
comment
portals
Project area has low density of
community comments (lower third) 0
Project area has medium density of
community comments (middle third) 4
Project area has high density of
community comments (top third) 9
Addresses
existing (historic)
crash patterns
GIS crash data
analysis from
Mountain View
Local Road
Safety Plan
Project area has no or low density of
fatal or severe injury crashes (bottom
third)
0 Project area has medium density of fatal
or severe injury crashes (middle third) 7
Project area has a relatively high density
of fatal or severe injury crashes (top
third)
14 Improves
pedestrian
network density
Mountain
View GIS data
measuring
the distance
between
pedestrian
crossing
opportunities
Project does not reduce pedestrian
block length at all 0
Project reduces pedestrian block length
but not to less than 500’ 2
Project reduces pedestrian block length
to less than 500’ 4
Reduces
pedestrian
crossing distance
Mountain
View GIS data
measuring
the width of
pedestrian
crossing distance
at intersections
Project does not decrease width of
pedestrian crossing distance 0
Project does decrease width of
pedestrian crossing distance 5
Maximum score for Safety and Comfort scoring criteria 32 TABLE 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED) 42 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
931

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA
DATA

SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Mobility and
Connectivity
Supports school
children
Mountain View
GIS data of all
school locations
Project is more than 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) from a school (public or
private)
0 Project is less than 5-minute walk (0.25
mile) from a school or on a suggested
route to school (public or private)
4 Project fronts a school (public or
private) 9
Supports other
key destinations
(commercial
center, park, trail,
senior center
or senior living
community)
Mountain View
GIS data of key
destinations
Project is more than 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) from a key destination 0
Project is less than 5-minute walk (0.25
mile) from a key destination 4
Project fronts a key destination 9
Improves first/last
mile connection
to transit
Mountain View
GIS data of all
transit stops
Project is not within 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) of any transit stop (bus or
rail)
0 Project is within 5-minute walk (0.25
mile) of any transit stop (bus or rail) 2
Project is within 10-minute walk (0.5
mile) of major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor (bus or rail)4 Maximum score for Mobility and Connectivity scoring criteria 22 Sustainability
and
Biodiversity
Reduces
impervious
surface area
Mountain View
satellite imagery
and GIS data
Project does not reduce impervious
surface area 0
Project reduces impervious surface area
by less than 4% 2
Project reduces impervious surface area
by 4% or more 4.5
Provide Plantable
Space
Mountain View
satellite imagery
and GIS data
Project does not increase open space for
plantings (per typical) 0
Project provides enough space for
ground cover plantings (plantable spaces
< 5’ wide)
2 Project provides enough space
for ground cover plantings and shade
trees (plantable spaces ≥ 5’ wide)

4.5 Maximum score for Sustainability and Biodiversity scoring criteria 9 TABLE 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED) MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 43
932

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA
DATA

SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Feasibility
Order of
Magnitude
Cost (includes
environmental,
ROW, etc.)
Previous
Mountain View
project unit
costs
$$$ (> $10M) 0
$$ ($2M - $10M) 1
$ (< $2M) 2
Interagency
Coordination
Assessment
of agency
jurisdictions and
departmental
responsibilities
City and 2 or more additional outside
agencies
0 City and 1 additional outside agency 1
None, only city departments 2
Practical
Implementation
Timeframe
Mountain View
staff professional
judgment
Long 0
Medium 1
Short 2
Opportunity To
Leverage Existing
Planned Project
Mountain View
staff professional
judgment
No 0
Yes 2
Alignment With
Local, Regional
And/or Federal
Funding Sources/
Opportunities
Mountain
View staff and
consultant
professional
judgement
No 0
Yes 2
Maximum score for Feasibility scoring criteria 10
Total maximum scoring across all scoring criteria 100
TABLE 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED) 44 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
933
Table 6 MVATP IDENTIFIED PRIORITY PROJECTS WITH EXTENTS, MILEAGE, AND RECOMMENDED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS*
Note: See Figure 29 for map reference.
* Improvements A, B, and C outline the multiple improvements that may occur within the project extent.

PROJECT NAME,

EXTENTS MILEAGE

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A B C
California Street,
South Shoreline
Boulevard to
Showers Drive

1.38 Escuela Avenue
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
Shoreline Boulevard
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
-
California Street,
Showers Drive to
Del Medio Avenue

0.5 Showers Protected/
Enhanced Intersection
San Antonio
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
-
Whisman Road,
Fairchild Drive to
East Dana Street

1.43 Dana Street
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
Whisman Station
Intersection
Reconstruction
Pacific Drive
Intersection
Reconstruction
Escuela Avenue,
Crisanto Avenue to
El Camino Real

0.5 California/Escuela
Intersection
Reconstruction
Rengstorff Park
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Crossing
Crisanto Avenue
Intersection
Reconstruction
California Street,
Shoreline Boulevard to
Bush Street

0.32 Castro Intersection
Reconstruction - -
Showers Drive,
California Street to
El Camino Real

0.32 San Antonio Station
Pedestrian Crossing Target Paseo Crossing
El Camino Real
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection (Los
Altos and Caltrans
coordination required)
West Middlefield
Road, Moffett
Boulevard to Old
Middlefield Way
2 Farley Street Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Trail Connection to
Crittendon Middle
School
San Veron, San Pierre,
Terra Bella Pedestrian
Crossings
Old Middlefield
Intersection
Reconstruction
Latham Street, Escuela
Avenue to Showers
Drive

0.84 Rengstorff Protected/
Enhanced Intersection
Showers Drive Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Crossing
Escuela Avenue
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
South Shoreline
Boulevard, El Camino
Real to Montecito
Avenue

1.1 Dana Street Bicycle
Connection
Montecito Avenue
Enhanced Intersection
Central Expy Ramp
Crossings
Latham Street/Church
Street, Escuela Avenue
to Castro Street

0.85 Shoreline Boulevard
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
Oak Street Crossing
to Eagle Park
Pioneer Memorial
Park Crossing
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 45
934
Note: See Figure 29 for map reference.
* Improvements A, B, and C outline the multiple improvements that may occur within the project extent. ** A long-term interchange redesign is being led by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

The City of Mountain View will coordinate with Caltrans and VTA to pursue changes.

TABLE 6 MVATVATP IDENTIFIED PRIORITY PROJECTS WITH EXTENTS, MILEAGE, AND RECOMMENDED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS* (CONTINUED)

PROJECT NAME,

EXTENTS MILEAGE

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A B C
Rengstorff Avenue,**
Leghorn Street to
Garcia Avenue

0.4 101 Ramp Crossings
Garcia/Amphitheater
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
-
Rengstorff Avenue,
Leghorn Street to El
Camino Real

1.7 El Camino Real
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection (Los
Altos and Caltrans
coordination required)
To be determined by Rengstorff Avenue
Complete Streets Study.

Dana Street,
Bush Street to
Moorpark Way

0.85 Moorpark Way
Intersection
Reconstruction
Calderon Protected/
Enhanced Intersection -
Miramonte Avenue,
El Camino Real to
Marilyn Drive

0.5 El Camino Real
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
Park Drive Pedestrian
Crossing
Sonia Way Pedestrian
Crossing
North Shoreline
Boulevard, Plymouth
Street to Montecito
Avenue

1.02 W Middlefield
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
101 Ramp Crossings -
Garcia Avenue,
Amphitheater Parkway
to Bayshore Parkway

0.6 Permanente Creek
Trail Connection
Garcia/Amphitheater
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
Salado Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
to Park
Evelyn Avenue,
Bush Street to South
Bernardo Avenue

1.35 Stevens Creek Trail
Connection
Bernando Street
Undercrossing -
Phyllis Avenue, El
Camino Real to Grant
Road

0.5 El Camino Real, Hans
Avenue, Grant Road
Protected/Enhanced
Intersections
Tyler Park Way
and Pamela Drive
Mid-Block Crossings-
-
Sylvan Avenue,
Moorpark Way to El
Camino Real

0.6 Moorpark Way
Intersection
Reconstruction
Sevely Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
El Camino Real
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
North Shoreline
Boulevard, North Road
to Plymouth Street

0.8 Amphitheater Parkway
Protected/Enhanced
Intersection
Charleston Road
Connection to
Sidepath
-
Moffett Blvd, RT
Jones Road to Central
Expressway

1.29 Middlefield Protected/
Enhanced Intersection 101 Ramp Crossings Stevens Creek Trail Connection
46 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
935
Figure 29 MVATP PRIORITY PROJECTS 47
936
Table 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Infrastructure changes are not the only “tool in the toolbox” to improve the travel experience for people who walk, roll, and ride in Mountain View. Table 7 contains a recommended list of policies and programs that support active transportation and are aligned with the MVATP vision and guiding principles. The list is based on a review of Mountain View and peer community precedent, best practices, and state legislation and program research. Mountain View staff across several departments reviewed the list to determine feasibility, roles and responsibilities, and alignment with broader city values. The list also contains some policy and program recommendations from the previously adopted Mountain View Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan with relevance to active transportation. A comprehensive list of those recommendations are included in Appendix D.

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
No Right Turn on
Red Policy
Implement a pilot to prohibit right turns on red
(RTOR) at selected locations and/or specific times
to improve safety, comfort, and confidence for
pedestrians and cyclists at signalized intersections.

No RTOR can be reinforced with various sign and
signal interventions.

Safety & Comfort
Public Works (PW)
&
Police Department
(PD)
Updated Design
Standards to be
Informed by Best
Practices
Use best practice guidance documentation and
standards to inform the design of transportation
projects to improve the safety and comfort of
bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.

Mobility &
Connectivity
Safety & Comfort
PW
&
Community
Development
Department (CDD)
Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best Practices There is a rich resource library of national best practice guidance and standards available to communities across the country to support the safety and comfort of roadway users of all ages and abilities. The City of Mountain View uses guidance documents and standards from Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), U.S. Access Board, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as well as applicable state and federal design guidelines and standards to inform the design of transportation projects. The MVATP reinforces the importance of the guidance represented in these documents and the need for the City to review and update standards to remain consistent with best practices. Strong design standards are also tools to ensure developments construct adequate pedestrian infrastructure. 48 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
937
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Update Bicycle
Parking Standards
Incorporate recommended revisions to the Bicycle
Parking Standards in Mountain View’s municipal
code that call for simplified and more flexible
standards to allow for the construction of more
high-quality bicycle parking.

Mobility &
Connectivity PW & CDD
Walk Safe
Designation
The non-profit America Walks promotes
walkability in communities around the country
through Community Change grants and Walk Safe
Community designations.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PW
Waste Bin Policy
and Maintenance
Placing waste bins conspicuously throughout
Mountain View promotes the proper disposal of
waste. This includes education for placement of
residential and commercial waste bins outside of
bike lanes.

Safety & Comfort PW
Develop Key
Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
to Measure Active
Transportation
Progress
KPIs can be developed by city staff to measure and
report annual overall progress towards the ATP
Guiding Principles.

All PW
Upgrade
Pedestrian Signals
to Accessible
Pedestrian Signals
(APS)
Accessible Pedestrian Signal provide information
about when to cross the street in a non-visual
format such as auditory tones, messages and/or
vibrations.

Access & Equity PW
Improve Visibility
at Intersections
(Daylighting)
Implement and enforce the “Daylighting Law”,
Assembly Bill 413, which became law in California
in 2023. Daylighting prohibits stopping, standing,
or parking within 20 feet of the approach side of
any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15
feet where a curb extension is present. Daylighting
provides greater visibility at intersections,
improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclist
crossing the street, as well as for drivers.

Safety & Comfort
Mobility &
Connectivity

PW & PD
Evaluation of
Speed Limits and
Speed Zones
Examine opportunities for speed limit reductions
allowable through the California Vehicle Code,
such as measured changes in speed after a project’s
completion or in a specific district or zone when
justified by an engineering or traffic survey.

Safety & Comfort PW & PD
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 49
938
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Enforcement of
School Zone Speed
Limits
Enforcing school zone speed limits promotes driver
awareness and caution in areas where youth are
gathered.

Safety & Comfort PW & PD
Managing and
Enforcing the
Transportation
System of All Road
Users
The safety of all road users is improved when space
is appropriately managed and the regulations and
rules of the road are followed and enforced. No
parking or stopping in bicycle lanes for unloading/
loading or deliveries, No parking or stopping
in bicycle lanes and managing and maintaining
sidewalk space are examples of actions that can
reduce the risk of modal conflict and potential
crashes.

Safety & Comfort PW & PD
Managing and Enforcing the Transportation System of All Road Users The safety of all road users is improved when space is appropriately managed and the regulations and rules of the road are followed and enforced. No parking or stopping in bicycle lanes and managing and maintaining sidewalk space are examples of actions that can reduce the risk of modal conflict and potential crashes.

Curb management is one important component of this. In today’s transportation landscape, there is an increased amount of desired curbside uses along city streets, including parking, deliveries, passenger drop off/pick up, seating, and waste management. Protected bicycle lanes successfully co-exist with the demands of the curb in many locations across the globe but require enforcement of bicycle lane and curb regulations such as parking and loading zones to ensure the mobility and safety of bicycle riders.

Similarly, the demand on the sidewalk has also changed over time. The pandemic brought an increase in outside dining spaces, and sidewalks are also often parking and storage locations for bicycles, scooters, trash receptacles, and other amenities. This increased use of the sidewalk can lead to constrained or blocked paths of travel for people who walk and roll, which limits movement and can force those travelers into the roadway at unanticipated locations and into possible conflict with other road users.

The City will continue to enforce the travel spaces available to all road users, including those spaces designed to improve the safety and mobility of those using active transportation. Enforcement can also include developing policies to mitigate the negative impacts of non-pedestrian uses of the sidewalk, including emerging technologies such as delivery bots.
50 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
939

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Road Safety
Education
Road safety education for all modes and road
users to increase awareness of rules of the road/
transportation system and responsibilities as
travelers.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PD
Consideration
of Pedestrian
Connectivity via
Paseos in Property
Development.

Paseos, or pedestrian-only streets, are narrow
paths between buildings, alleys, or public staircases
that provide safe walking and biking connections
across neighborhoods. They must be enforced as
pedestrian-only to be effective.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PD
Leading Pedestrian
Interval Policy
Providing pedestrians with a head start when
entering a crosswalk will promote pedestrian safety
and prioritization at intersections evaluated and
recommended by staff.

Access & Equity PW
Staff Continuing
Education
Staff continuing education on the Vision Zero
Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan, defensive
driving in City vehicles, Safe Systems Approach,
and safety countermeasures will raise city staff
proficiency in promoting and enforcing Safe Road
interventions.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
Human Resources,
Fire Department,

CDD, PW & PD
Education and
Enforcement
on Use of
Personal Electric
Micromobility
Devices
Public education campaigns and safety trainings
through established programs like Safe Routes
to School and other high exposure outlets in
Mountain View on the legal and appropriate use
of personal electric micromobility devices (e.g.,
Class 1-3 e-bikes, e-motos, escooters), such
as which devices are street legal, who can use
them, where they are permitted to ride and park,
applicable speed limits, and other best practices
and regulations to promote safe and responsible
use, and the enforcement of such.

Mobility &
Connectivity

CDD, PD, CSD
& Local School
Districts/Schools.

Bicycle Friendly
Community
Designation
The Bicycle Friendly Community designation
from the League of American Bicyclists opens
up resources that support the establishment and
improvement of bicycle infrastructure and policy
in Mountain View.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PW
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 51
940
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Greening /
Tree Canopy
Improvements
Coordinate internally to incorporate greenery
and street trees into larger infrastructure
improvements along roadways. Trees should be
placed to avoid impacts to underground utilities.

Seek additional funding sources for green
infrastructure. Prioritize near-term opportunities
to include greening. Include green infrastructure
in updated standard details. These elements serve
environmental and planning goals and support
safer street design.

Sustainability &
Biodiversity
Community Services
Department (CSD),

CDD & PW
Greening / Tree Canopy Improvements
The MVATP and the BUFP are complementary to one another with shared goals and principles and methods to achieve them. The recently adopted BUFP states Mountain View’s commitment to planting and protecting native trees and vegetation to enhance native biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, and support community health and connections. Active transportation corridors such as the existing and proposed bikeways in the MVATP are considered priorities within the BUFP's Heat Mitigation Strategy Zone and are included in that plan’s connectivity analyses.

Additionally, the BUFP contains three actions directly related to the MVATP Sustainability and Biodiversity Guiding Principle. They are:
‣ Action 1 Seek to strategically include green features in active transportation improvement project design to both increase ecological value and achieve other City priorities.
‣ Action 10 Maximize biodiversity support within city parks and trail corridors while continuing to meet community needs.
‣ Action 17 Prioritize shade tree planting in the Cooling Zone, mapped in Guide A: Urban Landscaping, to protect against heat and improve walkability.

The MVATP and BUFP support the City’s overall sustainability goals and emphasize the importance of incorporating greenery and street trees into infrastructural improvements of varying scale along roadways. Not only do they have the benefit of serving environmental and planning goals but they are also valuable elements of a safer street design.

Figure 30 CITY OF MOUNTAIN

VIEW BIODIVERSITY AND URBAN

FOREST PLAN
52 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
941

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Expansion of Safe
Routes Programs
Building off of Mountain View’s successful Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) program, add Safe
Routes to Parks and Safe Routes to Transit
programs to encourage safe walking, bicycling,
transit riding and driving to important destinations
within Mountain View, particularly for youth and
families.

Safety & Comfort PW, CSD & Transit
Partners
Maintenance
of Active
Transportation
Facilities
Funding and programming for regular maintenance
of active transportation facilities such as bicycle
lane street sweeping and sidewalk cleaning and
repair will uphold the safety and comfort of active
transportation trips throughout the city.

Safety & Comfort PW
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)
TDM focuses on establishing travel choice within a
community through policy and programs to reduce
dependency on automobile travel. TDM supports
larger active transportation infrastructural
improvements by making walking and biking trips
more feasible. The City’s TDM ordinance went into
effect in June 2026.

Mobility &
Connectivity PW
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on strategies to reduce travel demand and encourage more healthy, sustainable patterns of transportation. TDM strategies can include programs that encourage mode shift such as Safe Routes to School, transit pass discounts, parking cash out programs, incentives for bike commuting, corporate shuttle services, carpool coordination, and preferential parking spaces for carpool and vanpool. They can also include policies that support an integrated land use and transportation approach, such as transit-oriented development and incentives for new development that support more sustainable transportation choice and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Mountain View passed a citywide TDM Ordinance and Program Standards in June 2026.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 53
942
Social Walks/Rides
City-supported social walks and rides are a
valuable tool for community connection and
transportation education. They allow people
to experience first-hand walking, bicycling or
rolling in different parts of the city and also
invite people to get to know their community
and the amenities and local businesses that exist
throughout it. The walks and rides can also be
an opportunity to discuss road safety and best
practices in infrastructure design—and just
enjoy each other’s company!
Walks and rides could be scheduled on a regular basis, rotating through neighborhoods in the city and designed to be inviting for individuals of all ages and abilities. The City can co-host the events in collaboration with neighborhood partners such as schools or a community-based organization or neighborhood business, to provide a hyper-local point of contact for each event.

TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Social Walks/
Rides
Regularly scheduled community-promoted walk or
bicycle tours in different areas of the City focusing
on encouragement and training for new users,
raising community awareness or road safety and
best practices. These could be organized through
established programs like Safe Routes to School.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PW
Evaluation of
Infrastructure
Projects
Evaluation of infrastructure projects is important
for monitoring and accountability. It helps to show
whether projects had the intended impact of
improving travel behavior and safety for multiple
modes. Funding programs such as the CTC’s
Active Transportation Program require pre- and
post-counts of walking, bicycling and vehicles.

Mobility &
Connectivity PW
Figure 31 COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON A WALK

IN THE MISTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AREA
54 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
943
To support implementation decisions, Table 8 includes relative level of effort and cost for each recommended program and policy. Level of effort and costs were developed by staff in the City's Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Sections using professional judgement and experience on related programs and policies.

Table 8 RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS LEVEL OF EFFORT AND COST PROGRAM/ POLICY LEVEL OF EFFORT* COST**
STATUS: NEW EFFORT
No Right Turn on Red Policy 🚧🚧🚧
Ongoing $$
Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best Practices 🚧🚧🚧 One-time $$
Update Bicycle Parking Standards 🚧🚧
One-time $
Walk Safe Designation 🚧
One-time $
Waste Bin Policy and Maintenance 🚧
Ongoing $
Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to Measure Active Transportation Progress
🚧🚧
Ongoing $
STATUS: EXISTING EFFORT
Upgrade Pedestrian Signals to Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)
🚧🚧
Ongoing $$$
Improve Visibility at Intersections (Daylighting) 🚧🚧🚧
Ongoing $
*Relative level of staff effort compared to the other recommendations. For expanded programs/policies, estimates the additional staff time required for expansion. Staff time is higher for efforts that require significant public engagement, internal coordination, legal review, or action by City Council. Ongoing efforts would happen continuously or repeat at least annually. One-time efforts would happen once over the next five to ten years. **Relative level of non-staff costs (e.g. consultant, capital, materials) compared to other recommendations. Costs are higher for efforts that require capital infrastructure or significant consultant work.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 55
944
PROGRAM/ POLICY LEVEL OF EFFORT* COST**
Evaluation of Speed Limits and Speed Zones 🚧
Ongoing $
Enforcement of School Zone Speed Limits 🚧
Ongoing $
Managing and Enforcing the Transportation System of All Road Users
🚧🚧
Ongoing $
Road Safety Education 🚧
Ongoing $$
Consideration of Pedestrian Connectivity via Paseos in Property Development.
🚧
Ongoing $
Leading Pedestrian Interval Policy 🚧
Ongoing $$
STATUS: EXPANDED EFFORT
Staff Continuing Education 🚧
Ongoing $
Education and Enforcement on Use of Personal Electric
Micromobility Devices
🚧
Ongoing $
Bicycle Friendly Community Designation 🚧
One-time $
Greening / Tree Canopy Improvements 🚧🚧
Ongoing $$$
TABLE 8 RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS LEVEL OF EFFORT AND COST (CONTINUED) *Relative level of staff effort compared to the other recommendations. For expanded programs/policies, estimates the additional staff time required for expansion. Staff time is higher for efforts that require significant public engagement, internal coordination, legal review, or action by City Council. Ongoing efforts would happen continuously or repeat at least annually. One-time efforts would happen once over the next five to ten years. **Relative level of non-staff costs (e.g. consultant, capital, materials) compared to other recommendations. Costs are higher for efforts that require capital infrastructure or significant consultant work. 56 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
945
PROGRAM/ POLICY LEVEL OF EFFORT* COST**
Expansion of Safe Routes Programs 🚧🚧
Ongoing $$
Maintenance of Active Transportation Facilities 🚧🚧
Ongoing $$$
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 🚧🚧
Ongoing $$
Social Walks/ Rides 🚧
Ongoing $
Evaluation of Infrastructure Projects 🚧🚧🚧
Ongoing $$
TABLE 8 RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS LEVEL OF EFFORT AND COST (CONTINUED) *Relative level of staff effort compared to the other recommendations. For expanded programs/policies, estimates the additional staff time required for expansion. Staff time is higher for efforts that require significant public engagement, internal coordination, legal review, or action by City Council. Ongoing efforts would happen continuously or repeat at least annually. One-time efforts would happen once over the next five to ten years. **Relative level of non-staff costs (e.g. consultant, capital, materials) compared to other recommendations. Costs are higher for efforts that require capital infrastructure or significant consultant work.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 57
946
04 LET’S ROLL!

IMPLEMENTING

THE ATP
947
Implementation Process
Considerations
The development of the project scenarios, cross sections, cost estimates, and implementation strategies translated the MVATP vision and guiding principles into a practical framework for action. This chapter outlines the steps, resources, and decisions needed to change and move projects from concept to construction and policies and programs from ideas to execution, including how to prioritize investments, manage trade-offs, and align projects with available funding opportunities. The implementation approach balances ambition with feasibility, ensuring projects advance safety, comfort, access, sustainability, and biodiversity while working within real-world constraints. Continued public engagement and collaboration with partners are also important components of implementation.

The Green Street scenario demonstrates how street space can be re-envisioned to improve safety, mitigate heat and stormwater issues, and enhance the public realm. By examining material alternatives and identifying ways to manage challenges, it shows why strategic project development matters. Successful implementation relies on collaboration and trust across City departments and with regional partners to advance shared transportation goals.

PRIORITY PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
One of the five Guiding Principles of the MVATP is Action-Oriented and Innovation. To reflect this principle, priority project concepts were developed with two alternatives: resurfacing and reconstruction. Resurfacing represents Action-Oriented, offering lower costs and fewer barriers to implementation. Reconstruction represents Innovation, identifying opportunities to integrate new design guidance, infrastructure concepts, and green street elements.

All the infrastructure recommendations presented in this section will require further public engagement and engineering review to confirm design adequacy and feasibility prior to implementation.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 59
948
Resurfacing
Resurfacing alternatives assume the street would undergo routine maintenance, including slurry seal or a grind and overlay, creating a “blank slate” for installing bicycle facilities. These alternatives do not involve moving curb lines; therefore, the existing curb-to-curb width defines the space available for reallocation. The scope includes pavement markings, signage, and improved bicycle facilities such as concrete curbs or flexible delineator posts. Sidewalk construction or other concrete work is not included, although minor sidewalk maintenance may be performed to meet Title II ADA requirements. Where projects intersect or cross another agency’s right-of-way (e.g.

Caltrans, Santa Clara County), coordination will be needed.

Reconstruction
Reconstruction alternatives assume the street is fully demolished and rebuilt within the existing right-of-way, typically as part of a major capital project triggered by pavement degradation or a similar scale of work. These alternatives allow for curb line adjustments and the installation of continuous Class IV bikeway separation, such as curbed planting strips along the bikeway. No additional right-of-way acquisition is assumed. Reconstruction projects may affect drainage patterns, trees, medians, and other existing features which will require further feasibility analysis. These projects are long-term, visionary concepts that would be adapted to site-specific conditions, recognizing that full implementation may not be practical on narrower streets.

For all alternatives, cross sections were developed based on these assumptions and are detailed in the cutsheets included in Appendix B. Each cutsheet provides a narrative describing existing conditions, proposed changes in each alternative, and implementation considerations, along with an illustrative cross section showing elements and widths. The cutsheets also include maps illustrating project limits and nearby destinations like parks and schools served by the improvements. Cross sections were developed using measurements from high-quality aerial imagery; however, field verification during future design may identify discrepancies that require adjustments.
60 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
949
Costs
Cost estimates for resurfacing alternatives were developed using generalized unit costs (based on city project bid results from 2023 and 2024) and frequency assumptions. These include, but are not limited to, resurfacing, striping, signage, and Class IV bikeway elements. The estimates are intended to reflect the cost of installing bicycle facilities as part of a resurfacing project. Other elements that may be included in resurfacing projects—such as sidewalks or median islands—vary by location and are not included in these estimates.

The estimates also include percentage-based allowances for design, coordination, permitting, environmental review, and similar project development costs, which vary by project scale.

Costs for reconstruction alternatives were not developed. Reconstruction projects typically include substantial additional work unrelated to bicycle or pedestrian facilities, such as utility replacement and full-depth pavement reconstruction, and vary significantly by location. Due to these uncertainties, reliable cost estimates were not feasible. In most cases, the cost of bicycle and pedestrian facilities would represent a relatively small portion of the overall reconstruction project cost.

Smaller-Scale Safety Improvements
In addition to pursuing the priority projects, the City will continue to implement pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements through smaller-scale projects where design work is limited, and implementation can be done in-house. These projects could include but are not limited to modifying or adding signage, striping and pavement markings; installing rubber curbs and/ or flexible delineators; and small-scale, non-complex, improvements such as sidewalk repairs, temporary bulbouts, and refuge islands. Projects could be constructed as one-off improvements or grouped as a set of similar improvements at multiple locations throughout the city.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 61
950

PROJECT LENGTH
(MILES)

BIKEWAY CLASS

IN RESURFACING

ALTERNATIVE
EST. PROJECT COST
(2025 DOLLARS IN

MILLIONS)
California Street, South Shoreline Boulevard to
Showers Drive 1.38 Class IV $5.5
California Street, Showers Drive to Del Medio
Avenue 0.5 Class IV $2.0
Whisman Road, Fairchild Drive to East Dana
Street 1.43 Class IV $5.7
Escuela Avenue, Crisanto Ave to El Camino Real 0.5 Class III $1.5 California Street, Hope Street to South
Shoreline Blvd 0.32 Class II $1.0
Showers Drive, California Street to El Camino
Real 0.32 Class IV $1.3
West Middlefield Road, Moffett Blvd to Old
Middlefield Way 2 Class IV $8.0
Latham Street, Escuela Ave to Showers Drive 0.84 Class III $2.5 South Shoreline Boulevard, Montecito Avenue
to El Camino Real 1.1 Class IV $4.4
Latham St/Church St, Castro Street to Escuela
Ave 0.85 Class III $2.5
Rengstorff Avenue, Garcia Avenue to Leghorn
Street 0.4 Class IV $1.6
Dana St, Bush Street Moorpark Way 0.85 Class IV $3.4
Miramonte Ave, El Camino Real to Marilyn
Drive 0.5 Class IV $2.0
Garcia Avenue, Amphitheater Parkway to
Bayshore Parkway 0.6 Class II $2.9
Evelyn Ave, Bush Street to South Bernardo
Avenue 1.35 Class IV $5.4
Phyllis Avenue, El Camino Real to Grant Road 0.5 Class IV $2.0 Sylvan Ave, Moorpark Way to El Camino Real 0.6 Class IV $2.4 Note: Costs are estimates in 2025 dollars, based on information available at the time, and are expected to increase over time. Costs are for resurfacing projects which include unit assumptions for intersections and linear components of a resurfacing project (e.g., markings, signage, temporary materials for protection, pavement resurfacing).

Table 9 ESTIMATED RESURFACING PROJECT COST FOR PRIORITY PROJECTS 62 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
951
Material Alternatives
Based on block-level analysis, six material alternatives were evaluated against a base street modification cost of $2.82 million ($535 per foot of roadway) to create a 4-foot green infrastructure zone. Base costs assume one mile of street reconstruction and each material alternative’s cost would be added to that. The estimate includes both sides of the street with no change to the overall roadway width. These estimates are intended to indicate relative costs rather than final construction prices.

SCENARIO: GREEN STREET INFRASTRUCTURE
Many streets in Mountain View contain excess roadway width that can be reallocated to better support walking, biking, and ecological functions. By shifting curb lines inward where feasible, space can be created along sidewalks to provide separation between people and vehicles, accommodate trees and stormwater features, and improve safety and overall quality of the public realm. While green street infrastructure may involve a greater upfront capital cost, long-term environmental health, traffic safety and social benefits are notable.

Figure 32 CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION OF GREEN STREET
Green street infrastructure represents a strategic investment in community well-being, environmental sustainability, and urban livability.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 63
952
Benefits
‣ Mulch and aggregate provide immediate cost advantages over concrete. ‣ Drought-tolerant planted options begin providing environmental benefits early, such as temperature reduction and improved pedestrian comfort.
‣ Concrete provides durability, low maintenance, and predictable performance. ‣ Planted alternatives with irrigation and bioswales deliver growing returns over time such as expanded tree canopy, better air quality, stabilized maintenance costs, and cost-effective compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3.0).

Figure 33 ADD-ON COST PER MILE FOR MATERIAL ALTERNATIVES IN

REIMAGINED STREETS BEYOND BASE STREET MODIFICATION COST The estimate assumes full reconstruction of sidewalks and driveways within the right-of-way.

Driveways are assumed to occur every 100 feet and to be approximately 20 feet wide. Cost data are based on aggregated City of Mountain View bid prices for similar projects and were rounded.

Figure 33 illustrates the costs of various material alternatives for the reimagined street section. 64 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
953
Trade-Offs
‣ Concrete has high upfront costs and limited ecological or community benefits. ‣ Mulch and aggregate may require more frequent replenishment or upkeep, adding to ongoing maintenance costs.
‣ Planted options need irrigation and care during establishment. ‣ Irrigated and bioswale-planted landscapes require higher initial investment. These plantings will also require maintenance such as irrigation and pruning after maturity.

Challenges and Mitigations
Moving curb lines can significantly increase project complexity and cost by triggering a range of additional infrastructure requirements. These include, but are not limited to: drainage analysis and utility adjustments; sidewalk, signal, and driveway demolition and reconstruction; and extensive coordination with property owners. It requires more complex engineering, construction, and interagency coordination beyond the basic street maintenance. Table 9 outlines the key considerations associated with green street projects and practical ways to reduce or manage them.

CHALLENGE MITIGATION
Higher upfront capital costs
Upfront costs can be reduced or offset by incorporating into capital projects early in a project life cycle, phasing improvements, and pursuing grant funding, while the
environmental, aesthetic, and infrastructure benefits persist for the life of the tree and associated improvements.

Tree roots can lift sidewalks
Careful species selection, appropriate planting techniques, and engineered solutions such as structural soils and modified sidewalk sections can provide adequate root space and reduce the risk of root-related damage.

Potential property damage from falling limbs
Tree species with strong branch attachment, appropriate placement, and routine maintenance reduce limb risk without limiting tree size. Small or medium varieties are selected only in response to valid concerns from adjacent property owners.

Reduced visibility within the right-of-way
Tree placement will be carefully coordinated to avoid sight triangles and maintain safe visibility at intersections and driveways.

Requires ongoing maintenance All maintenance will be performed by the City as part of its standard operations.

Table 10 COMMON GREEN STREET CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 65
954
Implications of Green Streets
Green streets deliver measurable benefits
that extend far beyond aesthetics. They
provide space for natural elements to
support biodiversity, incorporate sustainable
stormwater strategies, create inviting
environments through complementing
traffic-calming efforts and prioritize active
transportation modes for people of all ages
and abilities. Simply put,
Green Streets = Active Transportation
+ Biodiversity + Green Infrastructure.

GREEN STREETS
Mountain View’s tree cover is

19.5% of the city, with a goal of

22.7% by 2030.

Refer to the Biodiversity and
Urban Forest Plan for more
information about green streets
progress, goals, and actions.
“I think trees can do wonders in making
some of the overwhelming walking areas
(e.g. along Central around Rengstorff)
less so and make it more pleasant and
psychologically feel safer.”
Figure 34 represents a range of green street
elements and its benefits. Green stormwater
infrastructure is required for Municipal
Regional Stormwater Permit 3.0 compliance,
managing runoff through increased pervious
surfaces that reduce, slow, and treat
stormwater while improving water quality.

Street trees and vegetation enhance air quality
by filtering pollutants and, when using native
species, provide habitat corridors that support
pollinators and ecosystems in this biodiversity
hotspot region.
66 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
955
Figure 34 A FEW GREEN STREET ELEMENTS AND THEIR BENEFITS Planting strip: Replaces heat-absorbing pavement; absorbs rainwater and reduces runoff
Bikeway: Provides safe,
comfortable, and shaded routes
Parklet: Creates public spaces for
rest and social interaction
Median: Filters air pollution and
adds greenery to busy roads
Cul-de-sac: Captures stormwater
and improves local drainage
Tree well: Supports tree growth,
providing cooling streets and
shade for pedestrians
Green street projects require strategic site selection, interagency coordination, and supporting policies.

Engaging the residents and businesses early helps build support, address concerns about visibility and maintenance, and ensure designs reflect community priorities. Implementation strategies that reduce risk and build momentum include:
‣ Pilot and phased projects: Start with lower-risk streets that have favorable conditions to demonstrate feasibility. Use a phased approach that allows vegetation to establish while monitoring safety, performance, and maintenance needs. Lessons learned from these pilots will inform expansion to more complex or higher-priority locations in future years.
‣ Target priority corridors and nodes: Once pilot projects demonstrate success, focus investments on high-priority routes such as streets near schools, commercial areas, flood-prone segments, and existing or planned bikeways and trail connections. This approach advances both stormwater compliance and active transportation goals simultaneously.
‣ Standardize designs: Use simple, repeatable typologies such as corner curb extensions with bioretention, mid-block rain gardens, and permeable parking lanes to streamline design, permitting, construction, and maintenance.

Good candidates for these treatments include streets that are in need of utility upgrades or repairs, have excess pavement width, have drainage conditions that allow for curb line modifications, and supportive property owners.

Any proposed green areas should be planned with consideration of existing underground utilities to avoid conflicts and ensure feasibility during installation and maintenance. Identifying streets with these characteristics can substantially reduce risk, cost, and implementation challenges.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 67
956
Funding Sources for
Active Transportation Projects
Funding to support active transportation infrastructure and programming is available from many different sources at the federal, state, regional and local level. Mountain View often uses local funds to support transportation planning studies, design, and environmental review stages of transportation infrastructure projects, and utilizes regional, state, and federal grant funds for construction. Programs such as Safe Routes to School are also funded with municipal funds.

A non-exhaustive list of potential funding options includes (Table 11):

Federal Funding
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
SS4A is a federal-aid grant program for regional, local, and Tribal initiatives to improve roadway safety. Funding is provided for Planning and Demonstration Grants that support the development of a comprehensive safety action plan that identify the most pressing roadway safety concerns in a community and implement solutions. Implementation Grants fund projects and initiatives to address identified roadway safety issues. An eligible Action Plan must be adopted before applying for implementation funds.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
HSIP is a federal-aid program that supports states’ efforts to significantly reduce fatal and serious injuries on public roads with spot or systemic safety improvements. California splits HSIP funds between state HSIP for state highways and local HSIP for local roads. Recipient agencies are required to have a completed Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) or an equivalent plan to be eligible.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG program is a federal grant program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support various projects and programs serving low-income areas. CDBG funds may be used for transportation infrastructure projects such as sidewalk construction, provided they expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income households through increased mobility, safety, and accessibility. Mountain View receives about $600,000 each year in CDBG funds that are primarily allocated to non-profit agencies on a two-year application cycle. 68 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
957
State/Regional Funding
California Transportation Commission Active Transportation Program (ATP) The Active Transportation Program consolidated various transportation programs into a single program and was originally funded at about $123 million a year from a combination of state and federal funds. The goals of the ATP include increasing trips completed by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of pedestrians, advancing climate and public health goals, and supporting projects that benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities.

Other Santa Clara County cities have previously been awarded ATP funds to fund pedestrian and bicycle safety projects.

Strategic Growth Council Affordable Housing and Sustainable Transportation Program (AHSC)
As a grant program of the State of California, the AHSC Program funds affordable housing and transportation projects close to jobs, schools, and other daily destinations to help California meet both its climate and equity goals. AHSC provides funding for affordable housing developments, sustainable transportation infrastructure, and programs that encourage residents to walk, bicycle, and use public transit. Mountain View received $49.7 million to transform an underutilized parking lot into a 7-story development with 161 apartment units within a ten-minute walk of a major multimodal transit station with bus, light rail, and commuter rail services.

Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3)
The TDA was enacted by the California Legislature in 1971 to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. It allocates tax revenue funding for transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans. Eligible counties with a population under 500,000 may also use funds for local streets and roads, construction and maintenance. TDA 3 funds (one-quarter cent of the general statewide sales tax) are a subset of the overall TDA funds collected specifically for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the nine-county MPO in the San Francisco Bay Area, allows counties to use these funds for projects that are reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee and approved by MTC. While the amount of annual TDA3 funding allocated varies and depends upon the total sales tax revenues generated, Mountain View in past years has been allocated approximately $120,000 annually from this funding source. The City has used past TDA3 grant funds for a pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements and program and policy elements such as city bike maps, bike racks, and education programs. Mountain View coordinates with VTA to access these funds and can bank up to five years of funds if needed to plan for larger projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 69
958
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 2016 Measure B Santa Clara County voters approved 2016 Measure B, a 30-year, half-cent countywide sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways, and active transportation. Collection began in April 2017. Funds are allocated across nine Program Categories, including Local Streets and Roads, BART Phase II, Caltrain Grade Separations, Transit Operations, and Bicycle and Pedestrian. The Bicycle and Pedestrian category funds projects of countywide significance, with priority given to projects that connect to schools, transit, and employment centers, fill gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network, safely cross barriers to mobility, and make bicycling and walking more convenient for county residents and visitors.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Fund
Since 1991, the Department of Motor Vehicles has imposed a $4 surcharge on cars and trucks registering within the BAAQMD, also known as the “Air District”, to provide grant funding to projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions. The Air District’s Board of Directors approves Calls for Projects and allocates 60% of TFCA funds every year. The other 40% of funds are passed through nine Bay Area counties through the TFCA 40 Percent Fund.

Local Funding
California Transportation Commission (CTC) Local Partnership Program (LPP) Using an annual $200 million appropriation from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, the LPP provides funding via both a formulaic and competitive process to counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies that have approved fees or taxes dedicated to transportation improvements. LPP funds are used to improve aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, transit and rail, and health and safety benefits. While Mountain View is not directly eligible for these funds, they may coordinate with regional agencies such as but not limited to VTA, Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), and Caltrain to submit projects for consideration.
70 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
959
Table 11 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS

FUNDING MECHANISM ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION
Federal
Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) Policy
Federal grant program for initiatives to improve
roadway safety projects that reduce or eliminate
roadway fatalities
Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) Policy
Federal-aid program supporting states’ efforts to
significantly reduce fatal and serious injuries on public roads.

Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Policy
Federal grant program by HUD to support various
projects and programs serving low-income areas,
including infrastructure projects that expand economic
opportunities.

State/Regional
California Transportation
Commission Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Policy
State program disbursing funds to active transportation projects that promote walking and biking trips,
pedestrian safety and mobility, and climate and public
health goals.

Strategic Growth Council
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Transportation Program (AHSC)
Policy
State grant program funding affordable housing and
transportation projects close to jobs, schools, and other daily destinations that encourage residents to walk,
bicycle, and use public transit.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) 2016 Measure B Fiscal
County tax measure enacting a 30-year, half-cent
sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways,
and active transportation. Funds are provided for nine
program categories, including Bicycle and Pedestrian.

BAAQMD Transportation for
Clean Air (TFCA) Fiscal
$4 surcharge on cars and trucks registering within the
Bay Area Air District. Funds are used for grants to
projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions.

Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA3) Fiscal
Section of the 1971 TDA that specifically funds biking
and pedestrian projects, Eligible counties with a
population under 500,000 may also use funds for local
streets and roads, construction and maintenance.

Local
CTC Local Partnership Program
(LPP) Fiscal
An annual $200 million appropriation for funding
counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies that have approved fees or taxes dedicated to
transportation improvements. Funds can be used to
support initiatives to improve infrastructure, mobility, and public health.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 71
960

COLLABORATION
Coordination and collaboration are critical for the implementation of projects, programs and policies. The complexity of coordination was a factor when scoring projects, considering not just internal collaboration among City departments but also the level of coordination needed with regional and on any given project with local, regional, and state partners such as Caltrans, VTA, Santa Clara County, and Mountain View’s neighboring cities of Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Palo Alto to move projects toward implementation. Additional partners adds complexity to projects and can extend the overall project timeline due to the increased amount of coordination and engagement, but is necessary to achieve shared transportation goals, particularly for corridors that span multiple jurisdictions. A recent example of effective cross-agency collaboration is the El Camino Real protected bikeways, installed in partnership with Caltrans to improve multimodal access along this key corridor. State level agency focus in recent years on Complete Streets, state highways as Main Streets, vulnerable road users and transit priority suggest more alignment and coordination on local and state level priorities going forward.

PUBLIC INPUT
Active transportation is a part of everyone’s life in Mountain View. The City is strongly committed to public involvement and will continue to engage as the MVATP is implemented. Public input allows the city to understand how a street is being used and learn concerns that may not be obvious from quantitative data sources.

For smaller bicycle and pedestrian projects, the City typically seeks public input at early design stage through public presentations at the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Council Transportation Committee (CTC), and approval of design at City Council. After design is approved, the project goes out to bid and construction begins. During construction, the city notifies nearby property owners of the construction.

For larger projects or projects that significantly modify the transportation system, the City may conduct a feasibility study to identify a preferred concept before beginning engineering design.

Feasibility studies are an extended planning process to understand existing conditions, establish goals for the project, develop several alternative concepts, analyze how the concepts support project goals and impact transportation safety and operations, seek community input on the concepts, and bring a preferred concept to City Council for approval. The BPAC and CTC are typically updated and invited to provide input at key points during the feasibility study. Outreach strategies the City has used for feasibility studies include walking or biking tours of the project area, public workshops, online surveys, presentations to local groups and organizations, mailers to adjacent properties, and other ways of soliciting public input. The City ensures materials are multi-lingual and offers interpretation and translation services. 72 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
961
The City will seek public input as it advances the priority projects in the MVATP. The level of engagement will generally align with the size or impact of the project, as described above.

Resurfacing projects that do not significantly alter the transportation system will typically follow the small project process. Reconstruction projects and those that significantly alter the transportation system will go through additional analysis, up to and including a feasibility study, before engineering design begins.

When developing and implementing transportation projects, the City considers how proposed improvements interact with the broader multimodal transportation system. For active transportation projects, this means evaluating pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the context of the transit and motor vehicle network and operations. When active transportation initiatives require reallocating existing street space, the City evaluates how changes may impact surrounding traffic flow and parking capacity. This plan acknowledges that unmanaged congestion and lost parking can generate pushback from residents and local businesses. It also acknowledges that thoughtful integration can improve walking and bicycling infrastructure, improve safety, reduce motor vehicle dependency, alleviate traffic bottlenecks, and optimize existing parking supply. The Mountain View community is multi-modal, with individuals choosing the best travel option given their circumstances and needs, sometimes walking and biking, sometimes driving or taking transit. Balancing motor vehicle and transit considerations alongside pedestrian and bicyclist’s needs ensures that an active transportation network integrates seamlessly into the broader multimodal system rather than operating in isolation.

PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND THE MVATP
Mountain View is committed to expanding and growing in a way that supports housing and active transportation. Through the development review process, the City works with developers to ensure they are constructing the planned improvements identified in adopted city plans, such as Precise Plans, Utility Master Plans and this ATP. This plan recognizes the need to strengthen tools the City uses to ensure developments support the City’s active transportation vision.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 73
962

COMMITMENT TO THE VISION AND

NEXT STEPS FOR THE CITY
Active transportation is an integral part of life in Mountain View, as evidenced by the high rates of walking and bicycling by those who travel about the city, and by the city and community’s investment in active transportation programs and facilities.

Using the Guiding Principles of Mobility & Connectivity, Safety & Comfort, Access & Equity, Sustainability & Biodiversity, and Innovation & Action-Orientation, the MVATP identified sustainable projects that improve safe, equitable and comfortable connections across the city and programs and policies that continue to support active transportation. This list of projects, programs and policies provides an action plan for the next 5-10 years for the city to move projects forward in the capital planning process. The city’s commitment to multimodal transportation mobility, safety, and connectivity can be measured through the progress and timely delivery of the priorities outlined in this plan.

The MVATP is a commitment by the city to creating an active transportation system that strengthens the community’s access to housing, employment, parks, schools and other destinations and enhances biodiversity. The plan’s priority projects, programs and policies complement other Mountain View planning documents and initiatives that support active transportation, safety, sustainability and biodiversity and will help to provide accountability to the community’s commitment to these values. The MVATP will also help the City continue to be a leader in the region, and the state, in community walking and bicycling activity. 74 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
963

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 75
964
965
APPENDIX A:

PROJECT

PRIORITIZATION
966
Appendix A – Project Prioritization Memo
Project prioritization is a standard exercise in transportation planning projects that grounds decision making in data and community input. It provides an objective assessment of potential projects, typically using a screening process and scoring criteria associated with a plan’s vision and goals and practical aspects that may affect the feasibility of a project such as jurisdictional purview, potential project costs, implementation timeline and the opportunity to leverage planned work or funding. While screening, scoring and prioritization process may evaluate an extensive list of potential projects, the goal of the exercise is to come down to a list of projects that could be planned and/or implemented over the anticipated timeframe of the plan.

Screening
The existing conditions analysis and holistic network map development identified over 100 potential pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure project opportunities across the city of Mountain View. The potential projects were initially screened to estimate the general scale and scope of project types (e.g., quick build or paint and post projects vs. corridor green street improvements) and categories of possible project types (e.g., pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements, green streets). Projects were also screened to determine if the project was within the purview of the City’s responsibilities. The majority of potential projects were retained through the screening process.

Scoring
The MVATP scoring process used seventeen criteria distributed across four of the five guiding principles: Access and Equity, Safety and Comfort, Mobility and Connectivity, and Sustainability and Biodiversity. Each scoring criteria had an associated metric that allowed for measurement of the criteria using objective data, community comments or professional judgment (Table 1:

Mountain View Active Transportation Scoring CriteriaTable 1). Mountain View staff across several departments, the TAC, ATPAC and BPAC and CTC and City Council all provided input into the scoring and prioritization process.

Table 1: Mountain View Active Transportation Scoring Criteria Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Access and Equity Supports lower
income residents
U.S. Census
data
Project is not within a
low- or low- to mid-income census tract0
Project is within a low-to mid-income census
tract defined as
having more than 14%
of the population
below 200% of the
7 967
Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring federal poverty level
(FPL).

Project is within a low-income census tract
defined as having
more than 28% of the
population below
200% of FPL.
14 Access and Equity Fills a gap in existing
sidewalk network
City of
Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close
a sidewalk gap 0
Project partially closes
a sidewalk gap 3
Project does close a
sidewalk gap

6.5 Access and Equity
Fills a gap in All Ages
and Abilities (AAA)
bicycle network
City of
Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close
a gap in the AAA
bicycle network
0 Project partially close
a gap in the AAA
bicycle network
3 Project does close a
gap in the AAA
bicycle network

6.5 Maximum score for Access and Equity scoring criteria 27 Safety and
Comfort
Addresses community
concerns
GIS data
representing an
aggregation of
community
comments from
Maptionnaire
survey, walk
audits, other
community
events, and
Mountain View’s
online and 311
community
comment
portals
Project area has low
density of community
comments (lower
third)
0 Project area has
medium density of
community comments
(middle third)
4 Project area has high
density of community
comments (top third)
9 968
Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Safety and
Comfort
Addresses existing
(historic) crash
patterns
GIS crash data
analysis from
Mountain View
Local Road
Safety Plan
Project area has no or
low density of fatal or
severe injury crashes
(bottom third)
0 Project area has
medium density of
fatal or severe injury
crashes (middle third)
7 Project area has a
relatively high density
of fatal or severe
injury crashes (top
third)
14 Safety and
Comfort
Improves pedestrian
network density
Mountain View
GIS data
measuring the
distance
between
pedestrian
crossing
opportunities
Project does not
reduce pedestrian
block length at all
0 Project reduces
pedestrian block
length but not to less
than 500’
2 Project reduces
pedestrian block
length to less than
500'
4 Safety and
Comfort
Reduces pedestrian
crossing distance
Mountain View
GIS data
measuring the
width of
pedestrian
crossing
distance at
intersections
Project does not
decrease width of
pedestrian crossing
distance
0 Project does decrease
width of pedestrian
crossing distance
5 Maximum score for Safety and Comfort scoring criteria 32 Mobility and
Connectivity
Supports school
children
Mountain View
GIS data of all
school locations
Project is more than
5-minute walk (0.25
mile) from a school
(public or private)
0 Project is less than 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) from a school or
on a suggested route
to school (public or
private)
4 Project fronts a school
(public or private) 9
969
Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Mobility and
Connectivity
Supports other key
destinations
(commercial center,
park, trail, senior
center or senior living
community)
Mountain View
GIS data of key
destinations
Project is more than
5-minute walk (0.25
mile) from a key
destination
0 Project is less than 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) from a key
destination
4 Project fronts a key
destination 9
Mobility and
Connectivity
Improves first/last
mile connection to
transit
Mountain View
GIS data of all
transit stops
Project is not within 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) of any transit
stop (bus or rail)
0 Project is within 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) of any transit
stop (bus or rail)
2 Project is within 10-
minute walk (0.5 mile)
of major transit stop
or high-quality transit
corridor (bus or rail)
4 Maximum score for Mobility and Connectivity scoring criteria 22 Sustainability
and Biodiversity
Reduces impervious
surface area
Mountain View
satellite imagery
and GIS data
Project does not
reduce impervious
surface area
0 Project reduces
impervious surface
area by less than 4%
2 Project reduces
impervious surface
area by 4% or more

4.5 Sustainability
and Biodiversity
Provide Plantable
Space
Mountain View
satellite imagery
and GIS data
Project does not
increase open space
for plantings (per
typical)
0 Project
provides enough
space for ground
cover plantings
(plantable spaces < 5'
wide)
2 970
Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Project
provides enough
space for ground
cover plantings and
shade trees
(plantable spaces ≥ 5'
wide)

4.5 Maximum score for Sustainability and Biodiversity scoring criteria 9 Feasibility
Order Of Magnitude
Cost (includes
environmental, ROW,
etc.)
Previous
Mountain View
project unit
costs
$$$ (> $10M) 0
$$ ($2M - $10M) 1
$ (< $2M) 2
Feasibility Interagency
Coordination
Assessment of
agency
jurisdictions and
departmental
responsibilities
City and 2 or more
additional outside
agencies
0 City and 1 additional
outside agency 1
None, only city
departments 2
Feasibility
Practical
Implementation
Timeframe
Mountain View
staff
professional
judgment
Long 0
Medium 1
Short 2
Feasibility
Opportunity To
Leverage Existing
Planned Project
Mountain View
staff
professional
judgment
No 0
Yes 2
Feasibility
Alignment With Local,
Regional And/or
Federal Funding
Sources/Opportunities
Mountain View
staff and
consultant
professional
judgement
No 0
Yes 2
Maximum score for Feasibility scoring criteria 10
Total maximum scoring across all scoring criteria 100
The screened potential projects were scored based on the degree to which the anticipated improvements met each scoring criteria’s metric threshold. A maximum score of 100 was possible; potential project scores ranged from a high of 88.5 to a low of 7. 971
Prioritizing
City staff reviewed the twenty-four highest scoring potential projects and selected twenty to move forward into draft project concepts (the four other projects already have plans underway or are in the Caltrans right of way).
972
APPENDIX B:

CUTSHEET

DEVELOPMENT
973
Appendix B – Cutsheet Memo
Cutsheet Development Process
After all potential projects were scored, the priority projects were identified. The cutsheets in this appendix show resurfacing and reconstruction design concepts for the priority projects. Cutsheets are not provided for projects entirely within Caltrans right-of-way or for projects where the future design concepts have been codified through other studies or plans. Appendix C contains the full list of potential projects evaluated as part of the scoring and prioritization process. All infrastructure recommendations will require further public engagement and engineering review to confirm design adequacy and feasibility prior to implementation.

Table 1: Identified Priority Projects
Rank Project
Name Extent Total Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
1 California
Street
South Shoreline
Boulevard to
Showers Drive

88.5 N – pilot
project
installed in
2025
Y
2 California
Street
Showers Drive to Del
Medio Avenue 87.5 Y Y
3 Whisman
Road
Dana Street to
Fairchild Drive 78.5 Y Y
4 Escuela
Avenue
El Camino Real to
Crisanto Ave 76.5 Y Y
5 California
Street
Bush Street to South
Shoreline Blvd 74.5 Y Y
6 Showers
Drive
California Street to
El Camino Real 73.5 Y Y
7 West
Middlefield
Road
Moffett Blvd to Old
Middlefield Way 69.5 Y Y
8 Latham
Street
Escuela Ave to
Showers Drive 68.5 Y Y
9 South
Shoreline
Boulevard
Montecito Avenue to
El Camino Real 68.5 Y Y
-
El Camino
Real*
Rengstorff Ave to
Shoreline Blvd 67.5 Caltrans ROW
10 Latham
St/Church
St
Castro Street to
Escuela Ave 66.5 Y Y
974
Rank Project
Name Extent Total Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
-
Rengstorff
Avenue***
Garcia Avenue to
Leghorn Street 66
Partially within Caltrans ROW.

Refer to VTA’s U.S. 101
Interchanges Improvement
Project: San Antonio Rd to
Charleston Rd/Rengstorff Ave
11 Rengstorff
Avenue**
El Camino Real to
Leghorn St 66
Refer to Rengstorff Complete
Street Study. (Scheduled
completion 2027.)
12 Dana St Bush Street
Moorpark Way 65.5 Y Y
-
E
Middlefield
Rd
Moffet Blvd to
Central Expy 64 Long-term design completed and construction funded. 13 Miramonte
Ave
El Camino Real to
Marilyn Drive 64
Refer to
Miramonte
Complete
Streets Study
(January
2026)
Y
14 North
Shoreline
Blvd**
Plymouth Street to
Montecito Avenue 63.5 Refer to North Bayshore Precise Plan 15 Garcia
Avenue
Amphitheater
Parkway to
Bayshore Parkway

63.5 Y Y
Removed
Amphitheater
Parkway
(Garcia
Avenue to Bill
Graham
Parkway)
16 Evelyn Ave Bush Street to South
Bernardo Avenue 62.5 Y Y
-
El Camino
Real*
Grant Rd to
Sunnyvale/Mountain
View City Limits
(Knickerbocker Dr)

61.5 Caltrans ROW
975
Rank Project
Name Extent Total Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
17 Phyllis
Avenue
El Camino Real to
Grant Road 61.5 Y Y
18 Sylvan Ave Moorpark Way to El
Camino Real 57 Y Y
Removed The
Americana (El
Camino Real
to Continental
Circle)
19 North
Shoreline
Blvd**
North Road to
Plymouth Street 57 Refer to North Bayshore Precise Plan. 20 Moffett
Blvd**
RT Jones Road to
Central Expressway 56.5 Refer to Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan (TBD) *City of Mountain View will coordinate with Caltrans to pursue changes on these corridors **Being addressed through an adopted Precise Plan or a separate planning effort *** City of Mountain View will coordinate with VTA and Caltrans for this project.

Most projects were developed with two alternatives: resurfacing and reconstruction. In some cases, a resurfacing alternative was not included if a related study is underway or a project has been recently implemented.

Resurfacing alternatives assume the street will undergo routine maintenance, including a grind and overlay, creating a "blank slate" for installing bike facilities. These alternatives do not involve moving curb lines; therefore, the existing curb-to-curb width defines the space available for reallocation. The scope for these alternatives typically includes pavement markings, signage, and Class IV bikeway elements such as rubber armadillos or flexible delineator posts. Sidewalk construction or other concrete work is not included, although minor sidewalk maintenance may be performed to meet Title II ADA requirements. Where projects intersect or cross another agency's right-of-way (e.g. Caltrans, Santa Clara County, etc.), coordination will be needed.

Reconstruction alternatives assume the street is fully demolished and rebuilt within the existing right-of-way, typically as part of a major capital project triggered by utility replacement or a similar scale of work. These alternatives allow for curb line adjustments and the installation of permanent Class IV bikeway separation, such as curbed planting strips along the bikeway. No additional right-of-way acquisition is assumed. Reconstruction projects may affect drainage patterns, trees, medians, and other existing features which will require further feasibility analysis. These projects are long-term, visionary concepts that would be implemented only when or if an opportunity for full reconstruction arises.

A basis of design was established that set criteria for various widths of elements that comprise the cross section.
976
Table 2: Basis of Design
Cross Section Element Width (min. unless noted)
Sidewalk 5 ft
Sidewalkplanting area 4.5 ft
Travel Lane 11 ft
Turning Lane 12 ft
Bike lanes (including curb + gutter) 5 ft
Buffered bike lanes 2 ft + 4 ft
Bike lanes 6 ft (preferred)
Parking lane 8 ft
Existing widths were then measured and documented in a spreadsheet to assess the available curb to curb and right-of-way width. For some projects, both widths vary within the limits. The most constrained segment was used to develop cross sections to represent a cross section that can be applied along the corridor. Future efforts will assess how to allocate excess width (e.g. widen Class IV buffers). Cross sections were developed using measurements from high-quality aerial imagery; however, field verification during future design may identify discrepancies that require adjustments. Once dimensions were reviewed and approved, cross section graphics were developed using these values. These graphics represent nominal width of each element and further design for these projects will refine dimensions.

Each cutsheet provides a narrative describing existing conditions like posted speed limit, traffic volume, destinations, transit service, existing cross section elements like travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, planted space, turn lanes, etc. In addition, cutsheets also describe proposed changes in each alternative and implementation considerations as well as illustrative cross sections detailing the elements and widths. The cutsheets include area maps illustrating project limits and nearby destinations served by the improvements like schools and parks. Finally, the plan goals are linked to the project to describe how ATP goals are advanced by a given project. This narrative content, the maps, the plan goals, and the cross section were then compiled into a single page cutsheet for each project. The cutsheets present draft concepts, and final design of each project will require feasibility analysis, engineering review, and community input.
977

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: California Street was redesigned in 2025
as a pilot project to remove one travel lane in each
direction to add Class IV bikeways between Showers
Drive and South Shoreline Boulevard and add 3
mid-block crossings. The land use along the street is
primarily single-family residential toward the east and multi-family residential with some commercial toward
the west. Destinations along or just o this street
include Rengstor Park, Klein Park, Castro/Mistral
Elementary School and Mountain View Academy.

Valley Transportation Authority Route 21 operates along California Street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Reconstruction: This reconstruction concept
proposes upgrading the existing bikeway bu ers to
planting strips and constructing protected intersections at Escuela Avenue, Rengstor Avenue, and at Shoreline
Drive. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns and have implications for future design and construction.

Final design will be informed by results of the pilot
project evaluation.
2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

NETWORK
1 Showers Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Escuela Ave

EXISTING

RECONSTRUCTION
Rengstor Park
Castro/Mistral
Elementary
Mountain View
Academy
Klein Park

CALIFORNIA STREET
South Shoreline Boulevard to Showers Drive (1.38 miles) This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently. *Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the All Ages and Abilities bicycle network and access to schools, parks, and senior centers in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View.
• Improves safety and comfort through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Rengstor Ave
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 978
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently. *Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

CALIFORNIA STREET
Showers Drive to Del Medio Avenue (0.5 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Del Medio Ave
Showers Dr
San Antonio Rd

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: This segment of California Street is predominantly characterized by multi-family residential development, with occasional commercial uses. Class II bike lanes are provided between Showers Drive and San Antonio Street; however,
west of San Antonio, the bike lanes are replaced with on-street parking. A center turn lane replaces the median near Showers Drive. Recent development just east of San Antonio Street has enhanced the pedestrian realm with detached sidewalks and planting strips and a Class II bike lane in each direction and a mid-block crossing at Aspen Way. This segment of California connects Mountain View bike network to Palo Alto, accesses Community School of Music and Arts and provides access to transit on San Antonio Street including Valley Transportation Authority Route 21 and MVgo D Shuttle. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept narrows both travel lanes and one parking lane and consolidates parking to one side to create space for a Class IV bikeway in both directions. A parking analysis will be necessary to understand the feasibility of this proposal.

3. Reconstruction: This concept upgrades the Class IV bikeways to include planting strips and repositions the on-street parking adjacent to the travel lane. This concept also proposes the construction a protected intersection at San Antonio Road and reconstruction at intersection with Showers Drive. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns and have implications for future design and construction. Project will require additional data collection to verify justification for parking changes.

Coordination with San Antonio Precise Plan will be required.

Community
School of
Music and Arts
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Del
Medio
Park
Fayette
Greenway
Park

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the All Ages and Abilities bicycle network and access to commercial services and Del Medio Park in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View. • Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 979
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

WHISMAN ROAD
Dana Street to Fairchild Drive (1.43 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Fairchild Dr
Dana St
Chetwood
Park
Vargas
Elementary
Whisman Station
Pacific Dr
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: This segment of Whisman Road has primarily residential land use frontage, with some commercial frontage near Dana Street. Class II bike lanes exist along the corridor and connect to the Hetch Hetchy Trail, with on-street parking provided on the west side between Gladys Avenue and Fairchild Drive. The roadway has one travel lane in each direction from Fairchild Drive to East Middlefield Road and expands to two lanes in each direction for the remainder of the segment. There are no midblock crossings in this segment. The posted speed limit is 35 mph and there is 25mph school zone in front of Vargas Elementary School.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes removing one travel lane in each direction to install Class IV bikeways. Trac study will be necessary to evaluate feasibility.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes widening the
city-owned bridge over Central Expressway to match the
right-of-way width on the southern approach. The concept includes narrowing the median, upgrading the Class II bikes lanes to Class IV bikeways and increasing the width. The concept also proposes adding a sidewalk on the east side, and incorporating planting strip to increase separation between pedestrians and vehicle trac. A cycle track segment at Vargas Elementary should be considered as this project develops.

This project also reconstructs the Pacific Drive and Whisman Station intersections and constructs a protected intersection at Dana Street. This project includes curb relocation as well as Santa Clara County and Caltrain coordination. Project will require additional data collection to verify justification of lane reconfiguration. Sidewalk widening will be constructed to maintain roadway widths as feasible. Coordination with details in East Whisman Precise Plan will be required.
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Magnolia
Park
Creekside
Park

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY
Devonshire
Park
Evansdale Park
Whisman
Park
Stevens Creek Trail
Hetch Hetchy Trail
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity by completing a gap in the sidewalk network that provides better access to schools and other key destinations such as parks, commercial areas and transit. • Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 980
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
El Camino Real
Crisanto Ave
Rengstor
Park
California St
Mistral
Elementary
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Escuela Avenue is primarily residential land use frontage, with some commercial uses near El Camino
Real. The corridor also serves Castro/Mistral Elementary School and the Day Worker Center. The street provides
one travel lane in each direction and on-street parking.

Two improved crossings are provided—one serving Mistral Elementary and another serving a Red Route bus stop. At the California Street intersection, Valley Transportation Authority Route 21 serves the transit stops. Escuela
Avenue also connects to a bike- and pedestrian-only
entrance to Rengstor Park. The posted limit is 25 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes to reallocate width for the widening of parking
lanes to create a visual narrowing of the street to
manage speeds. There are no major implications for this concept but this project intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes narrowing
parking lanes to reallocate width to the sidewalks,
increasing separation between pedestrians and
vehicular trac as well as adding trees where feasible
in the parking lane width. The concept also includes
reconstruction of the intersections at Crisanto Avenue
and California Street and constructing a pedestrian
and bicycle crossing to Rengstor Park. In addition to
Caltrans coordination, this concept will alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs.
3 RECONSTRUCTION

ESCUELA AVENUE
El Camino Real to Crisanto Avenue (0.5 miles)
Rex Manor
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the comfort and accessibilty of walking to local schools, parks and community services through greater separation between the sidewalk and vehicles moving on the roadway in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View.
• Improves mobility and connectivity through improved marked crossings at intersections and a mid-block/local road marked crossing.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 981
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here. *Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Shoreline Blvd
Eagle Park Bush St
Castro St

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: California Street is primarily fronted
with single-family homes, with commercial uses
concentrated near the intersection with Castro
Street. The corridor features continuous Class II bike
lanes, on-street parking, attached sidewalks, and a
landscaped median with trees. East of Hope Street,
the roadway narrows to one travel lane in each
direction, on-street parking, and detached sidewalks.

California Street serves as an important connection
into Downtown Mountain View. Nearby destinations
include Pioneer Memorial Park, Eagle Park, and
Mercy Bush Park. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing
both travel and parking lanes to install wider Class II bike lanes between Shoreline Boulevard and Hope
Street. There are no major implications for this
concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes narrowing
the median to create detached sidewalks or widen
existing sidewalk planting strips. The project
upgrades the Class II lanes to Class IV bikeways with
a curbed planting strip. This concept reconstructs
the intersection at Castro Street. This project could
require tree removal and will include curb relocation
along the median and sidewalk which will alter
existing drainage patterns. East of Hope Street, the
available right of way narrows which means the cross
section will look di erent in that section.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Pioneer Memorial
Park
Mercy
Bush Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

CALIFORNIA STREET
Shoreline Boulevard to Bush Street (0.32 miles)
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through improved marked crossings at intersections and more physical separation between bicyclists and vehicles in the roadway.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 982
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

WEST MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
Moett Boulevard to Old Middlefield Way (2 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Moett Blvd
Old Middlefield Wy
Heritage
Park
Farley St
San Vernon,
San Pierre, Terra Bella

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: West Middlefield Road has a mix of single family residential, multifamily residential , and commercial land use.

The cross section includes attached sidewalks, continuous Class II bike lanes, two travel lanes in each direction, and a planted median with trees. The posted speed is 35 mph.

There are no mid-block crossings but there are two beacon crossings (Victory Avenue and Independence Avenue) and
enhanced pedestrian crossing signage at San Pierre Way
and Terra Bella Avenue. Middlefield Road has a connection to the Permanente Creek Trail at Farley Street and also serves as access for people biking or walking to Crittenden Middle School, Monta Loma Elementary School, and
Theuerkauf Elementary School. The Gray Route operates
along Middlefield Road. The posted speed limit is 35 mph and 9,000 vehicles in a day were counted east of Rengstor Ave in 2024.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing the travel lanes and removing on-street parking where it exists to install Class IV bikeways. Project will require additional data collection to verify justification for parking changes.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes upgrading the Class IV bikeways to include curbed planting strips. Additionally, the project reconstructs the Old Middlefield Way intersection and constructs a trail connection at Farley Street along with upgraded crossings at San Veron, San Pierre, and Terra Bella. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs and have implications for future design and construction. Project will require additional data collection to verify justification for parking changes.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Sierra Vista
Park
Crittenden
Middle
Theuerkauf
Elementary
Stevenson
Elementary
Jackson
Park
San Vernon
Park
Monta Loma
Elementary
Thaddeus
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, a new trail connection and improved marked crossings at intersections.
• Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as parks, commercial areas, and transit.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 983
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Showers Dr
Escuela Ave
Rengstor Ave

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Latham Street has primarily multi-family
residential frontage. The cross section operates as two travel lanes with parking on both sides and attached sidewalks.

There are speed humps between Ortega Avenue and Escuela Avenue. Castro Elementary School is the east end of this segment and has a 15 mph school zone for Castro/Mistral Elementary School. The posted speed limit is otherwise 25 mph. Approximately 2,000 vehicles use this street west of Rengstor Avenue (2024 count) each day. The development patterns have created long blocks lengths which makes the crossings and sidewalk connections to north-south streets important for pedestrians as well as those trying to access Valley Transportation Authority Route 22 one block south on El Camino Real. Nearby parks include Klein, Rengstor and Gemello Parks.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing the travel lanes to widen the parking lanes to create a visual narrowing to manage vehicle speeds. There are no major implications for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes narrowing parking lane to widen the sidewalks and incorporate sidewalk curbed planting strips (detached sidewalks). The concept also
proposes adding trees where feasible in the parking lane width. Spot improvements include constructing crossings at Showers Drive, midblock between Ortega Avenue
and Rengstor Avenue, midblock between Rengstor
Avenue and Escuela Avenue, a protected intersection at
Rengstor Avenue, and a protected intersection at Escuela Avenue. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs and have implications for future design and construction.
1 EXISTING
2 RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION

LATHAM STREET
Showers Drive to Escuela Avenue (0.84 miles)
Castro
Elementary
Gemello
Park
Klein
Park
Rengstor MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY Park

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND

ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the comfort and accessibilty of walking to local schools, parks and community services through greater
separation between the sidewalk and vehicles moving on the roadway and at intersections in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View.
• Improves mobility and connectivity through improved marked crossings at intersections and a mid-block/local road marked crossing.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 984
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

S SHORELINE BOULEVARD
El Camino Real to Montecito Avenue (1.1 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
El Camino Real
Montecito Ave
Eagle
Park
Mountain View
Academy
Central Expy
Dana St

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: South Shoreline Boulevard has continuous Class II bikes lanes, on-street parking, and three travel lanes in each direction and attached sidewalks. There is a planted median with trees from El Camino Real to Villa Street. North of Villa Street the median narrows and is not planted; there is no sidewalk until Jackson Street, however pedestrians may use an immediately adjacent parallel shared-use path. This street provides access to Eagle Park, Pioneer Memorial Park, and Mountain View Public Library, and Mountain View Academy. There is one mid-block crossing at Mercy Street where a median restricts vehicle trac from crossing South Shoreline Blvd. Valley Transportation Authority Route 21 can be accessed at the intersection with California Street and Gray Route can be accessed at Villa Street. There is a connection for bikes and pedestrians to access Evelyn Street which is grade separated from South Shoreline Boulevard. Valley Transportation Authority Route 40 has a stop pair at Wright Street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes removing one travel lane in each direction to accommodate Class IV bikeways and relocating parking away from the curb to provide separation between the bike lanes and vehicle lanes. Trac operations, parking analysis, and maintenance considerations and costs must be evaluated to determine the feasibility of this concept.This project intersects with County and Caltrain right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes upgrading the
bikeway bu ers to curbed planting strips. This design also incorporates additional sidewalk planting space. Spot treatments include the Montecito Avenue intersection and constructing improved Central Expressway ramp crossings and a bike
connection at Dana Street.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Mariposa
Park
Pioneer Memorial
Park
Jackson
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and improved marked crossings at intersections and Central Expressway ramp crossings. • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as parks, community resources and transit. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 985
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Escuela Ave
Castro St

LATHAM/CHURCH STREET
Escuela Avenue to Castro Street (0.85 miles)
Shoreline Blvd
Oak St
Pioneer
Memorial
Park

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: This street is primarily single-family residential with some multi-family and commercial land use. The block lengths are short and intersections are generally all way stops with marked crosswalks and some curb extensions
to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians. The cross section includes two travel lanes. There are no bike lanes and the sidewalks are attached. The intersection with
Shoreline Blvd is the only signalized intersection and is large which can make crossing uncomfortable for people walking or biking. Destinations on this street serves the Castro/ Mistral Elementary School, Mountain View Whisman
School District preschool , Eagle Park, and Pioneer
Memorial Park. Castro Street is an important connection into downtown for people walking or biking. The posted
speed limit is 25 mph and approximately 1500 vehicles a day use this street (2024 count).

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes the implementation of a bike boulevard which includes speed management
devices, bike boulevard markings, and wayfinding. There are no major implications for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes narrowing travel lanes and sidewalk planting spaces to reallocate width to the sidewalks. Treatments include a protected intersection at Shoreline Boulevard and pedestrian crossings at Oak Street and Pioneer Memorial Park. This project modifies curb lines which has drainage implications.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Castro
Elementary
Mariposa
Park
McKelvey
Ball Park
St Joseph
School
Eagle
Park
Mountain View
Academy

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility through the implementation of a bicycle boulevard and comfort for pedestrians via a widened sidewalks on a low speed/low volume roadway. • Improves connectivity through shorter crossing distances and marked crossings at intersections.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 986
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

RENGSTORFF AVENUE
Leghorn Street to Garcia Avenue (0.4 miles)
2 1 EXISTING

RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Rengstor Avenue in this segment
has commercial land use near Leghorn Street
and then corporate campus oces north of
the Bayshore Expressway. There are on and
o ramps to the expressway in both directions.

There are continuous Class II bike lanes but
sidewalks are not continuous. This segment is an
important connection to Shoreline Park and for
employees travelling to and from work at the
large corporate campus. South of this segment,
from Leghorn Avenue to El Camino Real, a
complete streets study is underway.

2. Reconstruction: This concept proposes
removing one travel lane in each direction to
install Class IV bikeways. Curbed planting strips
are added both along the sidewalk and between
the bike lanes and vehicle travel lanes to
provide increased separation and protection for
cyclists. This project also constructs a protected
intersection at Garcia Avenue/Amphitheatre
Parkway and coordinates with the VTA-led
101/San Antonio/Rengstor Interchange
Improvement Project, which will replace the
bridge over 86101, add Class IV bikeways, and
reconstruct the US-101 ramps. This concept will
alter existing drainage patterns by relocating
curbs and have implications for future design and
construction as well as Caltrans coordination.

There is no resurfacing concept due to the
majority of the project being within Caltrans
right-of-way. Project will require additional
data collection to verify justification for lane
reconfiguration.

SAFETY AND COMFORT
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections.

Garcia Ave
Leghorn St
101 Ramp
Caltrans Right-of-Way
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 987
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here. *Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently.

DANA STREET
Bush Street to Moorpark Way (0.85 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Bush St
Calderon Ave

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Dana Street is a neighborhood street with
primarily residential use but there is some light industrial land use east of Highway 85. From Bush Street to
Calderon Avenue the street has parking on both sides,
one lane each direction, and the sidewalks are separated from the street by a planting strip. East of Calderon
Avenue, a planted median separates directions of trac
and there are Class II bike lanes. East of Pioneer Way, there are two travel lane each direction and no median.

The sidewalks are not separated from the street. This
street has a connection to the Stevens Creek Trail and
directly serves Landels Elementary School. the posted
speed limit is 35 mph and about 6,200 vehicles use this street each day (2024 count) just east of Pioneer Way.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes the removal of
one travel lane between Moorpark Way and Pioneer
Way to install Class IV bikeways while maintaining on-street parking. This project intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes bicycle
boulevard treatments west of Calderon Avenue and a
road reconfiguration east of Calderon Avenue to make
room for curbed planted strips between the parking
lane and the bike lane. Construction of a protected
intersection at Calderon Avenue and reconstruction
of the intersection at Moorpark Way is also proposed.

This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by
relocating curbs and have implications for future design and construction.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Mercy Bush
Park
Landels
Elementary
Creekside
Park
Sylvan
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
Moorpark Wy
Stevens Creek Trail
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and shorter crossing distances at intersections • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as trails and employment areas. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 988
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Marilyn Dr
El Camino Real

MIRAMONTE AVENUE
El Camino Real to Marilyn Drive (0.5 miles)
Park Dr
Sonia Way
2 1 PLANNED, NEAR TERM

RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Planned, Near Term: This segment of
Miramonte Avenue has an active project underway
called Miramonte Avenue Complete Streets
Study, Project 23-31. Refer to that study for more
information about existing conditions. The posted
speed limit is 25 mph and 2024 counts collected
near Sonia way showed about 6,000 vehicles
use this street each day. Destinations along and
near this street include Graham Middle School,
St Joseph Catholic School, Eagle Park, Pioneer
Memorial Park, and McElvey Ball Park.

2. Reconstruction: This concept proposes
upgrading the bike lane bu er to a planted strip.

Additionally, this concept proposes constructing
a protected intersection at El Camino Real and
pedestrian crossings at Park Drive and Sonia Way.

This concept will alter existing drainage patterns
by relocating curbs and have implications for
future design and construction.

McKelvey
Ball Park
Bubb
Elementary
St Joseph School
Eagle
Park
Pioneer
Memorial
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and shorter crossing distances at intersections • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as community resources and employment areas.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 989
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

GARCIA AVENUE
Bayshore Parkway to Amphitheatre Parkway (0.6 miles)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES Bayshore Pkwy
Amphitheatre Way
Salado Dr

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Garcia Avenue has corporate campus on
both sides. Garcia Avenue generally has one travel
lane in each direction and a center turn lane as well as continuous Class II bike lanes and some planted medians and mid-block crossings near Marine Way. Garcia
Avenue provides access to Shoreline Park which a major
destination for recreation and entertainment. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. This street is also addressed in the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes to reallocate space for wider Class IV bikeways.

There are no major implications for this project.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes installation of sidewalks and a planted median. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by installing curbs.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION

SAFETY AND COMFORT
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, and the provision of sidewalks on both sides of the street.

These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 990
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
NOTE: These cross-sections were developed as part of an MTA technical assistance project.

Bernardo Ave
Bush St
*Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

EVELYN AVENUE
Bush Street to Bernardo Avenue (1.35 miles)
Stevens Creek

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Evelyn Avenue is a mix of single family,
multifamily, and commercial land use. This segment has
continuous Class II bike lanes typically with two travel lanes in each direction. There are several multi-family housing complexes in the segment and sidewalk only on the south curb from the Highway 85 exit to Bernardo Street. West Evelyn Ave has a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Stevens Creek Trail near the West Valley Freeway. This is an important connection into and out of downtown Mountain View and to access Caltrain’s Mountain View Station. Nearby destinations include Landels and Vargas Elementary Schools and Magnolia and Chetwood Parks. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes removing a travel lane in each direction, adding a two-way cycle track on the north curb and a Class IV bikeway on the south curb. The two-way cycle track aligns with the proposal for the Mountain View Transit Center improvements on Evelyn Street and
Sunnyvale’s project to construct a Class I Shared Use Path on the north side of Evelyn. There are drainage implications for this project due to modified curb lines and Caltrain coordination will be required. Trac analysis will also be needed.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes raising the two-way cycle track on the north curb to sidewalk level and creating a shared use path and adding a curbed planting strip to the Class IV bikeway on the south curb. A new bicycle/pedestrian crossing to the Stevens Creek Trail is also included. There are additional drainage implications for this scenario as well as the need for removal of the planted median from Bernado to Highway 85.
1 EXISTING
2 RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Chetwood Park
Magnolia
Park
Vargas
Elementary
Landels Elementary

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
Stevens Creek Trail
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the All Ages and Abilities bicycle network and access to employment, transit, and trails. • Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and improved marked crossings for pedestrians at intersections. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Evelyn
Park
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 991
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Key Map
El Camino Real
Grant
Hans Ave
Pamela Dr
Tyler Park Way

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Phyllis Avenue is a primarly residential street with some pockets of commerical land use at either end.

Phyllis includes on-street parking, a continuous Class II bike lane, and a wide center turn lane. In some segments, a planted median is present. At the south end, there is a large shopping center which attracts pedestrian trac along and across Phyllis Avenue. There are no mid-block crossings - the only crossing in this segment is at the all way stop at Hans Avenue which also has some trac calming elements
to manage turning speeds/trajectories. Phyllis Avenue is an important connection for people walking or biking to Imai Elementary and Graham Middle schools. The posted speed
limit is 30 mph and about 5,600 vehicles use this street each day (2024 count).

2. Resurfacing: This project proposes narrowing the existing lane widths to install Class IV bikeways that are parking protected. This project includes protected intersections at El Camino Real, Hans Avenue, and Grant Road and
constructing mid-block crossings at Tyler Park Way and
Pamela Drive. This project intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes that upgrading the bike lane bu er to curbed planting strip and widening the sidewalk by removing the center turn lane. This scenario would require trac analysis.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Imai
Elementary

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and shorter crossing distances at intersections. • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as community resources and employment areas.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

PHYLLIS AVENUE
El Camino Real to Grant Road (0.5 miles)
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may dier from what is shown here. 992
These concepts are draft and not final. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and final plans may di-er from what is shown here.

SYLVAN AVENUE/THE AMERICANA
Moorpark Way to Continental Circle (0.6 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
El Camino Real
Moorpark Way
Sevely Dr

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Sylvan Avenue is a mix of single family,
multifamily, and commercial land use. Sylvan Avenue
has Class II bike lanes and one travel lane in each
direction. There is parking on both sides of the street from East Dana Street to Moraga Drive and continuous
sidewalks. Sylvan Park is in the middle of this segment and a popular destination and has a pedestrian crossing.

The posted speed limit is 30 mph and about 6,000
vehicles travel on this street each day (2024 count).

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes to reallocate space for wider bike lanes. This
project intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes constructing
a separated bikeway on both sides of the street. This
concept also includes enhancing pedestrian comfort
by spot-widening the sidewalk to provide accessible
pedestrian clearances throughout the corridor.

Additional intersection improvements and speed
reduction measures could be implemented. This project
requires Caltrans coordination and a parking utilization study. Cross-section shows the most constrained
section. South of Dana St, parking on one side can be
retained with this option.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Sylvan
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and improved marked crossings.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS
994
Recommended Improvements – Bicycle Facilities
Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.)
Existing
Facility
Garcia Ave Bayshore Pkwy Amphitheatre Pkwy Class IV 0.64 Class II Rengstorff Ave Leghorn St El Camino Real Class IV 1.71 Class II Charleston Rd Inigo Way Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.28 Class II Charleston Rd Amphitheatre Pkwy Huff Ave Class I 0.44 Class II Casey Ave Marine Way East End Class IIIB 0.11 None
Marine Way Casey Ave Garcia Ave Class IIIB 0.31 None
Coast Ave Marine Way East End Class II 0.11 None
San Antonio Rd Bayshore Pkwy US 101 Class I 0.19 None
Plymouth Connector Plymouth St Shoreline Blvd Class I 0.35 None Pear Ave Shoreline Blvd East End Class II 0.24 None
New Trail La Avenida St Shorebird Connector Class I 0.26 None Independence Ave Charleston Rd Leghorn St Class II 0.17 None Leghorn St San Antonio Rd Sierra Vista Ave Class IIIB 0.62 None Independence Ave Leghorn St Rock St Class III 0.44 None Old Middlefield Way Middlefield Rd Stevens Creek Trail Class IV 0.77 None Rock St Independence Ave Camp Ave Class III 0.74 None
S Whisman Rd Fairchild Dr E Dana St Class IV 1.44 Class II Victory Ave Middlefield Rd Dell Ave Class IIIB 0.25 Class III Dell Ave Nita Ave Victory Ave Class IIIB 0.07 Class III Nita Ave Dell Ave 150' West of Mayfield Ave Class IIIB 0.13 Class III Mayfield Ave Nita Ave Whitney Dr Class IIIB 0.10 Class III Farley St Middlefield Rd Central Expwy Class IIIB 0.64 Class III Whitney Dr Mayfield Ave Laura Ln Class IIIB 0.18 Class III Laura Ln Whitney Dr Thompson Ave Class IIIB 0.16 Class III Thompson Ave Junction Ave Central Expwy Class IIIB 0.53 None Jane Ln Thompson Ave Fay Way Class IIIB 0.11 Class III
Fay Way Jane Ln Jewell Pl Class IIIB 0.11 Class III
Jewell Pl Fay Way Rengstorff Ave Class IIIB 0.05 Class III Montecito Ave Rengstorff Ae 800' East of San Pierre
Way Class IIIB 0.74 Class III
San Pierre Way Middlefield Rd Montecito Ave Class IIIB 0.36 None Granada Dr Montecito Ave Wright Ave Class IIIB 0.18 None Wright Ave Beatrice St Shoreline Blvd Class IIIB 0.44 None Stierlin Rd Shoreline Blvd Washington St Class IIIB 0.39 Class III Stierlin Rd Shoreline Blvd Stierlin Rd Class IV 0.17 None Colony St Rengstorff Ave East End Class IIIB 0.33 None
Terra Bella Ave Middlefield Rd San Rafael Ave Class IIIB 0.66 None San Rafael Ave Terra Bella Ave San Pablo Dr Class IIIB 0.15 None San Pablo Dr San Rafael Ave San Simeon Dr Class IIIB 0.05 None San Simeon Dr San Pablo Dr San Lucas Ave Class IIIB 0.10 None San Lucas Ave San Simeon Dr San Veron Ave Class IIIB 0.04 None San Veron Ave San Lucas Ave Middlefield Rd Class IIIB 0.09 None Sylvan Ave Moorpark Way El Camino Real Class IV 0.62 Class II Gladys Ave Easy St N Whisman Rd Class IIIB 0.39 Class III Keller Dr - Easy St Tyrella Ave Gladys Ave Class IIIB 0.65 None Tyrella Ave Fairchild Dr Keller Dr Class IIIB 0.18 None Evelyn Ave View St Bernardo Ave Class IV 1.43 Class II
Hetch Hetchy Trail Extension N Whisman Rd LR Trail Extension Class I 0.43 None LR Trail Extension Fairchild Dr Hetch Hetchy Trail
Extension Class I 0.25 None 995
Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.)
Existing
Facility
Ellis St Manila Dr Fairchild Dr Class IV 0.51 Class II
Street B N Whiseman Rd Ellis St Class IV 0.33 None
Street A Fairchild Dr Middlefield Rd Class IV 0.56 None Street B Multi Use Path Ellis St Logue Ave Class I 0.16 None Logue Ave North End Maude Ave Class IIB 0.10 None
Clyde Ct Clyde Ave South End Class IIB 0.06 None
Street D Clyde Ct Logue Ave Class IIB 0.15 None
State Rd 237 Service Rd Maude Ave Middlefield Rd Class IV 0.24 None Ravendale Dr Central Expwy N Bernardo Ave Class IIB 0.54 None N Bernardo Ave Middlefield Rd Central Expwy Class IIB 0.39 None Ferguson Dr Connector Furguson Dr Middlefield Rd Class I 0.42 None Compass Way Pyramid Way Ferguson Dr Class IIIB 0.16 None Pacific Dr Whisman Rd Melia Loop Class IIIB 0.16 None
Central Expwy West City Limit East City Limit Class I 3.44 None EWPP Connection Ravendale Dr Furgeson Dr Connector Class I 0.61 None Dana St Bush St Moorpark Way Class IV 0.85 Class II,
Class III
Hope St Evelyn Ave Church St Class IIIB 0.50 None
Bush St Evelyn Ave Villa St Class III 0.08 None
Bush St Villa St El Camino Real Class IIIB 0.63 None
Escuela Ave Crisanto Ave El Camino Real Class III 0.56 None E Dana St Sylvan Ave East End Class IIIB 0.18 None
Foxborough Dr - Glenborough Dr Sylvan Ave Sylvan Ave Class IIIB 0.41 None Alice Ave - Rainbow Dr Moorpark Way Sylvan Ave Class IIIB 0.54 None Moorpark Way Alice Ave E Dana St Class IIIB 0.18 None
California St Hope St Bush St Class IIIB 0.14 Class III Casto St California St High School Way Class III 0.35 None Phyllis Ave El Camino Real Grant Rd Class IV 0.47 Class II New Trail Church St El Camino Real Class I 0.18 None
Martens Ave Grant Rd Carmelita Dr Class III 0.07 None
Martens Ave Carmelita Dr East End Class IIIB 0.33 None
Kentmere Ct Martens Ave East End Class IIIB 0.07 None
Alexander Ct Martens Ave End Class IIIB 0.03 None
Kentmere Connector Kentmere Ct Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.06 None Levin Ave Grant Rd Diericx Dr Class IIIB 0.72 None
Stevens Creek Trail Extension Dale Ave/Heatherstone
Way W Remington Dr Class I 0.74 None
Permanente Creek Trail Grant Rd Diericx Dr Class I 0.72 None Mariposa Ave Villa St El Camino Real Class IIIB 0.55 None Bonny/Villa Connector Villa St Bonny St Class I 0.25 None Ortega Ave California St El Camino Real Class III 0.28 None Pacchetti Way Village Green Dog Park El Camino Real Class III 0.26 None Private Road California St El Camino Real Class III 0.34 None San Antonio Rd Central Expwy El Camino Real Class IV 0.57 Class II San Antonio Cir San Antonio Rd San Antonio Rd Class III 0.21 None Miller Ave Del Medio Ave San Antonio Rd Class IIIB 0.17 None Fayette Dr Del Medio Ave Private Road Class IIIB 0.27 None Del Medio Ave California St El Camino Real Class III 0.32 None New Road Private Road Pacchetti Way Class IIIB 0.05 None Ferry Morse Way Evelyn Ave S Whisman Rd Class II 0.16 None Clark Ave El Camino Real Jardin Dr Class III 0.41 None
Marich Way Karen Way El Monte Ave Class IIIB 0.38 None 996 Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.)
Existing
Facility
Todd St/Ernestine Ln/ Mountain View
Ave Springer Rd El Camino Real Class IIIB 0.51 None
Park Dr East End Miramonte Ave Class III 0.23 None
Marilyn Dr Springer Rd East End Class IIIB 0.22 None
Meadow Ln - Barbara Ave Marilyn Dr Phyllis Ave Class IIIB 1.10 None Fordham Way - Orangetree Ln Barbara Ave Lincoln Dr Class IIIB 0.85 None Bonita Ave El Camino Real Cuesta Dr Class IIIB 0.71 None Hans Ave Miramonte Ave Phyllis Ave Class IIIB 0.51 Class III Boranda Ave Isaac Newton Middle Hans Ave Class IIIB 0.08 None GMS Paseo GMS Boranda Ave Class I 0.05 None
New Trail Connector Diericx Dr Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.23 None National Ave Fairchild Dr Ellis St Class IIB 0.32 None
Rengstorff Ave Charleston Rd Leghorn St Class IV 0.38 Class II Shoreline Blvd - Miramonte Ave North Rd Castro St Class IV 3.44 Class II Moffett Blvd Central Expwy City Limit East Class IV 1.29 Class II Showers Dr California St City Limit South Class IV 0.32 Class II Middlefield Rd Old Middlefield Way Moffett Blvd Class IV 1.94 Class II New Trail Terminal Blvd Garcia Ave Class I 0.38 None
Fairchild Dr - Clyde Ave Ellis St Clyde Ave Class IIB 0.16 None Sierra Vista Ave Leghorn St Silverwood Ave Class IIIB 1.21 None California St Del Medio Ave Showers Dr Class IV 0.49 Class II California St Hope St Castro St Class IV 0.07 Class III Bryant Ave Truman Ave Lubich Dr Class IIIB 0.27 None
Miramonte Ave Cuesta Dr City Limit South Class IV 0.53 Class II Cuesta Dr Miramonte Ave Grant Rd Class IV 0.51 Class II Grant St El Camino Real Martens Ave Class II 0.33 None
Casto St High School Way El Camino Real Class IIB 0.07 None Middlefield Rd Moffett Blvd City Limits East Class IV 1.80 Class II Miramonte Ave Castro St Hans Ave Class IV 0.12 Class II Space Park Way Shoreline Blvd Space Park Way (East
End) Class IV 0.25 None
El Monte Ave El Camino Real Springer Rd Class IV 0.41 Class II Ellis St Manila Dr Fairchild Dr Class II 0.18 Class III Franklin St Evelyn Ave Latham St Class IIIB 0.51 None
Dana St Pettis Ave Bush St Class IIIB 0.71 None
Green Loop Charleston Rd Shoreline Blvd Class I 0.15 None Charleston Rd Shoreline Blvd Inigo Way Class IV 0.23 Class II Inigo Way Space Park Way Charleston Rd Class IIB 0.26 Class IIIB Monarch St Grove St Black St Class IIB 0.38 None
New Trail Shorebird Way Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.22 None Black St Charleston Rd Shorebird Way Class IV 0.10 None Willow St Shorebird Way Monarch St Class IIB 0.05 None
Manzanita St Space Park Way 300' South of Charleston
Rd Class IIB 0.18 None
Grove St Shorebird Way Space Park Way Class IIB 0.09 None Plymouth St Shorebird Way 355' East of Joaquin Rd Class IIB 0.07 None Plymouth St 140' West of Shorebird Way Alta Ave Class IV 0.34 Class II Huff Ave Charleston Rd Plymouth St Class IIB 0.28 None
Monarch St Shorebird Blvd Huff Ave Class IIB 0.27 None
C St - B St Plymouth St Main St Class IIB 0.31 None
Shorebird Way (Green Loop) Charleston Rd Shoreline Blvd Class I 0.46 Class II New Trail Charleston Rd Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.20 None 997
Recommended Improvements – Sidewalks
Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.) Existing Facility
S Whisman Rd Fairchild Dr E Dana St Widen Sidewalk 1.44 Sidewalks On Both Sides
Sylvan Ave Moorpark Way El Camino Real Widen Sidewalk 0.62 Sidewalks On Both Sides
Escuela Ave Crisanto Ave El Camino Real Widen Sidewalk 0.56 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Latham St Shower Dr Escuela Ave Widen Sidewalk 0.84 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Phyllis Ave El Camino Real Grant Rd Widen Sidewalk 0.47 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Rengstorff Ave Charleston Rd Leghorn St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.38 Sidewalk On One Side Latham St - Church
St Chiquita Ave Castro St Widen Sidewalk 0.64 Sidewalk on Both Sides Shorebird Way Charleston Rd 510' south of Charleston
Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 Sidewalk On One Side
Ellis St National Ave 220' south of National Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 Sidewalk On One Side Maude Ave 260' south of Logue Ave 100' south of Clyde Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 Sidewalk On One Side Easy St Gladys Ct 400' south of Gladys Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 Sidewalk On One Side Gladys Ct 100' south of Easy St Easy St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 No Sidewalks Fountain Park Ln Stierlin Rd 120' west of Stierlin Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 Sidewalk On One Side Polaris Ave Wright Ave 144’ south of Wright Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 Sidewalk On One Side Wright Ave Polaris Ave 144' east of Polaris Ave Sidewalk on 1 side 0.08 Sidewalk On One Side Polaris Ave 430' south of Wright Ave 150' north of Wentworth St Sidewalk on 2- sides 0.02 No Sidewalks
Wildrose Way Wildrose Way East End Granada Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 No Sidewalks Canna Ct Granada Dr Granada Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 No Sidewalks Lilac Ln Granada Dr Granada Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 No Sidewalks Pilgrim Ave 100' east of Blackfield
Way 50' west of Mayflower Ct Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.03 No Sidewalks Pilgrim Ave 50' west of Mayflower Ct 100' east of Priscilla Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 Sidewalk On One Side Pilgrim Ave 100' east of Priscilla Ct El Monte Ave Sidewalk on 2- sides 0.04 No Sidewalks
High School Way Shoreline Blvd Oak St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 Sidewalk On One Side Harpster Dr Castro St Miramonte Ave Sidewalk on 2-
sides 0.11 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Carol Ave* Sleeper Ave North end of street Sidewalk on 2- sides 0.11 No Sidewalks
Eunice Ave Hilo Ct 160'east of Hilo Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 Sidewalk On One Side California St Shoreline Blvd Hope St Widen Sidewalk 0.32 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Miramonte Ave El Camino Real Marilyn Dr Widen Sidewalk 0.50 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Grant Rd Bryant Ave Paula Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 Sidewalk On One Side *Carol Avenue is subject to the City’s Unimproved Streets Policy regarding improving streets that were accepted by the City as unimproved or partially improved through annexation from the County of Santa Clara. The plan’s recommended improvements were established independently of the Unimproved Streets Policy.
998
Recommended Improvements – Crossings
Cross Street A Cross Street B Recommended Improvement Existing Facility Springer Rd Cuesta Dr Unsignalized crossing All-Way Stop Sylvan Ave Rainbow Dr Unsignalized crossing None
Miramonte Ave Trophy Dr Unsignalized crossing None
Whisman Rd Sherland Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Whisman Rd Devonshire Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Middlefield Rd San Veron Ave Unsignalized crossing None Middlefield Rd 160' West of Midrock Cors Unsignalized crossing None Stierlin Ct 860' East of Shoreline Blvd Mid-block crossing None Wyandotte St Rengstorff Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Cuesta Dr Bonita Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Moffett Blvd/Castro St Evelyn Ave Unsignalized Crossing None Cuesta Dr Miramonte Ave Signalized Crossing Signalized Crossing California St Escuela Ave Signalized Crossing Signalized Crossing Montecito Ave Granada Dr Mid-block crossing All-Way Stop Villa St Bush St Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing Calderon Ave Paul Ave Unsignalized Crossing None
Calderon Ave Loreto St Unsignalized crossing None
View St Dana St Unsignalized crossing All-Way Stop
Grant Ave Portland Ave Mid-block crossing None
Grant Rd Eureka Ave Mid-block crossing None
Grant Rd Fremont Ave Mid-block Crossing Signalized Crossing Hans Ave Phyllis Ave Mid-block crossing All-Way Stop
Bryant Ave Truman Ave Unsignalized crossing All-Way Stop Pear Ave Inigo Way Mid-block crossing None
Middlefield Rd Shoreline Blvd Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing View St Evelyn At Uncontrolled crossing All-Way Stop
Evelyn Ave Hope St Unsignalized crossing Signalized Crossing Evelyn Ave Bush St Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing Calderon Ave Evelyn Ave Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing Middlefield Rd 250' North of Logue Ave Mid-block crossing None The proposed improvements at the El Camino Real intersections, including Rengstorff Avenue and Showers Drive, will require additional coordination with the City of Los Altos and Caltrans.
999
APPENDIX D:

VZAP/LRSP NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
1000
APPENDIX D:

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY

PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2024 Mountain View Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan (VZAP/LRSP) established both infrastructure and non-infrastructure recommendations to eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes in Mountain View. The non-infrastructure recommendations address the policy and programming side of roadway safety, covering education, encouragement, engagement, enforcement, emergency response, and evaluation in accordance with the FHWA Safe System Approach.

The safety of people walking, bicycling, and rolling depends on programs and policies as much as on infrastructure, and the VZAP/LRSP non-infrastructure recommendations form the safety programming foundation that the MVATP builds on. Several of the programs and policies recommended in Chapter 3 of this plan carry forward or expand VZAP/LRSP recommendations, including Safe Routes to School programming, Vision Zero marketing and outreach, staff continuing education on the Safe Systems Approach, speed limit evaluation, and high-visibility enforcement focused on behaviors associated with fatal and severe injury crashes such as speeding and failure to yield. The full list presents recommendation's timeline, responsible department, and implementation status alongside the MVATP's recommendations, and supports coordinated implementation of both plans.

Non-Infrastructure Recommendations
Non-infrastructure recommendations focus on policy and programming activities that can be implemented by the city and/or community partners to improve road safety for all road users. Programs and policies may focus on community awareness and understanding of the rights and rules of the road of all travelers regardless of mode; enforcement efforts that focus on behaviors known to be associated with fatal and severe injury crashes, such as speed and yielding; and education on the benefits of roadway improvements and travel mode choices on safety, sustainability and livability in Mountain View. Lastly, the non-infrastructure recommendations include policy and organizational efforts to support Vision Zero, regular monitoring and communications regarding crash data and evaluation of road improvement projects to assess progress towards the three stated goals in the 2019 Vision Zero Policy.

The non-infrastructure recommendations were developed using the eight VZAP/LRSP emphasis areas and cover the other “Es” of education, encouragement, engagement, enforcement, emergency response and evaluation (Table 1). In accordance with the FHWA Safe System Approach, non-infrastructure recommendations are presented in relation to the five elements:
▪ Safe Road Users (RU) - Safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes.
▪ Safe Roads (SR) – Roads designed to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances can greatly reduce the severity of crashes that do occur.
▪ Safe Speeds (SP) – Speed reduction can accommodate human injury tolerances in three ways:
reducing impact forces, providing additional time for drivers to stop, and improving visibility. ▪ Safe Vehicles (VE) - Vehicles are designed and regulated to minimize the occurrence and severity of crashes using safety measures that incorporate the latest technology and ▪ Post-Crash Care (CC) - When a person is injured in a crash, they rely on emergency first responders to quickly locate them, stabilize their injury, and transport them to medical facilities. Post-crash care also includes forensic analysis at the crash site, traffic incident management, and other activities. 1001
Table 1: Non-Infrastructure Recommendation List
ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
Safe Road Users
RU-1 Continue Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program with a focus on traffic safety training for students walking, biking, taking transit and driving*
Annual PW Underway
RU-2 Strengthen SRTS collaboration and partnerships with parents, schools and students to encourage safe walking, biking and school access
Annual PW Underway
RU-3 Provide helmet giveaways and bicycle repairs at City or community events such as food pantries, back to school
events or Monster Bash
Annual PW/PD Underway
RU-4 Conduct multilingual Vision Zero Outreach and Marketing with behavior change campaigns and targeted media buys on emphasis areas
2024-25 PW/CM
O
Planning
RU-5 Lead community-promoted walk / bike tours in different areas of the City with a focus on encouragement and training for new users
Biannual PW Underway
RU-6 Support traffic safety workshop or walk tour at Senior Center to identify issues and provide individualized trip planning/tips for changing abilities
Biannual PW TBD
RU-7 Encourage community-based bicycle education and safety classes covering basic skills, network awareness, laws, rules, and safety tips
Annual PW TBD
RU-8 Implement programs, workshops, or trainings to empower youth and address high risk behaviors such as riding against traffic, midblock turns and not wearing helmets
2024-25 PW/PD Planning
RU-9 Conduct high-visibility enforcement on speed,
distracted/impaired driving, yield compliance, red light running, and key maneuvers on HIN and school routes
Ongoing PD Underway
RU-10 Implement multilingual ambassador program related to blocked bike lanes and red zones where parking in such
locations introduces safety concerns

TBD PW/PD TBD
RU-11 Periodically review the crossing guard program to optimize its effectiveness
Biannual PW/PD Underway

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
* See VZAP/LRSP Appendix E: Countermeasures for more information on these topics 1002
ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
RU-12 Provide universal graphics and/or multilingual
communications regarding high visibility enforcement
activities
Annual PD/CM
O
TBD
RU-13 Encourage residential transportation demand management strategies including orientation on getting around without a car
TBD PW Planning
RU-14 Support state legislation to incorporate pedestrian / bicycle safety training into state education standards

TBD PW/CM
O
TBD
Safe Roads
SR-1 Implement Impaired Driving Policies* TBD PD TBD
SR-2 Prioritize capital projects on the HIN, school routes and equity priority locations as part of the capital improvement program (CIP) process
Biannual PW Underway
SR-3 Advance SRTS walk audits observations into improvement recommendations
Annual PW Underway
SR-4 Obtain grants to accelerate implementation of priority capital projects to enhance safety of all road users
Biannual PW Underway
SR-5 Provide staff training on VZAP / LRSP 2024-25 PW TBD SR-6 Provide staff training on defensive driving in City vehicles 2024-25 PW TBD SR-7 Provide staff training on Safe Systems Approach and safety countermeasures
2024 PW TBD
SR-8 Coordinate periodic site visits of VZ best practices with or without regional partners
Annual PW Underway
SR-9 Adopt NACTO, PROWAG and/or other best practice
guidance to inform engineering judgment
2025 PW Ongoing
SR-10 Update City standard details to reflect Vision Zero best practices
2026 PW TBD
SR-11 Provide multilingual VZ-informed outreach on capital projects and programming
2024-25 PW/CM
O
Underway
SR-12 Update VZAP every five years Every five
years
PW TBD

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
* See VZAP/LRSP Appendix E: Countermeasures for more information on these topics 1003
ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
SR-13 Support state legislation to address potential safety enhancements

TBD PW/CM
O
TBD
SR-14 Explore processes for implementing No Turn on Red (NTOR) and develop a policy for NTOR consideration
TBD PW Planning
SR-15 Provide periodic progress reports on implementation of VZAP and LRSP recommendations to BPAC and CTC
Annual PW Planning
SR-16 Review City protocols to improve consistency with Vision Zero policy

TBD PW TBD
SR-17 Provide training to relevant staff to be well versed on VZ countermeasures

TBD PW TBD
SR-18 Provide input on projects that aligns Vision Zero goals TBD PW TBD Safe Speeds
SP-1 Conduct Vision Zero marketing that encompasses speed management campaign
2024 PW TBD
SP-2 Share Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) study results and study data with Mountain View’s SRTS
Coordinator

TBD PW TBD
SP-3 Conduct high-visibility traffic enforcement on speed along the HIN
Ongoing PD TBD
SP-4 Implement speed limit reductions in accordance with AB 43 2025 PW Planning SP-5 Track AB 645 automated enforcement pilot and support state legislation to expand the permanent program to all California cities
2025 CMO/P
W
Underway
Safe Vehicles
VE-1 Conduct public education campaign on benefits of pedestrian friendly vehicles such as compacts cars

TBD PW TBD
VE-2 Support free bicycle repair events 2024 PW Underway VE-3 Provide education for decision makers on vehicle size and design impacts

TBD CMO/P
W
TBD
VE-4 Support state legislation for vehicle technology that addresses key crash factors

TBD CMO/P
W
TBD

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
1004
ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
Post-Crash Care
CC-1 Provide multilingual emergency response teams for
empathetic engagement with victims’ families

TBD FD/PD TBD
CC-2 Provide continuing ed for emergency responders to
understand travel behavior, decisions and lived experience of local pedestrians/bicyclists
TBD PD Underway
CC-3 Establish protocols for best practice communications to encourage accurate and agency-based narratives in media stories on crashes

TBD CMO/P
W/PD
Underway
CC-4 Explore opportunities for acknowledgment and/or
remembrance program

TBD CMO/P
D
TBD
CC-5 Establish a rapid response crash team (MVRRT) to examine factors associated with crashes on HIN and potential solutions

TBD FD/PD/
PW
TBD
CC-6 Establish requirement to share fatal and serious injury crash reports with Traffic and Transportation staff in a timely manner
2024 PD/PW Underway
CC-7 Improve consistency of reporting for vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle crashes
2024 PD/PW Underway
CC-8 Monitor crash data on a scheduled basis to measure progress toward VZ goals
Biannual PD/PW Underway
CC-9 Conduct quarterly Vision Zero Working Group meetings addressing recent activities, debriefing on recent crashes, and progress toward goals
2024 PW+ Underway
CC-10 Collect before and after data when infrastructure improvements are made to measure behavior change

TBD PW TBD
* See VZAP/LRSP Appendix E: Countermeasures for more information on these topics

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
1005
APPENDIX E:

EXISTING

CONDITIONS AND

NEEDS SUMMARY
1006
Mountain View
Active Transportation Plan
Appendix E
Existing Conditions
and Needs Summary
October 2023
Revised July 2026
Note
This report was written in 2023 and a draft was presented to the Mountain View Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee in October 2023. The report should be viewed as a snapshot in time and may not be reflective of current conditions. 1007
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026
Contents
Page
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Demographics and Mode Share..................................................................................................................... 6

2. Mobility and Connectivity ...............................................................................................................................14

3. Safety and comfort.............................................................................................................................................29

4. Access and equity...............................................................................................................................................39

5. Sustainability and biodiversity.......................................................................................................................46

6. Code Review.........................................................................................................................................................64 Figures
Figure 1: The ATP Survey was promoted in four languages using print and digital communications............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Worksheet from Walk Tour........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3 Population Density........................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4 Youth Population Density (Ages 18 and Under)................................................................ 8 Figure 5 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Walk...........................................................11 Figure 6 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Bike.............................................................12 Figure 7 Household Vehicle Access .......................................................................................................13 Figure 8 Examples of Paseos and Car-Free Connections in Mountain View..........................15 Figure 9 Pedestrian Network in Mountain View................................................................................16 Figure 10 High Quality Sidewalk in Mountain View...........................................................................17 Figure 11 Types of Bicycle Facilities in Mountain View’s All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Bike Network .................................................................................................................................18 Figure 12 Existing and Planned/Funded AAA Bicycle Facilities vs. Existing Bicycle Network...........................................................................................................................................19 Figure 13 Bicycle Network and Challenging Routes for Walking, Biking, and Rolling..........20 Figure 14 Household Vehicle Access and Existing Bicycle Network ............................................21 Figure 15 Examples of Bike Racks and Bicycle Push Button............................................................23 Figure 16 Examples of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) and Curb Bulbout in Other Jurisdictions ...................................................................................................................................25 Figure 17 Pedestrian Network and Challenging Spots for Walking, Biking, and Rolling.....26 Figure 18 Distance Between Marked Crosswalks (Major Roads)...................................................27 Figure 19 Distance Between Pedestrian Crossings (Marked or Unmarked, All Roads) ........28 Figure 20 Examples of Favorite Places to Walk and Bike in Mountain View ............................29 1008
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026
Figure 21 Collisions Involving People Walking by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations.........................................................................................................................................31 Figure 22 Collisions Involving People on Bikes by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations.........................................................................................................................................32 Figure 23 Frequency of Collisions Involving People on Bikes and Challenging Locations.........................................................................................................................................33 Figure 24 Frequency of Collisions Involving People Walking and Challenging Locations.........................................................................................................................................34 Figure 25 Reported Near-Miss Collisions Involving People Walking or Biking, 2021- 2022 ..................................................................................................................................................35 Figure 26 Example of Enhanced and Marked Crossings in Mountain View..............................37 Figure 27 Marked Crossings, Signalized Intersections, and Enhanced Intersections ............38 Figure 28 Job Locations and Bicycle Access..........................................................................................41 Figure 29 Job Locations and Pedestrian Access ..................................................................................42 Figure 30 Mountain View Transit Center as a Destination ..............................................................43 Figure 31 Transit Ridership and Bicycle Access....................................................................................44 Figure 32 Transit Ridership and Pedestrian Access ............................................................................45 Figure 33 Tree Canopy Coverage ..............................................................................................................50 Figure 34 Public Tree Planting Types.......................................................................................................51 Figure 35 Mountain View's Top 10 Street Trees..................................................................................52 Figure 36 Street Tree Count by Type .......................................................................................................52 Figure 37 Heritage Trees...............................................................................................................................53 Figure 38 Vacant Planting sites by location...........................................................................................54 Figure 39 Public Tree Planting by Type...................................................................................................56 Figure 40 Examples of Planting Strips with Detached Sidewalks..................................................57 Figure 41 Examples of Planting Strips with Attached Sidewalks...................................................58 Figure 42 Examples of Median Plantings ...............................................................................................58 Figure 43 Examples of Protected Intersections and Bikeways .......................................................59 Figure 44 Examples of Cul-de-Sac Plantings.........................................................................................60 Figure 45 Examples of Tree Wells..............................................................................................................61 Figure 46 Examples of Tree Wells in a Parking Space .......................................................................61 Figure 47 Examples of Phased Greening................................................................................................62 Figure 48 Percentage of Impervious Surfaces (Map and Table)....................................................63 Tables
Table 1 Mountain View Age Demographics........................................................................................ 6 Table 2 Race and Ethnicity in Mountain View (2021) ...................................................................... 9 Table 3 Household Income Distribution in Mountain View.......................................................... 9 Table 4 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View (2021) ...........................................................10 1009
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026
Table 5 Top 10 Challenging Routes as Indicated by Community Input.................................22 Table 6 Top 10 Challenging Intersections for Walking, Biking, and Rolling as Indicated by Community Input ..............................................................................................24 Table 7 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View and Peer Cities (2021)............................40 Table 8 Green Streets Benefits and Challenges ...............................................................................48 Table 9: Code Review Summary ........................................................................................................................64 1010
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 1

INTRODUCTION
Mountain View’s Active Transportation Plan
Mountain View envisions an active transportation network that is safe and comfortable for all users regardless of age, ability, income, race or language. The Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP) aims to identify citywide policies and projects that will improve walking (including wheelchairs or disability-related devices), biking, rolling (including e-scooters and other micromobility devices), and green streets in Mountain View.

The ATP is guided by a vision statement and five guiding principles:

About this Report
The Existing Conditions and Needs Summary describes key aspects of existing infrastructure, demographics, and other community characteristics that influence walking, biking, and green streets in Mountain View. In addition to summarizing quantitative data, this report includes qualitative data in the form of public input and comments. Understanding existing conditions allows the City to identify what works well and areas for improvement. The data collected for this report was used to identify and prioritize recommendations for the Active Transportation Plan.

Vision Statement:

Mountain View leads the region with an Active
Transportation Plan that defines a series of
connected, low-stress, and green corridors that invite
active transportation. The corridors include shade,
wildlife habitat, and public open spaces. The plan
enables the City to intentionally support a culture of
walking and biking, enhance biodiversity, and reduce
climate change impacts.
1011
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 2
The report begins with an overview of community demographics and mode share in Mountain View and then uses four of the MVATP’s guiding principles to understand current conditions for active transportation:
Mobility & Connectivity
Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
Sustainability & Biodiversity
Data Sources
Data sources used in this report are summarized below. Data used in this report reflects what was available in 2022-2023 when the report was drafted.

City Databases
Data from the City of Mountain View's open data portal provided information on physical infrastructure including street centerlines, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle facilities, posted speed limits, land uses, tree canopy, stormwater, current and planned projects, shuttle services, and public safety records.

Census Data
Community demographics were collected from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

State Crash Database
Historical crash data was downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), which is a geodatabase of police-reported crashes in California, from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System..

Transit Service Data
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MTMA), and Caltrain provided data on transit stops, routes and ridership.

Community Input
Community input is an important data source to understand the existing conditions, which are not only about what is physically on the ground or in a policy but also how it is experienced by those who travel. The City deployed a multi-pronged approach to engagement during the existing conditions phase of the MVATP, recognizing that people vary in their comfort or preference for providing input. A mix of digital, print and in-person opportunities at various times and with interpretation helped to make engagement open and 1012
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 3
inclusive. Additional multilingual engagement was conducted to improve response rates from under-represented groups including Spanish-speaking communities.

Engagement efforts are summarized below.

ATP Survey
An online mapping survey was developed in the spring of 2023 using a survey platform called Maptionnaire. The survey asked participants a series of questions about their experiences walking and rolling in Mountain View—their favorite places and routes, their challenging spots and routes and what and where they would like to see improvements.

Participants were asked to digitally record their answers on maps of the city of Mountain View and to share any additional comments. Sociodemographic information was optional.

The survey, available in English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian, was open for public participation from May 15 – July 31, 2023. It was promoted via postcards, flyers and lawn signs distributed around Mountain View, digital social media promotions and email blasts. (Figure 1) Six hundred fifty-five people participated in the survey.

Figure 1: The ATP Survey was promoted in four languages using print and digital communications In-person meetings/presentations
Pop-up and in-person meetings were held to connect with communities that often do not participate as frequently in engagement activities in Mountain View. The meetings gathered input on participant experiences walking, biking and rolling in Mountain View. These events are listed below:
1013
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 4
x Thursday June 15, 2023, 4:30–7:30 p.m.: Community Services Agency (CSA) (with Spanish interpretation)
x Monday, July 17, 2023, 8:30–9:30 a.m.: Mountain View Dayworker Center (Spanish interpretation)
x Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 11 a.m.–1 p.m.: Mountain View Senior Center x Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 2:00–3:30 p.m.: The View Teen Center.

Bike Tours
Two bike tours were held to gather community input on the bicycling experience in Mountain View. Approximately 40 adults and three children participated in the three-hour,11-mile bike tours, which focused on areas identified as important bicycle connections or challenging areas in Access MV, Ask MV, and survey comments. The events were held:
x Saturday, May 13, 2023, 10:00 a.m.–noon: South of Caltrain x Sunday, September 23, 2023, 10:00 a.m.–noon: North of Caltrain Walk Tours
Three walk tours were held to gather
community input on the walking experience in
Mountain View. A park, a school and an area
known to have more seniors were
intentionally selected to understand their
experiences. Events were held:
x Friday, August 11, 2023, 6:00–7:30 p.m.:

Rengstorff Avenue, Latham Street and
El Camino Real (27 participants)
x Saturday, August 12, 2023, 9:30–11:00
a.m.: Escuela Avenue, California Street
and Latham Street (10 participants)
x August 25, 2023, 5:30–7:00 p.m.: Sylvan
Avenue, Glenborough Drive and
Moorpark (22 participants)
AskMV
The City of Mountain View maintains an
online comment platform called AskMV,
where individuals can share on a variety of topics. City staff monitor the platform for comments related to walking and bicycling experiences, recommended improvements and Figure 2 Worksheet from Walk Tour

The walk tours were organized to solicit a wide
range of views from the community, such as this
young student’s perspective
1014
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 5
transportation safety. Approximately three years of feedback was gleaned to identify community concerns.

BPAC
Mountain View Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) members are appointed by the City Council to represent the interests of people who walk and bike in the city. BPAC reviewed and provided input on ATP-related topics at the following meetings:
x Tuesday, November 30, 2021 – Review and comment on proposed task list for MVATP x Wednesday, February 22, 2023 – Receive report on scope of work for MVATP x Wednesday, October 25, 2023 – Receive draft existing conditions report x Wednesday, April 24, 2024 – Review and provide feedback on MVATP scoring criteria x Wednesday, March 11, 2025 – Recommend holistic network maps and scoring criteria to City Council
x Wednesday, April 29, 2026 – Review and comment on the Public Draft MVATP Active Transportation Plan Advisory Committee
The Active Transportation Plan Advisory Committee (ATPAC) was formed to have an external advisory group that can provide input to the ATP as it is developed and act as a liaison for their networks. Members represent non-profit organizations and public agencies that work in active transportation, green streets or serve the needs of those that walk and roll, such as but not limited to, the Community Services Agency, Santa Clara Public Health Department, VTA, the Day Worker Center, MV Mobile Home Alliance, Youth Advisory Committee, Mountain View Los Altos High School District, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, and Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. ATPAC members helped organize and participate in many of the engagement activities.
1015
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 6

1. DEMOGRAPHICS AND MODE SHARE
Demographics
The City of Mountain View is a Santa Clara County community that experiences the opportunities and challenges of a strong Bay Area economy. Based on the 2020 U.S.

Decennial Census, the city’s population is approximately 82,000, an increase of over 10% since 2010. Additionally, the influx of professionals to public and private employers increases the city population by over 100,000 during most weekdays. Approximately 55 percent of the population identifies as male and 45 percent as female. The city is relatively young, with almost 67 percent of its population under 44 (median age 35.3 years) and approximately 22% under the age of 18 (U.S. Census 2021 American Community Survey [ACS] 5-year estimates)—a demographic for which a robust and safe active transportation network provides an opportunity for independent mobility (Table 1).

Table 1 Mountain View Age Demographics
Age Number Percent
Under 5 5238 6.4
5 to 14 years 9,113 11.1
15 to 19 years 3,720 4.5
20 to 24 years 4,343 5.3
25 to 44 years 32,655 39.6
45 to 64 years 18,192 22.1
65 to 79 years 6,624 8.0
80 and over 2,524 3.1
Total 82,409 100.0
ACS 2021 5-year estimates
Mountain View’s overall population density is low to medium, with some areas in the central west portion of the city between Central Expressway/Caltrain and El Camino Real being of higher density (Figure 3). Those neighborhoods also tend to have higher youth density (Figure 4).
1016
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 7
Figure 3 Population Density
1017
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 8
Figure 4 Youth Population Density (Ages 18 and Under)

1018
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 9
According to the 2021 ACS 5-year estimates (Table 2), approximately 48 percent of the population of Mountain View identifies as white, 33 percent identify as Asian (with most identifying as Chinese), and 18 percent identify as Hispanic or Latino.

Table 2 Race and Ethnicity in Mountain View (2021)
Race and Ethnicity in Mountain View % of Residents
White alone 48.4%
Asian alone 33.3%
Black or African American alone 2.4%
Native American, Native Alaskan alone 0.4%
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander alone 0.0%
Some other race alone 5.8%
Two or more races 9.6%
Hispanic or Latino Population in Mountain View % of Residents Not Hispanic or Latino 82.0%
Hispanic or Latino: 18.0%
ACS 2021 5-year estimate
Approximately 5.5 percent of the community is below poverty level. The median household income in Mountain View is $158,104, while the mean is $213,751 (Table 3). As of August 2023, the median home price in Mountain View is $1.79 million. 1 Table 3 Household Income Distribution in Mountain View Income range % of Residents
Less than $50,000 16.8%
$50,000 to $99,999 15.8%
$100,000 to $149,999 15.2%
Median household income: $158,104
$150,000 to $199,999 13.0%
$200,000 or more 39.2%
ACS 2021 5-year estimate
1 https://www.redfin.com/city/12739/CA/Mountain-View/housing-market, retrieved October 2023 1019
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 10
Mode Share and Vehicle Access
Approximately 5.6% of workers 16 years and over in Mountain View bike to work (compared with 0.8% statewide and 0.5% nationally), with males riding at a higher rate than females (Table 4). Approximately 3.2% of workers reported walking to work (compared with 2.4% statewide and 2.5% nationally), with females walking at a slightly higher rate than males.

More than half of Mountain View residents commute to work by driving alone, while over 30% work from home. Commute mode share in Mountain View and peer cities is discussed further in Part 4 and summarized in Table 7.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the geographic distribution of walking and biking commute behavior in Mountain View. While the Journey to Work data set of the U.S. Census only provides a snapshot of rates of walking and bicycling within the city by one trip purpose, it indicates that even with that limited trip focus, travel by active transportation modes are utilized in the city.

Table 4 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View (2021)
Commute Mode Mountain View California United States
Drove alone 53.2% 70.1% 73.2%
Carpooled 4.5% 9.6% 8.6%
Public transportation 2.1% 4.1% 4.2%
Walked 3.2% 2.4% 2.5%
Bicycle 5.6% 0.8% 0.5%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 1.2% 1.6% 1.4%
Worked from home 30.2% 11.4% 9.7%
Source: ACS 2021 5 Year Estimate
Almost 5% of households in Mountain View do not have a motor vehicle available (2021 ACS 5-year estimates). In looking at this data spatially, some block groups in Mountain View report up to 24% of households without access to a vehicle (Figure 7). Some of these block groups mirror those with higher percentages of population and youth density and bicycling to work.
1020
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 11
Figure 5 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Walk
1021
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 12
Figure 6 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Bike
1022
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 13
Figure 7 Household Vehicle Access
1023
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 14

2. MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY
In Mountain View, pedestrian and bicycle networks are essential components of the transportation system. Evaluating the coverage and continuity of these networks can help the City identify where improvements are needed to better support the daily needs of everyone who lives, works, goes to school, and visits the City.

Pedestrian Network Coverage and Gaps
Mountain View has a well-connected pedestrian network that supports walking and rolling throughout most of the city. Figure 9 shows the extent of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian network in Mountain View today, including sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian paseos, and highlights places where there are gaps, or missing segments in the sidewalk network, along with areas where the sidewalk is less than four feet in width.

Sidewalks
The city’s sidewalk network is 95% complete. However, there are a few neighborhoods with missing and narrow sidewalks, such as Moorpark Way and along Wright Avenue, or in the southern portion of the city, such as west of Miramonte between Marilyn and Barbara, and southeast Mountain View between Grant Road and SR-85.

Many areas with missing sidewalks were annexed from the County and did not include sidewalks at the time of annexation. The Policy on Unimproved Streets adopted by City Council in 1993 affirms the direction to not construct sidewalks in residential areas unless homeowners initiate an assessment district to fund the sidewalks. The policy references resident desires to maintain the rural character of these streets by not improving streets to current standards.

Mountain View’s mobile home parks (Santiago Villa, Sahara Mobile Village, New Frontier, Moorpark Mobile Homes, Moffett Mobile Home Park and Sunset Village) are privately owned and shown as areas of “no data” on Figure 8. Mobile home parks are typically constructed with private streets which do not include a separate sidewalk from the vehicle drive aisle.

While the City has limited control over internal street standards for existing private streets, there can be opportunities to better connect the surrounding City sidewalk network to the mobile home parks. Residents in these neighborhoods, where access to vehicles is lower (Figure 7), may rely more on walking and other non-driving transportation modes to meet daily travel needs.

Survey respondents and community members noted missing or incomplete sidewalks on one or both sides of Martens Avenue, Sleeper Avenue, Franklin Avenue, Eunice Avenue, and Carmelita Drive. These streets connect pedestrians from residential streets to nearby parks 1024
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 15
and schools, such as Sleeper Park, Cuesta Park, Cooper Park, Stevens Creek Trail and Amy Imai Elementary School.

Survey participants also noted issues with sidewalks on Moffett Boulevard near the Stevens Creek Trail access point, such as sidewalk gaps, the condition of sidewalks, and the desire for an improved crossing to access the trail.

Paseos
Mountain View’s pedestrian network includes more than just sidewalks and crosswalks—a host of paseos and trails also support connectivity and mobility throughout the City for people who walk (Figure 9). A paseo is a short connection, often utilizing a public access easement that allows for increased pedestrian and cycling connections. Paseos most commonly occur in the middle of very large blocks (Figure 8).

Participants in the Rengstorff Park Walk Tour noted how the paseo connecting Latham to El Camino between Rengstorff and Ortega improved access to destinations on El Camino Real.

Survey respondents suggested more pathways, or paseos, through apartment and office complexes near schools and on routes to transit, such as the Caltrain stations, to increase active transportation accessibility.

Figure 8 Examples of Paseos and Car-Free Connections in Mountain View

Paseos are a useful tool to provide public access
through private areas.

This separated pedestrian and bike connection at the
southern end of Sterling Street provides a car-free
connection to Central Expressway at Moffett Blvd.
1025
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 16
Figure 9 Pedestrian Network in Mountain View
1026
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 17
Sidewalk Accessibility
As noted earlier, the city’s sidewalk network
is 96% complete, and many newer sidewalks
provide comfortable pedestrian conditions.

In some locations, however, there are
obstructions (such as utility poles or signs)
or poor physical conditions (such as uplift,
missing curb cuts, narrow sidewalks). Some
of these conditions are associated with the
age of the sidewalks and standards in place
at the time of construction.

The City of Mountain View is actively
developing an ADA Transition Plan which
will seek to identify non-compliant curb
ramps, sidewalks, and other infrastructure in
the right-of-way and develop a work plan to
bring those locations into compliance.

Bicycle Network Coverage and Gaps
The city has a varied network of bicycle facilities, some of which are well connected and some of which are separated by gaps or barriers.

The term All Ages and Abilities (AAA) refers to bikeways designs that are comfortable for all different types of bicyclists, including the most concerned. In Access MV, the City identified a future AAA Bike Network made up of existing and planned/funded projects (Figure 12).

Facility types represented in the AAA existing and planned/funded network include but are not limited to bicycle boulevards, trails, protected bikeways and bike lanes on lower volume and speed streets (described in Figure 11).

Figure 12 shows that the density of the future AAA network varies across the city. The existing and planned/funded AAA network is robust in the northern parts of the city, including North Bayshore and Shoreline Park. The Stevens Creek Trail provides a continuous AAA-quality connection between the northern and southern parts of the City for bicyclists. In other areas, such as the residential neighborhoods in the city's southern parts, there are gaps in the AAA network, and some bikeways on major roads such as Springer Road and Grant Road may not fall under the AAA designation.

Figure 10 High Quality Sidewalk in Mountain View
Sidewalks should be set back from the street, wide
enough to allow comfortable side-by-side walking,
and have trees spaced close enough to provide
consistent shade like this one on Evelyn Street.
1027
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 18
Figure 11 Types of Bicycle Facilities in Mountain View’s All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Bike Network

Bicycle boulevards (Class III) are shared streets with
low motor vehicle speeds and volumes with features
and pavement markings designed to prioritize
bicycles.

Trails (Class I) are shared-use bicycle and pedestrian
paths that are separated from motor vehicle traffic. In Mountain View, most trails are paved.

Protected bikeways (Class IV) are bicycle facilities
with physical barriers between bicyclists and
motorized vehicles. Physical barriers can be provided
with flexible plastic posts, concrete, plants and trees, or other treatments.

Bike lanes (Class II) are bicycle facilities that do not include a physical barrier separating cyclists from
motor vehicle lanes.
1028
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 19
Figure 12 Existing and Planned/Funded AAA Bicycle Facilities vs. Existing Bicycle Network 1029
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 20
Figure 13 Bicycle Network and Challenging Routes for Walking, Biking, and Rolling 1030
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 21
Figure 14 Household Vehicle Access and Existing Bicycle Network 1031
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 22
Survey respondents were asked to identify challenging walking or biking routes, summarized in Figure 13 and Table 5. Note that the City does not have jurisdiction over El Camino Real or Central Expressway, these are owned by Caltrans and the County of Santa Clara, respectively.

Beginning in winter 2023, the City and Caltrans are partnering to implement bike lanes (Class II) and flex post-protected bikeways (Class IV) along El Camino between Sylvan Avenue and Rengstorff Avenue, which will significantly improve bicycle network connectivity for many community members. Community feedback about the El Camino corridor supports these improvements as well as improved bicycle access across and adjacent to El Camino Real.

Table 5 Top 10 Challenging Routes as Indicated by Community Input.

Rank Challenging Route
1 El Camino Real* (between Dale Avenue and Rengstorff Avenue/Ortega Avenue)
2 Miramonte-Shoreline Boulevard (between Sonia Way and Wright Avenue) 3 Central Expressway* (between Thompson Avenue and SR-85) 4 Grant Road (between Bentley Square and El Camino Real) 5 Rengstorff Avenue (between El Camino Real and Montecito Avenue) 6 Latham Street (between Ortega Avenue and Leksich Avenue) 8 Escuela Avenue (between El Camino Real and Villa Street) 9 California Street (between Chiquita Avenue and Ortega Avenue) 10 Leland Avenue/Crisanto Avenue (between College Avenue and Escuela Avenue)
Source: ATP Survey (2023)
* El Camino Real is owned by Caltrans and Central Expressway is owned by the County of Santa Clara. The City does not have jurisdiction over these roads.

Bike Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities
Beyond the availability of community bikeways, a complete bicycle network includes other infrastructure and facilities that support the needs of people who bicycle. A comprehensive bicycle network includes safe and secure bike parking, accurate bicycle detection, bicycle maintenance stations, restrooms, drinking fountains, and clear wayfinding for bicyclists (Figure 15).
1032
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 23
Figure 15 Examples of Bike Racks and Bicycle Push Button

Bike rack located in Downtown Mountain View Bicycle push buttons allow bicyclists to request a green light
Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity
The City’s sidewalk network provides consistent connectivity and coverage within most neighborhoods. This connectivity can be improved by providing enhanced and additional crossings of major roadways.

East/West, North/South Connections
Survey respondents were asked to identify specific points where they would like improvements. These points concentrated at intersections on major east-west roadways like El Camino Real, Central Expressway, and Highway 101 interchanges, particularly where they intersect with significant north-south roadways such as Rengstorff Avenue, Shoreline Boulevard and Castro Street/Moffett Boulevard (Figure 17). Other top locations for improved crossings suggested through survey responses and community meetings include Grant Road and El Camino Real, Escuela Avenue and El Camino Real, Showers Drive and California Street, Rengstorff Avenue and West Middlefield Road. These user-identified locations are displayed in Figure 17 and the top ten challenging spot locations identified by users are listed in Table

6. All ten of these locations are intersections or interchanges that are owned by, and under the authority of, the state or county.
1033
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 24
Table 6 Top 10 Challenging Intersections for Walking, Biking, and Rolling as Indicated by Community Input
Rank Challenging Spot
1 Rengstorff Avenue & Central Expressway (and by extension: Rengstorff Avenue & Leland Avenue/Crisanto Avenue)
2 Castro Street/Moffett Boulevard & Central Expressway (and by extension: Castro Street & Evelyn Avenue)
3 El Camino Real & Castro Street
4 Central Expressway & Shoreline Boulevard
5 Grant Road & El Camino Real
6 Miramonte Avenue/Shoreline Boulevard & El Camino Real 7 SR-85 & El Camino Real
8 US-101 & Shoreline Boulevard
9 SR-85 & Central Expressway
10 El Camino Real & Escuela Avenue
Source: ATP Survey (2023)
Note: The city has limited control over these locations. Central Expressway is owned and operated by Santa Clara County and El Camino Real, SR-85 and US-101 are owned and operated by Caltrans.

Distance between Crosswalks
Figure 18 shows the distance between marked crosswalks along Mountain View’s major roads. Along El Camino Real and Central Expressway, some distances between crossings are more than 1,300 feet or ¼ mile. Other arterial roads with segments with long distances between marked crossings include East Middlefield Road, segments of Shoreline Boulevard, and Rengstorff Avenue.

Figure 19 shows the distance between marked or unmarked crosswalks for all the City’s roads. Longer block lengths exist on several segments throughout the city, such as Showers Drive, Latham Street, California Street, East Middlefield Road, and Grant Road.

Survey respondents noted that the lack of crossings creates a significant barrier to access for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling north and south, especially when accessing downtown Mountain View from the south.

El Camino Real
Survey respondents noted that the lack of crossings on El Camino Real creates a significant barrier to access for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling north and south, especially when accessing downtown Mountain View from the south.

Three new Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) will be installed on El Camino Real at Bonita Avenue, Crestview Drive, and Pettis Avenue as part of a Caltrans repaving project that will 1034
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 25
begin construction in 2024. These PHBs will improve connectivity and reduce the distance between intersection crossings. In addition to the three PHBs and the aforementioned bicycle improvements, plans to improve El Camino Real include curb ramp upgrades, high visibility crosswalks at all signalized intersections, and corner bulbouts at some of the unsignalized cross streets (Figure 16). Further mobility and connectivity enhancements, such as protected intersections, will be addressed through City capital projects following the Caltrans repaving work.

Figure 16 Examples of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) and Curb Bulbout in Other Jurisdictions

PHBs include flashing lights and marked
crossings that alert vehicles to crossing
pedestrians.

Curb bulbouts reduce the distances between curbs for
crossing pedestrians and reduce vehicle turning speeds. 1035
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 26
Figure 17 Pedestrian Network and Challenging Spots for Walking, Biking, and Rolling 1036
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 27
Figure 18 Distance Between Marked Crosswalks (Major Roads) 1037
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 28
Figure 19 Distance Between Pedestrian Crossings (Marked or Unmarked, All Roads) 1038
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 29

3. SAFETY AND COMFORT
Many places in Mountain View provide safe and enjoyable spaces for people who walk, bike, and roll—especially places where people feel separated from vehicles and offer access to nature and open space.

Community-Identified Favorite Places and Routes
Survey respondents were asked to share their favorite places to walk, bike, or roll. Many identified parks and trails in Mountain View. Trails are both routes and destinations where the car-free environments add to people’s feeling of safety and enjoyment. Survey respondents use Stevens Creek Trail for a wide variety of purposes, including recreational bike rides with family and kids, commuting to work, and accessing key destinations like grocery stores and the library. Respondents expressed appreciation for the safe pedestrian and bicycle environment of Sylvan Park and Rengstorff Park. In other places, such as Shoreline Park, respondents reported driving to these places to walk or bike.

Downtown, especially the pedestrian-only portion of Castro Street, was celebrated as a great place for walking by survey respondents and community conversation participants. The safe and enjoyable environment, the appeal of no automobile traffic, and the availability of many fun activities and destinations, make this area a favorite for community members. (Figure 20) Figure 20 Examples of Favorite Places to Walk and Bike in Mountain View

Trails that provide a space for walking and biking
away from motorized vehicles were popular
destinations for survey respondents.

Survey respondents enjoy walking in the car-free
segments of Castro Street downtown.
1039
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 30
Community-Identified Challenging Locations for Walking and Biking Survey respondents were asked to map challenging places to walk, bike, or roll. Challenging locations were concentrated along El Camino Real, at Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway intersection, and at crossings of US 101 and SR 85. Lastly, survey respondents and community members identified the intersection of Castro Street, Central Expressway, Moffett Boulevard, and Caltrain as a challenging area to walk and bike.

Collisions Involving Bicycles and Pedestrians
From 2015 to 2022, there were 563 reported collisions involving people walking and biking in Mountain View, including 11 fatal and 52 severe injury collisions. According to the 2024 Mountain View Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), 73% of fatal and severe injury (FSI) collisions occurred along arterials with higher vehicle speeds (35 mph or above), more vehicle lanes, and higher traffic volume.

As shown in Figure 21, fatal and severe-injury (FSI) pedestrian collisions were particularly concentrated along arterial roadways, which represent 20% of the city’s street network. As shown in Figure 22, FSI bicycle crashes were distributed throughout the city. However, when looking at all crashes, not just FSI crashes, the locations generally overlap with locations that community members reported as challenging in the MVATP survey. See Figure 23 and Figure

24. Near Misses
Pedestrian and bicycle collisions are usually underreported in many communities for a variety of reasons. Near misses are also not consistently reported but provide additional information for decision makers. Figure 25 maps near miss reports submitted to AskMV between 2021 and 2022. The locations are in the Downtown area, Rengstorff Avenue, El Camino Real and neighborhood locations. Given that the data presented in Figure 25 is self-reported and limited, it should not be used to draw broad conclusions. 1040
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 31
Figure 21 Collisions Involving People Walking by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations 1041
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 32
Figure 22 Collisions Involving People on Bikes by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations 1042
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 33
Figure 23 Frequency of Collisions Involving People on Bikes and Challenging Locations 1043
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 34
Figure 24 Frequency of Collisions Involving People Walking and Challenging Locations 1044
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 35
Figure 25 Reported Near-Miss Collisions Involving People Walking or Biking, 2021-2022 1045
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 36
Sidewalk and Roadway Conditions
The City has 277.8 linear miles of sidewalk, which represents 96% sidewalk completion.

US Access Board’s Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) provides guidance for accessible pedestrian facilities, including but not limited to stability of surface, width, slope, cross-slope, curb ramps, and detectible surfaces. The City is currently undertaking an ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan that will provide detailed data on accessibility.

Community engagement for the Active Transportation Plan also noted conditions that affect user comfort including:
x leaves, dirt, gravel, debris and drainage issues on some sidewalks, bike lanes and roadway edges;
x uneven or bumpy pavement for pedestrians or bicyclists, including at crosswalks, sidewalks, curb ramps, and places where paving materials transition; x difficult-to-see curb edges, abrupt driveway transitions, gutter joints in bike lanes, and driveway lips, including near schools and senior facilities; x parked cars blocking bike lanes or sidewalks with rolled curbs; and x road segments with a high number of driveways and potential vehicle-pedestrian conflict points.

Roadway Crossings, Signals, and Visibility
The City has 2,042 crosswalks including 1,156 marked and 886 unmarked crossings, in addition to 92 signalized intersections and more than 30 LED-enhanced crosswalks or rectangular rapid flashing beacons. These crossing facilities are displayed in Figure 27.

Crossing vehicular roadways, especially those with fast-moving traffic and multiple lanes, was a recurring comfort and safety challenge as indicated by community members. While the City continues to improve and enhance crossings and intersections with features that support pedestrian and bicycle safety, such as high visibility crosswalks, raised crosswalks, RRFBs, PHBs, and “daylighting” or removing visual barriers near intersections to improve visibility, some community members expressed that driver behavior continues to create challenges for safe crossings—especially across larger arterial roads such as El Camino Real and Central Expressway. As seen in Figure 28, both of those roadways currently lack enhanced pedestrian crossing infrastructure, though the previously mentioned project on El Camino Real that will begin in spring 2024 will bring some improvements along this roadway.

In contrast, the North Bayshore area has several pedestrian signals and enhanced crosswalks.

Some survey respondents highlighted that shade is limited in some areas where there are long waits at signalized intersections.
1046
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 37
Lastly, some survey respondents encountered visibility challenges between bicyclists and vehicles while entering or exiting trails in Mountain View.

Figure 26 Example of Enhanced and Marked Crossings in Mountain View

This raised crosswalk and pedestrian-activated LED
enhanced sign is located near Mistral Elementary
Land Use and Urban Design Considerations
Through the ATP survey and other engagement conversations, many community members highlighted how land use and urban design can affect safety and comfort for walking, biking, and rolling. For example, in some parts of Mountain View, the shape and limited connectivity of the street network leads to lengthy pedestrian and bicycle routes to destinations that are relatively close (Figure 9 and Figure 12). However, treatments such as new mid-block crossings and paseos that can mitigate otherwise circuitous pedestrian and bicycle paths and create more shaded, pleasant ways to travel.

Survey respondents and community conversation participants frequently identified vibrant, walkable shopping areas such as downtown and the San Antonio Shopping Center as favorite places for safe and comfortable walking. As part of the AccessMV study (2021), the City analyzed Pedestrian Quality of Service (PQOS), which highlighted the impacts of the land use mix on the pedestrian experience, by utilizing WalkScore (TM) data, which prioritizes connections to certain business types and community assets. 1047
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 38
Figure 27 Marked Crossings, Signalized Intersections, and Enhanced Intersections 1048
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 39

4. ACCESS AND EQUITY
For many, biking, walking, and rolling are essential transportation options for meeting daily travel needs. Equitable access to key destinations can be challenging even in neighborhoods with a complete and connected pedestrian and bicycle network. An accessible and equitable active transportation network must connect people with critical services and destinations and be designed to reflect different needs and abilities. The same routes, facilities, and crossings that are easily navigable for some people can be stressful or difficult to navigate for others.

Equitable Access to Destinations and Services
The City has made strides in creating pedestrian and bicycle facilities that support mobility and provide affordable access for people of all socio-economic groups. Correspondingly, Mountain View has higher rates of walking and bicycling to work (3.2% and 5.6% respectively) compared to many neighboring cities (Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Santa Clara) as well as the county, state and national rates (Table 7). Some peer cities including Palo Alto and Davis have higher rates of walking and/or biking to work than Mountain View.

Several neighborhoods in Mountain View have higher populations density, higher youth density, and a higher proportion of zero-vehicle households and/or low-income households.

For these areas and households, gaps in the active transportation network can make biking, walking, or rolling more challenging for those who rely on them the most. (Figure 9 and Figure 14).

Participants in walking tours in these neighborhoods noted areas for improvement:
x A connected network of AAA bicycle facilities;
x Addressing sidewalk obstructions that can make it difficult to travel with strollers x Completion of sidewalk gaps, and connections to surrounding neighborhoods and destinations;
x More shade along sidewalks
Job Access
As shown in Figure 28, the existing AAA network in Mountain View includes Stevens Creek Trail, Permanente Creek Trail, and protected bikeways along Charleston Road and S. Castro Street. These bikeways connect residential neighborhoods to many of the city's major employers, areas of high job density, and recreational areas. The planned protected bikeway on El Camino Real will further extend AAA access to jobs.

Figure 29 compares the sidewalk network to job density. The sidewalk network is nearly complete, and all job dense areas have sidewalks. The sidewalk network follows the respective roadway network, so office parks in North Bayshore have a circuitous sidewalk network, and downtown Mountain View has a dense, grid network. 1049
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 40
Table 7 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View and Peer Cities (2021) Total
Workers
(Age 16+)
Drove alone Carpooled Public
transit Walked Bicycle
Taxicab,
motorcycle,
or other
Worked
from home
Mountain
View 44,414 53.20% 4.50% 2.10% 3.20% 5.60% 1.20% 30.20% Sunnyvale 87,798 61.6% 9.1% 5.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 19.6%
Cupertino 27,965 67.7% 5.8% 1.8% 2.8% 0.5% 1.4% 20.0%
Santa Clara
(City) 69,840 58.2% 5.7% 2.2% 2.5% 0.9% 2.3% 28.3%
Palo Alto 33,763 46.10% 2.40% 1.60% 6.40% 9.20% 1.70% 32.60% Davis 31,129 51.90% 5.20% 7.10% 3.00% 13.80% 1.00% 17.90% Santa Clara
County 967,786 59.3% 8.9% 2.1% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 24.8%
California 18,283,118 70.10% 9.60% 4.10% 2.40% 0.80% 1.60% 11.40% United
States 160,577,736 73.20% 8.60% 4.20% 2.50% 0.50% 1.40% 9.70% Source: ACS 2021 5 Year Estimate
1050
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 41
Figure 28 Job Locations and Bicycle Access
1051
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 42
Figure 29 Job Locations and Pedestrian Access
1052
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 43
Equitable Access to Transit
Fixed-route transit services in the City include VTA light rail, Caltrain service, VTA bus service, and Mountain View shuttle service. While some community members have attractive and reliable pedestrian and bicycle access to these services, others report challenges or barriers to access.

VTA light rail station areas like Whisman Station are well connected by a complete sidewalk network and low-stress bicycle routes. In some areas, such as Pacific Drive near Whisman station, station area planning has helped create walkable, shaded streets that improve transit access for people who walk, bike, and roll. Some survey respondents identified access to a transit stop or station as a favorite destination for walking, biking, and rolling, especially the downtown transit center and other rail stations. Other respondents reported challenges getting to and from transit, especially bus stops on busy roadways with widely spaced crossings (Figure 30).

In most of the city, bus services on major roads and arterials are connected to adjacent neighborhoods via low-stress bicycle and pedestrian routes. However, most major roads and arterials (on which buses operate) can be more stressful for bicyclists and pedestrians and can make the first and the last mile access challenging. Some of the highest transit ridership in Mountain View occurs along El Camino Real, which is not a comfortable environment for many pedestrians or bicyclists, has long block lengths and crossings, and sees a higher concentration of crashes (Figure 31).

Figure 30 Mountain View Transit Center as a Destination

Community members identified the Mountain View
Transit Center as a favorite destination to walk, bike, or roll to.
1053
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 44
Figure 31 Transit Ridership and Bicycle Access
1054
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 45
Figure 32 Transit Ridership and Pedestrian Access
1055
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 46

5. SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY
In 2021, the Mountain View City Council established a goal to “protect and enhance local ecosystems and biodiversity through rewilding and other measures” as part of their Sustainability & Climate Resiliency strategic priority. The City is now undertaking a biodiversity strategy to enhance the health of local ecosystems and prevent species loss through a multi-pronged approach. One element of this approach is planning for active transportation networks that double as wildlife corridors to preserve biodiversity assets, create new spaces for local native plants, and support local ecosystems.

Defining Biodiversity
Biodiversity refers to the variety of living organisms on Earth.

California and the Bay Area are global biodiversity hotspots because they contain a high number of native species including plants, animals, birds, bacteria, fungi and insects that are found nowhere else in the world! These species do not just live in wilderness areas a long way away from cities; they also include native plants that grow (or could grow) along public streets, trails and parks, as well as the birds, insects and other living organisms that depend upon these plants.

Native plants evolved to thrive in the soils, moisture and changing weather conditions of this region. They therefore require less supplemental watering and pest control than many non-native species and may not perform well with watering regimes designed for other species.

Additionally, native species coevolved to have specific symbiotic relationships with other living organisms. For example, dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta) is the primary host plant to the endangered Bay Checkerspot Butterfly; showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) is a host plant for the Monarch Butterfly; and Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) is a keystone species which serves many other species within the ecosystem.

In areas like Mountain View, a loss of biodiversity is associated with many factors including habitat destruction, degradation or fragmentation for development, introduction of invasive species, non-native species, monoculture, pollution, biocides, and climate change. Loss of biodiversity can result in extirpation or even extinction of species, which can have cascading effects on the wider ecosystem.

Defining Green Streets
Green Streets are streets that provide space for natural elements to support biodiversity, incorporate sustainable stormwater strategies, slow motor vehicle traffic, and prioritize active transportation modes (biking, walking, rolling) for people of all ages and abilities. Green streets are a holistic approach that combines active transportation, biodiversity promotion, and green infrastructure development.
1056
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 47
Green Streets = Active Transportation + Biodiversity + Green Infrastructure.

Green streets are an important component within the active transportation system and can provide access to recreation, nature and open spaces through green treatments that are integrated into the street. They present a unique opportunity to support Mountain View’s sustainability and biodiversity goals by providing space for natural systems to thrive within the public right-of-way. Green streets influence how people use the street, often slowing motor vehicle traffic and increasing the comfort of pedestrians and cyclists by creating space and incorporating natural elements into the street.

Benefits of Green Streets
Can help the city comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 3.0, which requires green stormwater infrastructure in certain transportation projects. Green streets support active transportation by creating healthy settings where people want to walk and bike, fostering social connections and an active lifestyle. Trees, vegetation and green stormwater infrastructure provide and complement traffic-calming efforts, contributing to safer streets by slowing vehicular traffic. Green street features make public spaces more attractive and comfortable for people through shade, heat absorption, visual vibrancy and clear local identity. Street trees and impermeable surfaces reduce heat island effects, making streets cooler and safer during heat events, and mitigating impacts of climate change. Green stormwater infrastructure and plants manage stormwater by increasing pervious surfaces, reducing, slowing and treating runoff, and improving water quality. Green streets enhance air quality by filtering out pollutants. Green streets with native species provide habitat corridors that support survival of native plants, pollinators and ecosystems in this region which is a biodiversity hotspot.

Challenges of Green Streets
Green streets also come with potential challenges, which can be reduced or eliminated by selecting the right tree for the right place and by timely, species-appropriate maintenance.

The following potential challenges should be considered when designing a green street. Tree roots can uplift sidewalks, creating uneven walking surfaces. Property owners may incur costs related to planting strip maintenance and care. Certain trees and plants may be perceived as messier than others, dropping leaves, nuts, and fruits on the ground.
Plants may trigger seasonal allergies especially when only male trees or plants are planted in order to avoid seeds, pods and fruit.
Trees can be susceptible to storm damage, dropping debris and limbs, or falling over completely during large storm events.
1057
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 48
Trees and large shrubs can encroach on sightlines if not properly placed.

Below is a quick reference to the benefits and challenges of green streets.

Table 8 Green Streets Benefits and Challenges
Benefits Challenges
Encourages walking and biking Roots can uplift sidewalks.

Fosters social connections and community Can incur cost to the property owner Enhances air quality, filters air pollutants Can produce debris such as leaves, nuts, fruit Reduces temperatures, keeps streets cool Requires maintenance Reduces stormwater runoff and water pollution Can exacerbate seasonal allergies Slows vehicles, calms traffic calming Can result in property damage if limbs fall Increases property values for property owners Can reduce visibility in right of way Provides habitat for wildlife and pollinators
Provides beauty, seasonal interest, mental
health benefits

Helps conserve energy
Supports compliance with MRP 3.0
Mountain View’s Urban Forest
Trees are a valuable community resource and an essential component of civic infrastructure.

The City of Mountain View has been committed to preserving and enhancing its urban forest since 1960 when the City Council established tree care services.

Commitment to the Urban Forest
The City of Mountain View boasts a history of dedication to preserving and enhancing its urban forest, spanning several decades. This commitment is evidenced by a series of pivotal milestones:
1961 - Enactment of the Street Tree Ordinance
1975 - Adoption of the Heritage Tree Ordinance
1983 - Introduction of the First Street Tree Policy and Reforestation Plan 1993 - Establishment of the Urban Forestry Management Plan 2001 - Recognition of Mountain View as a Tree City USA 2013-2015 - City Council goals to improve the urban forest and preserve habitat 2015 - Launch of the Community Tree Master Plan (CTMP) 2021-2023, 2023-2025 - City Council Strategic Priority to develop a Biodiversity Strategy
1058
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 49
2022 - Revision of the Tree Technical Manual
2026 - Adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Forest Plan Tree Coverage
According to the 2022 revised Tree Technical Manual, Mountain View’s existing urban forest covers 17.7 percent of the city with tree canopy. To put this in context, this coverage is slightly higher than the California urban area average of 15 percent (according to the USDA Forest Service) and approximately 50 percent lower than adjacent communities directly to the north of Mountain View.

A higher percentage of tree coverage brings substantial benefits, such as filtering out air pollution, reducing stormwater runoff, reducing water pollution, sequestering carbon, reducing urban heat island effects, reducing health risks associated with heat events, contributing to mental and physical health, and increasing climate resilience. In Mountain View, the 2015 Community Tree Master Plan (CTMP) establishes a goal to increase tree coverage to 22.7 percent, representing a 28 percent or 5 percentage point increase. This increase is equivalent to planting an additional 11,000 trees citywide. 1059
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 50
Figure 33 Tree Canopy Coverage
1060
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 51
Street Trees in Mountain View
Mountain View has over 28,000 public trees, which enhance the City’s natural beauty and provide shade and clean air. These trees are cataloged in the City’s Urban Forest GIS database, encompassing attributes such as common name, species, tree group (deciduous, evergreen, palm), trunk diameter, circumference, planting type (the type of public land where the tree was planted), heritage designation, and ownership and maintenance data. According to the Tree Technical Manual, a significant portion of all urban trees–approximately 25%–line city streets. As shown in Figure 39, approximately 2/3 of public trees are found in planting strips, which represent an opportunity for additional community trees.

Figure 34 Public Tree Planting Types
In addition to efforts to increase permeable space and reduce the use of biocides, Mountain View’s commitment to biodiversity requires a shift away from monocultural planting, which is more susceptible to diseases, and a focus on native plant species needed to support local pollinators and ecosystems.

In relation to monoculture, the City has 237 unique species of street trees, ranging from large shade trees to small ornamental trees, palms, to evergreens. While this seems like a lot of species, there are 6,000 species endemic to California. Historically, the City planted a single tree species along each street to create a unified aesthetic for the neighborhood. Single species planting creates vulnerabilities for plant health, and the City is shifting away from this type of monocultural planting.

In relation to the focus on native species, Figure 39 lists the top 10 most common street trees found in Mountain View. Of this list, Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) is native to California. The City has shifted toward native species for plant lists. 1061
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 52
Figure 35 Mountain View's Top 10 Street Trees
Heritage Trees
The city has designated 9,297 community trees as heritage trees, and 7,332 are street trees. A “Heritage Tree” is defined as any tree that has a trunk circumference of 48 inches or more measured at fifty-four inches (54”) above grade. Three genera, oak (Quercus), redwood (Sequoia), and cedar (Cedrus), are considered Heritage if they have a circumference of 12 inches or more.

Figure 36 Street Tree Count by Type
1062
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 53
Figure 37 Heritage Trees
1063
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 54
Street Tree Planting and the Urban Forest
The City of Mountain View has made considerable effort in planting and nurturing an urban forest of over 230 tree species.

Like many Cities in California, however, most tree and shrub species planted along City streets are non-native species. All street trees provide important shade, cooling, stormwater, water pollution reduction, and air purification services. However, non-native trees and shrubs like London Plane trees, Chinese Pistache, and Ginkgo do not provide the critical biodiversity and habitat benefits of local native species like Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, Arroyo Willow, California Laurel, California Buckeye, and Box Elder.

Street tree planting sites represent a significant opportunity for increasing the City’s canopy cover and increasing the proportion of local native species. According to the CTMP, street tree planting sites account for 92 percent of vacant planting sites in the City (see Figure 42 ).

Strengthening the City’s street tree presence and increasing the proportion of native species can allow the city to reach its goal of increasing tree coverage and enhancing biodiversity.

Figure 38 Vacant Planting sites by location
Development Review
The City has a role in maintaining or increasing tree planting and canopy coverage along active transportation networks as part of the development entitlement process. Requirements for developers to preserve or plant trees affect the comfort and amenity of pedestrian facilities in Mountain View as well as the potential for transportation networks to contribute to broader environmental goals.

Development projects are reviewed by City staff relative to approved and posted standards and plans such as:
1064
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 55
Mountain View City Code (MVCC) sections such as MVCC Chapter 36 on Zoning, which outlines specifications such as lot coverage, setback and floor-area-ratio (FAR); Precise Plans such as the North Bayshore Precise Plan, which outlines requirements related to a Habitat Overlay Zone, and
2019 Standard Provisions and Details, which outline details such as sidewalk width, lane widths and visibility triangles at driveways and corners.

Standards and regulations such as those listed above provide clarity for developers and also have implications for achieving goals related to active transportation, green streets and biodiversity. For example, Mountain View design standards for redevelopment of existing sites typically result in a consolidation and reduction in the number of driveways for most land uses especially on large transportation corridors, which can increase the area for green stormwater infrastructure, landscaping and street trees.

Street Tree Planting Types
Over the years, the city has successfully planted public trees along streets, including plantings in tree wells, planting strips, medians, parking spaces, and cul-de-sacs, each offering unique challenges and opportunities. Based on the City’s Urban Forest GIS Data, existing street tree planting locations in Mountain View are categorized by the following type of planting:
x Planting Strips (67%)
x Parks (16%)
x Medians (12%)
x Tree Wells (5%)
While the city’s data categorizes planting locations into four primary groups, this Existing Conditions report delves deeper into trees planted within the public right-of-way, differentiating planting types into eight categories. A brief explanation of each planting type is provided after Figure 40 including the associated challenges and opportunities.

1. Planting Strip - Detached Sidewalks and Curb Extension

2. Planting Strip - Attached Sidewalks

3. Medians

4. Protected Intersections and Bikeways (Class IV)

5. Cul-de-sac

6. Tree Wells - Sidewalk

7. Tree Wells - Parking

8. Phased Greening
1065
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 56
Figure 39 Public Tree Planting by Type 9.
1066
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 57

1. Planting Strip - Detached Sidewalks and Curb Extensions Planting strips located between the street and sidewalk along the roadway and at the intersection, provide space for planting vegetation along a road. Depending on their width, they can accommodate plants from towering shade trees to low-lying perennials. These strips physically distance sidewalks from vehicular lanes, narrowing the roadway with trees that create a sense of enclosure, which can help slow traffic and improve safety and comfort for all users.

Challenges: The city maintains designated street trees; all other plant material in the planting strip is the adjacent property owner's responsibility. Overgrown vegetation may impede narrow sidewalks. Plants in curb extensions and within sight triangles should be carefully chosen and placed to maintain visibility.

Opportunities: Detached sidewalks and planted curb extensions foster safe and more comfortable pedestrian environments in residential neighborhoods. They provide shade for pedestrians, create a buffer from traffic, slowing traffic, enhancing road safety and encouraging more walking trips.

Figure 40 Examples of Planting Strips with Detached Sidewalks Top: Morgan Street, Middle: Middlefield Road, Bottom: Oxnard, California, Source Dan Burden BikePedImages.org
1067
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 58

2. Planting Strip - Attached Sidewalks
Planting strips between sidewalks and private property often act as buffers between the street and parking lots, buildings, or other private spaces, offering a protective boundary between public and private spaces.

Challenges: Planting strips with attached sidewalks do not provide separation between the street and the sidewalk as detached sidewalks do. Overgrown vegetation may impede narrow sidewalks.

Opportunities: Planting areas along sidewalks creates a sense of enclosure, making pedestrians feel more comfortable and less exposed. Consideration can be given to providing additional space for greening the street.

Figure 41 Examples of Planting Strips with Attached Sidewalks Left: Morse Avenue, Center: Central Expressway, Right: San Ramon Avenue

3. Medians
Street medians present opportunities for green street elements like trees and vegetation in the center of the roadway. Some large roads, like Central Expressway and West Middlefield Road, have expansive median plantings.

Challenges: Medians may be difficult to maintain due to their location in the middle of the street. They also do not provide the same sense of enclosure, shade, or roadway benefits as planting strips.

Opportunities: Expanding green street treatments in medians along larger roads can help to reduce vehicle speeds, infuse vibrancy, and contribute to climate and tree canopy goals.

Top: Central Expressway, Bottom: El Camino Real
Figure 42 Examples of
Median Plantings
1068
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 59

4. Protected Intersections and Bikeways (Class IV)
The space between the bike lane and the motor vehicle travel lane, also called the protective buffer, presents opportunities for green street elements, including trees, vegetation, and bioswales. Protected intersections provide space for low-lying green treatments at the corner island.

Challenges: Protective buffer areas require available roadway space and can increase costs for plant maintenance. Other challenges include plant encroachment upon the bike lane, including tree branches. Low-lying plants should be used in protected intersection corner islands to maintain visibility.

Opportunities: Opportunities include expanding green street treatments to reduce vehicle speeds, infuse vibrancy, contribute to climate and tree canopy goals, and create separation between the bikeway and motor vehicles, thereby increasing comfort and safety for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

Top Left: Charleston Avenue, Top Right: Shoreline Boulevard at Charleston Avenue, Bottom: Charleston Avenue
Figure 43 Examples of Protected Intersections and Bikeways 1069
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 60

5. Cul-de-sac
Some residential neighborhoods incorporate planting space in the centers of cul-de-sacs and small intersections, introducing greenery and expanding the tree canopy over paved areas.

These planting spaces break up expanses of pavement and help maintain slower vehicular speeds. This unique Mountain View example of planting location can serve as a model for other cities.

Challenges: Limited planting area and possibly limited neighborhood support. Difficult establishment period after planting due to limited irrigation.

Opportunities: Transform traditionally non-green cul-de-sacs into lush green spaces. Serve as a model for other cities, with minimal impact on traffic flow.

Figure 44 Examples of Cul-de-Sac Plantings
Left: Damian Way, Right: Hedgerow Court

6. Tree Well – Sidewalk
Tree wells provide planting space within paved areas and are often used in urban settings like downtown areas. Tree wells can be open or covered with tree grates and are typically integrated with sidewalks.

Challenges: Limited planting areas reduce soil volume and room for water infiltration and root growth. Few tree species are well suited for these conditions, so choices can be limited, depending on the size of the planting space.

Opportunities: Plantings in tree wells help increase tree canopy in high-activity areas and create a human-scaled environment and sense of enclosure with trees on both sides of the street.
1070
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 61
Left: Moffett Boulevard Middle: West Evelyn Avenue Right: Bryant Street

7. Tree Well - Parking Space
Tree wells can also be situated within parking spaces along streets.

Challenges: Tree wells in parking areas may reduce the number of parking spaces and increase the difficulty of changing the roadway layout later.

Opportunities: Tree wells in parking areas provide an innovative way to boost tree canopy on streets without impacting sidewalks. This prioritizes walking space and aligns with climate goals by promoting mode shift and reducing car dependency.

Left: Castro Street, Right: Castro Street

8. Phased Greening
Temporary planters and parklets have gained prominence as strategies to increase greenery and placemaking along streets, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic when cities opened streets for people and closed them for cars. These serve as valuable tools for piloting ideas and can offer interim planting spaces.

Figure 45 Examples of Tree Wells
Figure 46 Examples of Tree Wells in a Parking Space
1071
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 62
Challenges: Existing infrastructure may pose an obstacle to temporary planters and parklets, and parking may be limited.

Opportunities: These strategies provide short-term opportunities to enhance the vibrancy and comfort of the street. Strategic placement can leverage existing planting spaces.

Left: Castro Street (east side), Right: Castro Street (west side) Impervious Surface Cover
Impervious surfaces include concrete and asphalt surfaces, roofs, and other hard materials that do not allow water to soak into the ground. In contrast, porous surfaces, like gardens and other unpaved areas, allow water to soak into the ground. As cities grow, they tend to have more impervious surfaces in the form of roads, parking lots, and buildings. Impervious surfaces are associated with more stormwater runoff, flood risk and water pollution, and higher surface temperatures. Trees and other vegetation can make a positive difference in areas filled with impervious surfaces by soaking up rainwater and cooling down the surroundings.

In Mountain View, different neighborhoods have varying percentages of impervious surfaces, as seen in the Figure 48. More impervious surfaces mean higher surface temperatures and more stormwater runoff.

Figure 47 Examples of Phased Greening
1072
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 63
Neighborhood
Average
Impervious
Surface
Percentage
Rex Manor 46%
Waverly Park 50%
Blossom Valley 51%
Martens-Carmelita 52%
Cuesta Park 53%
Old Mountain View 55%
North Whisman 58%
Willowgate &
Jackson Park 58%
Stierlin Estates 60%
Cuernavaca 60%
Shoreline West 61%
Slater 63%
Whisman Station 63%
Monta Loma 65%
Sylvan Park 67%
Gamelo & St.

Francis
67%
Castro City & The
Crossings
68%
Figure 48 Percentage of Impervious Surfaces (Map and Table) 1073
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 64

6. CODE REVIEW
As part of the MVATP, a review was conducted of existing City documents and codes that set policy and criteria that determine the final form of the built environment. The Code Review included:
2002 Standard Design Criteria (SDC)
2019 Standard Provisions and Standard Details (SP&D)
Mountain View City Code
The findings from this code review can be used as a starting point for updating the City’s standards. Mountain View’s FY2627 Recommended Budget includes Project 27-27, Mountain View Standards Update. The project will update current standard details for street widths (including lane widths), sidewalks and landscape strip widths, bike lane widths, and drop off duckouts and GSI in landscape strips.
the City may consider updating the following codes and standards to better support bicyclists and pedestrians:

Table 9: Code Review Summary
2002 Standard Design Criteria
Item Notes
Chapter 7 - Street Lighting
Section 3.5 Curb, Gutters, Sidewalk and Driveways
x Section 3.5.1 - commercial driveways
x Section 3.5.2 curb radius
Commercial driveway maximum
width 35 ft
Curb return minimum radius 30
ft
Chapter 7 - Street Lighting
2019 Standard Provisions and Standard Details
Item Notes
Chapter 36 Street Trees
Standard Detail E-11 Traffic Signal Detector Loops Provides details for in-ground detector loops
Standard Details A-1 through A-9 Sidewalk and
street cross-sections
Define typical street cross-sections and driveway details 1074
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 65
Curb Ramp Details Mountain View refers to
Caltrans Standards
Standard Details A-22 Side Street/Driveway
Pedestrian and Vehicle Triangle of Safety
Defines vehicular and
pedestrian triangle of safety for
high volume, low volume,
residential, and commercial
driveways
City Code
Item Notes
Section 36.22.50 Required Number of Parking
Spaces, Bicycle Parking
Section 36.32.85 Bicycle parking facilities
Provision of bike parking is a
function of vehicle parking
Details bicycle parking design
standards
1075
Attachment 2
1 Active Transportation Plan – April-May 2026 Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Council Transportation Committee and Community Feedback Summary of Feedback Themes and Plan Revisions
08-27-2026
As part of the public engagement process for the review of the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP), the project team presented the draft document in a series of meetings including:
• Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on April 29, 2026 • Public Workshop on May 4, 2026
• Council Transportation Committee (CTC) on June 16, 2026 The draft MVATP was available for public review from April 20, 2026 through May 18, 2026.

During the public review period, staff met with community members and received written input through the project website and by email. During the BPAC and CTC meetings, members offered positive feedback on the plan’s thoroughness and readability and recommended additions to the recommended policies and programs.

The key themes raised by BPAC, CTC, and community members were:
• Request the Final Plan be reviewed by BPAC and CTC prior to bringing to City Council • Strengthen the Programs and Policies section by referencing adopted local plans and explaining how the MVATP will coordinate with them
• More focus on pedestrian improvements in MVATP
• Greater consistency across sections of the plan
• Better highlight the MVATP’s role in advancing sustainability • Add performance metrics, defined outcomes (such as safety, mode shift, and comfort), and better multimodal data collection
This attachment summarizes the key themes raised by BPAC, CTC, and community members, and identifies where and how those themes have been addressed in the Final Plan. 1076
Attachment 2
2 Feedback Theme How Addressed
Request for additional round
of review of the updated plan
by BPAC and CTC
• Staff will present the Final Plan to BPAC and CTC in August 2026, requesting the committees recommend the MVATP
for approval.

Strengthen the Programs and
Policies section by referencing
adopted local plans and
explaining how the MVATP
will coordinate with them
• Referenced the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Roadway Safety Plan, Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan in Executive Summary, “Committing to a Safe and Active Community” (page x)
• Added sentence noting that “The MVATP actions
complement related actions in other city planning efforts, including….” in Introduction, “Why Does This Plan Matter and How Will It be Used?” (page 10)
• Added a reference to the Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safey Plan in Chapter 3, “Policy and Program
Recommendations” (page 48)
• Added the following policies:
o Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best
Practices (page 48)
o Upgrade Pedestrian Signals to Accessible Pedestrian
Signals (page 49)
o Managing and Enforcing the Transportation System
of All Road Users (page 51)
o Develop Key Performance Indicators to Measure
Active Transportation Progress (page 54)
• Added callout boxes providing additional detail on several policies and programs to Chapter 3, including: Updated
Design Standards (page 48), Greening/Tree Canopy (page
50), Managing and Enforcing the Transportation System
(page 51), Transportation Demand Management (page 53),
and Social Walks/Rides (page 54).
• Added a new appendix listing the non-infrastructure
recommendations from the Vision Zero Action Plan/Local
Road Safety Plan, Appendix D.
1077
Attachment 2
3 Feedback Theme How Addressed
More focus on pedestrian
improvements in MVATP
• Updated Prioritization Map to show priority intersection projects in addition to linear sidewalk and bikeway projects (pages xi, 47)
• Added a paragraph to call-out “What is a Paseo?” in Existing Conditions, page 19
• Revised “Holistic Pedestrian Map” to better show the
proposed crossing improvements, Chapter 2 (page 34)
• Expanded the project description for El Camino Real
improvements to include pedestrian improvements, Chapter 3, “What’s Working” (page 38)
• Expanded description of prioritization process to clarify that projects include bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
Chapter 3, “Scoring and Prioritizing Infrastructure Projects”, (pages 40-41)
• Added bicycle and pedestrian icons to “Table 6, MVATP Identified Priority Projects,” Chapter 3, (page 45-46)
• Added Upgrade Pedestrian Signals to Accessible Pedestrian Signals in Chapter 3, “Table 7: List of Recommended Policies and Programs” (page 49)
1078
Attachment 2
4 Greater consistency across
sections of the plan
• Reviewed the recommended improvements and project
cutsheets to confirm consistency across Plan sections.

Revisions to Appendix B: Cutsheet Development are listed below:
• Whisman Road (Dana to Fairchild)
o Changed the Resurfacing narrative to match the
cross-section graphic
• Latham Street (Showers to Escuela)
o Revised the Reconstruction narrative to note that
“Sidewalk widening will be explored for the entire
length and determined based on space available and
ADA needs. Mature trees are intended to remain
with the proposed improvements.”
o Added note to all maps that show sidewalk widening
that widening “May consist of spot widening.” (page
xi, page 34, page 47)
• Latham/Church Street (Escuela to Castro)
o Revised the Reconstruction narrative to note that
“Sidewalk widening will be explored for the entire
length and determined based on space available and
ADA needs. Mature trees are intended to remain
with the proposed improvements.”
o Added note to all maps that show sidewalk widening
that widening “May consist of spot widening.” (page
xi, page 34, page 47)
• Rengstorff Avenue (Leghorn to Garcia)
o Revised Reconstruction narrative to note that the
project “coordinates with the VTA-led 101/San
Antonio/Rengstorff Interchange Improvement
project, which will improve crossings at US-101
ramps.”
• Dana Street (Bush to Moorpark)
o Changed the Resurfacing narrative to match the
cross-section graphic
• Dana Street (Bush to Moorpark)
o Changed the Resurfacing narrative to match the
cross-section graphic
Continued….
1079
Attachment 2
5 Feedback Theme How Addressed
• Evelyn Avenue (Bush to Bernardo)
o Added reference to Sunnyvale’s project to construct
a Class I shared use path on the north side of Evelyn
to the Existing narrative.
• Sylvan Avenue/The Americana (Moorpark to Continental) o Changed the Resurfacing narrative to match the
cross-section graphic
o Added a note that “Cross-section shows the most
constrained section. South of Dana St, parking on
one side can be retained with this option.”
Better highlight the MVATP’s
role in advancing
sustainability
• Referenced the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan in:
o Executive Summary, “Committing to a Safe and
Active Community” (page x)
o Introduction, “Purpose and Process” (page 1)
o Introduction, “Why Does this Plan Matter and How
Will It Be Used?” (page 10)
• Expanded language in Chapter 2, “Plantable Space” (page 31)
• Added callout box providing additional detail on
Greening/Tree Canopy and how the MVATP and Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan are complementary in “Policy and
Program Recommendations,” Chapter 3, (page 50)
Add performance metrics,
defined outcomes (such as
safety, mode shift, and
comfort), and better
multimodal data collection
• In Chapter 3, Policy and Program Recommendations section, added policy to develop key performance indicators,
measure them, report annually (page 54)
1080
Attachment 3
1 of 5

REQUESTED CHANGES AND HOW ADDRESSED IN FINAL MVATP
Staff presented the Draft Final Mountain View Active Transportation Plan to the CTC on August 31, 2026, with a list of staff-recommended modifications. The CTC voted to recommend the plan for adoption to the City Council with the staff recommended modifications and additional changes. Table 1 lists requested changes and how they were addressed in the Final MVATP being presented to City Council.

Table 1: Requested Changes and How Addressed in Final MVATP Change Source How Addressed in Final MVATP
Edits to text and photos to
further emphasize pedestrians.

BPAC Replaced photo on title page for Chapter 1.

Changed the intersections in Table 6 to
read "protected and enhanced."
Added language in Table 7, Updated Design
Standards recommendation, to clarify that
all ages and ability applies to both
pedestrians and bicycles.

Clarification that delivery bots do
not currently use city sidewalks.

BPAC In Chapter 3, pg 50 call-out “Managing and
Enforcing the Transportation System of All
Road Users” description, removed
reference to delivery bots currently sharing
sidewalks and added sentence noting
policies can mitigate negative impacts of
emerging technologies such as delivery
bots.
1081
2 of 5
Change Source How Addressed in Final MVATP
Addition of language
recommending small-scale
construction projects that
support safety.

BPAC Added paragraph “Smaller-Scale Safety
Improvements” in Chapter 4, pg 61.

Noting that the intersections of El
Camino Real with Rengstorff and
Showers should be included in
future projects and planning.

BPAC Changed Holistic Pedestrian Network Map
and MVATP Priority Projects Map to show
ECR/Rengstorff and ECR/Showers as
intersections where city will coordinate
with other jurisdictions to make
improvements.

Added similar note to Appendix C,
“Recommended Improvements -
Crossings.”
Add Los Altos schools to maps. BPAC Added schools to all maps within the main body of the document.

Enhance Greening/Tree Canopy
Improvements description in
Table 7
CTC Expanded Greening/Tree Canopy
Improvements policy in Table 7, pg 52 to
discuss seeking fund sources, prioritizing
near-term opportunities, and including
green infrastructure in updated standard
details.
1082
3 of 5
Change Source How Addressed in Final MVATP
Make the disclaimer more
obvious in the cut sheets in
Appendix B
CTC Adjusted the disclaimer in Appendix B.

Enhance discussion of bicycle
boulevards/slow streets in the
plan
CTC Added description of slow streets in
Chapter 2, pg 22, “Bicycle network.”
Added reference to slow streets to Figure

18. Dana Street (Bush Street to
Moorpark Way):

Change to bicycle boulevard
between Bush St and Calderon
Ave
Staff
(responding
to CTC,
public
comments,
Council
briefings)
Updated Holistic Bicycle Map and Priority
Projects Map.

Changed cut sheet description in Appendix
B to note that in resurfacing option Class IV
would be between Moorpark Way and
Pioneer Way and in reconstruction option,
west of Calderon Avenue would have
bicycle boulevard treatments.

Whisman Road (Dana Street to
Fairchild Drive)
Add to resurfacing alternative:
“Traffic study will be necessary to
evaluate feasibility.”
Staff Appendix B change made.

California Street (South Shoreline
Boulevard to Showers Drive):

Add “Final design will be
informed by results of the pilot
project evaluation.”
Staff Appendix B change made.

California Street (Shoreline
Boulevard to Bush Street): Clarify
that the resurfacing alternative –
wider class II bike lanes – only
applies west of Hope Street.

Staff Appendix B change made.
1083
4 of 5
Change Source How Addressed in Final MVATP
On all heat maps, add numbers
to the graphic scale in legend
Staff
(responding
to Council
briefings)
Numbers added to graphic scale for Figure
7, Figure 22, Figure 23.

For No right Turn on Red Policy,
add that pilot should be at
“selected locations and/or
specific times”
Staff
(responding
to Council
briefings)
Language added to Table 7, pg 48.

Table 7, Recommended Policies
and Programs, Reorganize table
to group policies as "Existing"
"Expanded" and "New". Add to
plan information on relative level
of effort required; relative cost;
existing/expanded/ new effort;
one-off item or ongoing effort.

Staff
(responding
to Council
briefings)
Added Table 8, “Recommended Policies
and Programs Level of Effort and Cost”, pg
55 Add El Camino Real (Grant Road
to City Limits) to Appendix B,
Table 1. Scored in top 20,
inadvertently omitted from table.

Staff Appendix B updated.

Add to Priority Map and Holistic
Bicycle Map and update legend
to denote as important corridors
for coordination with Caltrans:
• El Camino Real (Rengstorff
Avenue to Shoreline
Boulevard)
• El Camino Real (Grant Road to
City Limits)
Both corridors scored in top 20
but were not included in earlier
versions of the map since they
are in Caltrans right-of-way.

Staff Priority Projects Map and Holistic Bicycle
Map updated.
1084
5 of 5
Change Source How Addressed in Final MVATP
Note on maps that El Camino
Real and Central Expressway are
owned by Caltrans and County
Staff
(responding
to CTC,
Council
briefings)
All maps updated.

Show California Street and
Latham Street as priority projects
on Holistic Bicycle Map
Both corridors are priority
projects. Inadvertently omitted
from map.

Staff Holistic Bicycle Map updated.

Add paragraph discussing how
active transportation
improvements interact with
broader transportation system.

Staff
(responding
to Council
briefings)
Paragraph added to “Public Input” section,
Chapter 4, pg 73
1085
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206344, Version: 1
Annual Compensation Increases for the City Clerk and City Manager and Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Salary Plan for Regular Employees to Update the Salaries for Council Appointees Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Approving Annual Compensation Increases for the City Clerk and City Manager and Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Salary Plan for Regular Employees to Update the Salaries for Council Appointees, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™1086
DATE: September 22, 2026
CATEGORY: New Business
DEPT.: City Council
TITLE: Annual Compensation Increases for the
City Clerk and City Manager and
Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Salary
Plan for Regular Employees to Update
the Salaries for Council Appointees

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Approving Annual Compensation Increases for the City Clerk and City Manager and Amending the Fiscal Year 2026- 27 Salary Plan for Regular Employees to Update the Salaries for Council Appointees, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

BACKGROUND
Compensation for City Employees may be adjusted through:
• Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) to salary, which are typically established labor agreements negotiated with the City’s employee groups;
• Merit or step increases to salary, which are provided through individual annual performance evaluations;
• Equity adjustments to salary, which are based on labor market conditions for specific job classifications or based on salary compaction between a manager and subordinate staff; and
• Changes to other compensation and/or benefits in the total compensation package, such as deferred compensation or supplemental pays, based on negotiations, merit, or labor market justification.

For the three City officials appointed by City Council (City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager), the City Council conducts an annual evaluation and market study to determine appropriate compensation adjustments recommended for adoption at a Regular Meeting of the City Council.

The City Attorney position is currently in recruitment and, therefore, is not included in this annual evaluation process.
1087
Annual Compensation Increases for the City Clerk and City Manager and Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Salary Plan for Regular Employees to Update the Salaries for Council Appointees
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

Mountain View City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Mountain View City Council
September 22, 2026