Agenda packet — Mountain View City Council, September 22, 2026 (part 1 of 7)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND NOTICE
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 - 5:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIDEO CONFERENCE, 500
CASTRO ST., MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
Mayor Emily Ann Ramos
Vice Mayor Chris Clark
Councilmember Alison Hicks
Councilmember Ellen Kamei
Councilmember John McAlister
Councilmember Lucas Ramirez
Councilmember Pat Showalter
Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Jannie L. Quinn, Interim City
Attorney
Heather Glaser, City Clerk
Council Chambers and Video Conference, 500 Castro
St., Mountain View, CA 94041
5:00 PM Tuesday, September 22, 2026

JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL (REGULAR) AND SHORELINE REGIONAL PARK COMMUNITY (SPECIAL)
This meeting includes a virtual participation option. Members of the public wishing to address the City Council virtually may join the meeting online at https://mountainview.zoom.us/j/84351267142 or by dialing (669) 900-9128 and entering Webinar ID 843 5126 7142.

To speak during an item, click the “Raise Hand” feature in Zoom or dial *9 if participating by phone. When the Mayor calls your name, press *6 to unmute if you are joining by phone.

The City is piloting the use of an AI translation service. To access translation services during the meeting, visit https://attend.wordly.ai/join/TXDB-0388 and select your preferred language. Please note that the City of Mountain View cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated text or interpretations.

In-person interpretation services are available in Spanish and Chinese upon advance request. Requests must be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 5:00 p.m. two business days before the meeting by phone at (650) 903-6304 or by email at [email protected].

Meeting materials may also be translated upon advance request. Requests must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. two business days before the meeting by phone at (650) 903-6608 or by email at [email protected].

Esta reunión ofrece una opción de participación virtual. Los miembros del público que deseen dirigirse al Concejo Municipal de forma virtual pueden unirse a la reunión en línea a través de https://mountainview.zoom.us/j/84351267142 o llamando al (669) 900-9128 e ingresando el ID del seminario web 843 5126 7142.

Para comentar durante un punto de la agenda, utilice la función "Raise Hand" (levantar la mano) en Zoom o marque *9 si participa por teléfono. Cuando la alcaldesa mencione su nombre, presione *6 para activar el micrófono si se ha unido por teléfono.

La Ciudad está probando un servicio de traducción basado en inteligencia artificial. Para acceder a los servicios de traducción durante la reunión, visite https://attend.wordly.ai/join/TXDB-0388 y seleccione el idioma de su preferencia. Tenga en cuenta que la Ciudad de Mountain View no puede garantizar la exactitud del texto traducido ni de las interpretaciones.

Se ofrecen servicios de interpretación presencial en español y en chino, previa solicitud. Las solicitudes deben presentarse ante la Oficina de la Secretaría Municipal a más tardar a las 5:00 p. m., dos días hábiles antes de la reunión, llamando al (650) 903-6304 o enviando un correo electrónico a [email protected].

Los materiales de la reunión también pueden traducirse si se solicitan con antelación. Las solicitudes deben presentarse a más tardar a las 5:00 p. m., dos días hábiles antes de la reunión, llamando al (650) 903-6608 o enviando un correo electrónico a [email protected].
1 本次会议提供线上参会选项。希望通过线上方式向市议会发言的公众人士，可访问
https://mountainview.zoom.us/j/84351267142 或拨打 (669) 900-9128 并输入会议 ID 843 5126 7142 加入会议。
如需在会议议程中发言，请点击 Zoom 中的“举手(Raise Hand)”功能，或者如果您通过电话参会，请拨打 *9。市长叫到您的名字时，如果您是通过电话参会，请按 *6 取消静音。
市府正在试用人工智能翻译服务。如需在会议期间使用翻译服务，请访问
https://attend.wordly.ai/join/TXDB-0388 并选择您所需的语言。请注意，山景城市府无法保证翻译文本或口译的准确性。
如有需要，可提前预约西班牙语和中文的现场口译服务。会议材料翻译申请必须在会议召开前两个工作日的下午
5:00 前提交至市书记官办公室，可通过电话 (650) 903-6304 或电子邮件 [email protected] 提交。
会议材料也可通过提前申请提供翻译。翻译申请必须在会议召开前两个工作日的下午 5:00 前提交，可通过电话
(650) 903-6608 或电子邮件 [email protected] 提交。
TELECONFERENCE NOTICE:

Councilmember Pat Showalter will participate in the meeting by teleconference pursuant to Government Code §54953(b) from Sheraton Hotel Newfoundland, 115 Cavendish Square, 1st Floor Lobby, St. John’s NL A1C 3K2, Canada.

The teleconference location will be accessible to the public and the agenda for the meeting will be posted at that location pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(b)(3). Members of the public have the opportunity to address the legislative body at this location.
5:00 P.M.-CLOSED SESSION

1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION)

2. CLOSED SESSION

2.1 Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) (1 potential case): Golden State Fire Apparatus Inc., Pierce Manufacturing, Oshkosh Corporation, REV Group Inc., Rosenbauer America LLC, Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (FAMA), and Does 1-99.

2.2 Public Employee Appointment (California Government Code §54957(b)(1)) - Title of Position: City Attorney
6:30 P.M.-REGULAR SESSION

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL

2. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

3. PRESENTATIONS
These are presentations only. The City Council will not take any action.

3.1 National Arts and Humanities Month Proclamation

3.2 Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived unless a City of Mountain View Page 2 of 7 Printed on 9/17/2026
2 City Council AGENDA AND NOTICE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 - 5:00 PM Councilmember requests otherwise.

4.1 Resolution Updating the List of Designated Positions Required to File Statements of Economic Interest Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Updating the List of Designated Positions Required to File Statements of Economic Interest, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

Recommendation(s):

Council Report
ATT 1 - Resolution with Appendix A and Appendix B
Attachment(s):

4.2 Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28-Professional Services Agreement Acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, authorize the Community Manager or designee to execute a sole source professional services agreement with Tetra Tech BAS, Inc., a California corporation (Entity No. 1346576) to provide design and construction support services for Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28, in a not-to-exceed amount of $880,000, of which 100% is from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund.

Recommendation(s):

Attachment(s): Council Report

4.3 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard - Various Actions

1. Acting in its joint capacity as City Council and Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, authorize the City Manager and Community Manager, or respective designees to execute a Settlement, Limited Release and Reimbursement Agreement with Google LLC, providing reimbursement for past environmental work at the property located at 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard, in a not-to-exceed amount of $4,968,700.

2. Acting in its capacity as Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, appropriate $4,968,700 in the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund, utilizing the Site Contamination Reserve established within the Fund, for the settlement payment, of which 100% is from the Shoreline Regional Park Community.

3. Acting in its joint capacity as City Council and Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, authorize the Community Manager or designee to execute a Monitoring Reimbursement Agreement with Google LLC, for ongoing environmental monitoring, inspection and reporting at the property located at 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard, in a not-to-exceed amount of $900,000.

4. Acting in its capacity as Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, appropriate $900,000 in the Public Works Department, Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund, for the Monitoring Reimbursement Agreement, of which 100% is from the Shoreline Regional Park Community.

Recommendation(s):

City of Mountain View Page 3 of 7 Printed on 9/17/2026
3 City Council AGENDA AND NOTICE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 - 5:00 PM Attachment(s): Council Report

4.4 Addendum No. 14 to Regional Water Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement

1. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Addendum No. 14 to the Basic Agreement between the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos for authorization of:
a) Palo Alto to manage the design, construction, and implementation of the Headworks Project, Outfall Project, and Minor Capital and Emergency Projects (collectively, the “Projects”);
b) Palo Alto to manage the $31 million in costs authorized for the Projects; c) Palo Alto to obtain and administer a line of credit to fund the Projects at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant,
d) Mountain View to provide a cost-share not-to-exceed $11.7 million.

2. Appropriate $2.0 million in the Wastewater Fund within the Public Works Department for the initial cash payment for the projects described in Addendum No.

14. (Five Votes Required)
Recommendation(s):

Attachment(s): Council Report

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced to no less than 1.5 minutes. State law prohibits the Council from acting on nonagenda items.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.1 Energy Services Contract for Solar Photovoltaic Systems and Battery Energy Storage Project - Various Actions
THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2026. THIS ITEM WILL BE RE-NOTICED FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE DATE.

Recommendation(s):

6.2 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update

1. Accept the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement (“HCS”) (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

2. Introduce an Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Amending Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the Mountain View City Code to Update Standards and Procedures Related to the Recommendation(s):

City of Mountain View Page 4 of 7 Printed on 9/17/2026
4 City Council AGENDA AND NOTICE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 - 5:00 PM Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources and Finding that the Amendments Are Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for October 13, 2026 (Attachment 2 to the Council report).

3. Introduce an Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Amending the Zoning Map to Exclude Properties Designated on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Prior to January 1, 2025 from Government Code Section 65912.157 (Senate Bill 79) and Finding that the Amendments Are Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for October 13, 2026 (Attachment 3 to the Council report).

4. Refer consideration of a draft Council Policy to implement the incentives and benefits available to historic resources to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee.

5. Provide direction to staff regarding properties to exclude or delist from the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, for adoption at a later public hearing.

Council Report
ATT 1 - Historic Context Statement
ATT 2 - Zoning Code Amendment Ordinance
ATT 3 - Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance
ATT 4 - Current Historic Preservation Ordinance
ATT 5 - Existing Register
ATT 6 - Historic Preservation Ordinance Project Chronology ATT 7 - Public Comments
ATT 8 - Poll Results
ATT 9 - Eligible Resources DPR Forms
ATT 10 - List of Eligible Resources
Attachment(s):

7. NEW BUSINESS

7.1 Active Transportation Plan Adoption
Recommendation(s): Adopt the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan.

City of Mountain View Page 5 of 7 Printed on 9/17/2026
5 City Council AGENDA AND NOTICE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 - 5:00 PM Council Report
ATT 1 - Active Transportation Plan and Appendices
ATT 2 - Response to Comments on Public Review Draft Plan ATT 3 - Changes Requested and How Addressed
Attachment(s):

7.2 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).

Recommendation(s):

Council Report
ATT 1 - Resolution
Attachment(s):

8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS
No action will be taken on any questions raised by the Council at this time.

9. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC:

There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting.

The agenda, reports, and any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda are posted at https://mountainview.legistar.com under the meeting details for the date of this meeting. The agenda may also be viewed at City Hall, 500 Castro Street, the City Clerk's Office, 500 Castro Street, Third Floor and at the Mountain View Library, 585 Franklin Street, beginning the Friday morning prior to Tuesday City Council meetings. Printed copies of the agenda, reports, and any writings or documents already provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda may be requested at the City Clerk's Office during normal business hours.

The Council may consider and act on items listed on the agenda in any order and thus those interested in an item listed on the agenda are advised to be present throughout the meeting. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived unless a Councilmember requests otherwise. Per Council Policy A-13, no new items of business will begin after 10:00 p.m. unless an exception is made by vote of the Council.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (650) 903-6399 or by email at [email protected] 48 hours prior to the meeting so the City can make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.160 (b) (1)). If you have a hearing or speech disability, please use the California Relay System at 711, TDD 650-967-0158 or 800-735-2929.

The City of Mountain View does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, source of income, gender, gender expression or identity, or any other State or Federal protected class in any of its policies, procedures or practices. This nondiscrimination policy covers admission and access to, or treatment or employment in, the City of Mountain View programs and activities. For inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy, please contact the City's Section 504 Coordinator at [email protected] or 650-903-6397.

Computer-generated captioning of the City Council meeting is unedited and should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.

City of Mountain View Page 6 of 7 Printed on 9/17/2026
6 City Council AGENDA AND NOTICE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 - 5:00 PM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL:

Email comments to [email protected] by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails will be received directly by the City Council. Please identify the Agenda item number in the subject line of your email. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a Council meeting should be directed to [email protected] by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date.

Anyone wishing to address the Council in person must complete a blue speaker card indicating the name you would like to be called by when it is your turn to speak and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one blue speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak. Virtual and in-person speakers will be called in order as determined by the Mayor.

Pursuant to Council Policy A-13, an individual speaker shall have up to 3 minutes to address the Council. For any agenda item or for Oral Communications on nonagenda items, if there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce speaking time to no less than 1.5 minutes per speaker unless there is an objection from Council by majority vote.

If requested in advance of the public input portion of the agenda item to the Mayor or City Clerk, a speaker who represents five or more members of the public in attendance who complete cards but elect not to speak may have up to 10 minutes to address the Council, if the Mayor determines that such extension will reduce the total number of speakers who planned to speak.

An applicant and/or appellant for a zone change, precise plan or quasi-judicial hearing or appeal to the Council shall have up to 10 minutes to address the Council and, with the consent of the Council, two minutes of rebuttal at the conclusion of all public speakers.

The presiding officer may remove or cause the removal of any individual(s) for disrupting a meeting in accordance with California Government Code section 54957.95, as may be amended from time to time. In accordance with California Government Code section 54957.9, as may be amended from time to time, the Council may order a meeting room cleared and continue in session in the event a meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are disrupting the meeting.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(b)(1), at least twice the allotted speaking time will be provided to a member of the public who utilizes a translator.

City of Mountain View Page 7 of 7 Printed on 9/17/2026
7 City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206374, Version: 1
Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) (1 potential case): Golden State Fire Apparatus Inc., Pierce Manufacturing, Oshkosh Corporation, REV Group Inc., Rosenbauer America LLC, Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (FAMA), and Does 1-99.

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 8
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206309, Version: 1
Public Employee Appointment (California Government Code §54957(b)(1)) - Title of Position: City Attorney City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 9
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 205907, Version: 1
National Arts and Humanities Month Proclamation
City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 10
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206323, Version: 1
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation
City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 11
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206286, Version: 1
Resolution Updating the List of Designated Positions Required to File Statements of Economic Interest Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Updating the List of Designated Positions Required to File Statements of Economic Interest, 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™ 12
DATE: September 22, 2026
CATEGORY: Consent
DEPT.: City Attorney’s Office,
Human Resources
TITLE: Resolution Updating the List of
Designated Positions Required to File
Statements of Economic Interest

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Updating the List of Designated Positions Required to File Statements of Economic Interest, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

BACKGROUND
Under the California Political Reform Act, the City is required to designate employees and officials whose positions involve decision-making or participation in decision-making that may affect economic interests of the official or employee. Once designated, the individual occupying the position is required to make certain disclosures in a Statement of Economic Interest (“SEI”) regarding their sources of income, investments, interest in real properties, and any business positions held outside of their employment with the City, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Government Code Section 87200 specifically requires the following positions to file SEI forms:
mayors, city councilmembers, planning commissioners, city managers, city attorneys, city treasurers, and other public officials who manage public investments. State law further requires local agencies to designate additional positions that may have potential conflicts of interest and also place those positions on the list. State law requires that local agencies update this list of designated positions biennially.

ANALYSIS
The attached list (Exhibit A to the Resolution), designated as Appendix A to the City of Mountain View Conflict of Interest Code, notes the positions and officials who are required to file an SEI form. It reflects the addition, elimination, renaming, reclassification, and new designation of positions and officials in the City.
13 Resolution Updating the List of Designated Positions Required to File Statements of Economic Interest
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

The following positions were created after the previous list of designated positions was approved: Assistant Human Resources Director, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, and Principal Housing Officer. Not all of these new positions are currently filled.

The following position titles have been changed or the positions were reclassified: Advanced Planning Manager to Planning Manager, and Development Services Coordinator to Permit Center Coordinator.

The Transportation Planner position has been reclassified due to an organizational structure change, resulting in two new positions: Chief Transportation Officer and Senior Transportation Planner.

The proposed amendments update the City’s list and the disclosure categories shown indicate the scope of financial disclosures which must be made by the individuals in particular positions.

Appendix B to the City of Mountain View Conflict of Interest Code (Exhibit B to the Resolution) identifies the disclosure categories.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

CONCLUSION
In accordance with the requirements of the California Political Reform Act, the Conflict of Interest Code should be updated to include the current positions and officials required to complete a Statement of Economic Interest form.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt a resolution updating the list of designated positions. 14 Resolution Updating the List of Designated Positions Required to File Statements of Economic Interest
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 3 ends

PUBLIC NOTICING—Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Jannie Quinn
Interim City Attorney
Jameson Knittel
Human Resources Analyst II
Approved by:

Maxine Gullo
Human Resources Director
Arn Andrews
Assistant City Manager
Attachment: 1. Resolution with Appendix A and Appendix B 15 Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

UPDATING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS

REQUIRED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF ECONOMIC INTEREST
WHEREAS, under State law, the City of Mountain View is required to adopt a list of specified positions, which involve decision-making or the exercise of discretion to make certain disclosures regarding their sources of income, such as investments, interest in real properties, and any business positions held outside of their employment with the City, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is appropriate to amend Appendix A, the list of designated positions, to reflect the addition, elimination, renaming, reclassification, and new designation of positions and officials in the City, in order to bring the City’s Conflict of Interest Code up to date for those positions and officials required to file a Statement of Economic Interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Appendix A, the list of designated positions required to file financial disclosure statements, and Appendix B, identifying the disclosure categories, shall be amended to reflect the changes noted on Appendix A and Appendix B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Exhibits: A. Appendix A: Updated List of Designated Positions B. 2024 List of Designated Positions (red-line to reflect update) C. Appendix B: Disclosure Categories
16 Exhibit A

Page 1 of 4 ends

Appendix A

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
2026

LIST OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Designated Positions Disclosure Category
Accounting Manager 3
Affordable Housing Manager 1
Assistant Building Inspector 3
Assistant City Attorney 1
Assistant City Clerk 1
Assistant City Manager 1
Assistant Community Development Director 1
Assistant Community Services Director 1
Assistant Finance and Administrative Services Director
Assistant Human Resources Director
1 1
Assistant Information Technology Director 2
Assistant Library Director 3
Assistant Public Works Director—Engineering 1
Assistant Public Works Director—Public Services 1
Assistant Public Works Director—Transportation and Business Services 1 Assistant to the City Manager 1
Battalion Chief 3
Building Inspector I/II 3
Chief Building Official 3
Chief Communications Officer 1
Chief Sustainability and Resilience Officer
Chief Transportation Officer
1 1
City Attorney 1
City Clerk 1
City Manager 1
Code Enforcement Officer I/II 3
Community Development Director 1
Community Services Director
Community Services Project Administrator
Customer Service Supervisor
1 3
3 Deputy Building Official 1
Deputy City Attorney 1
Deputy City Manager
Deputy Communications Officer
1 1
Deputy Fire Chief 1
Deputy Fire Marshal 3
Deputy Zoning Administrator 1
17

Page 2 of 4 ends

Designated Positions Disclosure Category
Economic Vitality Manager
Economic Development Strategist
1 1
Emergency Communications Manager 3
Finance and Administrative Services Director/City Auditor 1 Financial Analyst I/II
Finance Manager
2 1
Fire Chief 1
Fire Marshal 3
Fire Protection Engineer 3
Fleet and Facilities Manager 3
Hazardous Materials Inspector—Nonsafety 3
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Housing Director
3 1
Housing Officer 3
Human Resources Director 1
Human Resources Manager 1
Human Services Manager 2
Information Technology Applications Manager 2
Information Technology Director/Chief Information Officer 1 Information Technology Operations Manager
Intergovernmental Relations Manager
2 1
Library Director 3
Library Manager 3
Parks and Open Space Manager
Permit Center Coordinator
3 3
Performing Arts Manager
Planning Manager
3 1
Plan Check Engineer 3
Plan Check Examiner 3
Police Captain 3
Police Chief 1
Principal Civil Engineer
Principal Fire Protection Engineer
3 1
Principal Financial Analyst
Principal Housing Officer
1 3
Principal Information Technology Analyst 3
Principal Planner 1
Principal Project Manager 1
Project Manager 3
Public Safety Dispatch Coordinator 3
Public Safety Support Services Manager 3
Public Works Director 1
Purchasing and Support Services Manager 1
Real Property Program Administrator 1
Recreation Manager
Rent Stabilization Manager
3 3
18

Page 3 of 4 ends

Designated Positions Disclosure Category
Risk Manager 3
Senior Assistant City Attorney 1
Senior Building Inspector 3
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 3
Senior Civil Engineer 3
Senior Deputy City Attorney 1
Senior Financial Analyst 2
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist—Nonsafety 3
Senior Housing Officer 3
Senior Management Analyst 2
Senior Payroll Accountant 3
Senior Project Manager 3
Senior Public Works Inspector 3
Senior Systems Specialist
Senior Transportation Planner
3 3
Shoreline Manager 3
Solid Waste Program Manager 1
Streets and Landfill Closure Manager 1
Supervising Buyer
Sustainability Program Manager
2 1
Traffic Engineer 3
Transportation Manager 3
Urban Forest Manager 3
Utilities Services Manager 3
Water Resources Manager 3
Water Supervisor 3
Water Superintendent 3
Designated Officials Disclosure Category
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee 1
City Councilmembers and Mayor 1
Environmental Planning Commissioners 1
Parks and Recreation Commissioners 1
Rental Housing Committee 1
Board of Library Trustees 1
Development Review Committee 1
Human Relations Commission 1
Visual Arts Committee 1
* Consultants, as required under Government Code Sections 82019 and 82048, and as defined under California Code of Regulations, 2 CCR § 18700.3, are included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose pursuant to Category 1, subject to the following limitation:
19

Page 4 of 4 ends

The City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and, thus, is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. (Gov. Code § 81008.)
20 Exhibit B

Page 1 of 4 ends

Appendix A

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
20262024

LIST OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Designated Positions Disclosure Category
Accounting Manager 3
Advanced Planning Manager 1
Affordable Housing Manager 1
Assistant Building Inspector 3
Assistant City Attorney 1
Assistant City Clerk 1
Assistant City Manager 1
Assistant Community Development Director 1
Assistant Community Services Director 1
Assistant Finance and Administrative Services Director
Assistant Human Resources Director
1 1
Assistant Information Technology Director 2
Assistant Library Director 3
Assistant Public Works Director—Engineering 1
Assistant Public Works Director—Public Services 1
Assistant Public Works Director—Transportation and Business Services 1 Assistant to the City Manager 1
Battalion Chief 3
Building Inspector I/II 3
Chief Building Official 3
Chief Communications Officer 1
Chief Sustainability and Resilience Officer
Chief Transportation Officer
1 1
City Attorney 1
City Clerk 1
City Manager 1
Code Enforcement Officer I/II 3
Community Development Director 1
Community Services Director
Community Services Project Administrator
Customer Service Supervisor
1 3
3 Deputy Building Official 1
Deputy City Attorney 1
Deputy City Manager
Deputy Communications Officer
1 1
Deputy Fire Chief 1
Deputy Fire Marshal 3
21

Page 2 of 4 ends

Designated Positions Disclosure Category
Deputy Zoning Administrator 1
Development Services Coordinator 3
Economic Vitality Manager
Economic Development Strategist
1 1
Emergency Communications Manager 3
Finance and Administrative Services Director/City Auditor 1 Financial Analyst I/II
Finance Manager
2 1
Fire Chief 1
Fire Marshal 3
Fire Protection Engineer 3
Fleet and Facilities Manager 3
Hazardous Materials Inspector—Nonsafety 3
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Housing Director
3 1
Housing Officer 3
Human Resources Director 1
Human Resources Manager 1
Human Services Manager 2
Information Technology Applications Manager 2
Information Technology Director/Chief Information Officer 1 Information Technology Operations Manager
Intergovernmental Relations Manager
2 1
Library Director 3
Library Manager 3
Parks and Open Space Manager
Permit Center Coordinator
3 3
Performing Arts Manager
Planning Manager
3 1
Plan Check Engineer 3
Plan Check Examiner 3
Police Captain 3
Police Chief 1
Principal Civil Engineer
Principal Fire Protection Engineer
3 1
Principal Financial Analyst
Principal Housing Officer
1 3
Principal Information Technology Analyst 3
Principal Planner 1
Principal Project Manager 1
Project Manager 3
Public Safety Dispatch Coordinator 3
Public Safety Support Services Manager 3
Public Works Director 1
Purchasing and Support Services Manager 1
Real Property Program Administrator 1
22

Page 3 of 4 ends

Designated Positions Disclosure Category
Recreation Manager
Rent Stabilization Manager
3 3
Risk Manager 3
Senior Assistant City Attorney 1
Senior Building Inspector 3
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 3
Senior Civil Engineer 3
Senior Deputy City Attorney 1
Senior Financial Analyst 2
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist—Nonsafety 3
Senior Housing Officer 3
Senior Management Analyst 2
Senior Payroll Accountant 3
Senior Project Manager 3
Senior Public Works Inspector 3
Senior Systems Specialist
Senior Transportation Planner
3 3
Shoreline Manager 3
Solid Waste Program Manager 1
Streets and Landfill Closure Manager 1
Supervising Buyer
Sustainability Program Manager
2 1
Traffic Engineer 3
Transportation Manager 3
Transportation Planner
Urban Forest Manager
3 3
Utilities Services Manager 3
Water Resources Manager 3
Water Supervisor 3
Water Superintendent 3
Designated Officials Disclosure Category
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee 1
City Councilmembers and Mayor 1
Environmental Planning Commissioners 1
Parks and Recreation Commissioners 1
Rental Housing Committee 1
Board of Library Trustees 1
Development Review Committee 1
Human Relations Commission 1
Visual Arts Committee 1
23

Page 4 of 4 ends

* Consultants, as required under Government Code Sections 82019 and 82048, and as defined under California Code of Regulations, 2 CCR § 18700.3, are included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose pursuant to Category 1, subject to the following limitation:

Page 1 of 1 ends

Appendix B

GENERAL PROVISION
An employee holding a designated position is required to disclose any financial interests, which include some or all of the following: investments, real property interests, and other sources of income. An employee need only disclose investments of business entities and sources of income which do business in the City, plan to do business here, or have done business in the City within the past two years, unless otherwise specifically changed in the disclosure categories specified below. Income from the City need not be disclosed. In addition to other activities, a business entity is doing business with the City if it owns real property here. Business position disclosure includes businesses in which the employee is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management. When an employee holding a designated position is required to disclose interests in real property, that employee need only disclose real property, which is located in whole or in part within or not more than two miles outside the boundary for the City or within two miles of any land owned by the City of Mountain View. The principal residence or any other property used as a personal residence of the employee need not be disclosed.

Employees holding a designated position shall disclose their financial interests pursuant to the appropriate disclosure categories as described in Appendix A.

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1— All investments and sources of income, including personal and business entity income, all interests in real property, and all business positions.

Category 2— All investments in business entities, sources of business entity income, and business positions of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City or which may reasonably be expected to contract with the City, or which may reasonably be expected to contract with the City within one year from the date of the latest Statement of Economic Interest to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment.

Category 3— All investments in business entities, sources of business entity income, and business positions of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City or where it is reasonably foreseeable that the business entity or source will contract with the City within one year from the date of the latest Statement of Economic Interest to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment to the designated employee’s department. 25 City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206305, Version: 1
Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28-Professional Services Agreement Acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, authorize the Community Manager or designee to execute a sole source professional services agreement with Tetra Tech BAS, Inc., a California corporation (Entity No. 1346576) to provide design and construction support services for Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28, in a not-to-exceed amount of $880,000, of which 100% is from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund.

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 26
DATE: September 22, 2026
CATEGORY: Consent
DEPT.: Public Works
TITLE: Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic
Fields, Project 27-28–Professional
Services Agreement

RECOMMENDATION
Acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, authorize the Community Manager or designee to execute a sole source professional services agreement with Tetra Tech BAS, Inc., a California corporation (Entity No. 1346576) to provide design and construction support services for Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28, in a not-to-exceed amount of $880,000, of which 100% is from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund.

BACKGROUND
The Shoreline Athletic Fields is located at 2450 Garcia Avenue (see Figure 1) and is a multi-use recreational facility that provides baseball, softball, and soccer fields for the Mountain View community. The facility was constructed over a portion of the Mountain View Shoreline Landfill (MVSL), a closed Class III solid-waste landfill owned and operated by the City, and was designed to accommodate the underlying landfill gas collection system and anticipated differential settlement associated with landfill conditions.

Figure 1 – Location of Shoreline Athletic Fields
27 Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28– Professional Services Agreement
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

After more than 10 years of service, the synthetic turf has reached the end of its useful life and requires replacement. Because the turf and its subsurface systems sit directly above the landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS), removing the turf is also the only practical way to access and inspect the underlying infrastructure. Over the life of the turf, landfill settlement and normal wear have affected components of the GCCS, and periodic repairs are needed to keep the system functioning as required under applicable landfill regulations. Addressing these repairs concurrently, while the turf is removed for replacement, avoids a separate excavation and closure of the field later solely to reach the landfill infrastructure. Therefore, staff recommends including the GCCS and settlement-related repairs into the turf replacement as a single project under the Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28 (Project), so that the turf and the landfill systems beneath it return to service on the same schedule.

The technical basis for this scope comes from the City's ongoing citywide Landfill Master Plan Update project, an independent planning effort covering the closed landfill. As part of that broader effort, the master plan consultant Tetra Tech, evaluated the Shoreline Athletic Fields ahead of the rest of the master plan update schedule, so that its findings could inform the GCCS repair project planning timeline. That evaluation, completed in July 2026, identified the repair needs described above and provided the technical basisfor the design documents supporting the Project.

ANALYSIS
Project Scope
The purpose of the Project is to replace the synthetic turf field and rehabilitate the underlying landfill infrastructure identified during the preliminary site assessment. The scope includes preparing design plans, specifications, and construction documents, and providing engineering support during construction.

Because the Project involves full removal and replacement of the turf system, staff also evaluated whether converting the field to natural turf would be a feasible alternative to reinstalling synthetic turf. The evaluation found conversion is not feasible primarily because the athletic field is located on a closed landfill subject to State landfill regulatory requirements, an approved landfill closure, and post-closure maintenance plan. Establishing a natural turf field would require installing a permanent irrigation system over the landfill, which is inconsistent with the approved post-closure management approach, as continuous irrigation could increase infiltration through the landfill cover and adversely affect the integrity of the final cover system and underlying waste containment features. Accordingly, replacing the existing synthetic turf with a new synthetic turf system is the only feasible option that meets the project objectives and remains consistent with the landfill's regulatory and post-closure requirements. As part of the design, the project will incorporate environmentally friendly turf materials, including a natural alternative to the current crumb rubber infill.
28 Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28– Professional Services Agreement
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 5 ends

Field Use and Schedule Consideration
The Shoreline Athletic Fields are among the City’s most heavily used athletic facilities and provide year-round recreational opportunities on two full-sized baseball/soccer fields. All seven Cityrecognized Youth Sports Organizations rely on the facility, serving more than 3,200 youth athletes participating in baseball, softball, and soccer. The fields also support adult softball and several recurring tournaments that attract teams and visitors from throughout the Bay Area.

The facility currently accommodates approximately 5,700 hours of permitted use annually after allowing for routine maintenance. The City's athletic field inventory is already operating near capacity, leaving little to no ability to absorb displaced programming elsewhere.

Given this demand, the duration of construction closure is a primary project driver. An extended closure would directly displace youth and adult league play, jeopardize the City's ability to host tournaments that depend on advance scheduling commitments, and drive affected users toward already-constrained fields at other City facilities. To minimize field downtime and impacts to recreational programming and field users, project construction will be scheduled during the lowdemand season.

Design Consultant Selection
In 2009, the City selected Tetra Tech BAS, Inc. (formerly BAS) through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process to provide landfill engineering services for the design of the current Shoreline Athletic Field. Tetra Tech designed the existing facility and completed the City's 2026 Preliminary Assessment, providing the technical basis for the proposed improvements.

Tetra Tech has since served as one of the City's long-standing landfill engineering consultants and has extensive experience with landfill gas collection systems, landfill closure requirements, and regulatory compliance. Tetra Tech maintains the original design files, has extensive knowledge of the facility and underlying landfill systems, and has established working relationships with regulatory agencies. Based on this continuity and their specialized landfill engineering expertise, staff recommended entering into a sole-source design services agreement with Tetra Tech which was approved by the Community Manager in accordance with Administrative Instruction 1-6.

Retaining Tetra Tech minimizes project startup time and reduces schedule risk by avoiding the learning curve a new consultant would face in becoming familiar with Shoreline Athletic Field's design history and landfill conditions. Tetra Tech's demonstrated record of technically sound, cost-effective work further supports its qualification to complete the design efficiently and support successful project delivery.

The recommended professional services agreement with Tetra Tech covers the preparation of design plans, specifications, and construction documents, as well as construction support 29 Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28– Professional Services Agreement
September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

services for repairs to the landfill GCCS and turf replacement. The recommended not-to-exceed agreement amount of $880,000 includes $800,000 for basic services and reimbursable expenses and $80,000 for additional services. Based on preliminary site information, the total anticipated project cost, including design, construction (currently estimated at $3,075,000), construction management, contingencies, and related project costs, is $5,575,000.

Project Schedule
Upon approval and execution of the professional services agreement, Tetra Tech will begin preparation of the design plans and specifications. Staff anticipates returning to Council to request authorization to advertise the project for construction bids in early fall 2027, with construction to follow. This schedule will allow the replacement of the synthetic turf and rehabilitation of the underlying landfill infrastructure to proceed as a single coordinated project.

Staff will coordinate with community sports leagues regarding the availability of alternative athletic fields during the construction period.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended consultant agreement for Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28, is for a notto-exceed amount of $880,000. The project is currently funded with $2,500,000 from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund and has sufficient available funding for the recommended action. Staff will return to the Board at a future date to request authorization to advertise the project for bids and an appropriation of the additional funding necessary to complete construction.

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.

SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
☒ Contract or franchise agreement

30 Field Renovations - Shoreline Athletic Fields, Project 27-28– Professional Services Agreement
September 22, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not authorize the sole source professional services agreement with Tetra Tech BAS, Inc. and direct staff to issue an RFP for design services.

2. Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING – Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Ankit Sharma
Associate Engineer
Rey Rodriguez
Senior Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Tina Tseng
Principal Civil Engineer / Engineering and
Environmental Compliance
Approved by:

Jennifer Ng
Public Works Director
John R. Marchant
Community Services Director
Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager
Lisa Au
Assistant Public Works Director
cc: APWD—Au, PCE—Tseng, SPM—Rodriguez, AE—Sharma, SMA—Nunez, SMA—Truong, File (Project 27-28)
31 City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206311, Version: 1
2000 North Shoreline Boulevard - Various Actions

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 32
DATE: September 22, 2026
CATEGORY: Consent
DEPT.: Public Works
TITLE: 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard –
Various Actions

RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND
In 2007 and 2011, the City leased two adjacent parcels at 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard (previously known as “Charleston East”, now as “Gradient Canopy”) to Google, Inc., now Google LLC, (Google) for construction of an office building. In late 2018, during construction of the office building, Google discovered polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination in the soil under the partially constructed building. PCB, now banned for use, is a chemical that was previously used 33 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard – Various Actions
September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 8 ends

as an electrical insulator and coolant, among other applications. The extent of contamination and the building footprint are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Site and Contamination Location
The contamination was not detected during predevelopment environmental testing, and staff believes the release predates the City’s ownership of the site. Under these circumstances, the leases with Google cap the City’s liability for remediation costs at $8 million.

Remediation Plan
Based on the type and level of contamination, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over this site, with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) providing input to the EPA. Because the contamination was near already-constructed underground structural building elements, removal of the contaminated soil was deemed infeasible. Instead, the City and Google worked together on a plan, with EPA and RWQCB concurrence, to contain the contamination in place and provide a series of wells for future monitoring. By mutual understanding between the City and Google, Google’s environmental consultants took the lead, with Google fronting all costs, on plan preparation with the goal of avoiding human contact with or migration in groundwater of the contamination. In this case, the building foundation itself constitutes the approved remedy by capping the contaminants in place.

The remedy will be monitored through groundwater and indoor air testing, as described below. 34 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard – Various Actions
September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 8 ends

The remediation plan consists of two phases. The first phase was approved by the EPA on November 25, 2019 and focused on fully characterizing the contamination (physical area of contamination), off-hauling remediation waste, and the method of remediation. Remediation site improvements in the first phase included modifications to the design of the basement slab to serve as a cap, injection of activated carbon in the soil to prevent migration of the contamination in groundwater, and installation and monitoring of groundwater wells to monitor the success of the remediation efforts. These improvements were completed with the office building construction.

The second phase, approved by the EPA on April 24, 2026, is focused primarily on longer-term activities, including the following:
• Indoor Air Sampling Plan to detect potential air contamination in the building. As required, indoor air sampling was conducted prior to Google occupying the building. No contamination was detected.
• Operation and Maintenance Plan and Soil and Groundwater Management Plan to identify actions that will be taken to ensure that the cap over the contamination (building slab, etc.) is maintained and establishes protocols for future excavations at the site. • Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan to establish ongoing groundwater monitoring to detect any future migration contamination and actions that will be taken should such migration occur.
• Land Use Covenant to prohibit specific uses of the site, including residential, hospital, school, day care, and cultivation of food. Google’s intended use as an office building is not affected.

Tolling Agreement
The City and Google entered into a Tolling Agreement in February 2020 (subsequently extended, most recently through December 24, 2026), which stayed all deadlines to file claims that the parties might have with regard to the contamination, in particular, Google’s claim for reimbursement under the lease. The Tolling Agreement allowed time for the EPA to give final approval to the remediation plan and allowed the City and Google sufficient time to come to an agreement about the City’s liability under the lease without either of the parties needing to file suit.

City Council met in closed session on December 7, 2021, to discuss the price and terms for the Settlement Agreement and Monitoring Agreement with Public Works and City Attorney’s Office staff. The recommended terms are consistent with the direction received from Council. 35 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard – Various Actions
September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 8 ends

ANALYSIS
City staff and Google have been coordinating closely and collaboratively on the remediation efforts since 2019, with the final approvals from the EPA received in April 2026. As Google has paid for all costs associated with the remediation on behalf of the City, a reimbursement to Google is now needed. Additionally, Google, on behalf of the City, has also been performing the required monitoring efforts as required by the regulatory agencies, and will continue these efforts. The recommended actions would approve two agreements:
• The Settlement, Limited Release and Reimbursement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) settles Google’s reimbursement claims under the lease for remediation work completed through March 31, 2026.
• The Monitoring Reimbursement Agreement (Monitoring Agreement) establishes the roles and responsibilities of Google and the City for ongoing monitoring and reporting pursuant to the remediation plan effective as of April 1, 2026.

Settlement Agreement
The main terms of the Settlement Agreement are summarized as follows:

Payment to Google for Past Reimbursement Work: The City agrees to pay Google $4,968,700 for remediation work performed from January 2019 through March 2026 within 60 days of execution of the Settlement Agreement. The remediation work performed by Google included preparation of all elements of both phases of the remediation plan, soil and groundwater testing and removal, construction of wells and other required improvements, and coordination with the City and regulatory agencies. This includes monitoring efforts through March 31, 2026. Staff worked closely with Google staff and consultants throughout this period, has reviewed all work, and considers the charges to be fair and reasonable for the scope of work undertaken.

Recordation of the Land Use Covenant: As required by the EPA, the City agrees to execute the Land Use Covenant regarding the prohibited uses as stated above and record it with the County Recorder on the 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard properties by October 21, 2026.

Total Costs: The City’s total obligation to reimburse Google for past and future remediation are capped at $8 million, consistent with the leases.

Future Costs: As long as the leases and Monitoring Agreement are in effect, Google shall perform the actions required under the Monitoring Agreement. The City shall reimburse Google for such actions up to the City’s maximum obligation of $8 million. If the total remediation costs exceed $8 million, the City can elect to terminate the leases. The leases further provide that, even if the City elects to terminate the leases, and if Google agrees to pay all costs in excess of $8 million to 36 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard – Various Actions
September 22, 2026

Page 5 of 8 ends

avoid termination of the leases, the City must carry out and complete the required remediation.

Essentially, once the City’s maximum obligation to reimburse Google is reached, the costs shall be borne by Google so long as the leases are in effect. The leases are in effect through 2063. Once the leases end, or are terminated, the City must carry out the monitoring and any required remediation.

Staff recommends Council appropriate $4,968,700 for the payment to Google for the remediation work performed from January 2019 through March 2026.

Monitoring Agreement
The Monitoring Agreement provides that Google shall perform the monitoring activities required in the remediation plan and shall be reimbursed by the City. The main terms of the Monitoring Agreement are summarized below:
• Monitoring, Inspection, Reporting and Training: Google shall perform the monitoring, inspection, reporting, and training required in the Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan and the Operation and Maintenance Plan. Google shall submit test results and other work products to the City for review and comment prior to submitting reports to the EPA. Google shall invoice the City for services associated with the monitoring agreement and the City shall pay Google for the services.
• Environmental Consultant: Google shall continue to contract with Elevate Environmental Consultants (Elevate) to perform testing, monitoring and inspection. Elevate staff have worked on this effort since the contamination was discovered in 2019 and are uniquely familiar with the elements and intent of the remediation plan as well as the requirements and concerns of the regulatory agencies. In the future, Google may propose an alternative consultant subject to approval by the City.
• Term and Contract Amount: While the monitoring effort will be required for many years, the term of the recommended agreement is 3.5 years beginning April 1, 2026. Due to the timing of the ongoing required quarterly reporting, the April 1, 2026 date was chosen to allow a certainty date for both the Settlement Agreement and Monitoring Agreement. The recommended fee of $900,000 for basic services and contingency over the 3.5-year contract term is consistent for such services, and staff considers the fee to be fair and reasonable for the scope of work required. After the term the City can consider extending the agreement or establish a new agreement for monitoring.

Google and Elevate are uniquely qualified to perform the monitoring agreement services because:
37 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard – Various Actions
September 22, 2026

Page 6 of 8 ends

• Elevate developed both phases of the remediation plan approved by the EPA and is uniquely familiar with the circumstances at the site as well as the requirements of the remediation plan. Elevate has worked effectively with Google and City staff as well as both key regulatory agencies. Retention of Elevate will help provide a smooth transition to the ongoing monitoring phase of the remediation.
• The required monitoring and inspection depend on access to the property and the building, including the basement. As the tenant, Google controls access to these areas and therefore must be involved in monitoring and inspection activities. • Continuity in staffing this effort is very valuable as the project moves from the regulatory approval stage to ongoing monitoring.

Due to the Maintenance Agreement performing ongoing monitoring and maintenance for regulatory needs, staff recommends Council appropriate $900,000 to the Public Works Department operating account for these services.

Potential Additional Improvements
While City and Google staff, Google’s environmental consultants, and the regulators consider the approved remedial improvements adequate to contain the contamination, it is possible that the PCBs could migrate down-gradient toward the Bay in groundwater. The long-term groundwater monitoring plan is designed to detect any such migration. In the unlikely event such migration occurs, additional remedial actions will be necessary. It is unknown what the actions and costs would entail until the details of a potential migration are known. Staff would return to Council with recommendations at a future date if needed.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Settlement Agreement requires a payment of $4,968,700, and staff recommends be funded by the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund’s Site Contamination Reserve appropriating $4,968,700 from the Site Contamination Reserve for the settlement payment.

The recommended Monitoring Agreement includes $792,000 for basic services and reimbursable expenses and a contingency of $108,000 for additional services, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $900,000. Staff recommends appropriating $900,000 from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund to the Public Works Department operating account for the Monitoring Agreement.

There is sufficient funding available in both the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund and the Site Contamination Reserve for the recommended actions. 38 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard – Various Actions
September 22, 2026

Page 7 of 8 ends

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-toplay-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.

SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
☒ Contract or franchise agreement

CONCLUSION
The City leased two adjacent parcels at 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard to Google for development purposes. In 2019, during construction of the office building, Google discovered PCB contamination in the soil. The City and Google worked collaboratively on a two-phase remediation plan with the EPA to address the contamination in place and develop a long-term monitoring plan, with Google bearing all costs on the City’s behalf. After seven years of effort, the City, in partnership with Google, received EPA approval of both phases of the remediation plan on April 24, 2026 for the PCB contamination found on the 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard properties. The recommended actions will reimburse Google for these past efforts and transition to a monitoring phase allowing long term occupancy of the site.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not appropriate $4,968,700 from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund, and direct staff to use another funding source.

2. Revise the terms of the Monitoring Reimbursement Agreement and direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals to seek an alternative party to perform future monitoring services starting in summer 2027.

3. Provide other direction.
39 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard – Various Actions
September 22, 2026

Page 8 of 8 ends

PUBLIC NOTICING—Agenda Posting.

Prepared by:

Edward Arango
Assistant Public Works Director/
City Engineer
Approved by:

Jennifer Ng
Public Works Director
Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager
40 City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206268, Version: 1
Addendum No. 14 to Regional Water Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement

1. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Addendum No. 14 to the Basic Agreement between the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos for authorization of:
a) Palo Alto to manage the design, construction, and implementation of the Headworks Project, Outfall Project, and Minor Capital and Emergency Projects (collectively, the “Projects”); b) Palo Alto to manage the $31 million in costs authorized for the Projects; c) Palo Alto to obtain and administer a line of credit to fund the Projects at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant,
d) Mountain View to provide a cost-share not-to-exceed $11.7 million.

2. Appropriate $2.0 million in the Wastewater Fund within the Public Works Department for the initial cash payment for the projects described in Addendum No. 14. (Five Votes Required) City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 41
DATE: September 22, 2026
CATEGORY: Consent
DEPT.: Public Works
TITLE: Addendum No. 14 to Regional Water
Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement

RECOMMENDATION

2. Appropriate $2.0 million in the Wastewater Fund within the Public Works Department for the initial cash payment for the projects described in Addendum No. 14. (Five Votes Required)

BACKGROUND
In 1968, the cities of Mountain View and Los Altos retired their wastewater treatment plants and approved a contract with the City of Palo Alto (Basic Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View, and the City of Los Altos for the Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer System, also referred to as the Partners Agreement) for a joint wastewater treatment plant at the site of Palo Alto’s existing plant. In addition to providing wastewater treatment services for the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos, the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) provides services to the Town of Los Altos Hills, Stanford University, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District under separate agreements with the City of Palo Alto.

Per the Basic Agreement, Palo Alto owns and operates the Treatment Plant’s wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and is responsible for managing the operations, maintenance, capital improvements, and finances of the plant. The Basic Agreement is amended as needed to 42 Addendum No. 14 to Regional Water Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

implement and fund major capital projects for the replacement of obsolete or end-of-life equipment.1

ANALYSIS
Palo Alto’s 2012 Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) identified over $460 million in capital improvements for the RWQCP, including major projects such as the Secondary Treatment Plant Upgrades, Advanced Water Purification System, and Headworks Facility Replacement. These projects are in various stages of design and construction and are funded through a combination of State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans, grants, debt financing, and partnership agreements. While some of these projects are financed by low-interest loans through the State Revolving Fund, the funds are reimbursements resulting in short-term negative cash balances for Palo Alto.

In addition, Palo Alto is currently updating the LRFP, which will reassess and reprioritize capital improvement needs over the next 50 years, incorporating consideration of updated regulatory requirements, emerging contaminants, and the current condition and performance of existing RWQCP infrastructure. The update will refine project scopes and cost estimates for remaining projects from the 2012 LRFP and identify additional capital improvements necessary to maintain reliable and compliant plant operations.

The LRFP Update is expected to significantly increase the RWQCP’s overall capital needs, highlighting the importance of flexible financing tools. Palo Alto has explored various funding strategies to address their growing project funding needs including:
• State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans
• Utility revenue bonds issued through capital markets
• Line of Credit (LOC)
The selection of the funding source for each project depends on program eligibility (for SRF and WIFIA), prevailing interest rates at the time of the loan or bond issuance, repayment terms, and cash flow needs. Any debt service payments would be shared among all RWQCP partner agencies, with exceptions to partners who do not need financing through amendments to their partner agreements.
1 Historically, the amendments to the Basic Agreement have been referred to as “addenda,” although the accurate term is amendment. The parties to the Basic Agreement have continued the practice of using the term “addendum” for consistency.
43 Addendum No. 14 to Regional Water Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

Addendum No. 14 authorizes Palo Alto for up to $31 million in total project costs for a portfolio of the short-term capital improvements, including:
1) Headworks Facility Replacement (Design Phase) – $18 million 2) Outfall Improvements (Design and Potential Construction) – $1 million 3) Deferred Minor Capital Projects – $12 million, including:
• Sludge Thickener Rehabilitation
• Ventilation Improvements
• Plant Records Modernization
• Emergency Projects – As needed to support continued plant operations.

These projects address aging infrastructure, improve operational reliability, and ensure continued compliance with regulatory requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT
Capital costs at the RWQCP are allocated based on each partner agency’s fixed contractual capacity rights, unlike operating costs, which vary annually based on usage. Each agency purchased a defined share of the RWQCP’s treatment capacity – measured in million gallons per day (MGD) – and committed to funding its proportional share of capital improvements. The current allocation as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Maximum Flow Capacity Allocation and Cost Share of $31 Million Project Costs Item Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
Los
Altos
East Palo
Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos
Hills Total
Flow Capacity Rights
(mgd) 15.1 15.3 3.8 3.06 2.11 0.63 40.00
Allocated Share
(percent) 37.89% 38.16% 9.47% 7.64% 5.26% 1.58% 100.00% (million $) $11.7 $11.8 $2.9 $2.4 $1.6 $0.50 $31
Addendum No. 14 would authorize Palo Alto to facilitate a line of credit for itself and its partner agencies to finance the projects. The City of Mountain View will not participate in the line of credit arrangement because it has sufficient funds in the Wastewater Fund to cover its $11.7 million cost-share obligation. By making its contributions in cash, Mountain View will avoid financing costs associated with the line of credit obligations.

Due to Palo Alto’s projected cash flow needs, upon Council’s approval of the addendum, Mountain View will make an initial $2.0 million cash payment upon execution of Addendum No. 14 by all the partner agencies, and Palo Alto executing a vendor agreement for one of the listed 44 Addendum No. 14 to Regional Water Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

projects. Thereafter, Mountain View will pay its respective share of Project Costs through the regular quarterly billing process.

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-toplay-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
☒ Contract between two or more state or local government agencies

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not approve Addendum 14 to the Basic Agreement and direct staff to request Palo Alto to consider additional alternatives for funding the Projects.

2. Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING—Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Lisa Au
Assistant Public Works Director
Approved by:

Jennifer Ng
Public Works Director
Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager
45 City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206385, Version: 1
Energy Services Contract for Solar Photovoltaic Systems and Battery Energy Storage Project - Various Actions THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2026. THIS ITEM WILL BE RE-NOTICED FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE DATE.

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 46
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 205998, Version: 1
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update

1. Accept the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement (“HCS”) (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

2. Introduce an Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Amending Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the Mountain View City Code to Update Standards and Procedures Related to the Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources and Finding that the Amendments Are Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for October 13, 2026 (Attachment 2 to the Council report).

3. Introduce an Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Amending the Zoning Map to Exclude Properties Designated on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources Prior to January 1, 2025 from Government Code Section 65912.157 (Senate Bill 79) and Finding that the Amendments Are Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), as Recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for October 13, 2026 (Attachment 3 to the Council report).

4. Refer consideration of a draft Council Policy to implement the incentives and benefits available to historic resources to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee.

5. Provide direction to staff regarding properties to exclude or delist from the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, for adoption at a later public hearing.

City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/17/2026
powered by Legistar™ 47
DATE: September 22, 2026
CATEGORY: Public Hearing
DEPT.: Community Development
TITLE: Historic Preservation Ordinance and
Zoning Map Update

RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept the City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement (“HCS”) (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

4. Refer consideration of a draft Council Policy to implement the incentives and benefits available to historic resources to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee.

5. Provide direction to staff regarding properties to exclude or delist from the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, for adoption at a later public hearing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this meeting is for the City Council to review and adopt the Historic Context Statement and introduce an updated Historic Preservation Ordinance (“Historic Ordinance” or 48 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 2 of 28 ends

“Ordinance”) in Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code. The Ordinance will, among other provisions, improve the City’s standards and procedures for the designation and de-listing of historic resources, review of physical modificationsto historic resources, and benefits available to owners of historic resources. This Ordinance is the culmination of outreach, analysis, and review of best practices, and incorporates Council direction received last December.

In addition, the Council will also provide direction regarding the properties to be included in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (“MV Register”). While the MV Register cannot be adopted at this meeting due to the provisions currently in effect in the City Code governing the designation of properties to the MV Register (specifically, the opportunity for an owner to reject designation), staff is seeking Council’s direction on any properties that should not be listed in the MV Register update as well as any properties Council wishes to remove from the existing MV Register. This direction will allow staff to finalize the list of properties to be included in the MV Register for adoption, tentatively scheduled in December, as well as to identify which properties, if any, will require further environmental review as a consequence of not being listed in or being delisted from the MV Register. The current MV Register will remain applicable until an updated MV Register is adopted.

BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City Council adopted Mountain View’s first Historic Preservation Ordinance (see Attachment 4, Current Historic Preservation Ordinance, codified at City Code Section 36.54.45, et seq.) and created the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (see Attachment 5, Existing Register). Together, these tools help preserve historically and culturally significant buildings and their character-defining features. The existing Register of historic resources, which was adopted by Council resolution and has been amended from time to time, is the inventory of buildings, structures, objects, and sites designated by Council as historic resources. The Historic Ordinance sets out designation criteria, the designation process for the MV Register, the process for removing sites from the MV Register, incentives and benefits for inclusion in the MV Register, permit requirements, and the development review process. The purpose is to preserve the historic integrity and the look and feel of historically important buildings and neighborhoods.

Previous Community Outreach
Updates to the Historic Ordinance and MV Register were identified in the Fiscal Years 2019-21 Council Work Plan. The project has included a robust outreach process, including four virtual and in-person workshops, a virtual question-and-answer session, meetings with individual stakeholders, Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and Council meetings, and letters to property owners. Throughout the process, the Historic Preservation website was updated to reflect project milestones and provide current information to the public. 49 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 3 of 28 ends

In July 2026, a survey was prepared for owners (or their authorized representatives) of properties included on the draft MV Register to solicit owner sentiment and feedback on the proposed designations. More information on project outreach is available in the Historic Preservation Ordinance Project Chronology (see Attachment 6).

Public comments received about the project since the last Council meeting are included in Attachment 7, Public Comments.

Previous City Council Meetings
Council has held the following meetings on this project. The staff reports linked below contain valuable information regarding the existing code, the existing Register of historic resources, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
• On April 12, 2022, Council reviewed and approved the project scope of work and consultant contract with Page & Turnbull, Inc.
• On December 12, 2023, Council provided additional direction on the goals and scope of the project, including which properties to include in the Citywide survey to identify properties eligible for the MV Register.

City Council New Business Item (December 9, 2025)
On December 9, 2025, Council provided the most recent direction regarding this project, focused on key topics for the Ordinance. The EPC provided recommendations to inform Council's direction on October 1, 2025. Council direction on December 9 included the following:
• Do not seek listing of religious properties unless the property owner requests it. • Continue to utilize the City’s significance criteria with minor changes (such as order and terminology) to improve consistency with state and national historic preservation best practices.
• Adopt integrity thresholds consistent with state and national historic preservation best practices, defined as “the authenticity of a historic resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” with a focus on location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. • Return at adoption with additional information regarding the sites recommended for listing in the MV Register, including State and/or National Register eligibility, the significance criteria for each site (with a focus on which sites meet only the design criterion versus the 50 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 4 of 28 ends

design criterion and other criteria), and more information about property owner sentiment toward their properties’ listing in the MV Register.
• For properties already listed in the existing Register that do not meet the draft integrity thresholds, allow property owners up to four years to submit a restoration plan. Those who do should have an additional three years to complete implementation of the restoration plan.
• Carry forward the following process updates related to nominations, listing, and delisting of historic resources, with additional analysis and options related to the district nomination and approval process (specifically, the delineation of Council discretion versus technical expert recommendations and how to ensure ample noticing and participation):
— Remove the unilateral owner opt-off provision and the required owner approval within the Council nomination process.
— Create a process for neighborhoods or districts to nominate themselves, subject to Council approval. At least 50% of owners should be included as signatories on the application. The review process should include a mailed ballot to all contributing properties to notify the property owners of the potential district nomination and allow for comments on the matter.
— List properties on the MV Register if an official determination of eligibility is made by the California Office of Historic Preservation or the National Parks Service. — Provide delisting procedures that consider findings, including reassessment of eligibility through further analysis, if a listed property becomes a safety hazard, is damaged by a natural disaster, or an owner faces an economic hardship related to a property’s listing. Also, provide a delisting procedure, consistent with CEQA, whereby Council can delist a property from the MV Register, such as due to demolition, if there is an overriding consideration (for example, if the value of the resource is outweighed by public benefits like open space or affordable housing). • Carry forward the following updates to the development review process for historic resources, with additional consideration of streamlining, such as rear additions and other improvements that do not alter the front facade, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs):
— Clarify and adopt a comprehensive list of exempt alterations. — Define “minor alterations” (e.g., in-kind replacement of doors and windows, alterations not visible from the public right-of-way, such as rear additions, and changes to noncharacter-defining features) and provide a staff-level review process. 51 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 5 of 28 ends

— Define “major alterations” (e.g., building relocation, new openings, visible additions, and alterations that would alter, remove, or obscure character-defining features) for review through an Administrative Zoning public hearing. — Create a process for delisting a property from the MV Register, such as when demolition of a structure is required.
— Incorporate enforcement measures for property neglect, unauthorized alterations, or demolition without permits.
— Align permit review procedures with environmental review requirements under CEQA.
— Require contributing properties in a historic district to adhere to the review processes for individually listed resources.

Environmental Planning Commission Public Hearing (August 19, 2026) On August 19, 2026, the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) held a public hearing to review the proposed amendments in Attachments 2 and 3 to this report.

There were four public speakers. Two speakers expressed concern about being listed, including the burdens on their properties (as reflected in Attachment 10). One of those speakers also expressed concern regarding the low value of the incentives and the inability to implement Senate Bill (SB) 79. One speaker requested that Council implement a supplemental historic preservation loan fund. One speaker expressed concern about the number and characteristics of properties that would be or could be covered, the lost opportunity for new development in transit-oriented and commercial areas, and the imposed cost on residents to maintain a historic structure.

Five written comments were received, which are included in Attachment 7, along with other written comments received. Property owners who have notified the City that they do not wish to be listed on the MV Register are reflected in Attachment 10.

The EPC recommendation is provided below.
52 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 6 of 28 ends

ANALYSIS
Historic Context Statement
The Historic Context Statement (HCS) (Attachment 1) provides an overview of the history of the City’s built environment; identifies important periods, events, themes, and patterns of development; and identifies integrity and significant characteristics for determining eligibility for local, state, and national register listing. It does not identify any requirements or eligible properties, which are the purview of the Ordinance and MV Register, respectively.

Significance and integrity can vary based on the age and type of historic resource. To facilitate understanding of these factors, the HCS is a necessary tool for identifying significant themes, patterns, and property types within Mountain View and recognizing the trends that have shaped the built environment. The HCS is used for the following:
• It provides a framework that assists in the identification and evaluation of historic resources. It forms the basis for the Citywide historic resources survey and supports the eligibility analysis required for the update of the MV Register. • It supports the review of future improvements at historic properties. • It helps the community to better understand historic properties, even in the absence of comprehensive knowledge about specific buildings.
• It informs future preservation planning decisions and programs.

The HCS may be used by anyone. It is intended to help property owners, members of the community, architects, historic resources planning consultants, City planners, and decisionmaking bodies recognize and consider the protection of historic properties.

The draft HCS was made available to the community for public comment from July 26, 2024, to September 9, 2024, and was presented at a community workshop on August 13, 2024. No public comments were received at that time. In addition, it was presented to the EPC and Council on October 1, 2025 and December 9, 2025, respectively. Attachment 1 includes minor updates to terminology based on the draft Historic Ordinance.

Staff Recommendation: Recommend that Council accept the HCS.

EPC Recommendation: That Council accept the HCS.
53 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 7 of 28 ends

Historic Ordinance
The draft Historic Ordinance (Attachment 2) will repeal the existing Sections 36.54.45 through

36.54.97 of the City Code and replace them with new sections starting at Section 36.55 (the divisions will remain the same). The language substantially follows the direction received at the December 9, 2025, Council meeting, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Organization of New Historic Preservation Ordinance Sections Description Key Changes

36.55.01 through

36.55.10 Purpose, definitions, a
statement forbidding the
modification of resources
contrary to the Code, and
findings for the designation of
resources on the MV Register.

New findings were added for integrity, the
age of the resource, and the concentration
of primary contributors in a district.

36.55.15 through

36.55.25 Procedures to designate
properties on the MV Register.
• Properties may be nominated by
owners, Council, or City-initiated
survey.
• Properties may only be designated by
Council (no Zoning Administrator
hearing is required).
• Owners may no longer unilaterally opt
off the MV Register.
• The Code includes notice, disclosure,
opportunity to respond, and propertyspecific findings requirements for proposed designations.
• Properties on the State and National
Registers are included in the MV
Register by reference.

36.55.30 A provision for removing
resources from the MV
Register that are no longer
eligible for listing.

This is a new section. These removals
from the MV Register are only allowed if
there is:
• Loss of integrity due to accident or
disaster (neglect and illegal work do
not qualify); and
• New information showing the original
listing was erroneous.
54 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 8 of 28 ends

Sections Description Key Changes
Delisting is recommended by the Zoning
Administrator and approved by Council.

36.55.35 A provision for granting
removal or narrower relief
where continued regulation
would cause a demonstrated
economic hardship or legally
cognizable burden on religious
exercise.

This is a new section. Relief is available
only upon competent evidence
establishing:
• Denial of reasonable economic use or
another unconstitutional economic
burden; or
• A substantial burden on an applicant’s
religious exercise under applicable law.

Delisting is recommended by the Zoning
Administrator and approved by Council.

36.55.39 A provision allowing the
Community Development
Director to bring forward
modifications to the MV
Register as well as correction
of clerical and other
nonsubstantive errors.

This is a new section. It is intended to
allow the Community Development
Director to initiate amendments that are
appropriate for ongoing maintenance of
the MV Register between periodic
comprehensive updates at the Citywide
level.

Except for clerical and other
nonsubstantive errors, final approval by
Council will be required for MV Register
modifications.

36.55.40 The types of alterations that
qualify as exempt, minor, or
major; the review process for
each; and safeguards for
housing projects subject to
objective or ministerial review
requirements under state law.

More information about these permit
types and processes is provided below.

36.55.45 A procedure for considering
demolition or another
substantial adverse change,
including evaluation of
This is a new section. Demolition or
another substantial adverse change may
be approved only after the applicant
evaluates feasible preservation
55 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 9 of 28 ends

Sections Description Key Changes
feasible preservation
alternatives and findings
concerning identified General
Plan policies and benefits.
alternatives and Council makes the
findings specified in the Ordinance. In
addition:
• Applicants must document the
resource;
• Applicants may not impact the
resource until a building permit for the
replacement project is issued; and
• If the resource is no longer eligible
(such as if it is demolished), it is not
removed from the MV Register until
after construction begins.

36.55.50 and

36.55.55 General language regarding a
property owner’s duty to
maintain their historic
resource and an allowance to
correct hazardous conditions.

The duty to maintain is a new section. The
allowance to correct hazardous conditions
is an existing section with minor text edits.

36.55.60 Incentives and benefits
available to listed properties.

More information about incentives and
benefits is provided below.

36.55.65 Language ensuring the
continued enforcement of
CEQA and other laws.

This is a new section.

36.55.70 Enforcement provisions. More information about enforcement is provided below.

36.55.75 Temporary provisions,
including the SB 79 exclusion
and interim protection for an
identified, finite group of
eligible, single-family dwellings
and duplexes.

One provision ensures continuity of the
existing MV Register.

Another provision preserves interim
review for specifically identified eligible
properties until designation, a final
decision not to designate, completion of
property-specific environmental review, or
a fixed sunset. More information is
provided below.
56 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 10 of 28 ends

The remainder of this section of the report summarizes areas of special focus or new information that Council has not previously considered.

Owner Consent and Procedural Safeguards
The draft Historic Ordinance would allow Council to designate a historic resource without the property owner’s consent. This approach enables the City to protect historic resources based on their significance to the community while providing affected property owners with notice, access to the information supporting the proposed designation, an opportunity to respond, and a public hearing before the City Council. Council’s decision must be based on the designation criteria in the Ordinance and supported by property-specific findings.

The draft Historic Ordinance also recognizes that state housing laws may limit the City’s authority in particular circumstances, such as when state law limits the City to the application of only objective standards or requires a ministerial approval process. Therefore, the Ordinance includes a savings clause providing that it will not be applied where its application would be preempted or otherwise prohibited by state law. Staff will evaluate those requirements when reviewing individual applications.

Historic Districts
The existing ordinance does not include any provisions for creating a historic district. The draft Historic Ordinance includes provisions governing the initiation and designation of historic districts as well as removal from the MV Register and modifications to buildings in historic districts. In addition, Council requested further analysis and alternatives regarding the notice and roles in the nomination and designation of historic districts.

In the draft Historic Ordinance, districts are made up of “primary contributors” and “limited contributors.” Primary contributors are those buildings or improvements that directly relate to the historic significance of the district. Limited contributors are those buildings or improvements that do not relate to the historic significance of the district but whose significant alterations may nonetheless affect the integrity of the district (favorably or adversely).

The designation of new historic districts may be initiated by property owners, Council, or by a survey conducted by the City. Like individual resources, historic districts must meet findings for significance, integrity, and age. In addition, another finding must be met prior to a district’s designation: there must be a sufficient concentration of primary contributors within the district.

Council expressed concern that district proposals may be brought forward that do not meet these criteria. The draft Historic Ordinance, therefore, requires the application materials to include a historic resource evaluation prepared by a qualified professional and preserves the City’s ability to obtain a peer review. A complete application may proceed to consideration, but Council may 57 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 11 of 28 ends

designate the district only if it makes the required findings based on substantial evidence in the record.

District nominations initiated by property owners will require that the application must be submitted by owners of at least 50% of the parcels and 50% of the land area within the proposed district. This provision ensures that majority support for a district nomination exists among owners of different types of properties. For example, the parcels plus land area approach balances the interests of parcels with single owners and relatively large land-to-owner ratios (e.g., single-family residences, multi-family apartment complexes, commercial properties) and parcels with multiple owners and relatively small land-to-owner ratios (e.g., duplexes, condominiums), in an attempt to prevent one group of owners from dominating decision making to the detriment of another group of owners. Staff assesses that this will result in more engagement among property owners within a potential historic district, particularly among owners of different types of properties.

As an additional protection against unreasonable applications, historic district nominations initiated by property owners shall have at least twice as many primary contributors as limited contributors. This provision is intended to address one of Council’s requests to set additional safeguards against property owner-initiated districts that do not meet the criteria. The objective threshold increases the likelihood that a proposed district will present a coherent concentration of contributing resources, but it does not replace Council’s obligation to make the designation findings based on the record. It is also similar to ratios required in other jurisdictions (see Table 2).

At least 60 days before the public hearing to designate the district, the City must mail a notice and an owner response form by first-class and certified mail to owners of all properties in the proposed historic district. The notice identifies the proposed boundary, the proposed classification of the owner’s property, the regulatory consequences of designation, and the procedure and deadline for submitting written comments. The response is advisory; it does not constitute a vote or establish an owner consent requirement. Staff will report the number and percentage of owners who support, oppose, or do not respond to the proposed designation to the City Council. These are minimum requirements and do not preclude additional outreach by staff or the applicant group.

Table 2: Historic District Nomination Requirements in Other Jurisdictions Topic Other Jurisdictions
Required minimum
contributors to a district
• Palm Springs: 51%
• Torrance: 66%
• Pasadena: 60%
• Beverly Hills: 70% (districts cannot include single-family homes/R1 zoning)
58 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 12 of 28 ends

No prescribed minimum: Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Redwood City, Glendale, Richmond, Monterey, Merced, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo.

Required minimum district
property owner initiation,
consent, or support
• San Jose: 60% of property owners can initiate a district. • Palm Springs: 51% written approval of support from
property owners.
• Torrance: 100% written petition of support of property owners.
• Glendale: 25% support to initiate designation, 50%+
required for approval of designation.
• Pasadena: 51% support of property owners.
• Beverly Hills: 50% signatures of support of property owners. • Merced: Requires written consent of property owner but does not clarify how this works for districts.

Other Historic District Provisions
In addition to the above designation information, the draft Historic Ordinance also includes language allowing districts and primary contributors to remove their designation under provisions similar to those for individual resources. It also includes provisions for the review and approval of modifications to primary and limited contributors, allowing for a more streamlined review of modifications to limited contributors.

The historic district provisions also address considerations related to SB 79, which provides for high-density transit-oriented development (TOD) surrounding rail transit stations across the City.

A historic district may serve as a basis to justify a permanent exemption from SB 79 within the district in conjunction with a local alternative plan. Staff has drafted the historic district process to allow Council to initiate the designation of a historic district for that purpose. More information about SB 79 is provided below.

Historic Preservation Permits and Other Development Review Best practices for historic preservation allow resources to be modified for continued use and value to the property owner while protecting the characteristics that convey their historic significance. The existing and draft Historic Ordinance both include procedures for City review of modifications to historic resources through historic preservation permits. The draft Historic Ordinance includes significant streamlining over the existing ordinance, most notably, that Council review will not be required except when removal from the MV Register is proposed, or when proposed alterations would cause a substantial adverse change, including demolition, as defined in the draft Historic Ordinance. Council also requested that staff review opportunities to further streamline the process for rear additions and ADUs. 59 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 13 of 28 ends

As directed by Council on December 9, 2025, there are four proposed “tiers” of development review affecting historic resources. Nos. 2 and 3 below are eligible to receive a historic preservation (HP) permit, which requires that no substantial adverse change occur to the integrity of the resource. The first three are associated with detailed lists of eligible improvements in the Ordinance update, providing clear guidance to property owners and staff.

1. Exempt alterations, which, based on objective characteristics, do not have the potential to materially alter or permanently obscure a character-defining feature and do not require a historic resource evaluation. These improvements are exempt from additional historic preservation permit requirements (though other permits may be required). Examples include painting of previously painted surfaces, qualifying in-kind replacement, roof equipment obscured behind a screen, new signage in the same location, and qualifying changes to site and landscaping features.

2. Minor alterations, which may have the potential to impact a historic resource’s integrity but are ultimately shown not to affect any visible character-defining features (the determination whether an alteration is major or minor is made upon receipt of a complete application). These improvements require a staff review of a historic resource evaluation through a “minor HP permit” but do not require a public hearing. Examples include rear additions, alterations to accessory structures, new window or door openings not visible from the street, new awnings, and signage in new locations.

3. Major alterations, which do affect character-defining features but not to the extent that a substantial adverse change would result. These improvements require staff review of a historic resource evaluation and approval at a Zoning Administrator public hearing through a “major HP permit.” Examples include additional principal buildings, additions and accessory structures visible from the street, relocation, changes in exterior materials, and new window or door openings visible from the street.

4. Demolition or another alteration that would result in a substantial adverse change requires Council approval under Section 36.55.45. Separate procedures govern removal or other relief where a resource no longer satisfies the designation criteria or where continued application of the Ordinance would cause a demonstrated economic hardship or legally cognizable burden on religious exercise.

Based on Council’s direction, staff reviewed opportunities to further streamline ADU and rear addition projects:
• Rear additions typically require a “minor HP permit” in the Ordinance update. Further streamlining, such as by exempting them entirely, would preclude staff from requesting a historic resource evaluation for any such project. This could result in projects that impact 60 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 14 of 28 ends

character-defining features or even substantial adverse changes to the resource. Staff does not recommend further streamlining rear additions.
• ADUs are already significantly streamlined. The City is required to review qualifying ADUs ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, as provided in Section 66317 of the Government Code. The draft Historic Ordinance, therefore, does not require a discretionary HP permit where state law requires ministerial approval. Any historic preservation standards that state law permits the City to apply must be objective.

Incentives and Benefits
Property owners of designated historic resources are eligible for special incentives and benefits to encourage the preservation, investment, improvement, and maintenance of historic resources. Updating the incentives section was identified as a key objective during prior Council discussions and emerged as a primary topic during community outreach meetings. During outreach, community members emphasized the importance of incentives (especially financial incentives) to support historic preservation goals. The draft Historic Ordinance includes a more comprehensive list of incentives and benefits and adds some details and clarification for the existing incentives. Table 3 compares existing incentives with the new language in the Code.

Table 3: Summary of Incentives and Benefits
Existing Incentives Proposed Changes
Zoning incentives such as variances,
major floor area ratio exceptions,
setback exceptions, and Downtown
Precise Plan exceptions.

These incentives were removed. Several were
removed because they are available whether or
not a property is listed on the MV Register
(variances, major floor area ratio exceptions,
setback exceptions). The “exceptions from
requirements of the Downtown Precise Plan”
incentive was removed due to the Downtown
Precise Plan update that is under way, which may
better inform which exceptions are appropriate.

Exemptions from nonconforming uses
and structures.

Updated to clarify that all site conditions that also
existed on the site during the period of
significance are considered conforming with
respect to zoning.

Credit for below-market rate (BMR)
program requirements, including BMR
units and in-lieu fees, where the historic
This incentive was narrowed to remove the credit
for BMR units and only retain the credit for in-lieu
fees. This was based on the current importance
61 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 15 of 28 ends

Existing Incentives Proposed Changes
resource is preserved or rehabilitated as
part of a residential development.
of affordable housing and the potential impact on
the number of affordable units in large projects.

Exemption from planning, building, and
historic preservation permit fees related
to the historic resource, including, but
not limited to, the relocation,
preservation, and rehabilitation of the
historic resource.

This incentive was modified to “reductions” rather
than “exemption,” giving the City more flexibility
to set the fees at the right level. It also provides
an opportunity to broaden the range of fees that
may be reduced, including maintenance (roofing,
water heater, electrical) and upgrades (kitchen
and bathroom remodels).
• Use of the California Historical
Building Code.
• Condominium conversion exceptions
for small buildings.
• Credit toward park land dedication
requirements or fees in lieu thereof
(as stipulated in Chapter 41).
• Mills Act contracts, which allow
reductions to property taxes to help
cover historic property restoration
and preservation costs.
• Rebate of the City’s portion of
property tax (the City’s share of the
property tax bill is approximately
13% of the total tax bill).
• Opportunity to create a loan fund
(which has never been
implemented).

Continued in the draft Historic Ordinance with a
few changes.

Exemption from green building
requirements, which is currently in
Chapter 8 (Buildings) and not in
Chapter 36 (Zoning).

Incorporated into Chapter 36 (Zoning).

New incentives. • A historic plaque program wherein the City would provide a plaque for the building or
property.
• Historic uses otherwise not allowed may be
allowed with a conditional use permit (such
as residential in 938 Villa Street).
62 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 16 of 28 ends

Existing Incentives Proposed Changes
• Reduction in minimum parking.
• New reductions to impact fees, including
housing impact fees, transportation impact
fees, and water and sewer capacity fees,
where new development or a change of use
is proposed on a site without adversely
impacting the resource.

Property Owner Poll
City staff conducted a poll of property owners to gauge interest in these incentives. Results are included as Attachment 8. The most popular incentives included permit fee reductions, property tax rebates, Mills Act contracts, and exceptions to zoning standards.

Council Policy
Staff recommends using a Council Policy to specify details for each incentive (such as fee reductions, contract procedures, and other details) within the broad language of the incentive categories established in the draft Historic Ordinance. This will coordinate incentives across different departments and sections of the Code and may reduce the effort required to update the policy as compared to updating an ordinance. The Council Policy may not be adopted until early 2027, but the language in the draft Historic Ordinance will help inform the incentive categories. The recommended action includes a referral to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee for review of the new policy prior to adoption by the full Council.

Some potential approaches being considered for the Council Policy include the following listed below. These incentives are intended to provide more benefits to smaller property owners (as a percentage of overall project size and value) than to larger property owners. The Council Policy would establish the permissible ranges for each monetary-based incentive, with the specific level of reductions established during the annual budget process based on the City’s financial condition.
• Set maximum reductions to park land dedication requirements for very large projects (e.g., requirements may be reduced by no more than one-quarter acre of land or equivalent in-lieu fee amount).
• Set permit fee reductions to a maximum of 75% for small buildings and a maximum of 25% for large buildings.
• Exempt impact fees on changes of use and additions up to 2,000 square feet. 63 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 17 of 28 ends

• Exempt BMR in-lieu fees on projects up to seven units. • Limit property tax rebates on large sites to 10,000 square feet divided by the floor area on the site (sites less than 10,000 square feet would receive the full refund).

Staff Recommendation: Refer a Council Policy to implement the incentives and benefits available to owners of historic resources to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee.

Enforcement
There are specific challenges associated with enforcement of the City’s historic preservation regulations due to the unique nature of historic resources, the potential for irreversible loss resulting from noncompliance, and the risk that standard penalties for City Code violations may not adequately deter unlawful work. For these reasons, the draft Historic Ordinance includes additional enforcement remedies. These include the following remedies, which are subject to applicable notice, hearing, culpability, feasibility, and proportionality requirements and may be cumulative where authorized by law:

1. Standard criminal penalties applicable to persons who knowingly violate the Historic Ordinance or knowingly fail to obey an order or permit issued under it.

2. Requirement to reconstruct or restore, to the extent technically feasible, lawful, and reasonably proportionate to the violation, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

3. Requirement that any removal from the MV Register proceed under the applicable removal provisions, including alternatives and balancing findings in Section 36.55.45 (Demolition or other substantial adverse change) of the City Code where applicable.

4. Requirement to repay any property tax rebate received during the previous five years with interest, to the extent authorized by the agreement or policy under which the benefit was granted.

5. Prohibition on new development and redevelopment for up to 15 years, with any period of development restriction specifically tailored to the severity of the violation based on conduct that knowingly violated the Ordinance update. A development restriction at or near the maximum term would be reserved for the most egregious violations and subject to safeguards that would allow for early termination in certain circumstances.

These penalties are intended to encourage property owners to comply with the Historic Ordinance and discourage owners from knowingly committing violations to achieve potentially significant economic benefits from demolition and redevelopment of historic resources. 64 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 18 of 28 ends

Senate Bill (SB) 79 Exemption
SB 79, codified at Government Code Section 65912.155, et seq., supersedes locally adopted standards for density, floor area ratio (FAR), and height for housing projects proposed on qualifying sites located within one-half mile of a TOD stop if the development complies with certain requirements. More information about SB 79 and its implications for Mountain View can be found in the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting materials, Item 3.1.

SB 79 allows cities to temporarily exclude sites with designated historic resources from its provisions if they were designated in a local register before January 1, 2025. This provision of SB 79 expires one year after the adoption of the Seventh Cycle Housing Element, scheduled for 2031.

In order to implement this provision, the City must include such language in its Zoning Ordinance and show the excluded sites on its Zoning Map. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment (Attachment 3) does this, and the last section of the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 36.55.75.c in Attachment 2) provides the Zoning Ordinance language. This language will be repealed upon the provision’s expiration. The Zoning Map amendment only shows properties listed on the MV Register as of January 1, 2025 and only those within one-half mile of applicable TOD stops. The draft zoning map was revised following the EPC meeting to incorporate the applicable TOD zones included in SB 79.

Historic resources not already included in the MV Register as of January 1, 2025 cannot be excluded from SB 79 without the adoption of a TOD Alternative Plan, which, among other requirements, must identify locations for equivalent increased density in other transit-oriented areas of the City. Preparation of a TOD Alternative Plan is beyond the scope of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register Update.

Unlisted National/California Register Eligible Single-Family and Duplex Properties Section 36.54.90 of the previous Ordinance (Attachment 4) requires properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources to be subject to an HP permit reviewed by Council, whether listed on the MV Register or not. As discussed in greater detail at the December 9, 2025 Council meeting, this provision is not transparent because the property owner or staff may not know a property is eligible for those registers until after an application is submitted, which affects an applicant’s ability to make an informed decision about undertaking a project. Further, the owners of some resources identified as National or California Register-eligible based on the Citywide survey conducted in 2008 may not be aware that their properties are subject to such requirements. To avoid these scenarios from happening again, staff recommends ultimately removing this provision during the Historic Ordinance.
65 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 19 of 28 ends

A complicating factor for the immediate removal of this provision is that it would reduce or eliminate existing protections for many of these properties, particularly single-family dwellings and duplexes, and could allow physical changes that affect historic resources. An immediate removal of existing protection for these historic resources could cause the draft Historic Ordinance to fall outside the Class 8 categorical exemption from CEQA, and require further environmental review. The draft Historic Ordinance, therefore, continues to require HP permits for the 14 identified single-family dwellings and duplexes known to be eligible for the National or California Registers. Other property types remain subject to otherwise applicable discretionary review, which may trigger project-specific CEQA analysis of historic resource impacts, depending on the project and approval sought.1
Continued application of the HP permit requirement to these 14 identified single-family dwellings and duplexes is an interim measure until Council determines whether these properties will be included in the MV Register. If Council determines that all 14 properties should be listed in the MV Register, then this provision pertaining to state/national register-eligible properties that are not listed in the MV Register can be removed from the City Code without further environmental review.

Therefore, provision will cease to apply to a property upon the earliest of: (i) Council designation or a final decision not to designate the property; (ii) completion of environmental review specifically evaluating cessation of interim protection for that property; or (iii) the fixed sunset date identified in the Ordinance.

Staff Recommendation: Recommend Council adopt the draft Historic Ordinance (Attachment 2) and Zoning Map Amendment inclusive of SB 79 TOD zones (Attachment 3).

EPC Recommendation: The EPC recommended the staff recommendation with the following modifications:
• The Council should add more clarity to the incentives prior to the adoption of the draft Historic Ordinance. The EPC urged the Council to resource the incentives proportionate to the maintenance needs of properties on the adopted MV Register. • The draft Historic Ordinance should require a supermajority (five out of seven Council votes) for designation of a historic district if it contains a Housing Element opportunity site, given the important trade-off between housing versus preservation. 1 State streamlining may bypass this discretionary process, but it would have already done so under the existing ordinance, and, therefore, is not an environmental impact caused by the draft Historic Ordinance. 66 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 20 of 28 ends

Staff Analysis: The following additional information is provided to support Council’s consideration of the EPC recommendation.
• Staff and the consultant team have done considerable work to identify a broad range of incentives that would have practical benefit for property owners. The draft list of incentives is more extensive than those offered by many other jurisdictions. Assembling and analyzing additional details regarding the incentives would require more staff time and delay the adoption of the draft Historic Ordinance until 2027.
• The financial resources available to address maintenance needs at historic properties (e.g., City loans or grants) will depend on the fiscal condition of the City during each annual budget cycle, which will be the determining factor in how much financial support can be provided to historic preservation incentives. The extent of financial needs based on the condition of historic properties may be informative to, but will not be determinative of, the level of financial support the City can provide.
• Staff has already recommended that more details pertaining to incentives for historic resource preservation be established in a new Council Policy referred to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee for initial review before adoption by the full Council. Staff is unclear how further refinement in the draft Historic Ordinance will result in any different outcome than the process already recommended by staff.
• If the Council is interested in accepting the EPC recommendation regarding a supermajority to designate districts, this provision may be added to Section 36.55.20(g) in Attachment 2.

Draft MV Register
Prior to the October 1, 2025, EPC meeting, a draft list of 101 private property resources deemed eligible for the MV Register was published. This list included 38 of the 46 resources currently on the MV Register (excluding three City-owned resources and five resources deemed no longer eligible for listing) and 63 proposed resources for addition to the MV Register. Since the draft list was originally published, there have been changes to the list of eligible resources, bringing the total to 99 resources, including 41 resources currently listed and 58 proposed for addition:
• On December 9, 2025, the Council directed staff not to pursue designation of religious resources unless requested by the owner. Staff has identified eight religious resources on the draft list of eligible properties. One is already listed on the MV Register (1855 Miramonte Avenue), and its removal must proceed under the applicable delisting procedure and will require CEQA review (likely an environmental impact report (EIR)).

Therefore, this property remains on the draft list at this stage. The remaining seven have been removed from consideration for designation. Several other property owners have been given an opportunity to provide information concerning religious use under the 67 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 21 of 28 ends

generally applicable criteria developed by staff. Staff expects to resolve the religious status of those properties before formal consideration of the MV Register later this year. • Consistent with Council’s prior direction related to religious resources, staff will initiate the delisting process for the 1855 Miramonte Avenue property, including preparation of the requisite CEQA review, in early 2027 following the effective date of the draft Historic Ordinance and final Council action on the MV Register update. The CEQA review will include any other properties identified by Council for delisting/nonlisting that requires CEQA review. Staff estimates that the preparation of an EIR to support delisting of the 1855 Miramonte Avenue property, and any related actions involving other properties, will cost at least $150,000.
• Five City-owned resources have been added to the draft list of eligible properties. Three such resources were already listed (the Rengstorff House, the Adobe Building, and the Immigrant House at Heritage Park). Two additional resources have been identified: the Steel Star Windmill, also at Heritage Park, and Cuesta Park, which is historically significant for the design of its landscape features and buildings. Another resource was previously identified: the Police and Fire Administration Building at 1000 Villa Street. However, demolition of this structure was previously approved by Council subject to certification of an EIR, is fully funded, and will soon be under way, so it is not included in the list.

Several private properties on the draft list of eligible resources are also subject to approved or pending demolition proposals, including 749 West El Camino Real, 96 West El Camino Real, and 355 East Middlefield Road. These resources will remain on the draft list and may be designated by Council as long as they continue to exist. If a resource is lawfully demolished under a valid approval, the MV Register may then be corrected to reflect that fact. The City does not have sufficient information about the timing or likelihood of construction to remove these resources from the draft list at this time. Designation would not alter vested rights, if any, under a valid existing approval, but it may affect later applications if an approval expires or if a pending proposal has not vested.

In summary, from the 101 private property resources identified previously, seven were removed, resulting in 94 private property resources (93, if 1855 Miramonte Avenue is excluded), and five City-owned resources were added, resulting in a total of 99 properties eligible for the updated MV Register. Attachment 9, Eligible Resources DPR Forms, includes the draft analysis supporting the inclusion of all 99 properties on the MV Register.
68 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 22 of 28 ends

Property Data
At the December 9, 2025, meeting, Council requested a table providing additional information regarding the draft list of resources eligible for listing, which is available as Attachment 10, List of Eligible Resources, as follows:
• Eligibility for the California and/or National Registers; • Significance criteria, specifically whether the significance is “design” only or whether other criteria are identified; and
• Property owner sentiment.

Effects of Excluding Properties from the Register
Council is not obligated to include every eligible property in the MV Register. Staff is seeking Council direction regarding properties it wants to exclude from listing in the MV Register. Based on this direction, staff will bring a draft MV Register later in the year for final Council deliberation and action.

Excluding a property from the MV Register does not necessarily absolve it from regulatory burdens similar to those applicable to properties on the MV Register. The draft Historic Ordinance closely parallels the findings and criteria for environmental review under CEQA, which apply to most discretionary permits, especially those that do not result in new housing (which state law commonly exempts from CEQA). Table 4 includes examples of improvements that would require discretionary permits subject to CEQA and, therefore, would be subject to regulation and protections for the historic resource, similar to those of the MV Register, whether or not the site is listed on the MV Register. The table also shows examples of improvements that would reduce regulatory burden and would not protect the historic resource if removed from the MV Register. In addition, excluding a property from the MV Register would make it ineligible for density reductions to lessthan 50% of the default SB 79 densities as part of a local TOD alternative plan.
69 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 23 of 28 ends

Table 4: Example Improvements Subject to and Exempt from CEQA Subject to CEQA Not Subject to CEQA
• Remodels, additions, or demolition of
commercial or multi-family in any Zoning
District.
• Additions, remodels, demolition, and
replacement new construction (i.e.,
demolishing and rebuilding without net
new units) of single-family dwellings and
duplexes outside “R” Zoning Districts.
• New nonresidential development.
• New residential development ineligible
for state streamlining (such as
rezonings).
• New residential development eligible for
state streamlining (such as SB 9 or SB 35
ministerial approvals, or AB 130 CEQA
streamlining).
• Remodels, additions, demolition, and
new construction of single-family
dwellings and duplexes within “R”
Zoning Districts.

If Council excludes any of the following types of resources from the MV Register, additional environmental review will be required before final action on the MV Register can be taken:
• Any property currently listed on the MV Register.
• Any single-family dwelling or duplex located in “R” Zoning Districts determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

This list of properties is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2.

Staff will need to identify funding to carry out the required environmental review, which is outside the scope of the Ordinance and MV Register update process. The process would be similar to the environmental review conducted for the Police and Fire Administration Building, which cost approximately $150,000. Depending on the number and type of properties affected, which could affect the cost to prepare an EIR, staff may need to seek an additional appropriation from Council at a future date to fund the work (one EIR can address all affected properties). Due to the time needed to prepare an EIR, it will not be possible to complete delisting/nonlisting of these properties concurrently with the upcoming adoption of the MV Register, tentatively scheduled for December 2026.

Removal of 1855 Miramonte Avenue from the MV Register, which staff anticipates initiating in early 2027, would achieve Council’s previous direction to not list religious properties without the owners’ consent. This property has been identified as a religious use, which would ensure that the current MV Register does not include any known religious uses. However, as noted above, environmental review under CEQA will be required because the property is already listed in the MV Register.
70 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 24 of 28 ends

Staff Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding currently unlisted properties to exclude from the MV Register, and currently listed properties to delist from the MV Register following preparation of an EIR pursuant to CEQA. These properties will be evaluated in the CEQA review prepared to delist the religious property at 1855 Miramonte Avenue.

The EPC was not asked to provide a recommendation on this information.

National Register Nominations
This project is also scoped to nominate several properties to the National Register of Historic Places:
• 124-126 Castro Street (Weilheimer Store), containing Oren’s Hummus and Joyous Cuisine; • 191 Castro Street (Mockbee Building), containing Eureka; • 194-198 Castro Street (Jurian Building), containing Agave Mexican Bistro; • 201 Castro Street/761 Villa Street (Farmers & Merchants Bank), containing Red Rock Coffee; and
• 301 Castro Street (Bank of America Building), containing Bloomsgiving.

Draft nomination forms were submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for preliminary review in early 2026. Staff is awaiting feedback and a technical determination from OHP regarding the adequacy of the submitted documentation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Class 8) applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies to ensure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment through a regulatory process that includes environmental protection procedures. Class 8 does not apply to a relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation. The Ordinance update removes the owner opt-off provision; adds clearer designation criteria, notice, response, and findings requirements; limits administrative correction authority; and preserves interim review for the 14 identified single-family dwellings and duplexes that are currently known to be eligible for the National or California Registers. It also requires later discretionary review, including applicable CEQA review, before demolition, removal from the MV Register, or another substantial adverse change may be approved.
71 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 25 of 28 ends

Staff evaluated the amendments against the existing ordinance, including the new exempt alteration categories, streamlined permit procedures, delisting standards, and interim treatment of eligible but unlisted properties. Based on that comparison, the amendments do not immediately remove a property from the MV Register or authorize demolition or another substantial adverse change to a historic resource. The amendments preserve review of the 14 identified single-family dwellings and duplexes currently known to be eligible for the National or California Registers and later discretionary approvals that may cause a substantial adverse change to remain subject to applicable project-specific CEQA review. The amendments, therefore, do not relax standards in a manner that allows environmental degradation and are exempt under Class 8.

The exceptions to the Class 8 exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 do not apply based on the following:

1. There is no cumulative impact because the regulations limit impacts to historic resources and apply broadly to all historic resources currently protected by the City Code. No development project is authorized or permitted through this action, so there is no cumulative effect of such projects.

2. There is no significant impact from unusual circumstances because the regulation of historic resources is not unusual, and the criteria used are similar to those of the California and National Registers.

3. There is no impact to scenic highways because there are no scenic highways in Mountain View.

4. No development project is authorized or permitted through this action, so hazardous waste sites are unaffected.

5. As described above, the effect of these regulations is the preservation of historic resources, so there is no impact to historic resources resulting from these regulations.

The SB 79 amendments, including the Zoning Map amendment, are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exemption, which provides that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The amendment does not approve any physical development, increase development intensity, change existing land use designations, or modify underlying zoning regulations or development standards. As a separate and independent basis, Government Code Section 65912.160(c)(2) states that an ordinance consistent with the provisions of SB 79 shall not be considered a project under CEQA.
72 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 26 of 28 ends

NEXT STEPS
If adopted by Council, a second reading of the draft Historic Ordinance will be scheduled for October 13, 2026, and the amendments will become effective 30 days thereafter. Council will hold another public hearing, tentatively scheduled for December 8, 2026, to adopt the new MV Register.

FISCAL IMPACT
Acceptance of the Historic Context Statement and adoption of the proposed Ordinances are not expected to result in a significant immediate fiscal impact. Implementation of the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance may result in additional administrative costs associated with maintaining the MV Register and administering the City’s historic preservation program. The expanded MV Register may also result in future reductions in property tax revenue to the extent additional property owners enter into Mills Act contracts with the City.

Consideration of incentives and benefits available to historic resources will be referred to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee for further review. Any fiscal impacts associated with new or expanded City-funded incentives will be evaluated as part of that future review and consideration.

The Historic Context Statement and associated survey work may reduce costs for future project applicants by providing historic resource information that might otherwise need to be developed on a project-by-project basis at the applicant’s expense.

The overall future fiscal impact cannot be reasonably estimated at this time because it will depend on the number of property owners who seek Mills Act contracts or other incentives, as well as future Council actions regarding historic preservation incentives and properties included on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.

Delisting properties, including 1855 Miramonte Avenue, will require preparation of an EIR, costing at least $150,000.

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 73 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 27 of 28 ends

information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-toplay-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
☒ General policy and legislative actions

CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments to Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code will update the City’s historic preservation policies and procedures, strengthen procedural protections for contested designations, streamline permit processing where historic integrity will be preserved, update incentives and benefits, improve transparency, create a process for historic districts, and implement the available temporary exclusion from SB 79. Based on the environmental review described above, staff recommends that Council accept the Historic Context Statement, adopt the Ordinance update, and adopt the Zoning Map Amendment.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not accept the Historic Context Statement and/or do not approve the Zoning Text Amendment and/or Zoning Map Amendment.

2. Modify the Historic Context Statement, approve the Zoning Text Amendment and/or Zoning Map Amendment in modified form, or refer any of the above to the EPC for additional review.

PUBLIC NOTICING
The Council agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s internet website. Meeting information was posted on the project webpage (www.mountainview.gov/historicupdate). A newspaper notice has been circulated for this meeting. Additionally, the meeting was also communicated in the following ways:
• Mailed notices were sent to owners and tenants within 750’ of sites identified on the Zoning Map for exemption from SB 79.
• Mailed notices and/or letters were sent to all property owners whose properties may be affected by potential listing or delisting as historic resources. 74 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update September 22, 2026

Page 28 of 28 ends

• Electronic notifications were sent to individuals who have signed up on the project webpage to receive communications about this project as well as other stakeholder groups, including neighborhood associations, Livable Mountain View, and the Historical Association. • Mailed notices to community members having requested notice of public hearings, such as schools and advocacy groups.

Prepared by:

Elaheh Kerachian
Senior Planner
Eric Anderson
Planning Manager
Amber Blizinski
Assistant Community Development Director
Approved by:

Christian Murdock
Community Development Director
Kimbra McCarthy
City Manager
CDD/EK-09-22-26CR
Attachments: 1. Historic Context Statement

2. Zoning Code Amendment Ordinance

3. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance

4. Current Historic Preservation Ordinance

5. Existing Register

6. Historic Preservation Ordinance Project Chronology

7. Public Comments

8. Poll Results

9. Eligible Resources DPR Forms

10. List of Eligible Resources
75 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT

PREPARED FOR
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

PREPARED BY
Page & Turnbull
170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94018
August 10, 2026

FINAL DRAFT
Attachment 1
76 Table of Contents City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL i August 10, 2026
Cover Image: Castro Street, c. 1910s. Mountain View Public Library. 77 Table of Contents City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL ii August 10, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Project Background & Purpose ................................................................................................... 3 B. Methodology & Research ............................................................................................................. 6 C. How to Use This Document ......................................................................................................... 8 II. PREVIOUS SURVEYS, STUDIES & REPORTS ...................................................................................... 9 III. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 13 A. Summary of Significant Themes & Property Types ................................................................ 13 B. Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 18 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXTS ..................................................................................................................... 29 A. Indigenous Settlement (Before 1775) ....................................................................................... 29 Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (Before 1775)..........................................31 B. Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) ....................................................................... 32 Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1775-1850).............................................39 C. American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) ..................................................... 40 Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1851-1909).............................................60 D. Early Twentieth-Century Development, Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) ...... 74 Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1910-1944).............................................98 E. Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) ............. 111 Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1945-1979).......................................... 155 F. Recent Past (1980-2024) ............................................................................................................ 174 Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1980-2024).......................................... 181 G. Architecture Styles & Design (1850s-1980) ............................................................................. 182 V. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 211 VI. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 223 Appendix A-Mountain View Population by Decade .................................................................. 223 Appendix B-Maps .......................................................................................................................... 224 Appendix B1-Aerial Map of the City of Mountain View .................................................................... 225 Appendix B2-Extant Buildings by Development Period ................................................................... 226 Appendix B3-Extant Buildings in 20-Year Increments ...................................................................... 227 Appendix B4-Extant Buildings in 20-Year Increments: Old Mountain View, Shoreline West & Castro City............................................................................................................................................... 228 78 Executive Summary City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 1 August 10, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Mountain View has experienced significant periods of growth and innovation over its nearly 175-year history. After the establishment of the Spanish mission and Mexican rancho systems within the ancestral lands of the Ohlone nation, Mountain View was not much more than a stagecoach stop, but a growing population and evolving technologies and modes of transportation heralded in the next era of railroads and diversifying agricultural exports, inaugurating Mountain View’s position within Santa Clara County’s “Valley of Heart’s Delight.” Apricot and prune orchards, fields, and greenhouses covered the flatlands of Mountain View, and associated pickling, canning, and packaging warehouses bustled along the Southern Pacific railroad corridor. These agricultural industries drew in a diverse community of immigrants to Mountain View, shaping the cultural life of the city for decades to come.

Despite slow growth during the wars and depression years during the first half of the twentieth century, the construction of Moffett Airfield in 1933 and Ames Research Center in 1939 positioned Mountain View to be at the forefront of early electronics and technology innovation and the transition of the Santa Clara Valley to “Silicon Valley” after World War II. Indeed, Mountain View is considered by many to be the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley” as the location of Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, which manufactured the first silicon devices in the area. Innumerable spinoff companies and innovations in the electronics, aeronautics, and high-tech sector have put Mountain View at the center of innovation. With a range of housing options and a booming employment sector, the City of Mountain View has continued to attract and support a diverse community of residents.

This Historic Context Statement (HCS) presents an overview of the City of Mountain View’s history with a specific emphasis on describing the historic themes and patterns that contributed to the city’s development over time. An HCS is a specialized historic study that focuses on the physical development of an area—how and why it developed, what types of properties characterized developmental changes, and whether the properties and development trends may be historically significant. The identified themes, patterns, and property types contribute to the recognition of various forces that shape the built environment over time. In turn providing a framework to aid in the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties. An HCS is not intended to be a comprehensive community history, nor does it evaluate the significance or eligibility of individual properties to be considered historic resources. It should be noted that the mention of a specific property in this HCS does not necessarily indicate that that property would qualify as a historic resource. This document is intended to support the identification and evaluation of historic properties, as well as inform future preservation efforts. 79 Executive Summary City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 2 August 10, 2026
Originally adopted in 2004 and updated in 2026, the City of Mountain View’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Register of Historic Resources (Municipal Code Section 36.55) outlines the procedures to designate properties as historic resources on the local register and for the review of proposed modifications or improvements to historic resources, as well as incentives that encourage the preservation of historic resources.1 In 2022, Mountain View City Council authorized an update to the 2004 Historic Preservation Ordinance and other major tasks, including this citywide Historic Context Statement and a citywide historic resource survey. 1 City of Mountain View, “Historic Preservation and Register Update,” accessed online October 26, 2022, https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/historic.asp. 80 Introduction City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 3 August 10, 2026
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
The Mountain View Historic Context Statement (HCS) is sponsored by the City of Mountain View Community Development Department and is used as a foundation for the evaluation of historical sites and resources as well as the continued development of the City’s historic preservation program. Preparation of the HCS was undertaken to bring a greater level of consistency and clarity to the city’s preservation planning efforts and the permit and environmental review process.

This document presents the history of Mountain View’s built environment from pre-contact to the present to support and guide identification and evaluation of historic properties throughout the city, as well as to inform future planning decisions. The document outlines key periods, events, themes, and patterns of development within the history of Mountain View, and provides a framework for evaluating which individual properties and neighborhoods qualify as historic resources or historic districts based on the criteria set forth in the National Register of Historic Resources (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and City of Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Register of Historic Resources (Municipal Code Section

36.55). Historic property types associated with these periods and themes are identified and described in the HCS, and significance and integrity considerations are included for each.

Identification of eligible historic resources assists the City of Mountain View in complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires age-eligible properties to be evaluated for historic resource eligibility when there is a project involving discretionary review.

It is important to note that while the HCS identifies key historical themes in Mountain View’s development, it is not a comprehensive history of the city, nor is it a definitive listing of the city’s significant properties. Instead, it provides a general discussion of the overarching forces that shaped Mountain View’s built environment, why properties associated with that development are important, and the characteristics necessary to qualify as a historic resource.

Note: The inclusion of a property in this HCS does not automatically or necessarily indicate that the property is eligible for designation in a local, state, or national register of historic resources, or that the property meets the definition of a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.

DEFINITION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
The Mountain View Historic Context Statement addresses the geographical area within the current city limits, which measures just over 12 square miles (Figure 1). Mountain View is a suburban city 81 Introduction City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 4 August 10, 2026
located in the southern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula within Santa Clara County, California.

Named for its views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, the city lies northeast of the range while the shore of the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay forms the city’s northern limits. The topography of the city is, overall, very flat and slopes up gently from the bay shore; the average elevation is 105 feet above sea level. Mountain View’s historic downtown is laid out in a grid, anchored by Castro Street.

More broadly, the city is divided roughly into quarters by U.S. Route 101 in the north, the Caltrain line (formerly Southern Pacific) in the middle, and Highway 82 (El Camino Real) in the south, roughly running parallel to one another in a northwest to southeast fashion. The northern quarter is bounded by San Antonio Road to the west and the grounds of Moffett Federal Airfield to the east.

The upper central quarter is approximately bounded by the rear boundary lines of properties fronting San Antonio Road in the City Palo Alto to the west and Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course and the rear property lines of properties fronting East Middlefield Road to the east, though Mountain View city limits extend here to include the Mountain View Research Park and the residential area around Sylvan Park. The lower central quarter is approximately bounded by Adobe Creek and the rear boundary lines of properties fronting Silva Avenue and Del Medio Avenue on the west and the rear boundary lines of properties fronting Acalanes Drive in Sunnyvale on the east. In the southern quarter, Springer Road forms much of the western boundary and Highway 85 the eastern boundary, in addition to the Cuernavaca neighborhood. The southern boundary follows a jagged line roughly from Spencer Court to Alegre Avenue, Damien Way, Waverly Place, and Oak Avenue. Major northsouth thoroughfares include Rengstorff Avenue, Shoreline Boulevard-Miramonte Avenue, Calderon Avenue, Grant Road, and Whisman Road. Refer also to maps in Appendix B. 82 Introduction City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 5 August 10, 2026
Figure 1: Map of the City of Mountain View. Source: City of Mountain View. 83 Introduction City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 6 August 10, 2026

PROJECT TEAM
The Mountain View HCS was prepared for the City of Mountain View by Page & Turnbull, an architecture and planning firm that has been dedicated to historic preservation since 1973, with offices in San Francisco, San José, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. Page & Turnbull staff responsible for this document includes Ruth Todd, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP, Principal-in-Charge; Christina Dikas, Principal, Senior Architectural Historian; and Hannah Simonson, Senior Associate, and Maggie Nicholson, both Cultural Resources Planners/Architectural Historians. All staff involved meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Historic Architecture, Architectural History, and/or History.

Coordination of the project was undertaken by Senior Planner Elaheh Kerachian and Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson of the City of Mountain View, Community Development Department.

B. METHODOLOGY & RESEARCH
The Mountain View HCS is organized chronologically into sections that correspond to major periods in Mountain View’s development from pre-contact to the present. The content and organization of the document follows the guidelines of National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; and National Register Bulletin No. 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.
2 Additional resources and guidelines published by the California Office of Historic Preservation were also consulted, including the state’s official Instructions for Recording Historical Resources and a brief guide entitled “Writing Historic Context Statements.”3 Research for the Mountain View HCS was collected from previous reports and planning documents, primary sources (photographs, maps, etc.), and secondary sources (newspaper articles, local history books and reports, etc.) held at local, regional, and online repositories. Materials were primarily gathered at the Mountain View Historical Association, Mountain View Public Library History Center, and Computer History Museum. Key primary sources consulted and cited in this report include Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, historic aerial photographs available through University of California at Santa Barbara’s FrameFinder database and NETR Online, and historical newspapers. 2 National Register Bulletins can be found at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/publications.htm. 3 California Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, March 1995), accessed online March 13, 2023, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf; and Nelson, Marie. “Writing Historic Context Statements.” Accessed October 4, 2022, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/WritingHistoricContexts.pdf. 84 Introduction City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 7 August 10, 2026
Due to the vast scope of city development covered, the use of secondary sources is typical and necessary during the preparation of an HCS. Previous historical reports and associated survey documentation, specifically Carey & Company’s 2008 “Citywide Historic Properties Survey,” provided a foundation of existing historic resources within the City of Mountain View. Various books and publications were consulted, including Mary Jo Ignoffo’s Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California (2002); Nicholas Perry’s Images of America: Mountain View (2006) and Then & Now: Mountain View (2012); and several research papers. On July 26, 2022, Mountain View’s Human Relations Commission sponsored a virtual lecture by Michael Kahan of Stanford University’s Urban Studies program on the history of racism in housing and stories of exclusion and inclusion in Mountain View.

This presentation, as well as other internet sources and census data, developed a robust picture of the various waves of immigration and associated sentiments, policies, and subsequent development patterns. Other sources included Santa Clara County and City of Mountain View GIS (geospatial information system) data with years of construction of extant properties, and the “Mountain View Annexation History 2.0” online GIS map created by the City of Mountain View.4 Page & Turnbull staff conducted a “windshield” survey of Mountain View to orient the team’s understanding of the broad patterns of development in Mountain View, including a general sense of the property types, architectural styles, age of construction, and integrity of extant properties. All photographs in this HCS were taken by Page & Turnbull between August 2022 and March 2023, unless otherwise noted.

PUBLIC OUTREACH & FOCUS GROUPS
An overview of the historic preservation ordinance and register update project was posted to the City of Mountain View’s website in September 2022. The site provided the scope of work, timeline for project milestones and deliverables, frequently asked questions, and noticing on community workshops and public outreach. The first community workshop was hosted virtually on September 6, 2022, and focused on introducing the project’s major tasks, the topics and themes relevant to Mountain View’s developmental history, and sought input from local citizens through an online survey form. Also posted on the project website, the survey form allowed members of the public to share personal stories, photographs, and favorite locations and buildings around town. On October 16, 2022, Page & Turnbull representatives staffed an information table at the Mountain View Farmer’s Market. This outreach event provided another public outreach opportunity to inform the public about the project and collect feedback about the special locations and buildings in the city, like the online survey.
4 “Mountain View Annexation History 2.0,” City of Mountain View, ArcGIS Online map, May 13, 2016, updated 2018, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8fddb0a53e55446d9fea4a704eda33b4. 85 Introduction City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 8 August 10, 2026
In addition to consulting the public through a workshop and online survey, Page & Turnbull also targeted several local focus groups with keen interests in the history of Mountain View, historic preservation, and downtown development. A meeting with representatives of Livable Mountain View occurred on October 19, 2022, with the Mountain View Historical Association on October 27, 2022, with the Downtown Committee on December 6, 2022, and with the Monta Loma Neighborhood Association on January 24, 2023. A second community workshop was held on October 30, 2023 in a hybrid format which provided an update on the status of the overall project and sought input on the City of Mountain View’s preservation priorities and the project goals. Input was also provided by the Mountain View City Council during a study session on December 12, 2023.

C. HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
The Mountain View HCS identifies development patterns and property types in the area. It is intended to be used as a tool by the Mountain View community to better understand and evaluate the city’s historic resources. The document is organized as follows:
• Section II: Previous Surveys, Studies, and Reports summarizes previous historic resource survey work in Mountain View.
• Section III: Guidelines for Evaluation provides an overview of the various national, state, and local registration requirements for historic resources; a summary of significant themes; a definition of each of the major property types found in the city (residential, commercial, industrial, and civic/institutional); and guidelines for evaluating the significance and integrity of these properties. The guidelines in this section can be used by the City of Mountain View as the framework for future evaluations.
• Section IV: Historic Contexts includes a narrative of the area’s developmental history. This history is divided into six periods that are defined by events, themes, and development trends. Following the narrative account of themes in each period of development is a section on Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements. These registration requirements provide specific information related to each theme and development period within the specific context of Mountain View’s history. This guides an understanding and evaluating potential historic significance and historic integrity for individual and district listing in the National Register and the California Register and/or individual listing in the local Mountain View Register. The information in this section does not provide any determinations of eligibility, but rather can be used as a reference when questions arise regarding a property’s significance and integrity.
86 Previous Surveys, Studies & Reports City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 9 August 10, 2026
II. PREVIOUS SURVEYS, STUDIES & REPORTS
The City of Mountain View has been committed to preserving its architectural heritage since its first historic preservation ordinance was adopted by City Council in 2004. The City’s current 2030 General Plan implements regulations that emphasize the preservation of historic resources, which are buttressed by historic resource surveys and reports produced in 2003, 2008, and 2020. The following section outlines these prior efforts.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (MUNICIPAL CODE §36.55) The City of Mountain View’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code §36.55) was adopted in 2004 and updated in 2026. The ordinance outlines the designation process to list a property on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the City’s official listing of locally designated historic resources. Much like the National and California registers, at least one of four designation criteria must be met for a building, structure, site, or other improvement to be designated as a historic resource and placed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.5 Refer to Section III.

Guidelines for Evaluation: B. Evaluation Criteria of this report for further discussion of the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources criteria and how they compare to the National and California registers.

MOUNTAIN VIEW 2030 GENERAL PLAN
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan update began in 2008 with a comprehensive visioning process to set forth a commitment to make appropriate decisions and allocate necessary resources which support the community’s preferred future. Overarching identified themes include quality of life, sustainability, diversity, health and wellness, and economic prosperity. Chapter 3 of the plan specifically addresses land use and design (LUD) topics aimed to retain the distinct character of neighborhoods, create community vibrancy through inviting streets and public spaces, and focus on walkability.

Chapter 3 specifically outlines several historic preservation policies aimed to preserve local historic and cultural resources and encourage their continued protection and enhancement.6 These policies are:

LUD 11.1: Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. 5 City of Mountain View, California, Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 15 – Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources, §36.55.02. Definitions. Accessed online July 22, 2026, URL TBD. 6 City of Mountain View, 2030 General Plan (adopted 2012), 54. 87 Previous Surveys, Studies & Reports City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 10 August 10, 2026

LUD 11.2: Adaptive reuse. Encourage the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in ways that retain their historical materials and character-defining features.

LUD 11.3: Incentives. Encourage historical preservation through incentives and opportunities.

LUD 11.4: Moffett Field. Support the preservation of historic buildings and hangars at Moffett Field and NASA Ames.

LUD 11.5: Archaeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.

LUD 11.6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

OTHER PREVIOUS STUDIES & RESOURCES
Some historic resources in Mountain View have been individually documented through the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, DPR 523 survey forms, National Register nominations, or other reports. These documents were completed by a variety of consultants from the 1970s to present and can be found in the City of Mountain View Community Development archives, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) via the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), or the National Park Service’s National Register Database. These surveys include:
2004 Downtown Precise Plan Amendment
The City of Mountain View adopted a Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) in 1988, intending to provide a coherent framework for downtown redevelopment and preservation as well as guidelines for future development. A 2003 historic resource survey performed by Carey & Company resulted in a 2004 amendment to the DTPP, incorporating historical preservation standards like design guidelines for storefronts and public spaces. This survey work initiated a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the late nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury downtown buildings’ contribution to Mountain View’s historic character, distinctiveness, and desirable pattern and mix of buildings and land uses. 2008 Citywide Survey
Performed by Carey & Company in 2008, the three primary objectives of this survey and report were to prepare a historic context statement, perform a reconnaissance survey of 88 Previous Surveys, Studies & Reports City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 11 August 10, 2026
properties over 50 years old, and conduct an intensive survey of identified eligible properties for the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.

Of the 5,295 properties surveyed during the reconnaissance survey, 45 properties were found eligible for listing on the National Register and/or California Register during the intensive survey. The 2008 survey was not formally adopted by Mountain View City Council. 2020 Downtown Precise Plan Area Historic Resources Survey Report In 2020, TreanorHL, previously known as Carey & Company, undertook a historic resource survey update of the approximately 200 age-eligible properties located within the Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan area. This area generally extends two blocks to either side of Castro Street between the railway to the north and El Camino Real to the south-roughly bounded by Franklin Street, West Evelyn Avenue, View Street, El Camino Real, and High School Way. This survey updated existing historic resource property information and identified potential local historic districts, including a portion of subarea B as a “Downtown Mountain View Residential Historic District” with 1900 to 1935 being its period of significance, and subarea H as a “Castro Street Historic Retail District” with 1861 to 1950 being its period of significance.7 Neither potential district appeared eligible for the National Register nor the California Register. At the time of issuance of TreanorHL’s Draft Survey Report in June 2020, the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance did not have designation criteria or a designation process for listing historic districts on its local register.

The survey also identified 15 properties in the Downtown Precise Plan Area as potentially eligible for individual listing in the National Register, California Register, and Mountain View Register, as well as five (5) properties individually eligible for listing only in the Mountain View Register. The 2020 Downtown Precise Plan Area survey report remains as a draft report, and has not been formally adopted by Mountain View City Council.

National Register & California Register-Listed Resources The Henry A. Rengstorff House, now located at 3070 N. Shoreline Boulevard, was listed as a California Point of Interest in 1972 (P276), nominated and listed to the National Register in 1978 (NR#78000778), and listed in the California Register by 2003. 8 The Mountain View
Adobe at 157 Moffett Boulevard was listed to the National Register in 2002 (NR #02001256) and has automatically been listed in the California Register. 9 7 TreanorHL, “City of Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan Area Historic Resource Survey Report“ (prepared for City of Mountain View, Draft June 2020). 8 California Office of Historic Preservation, “California Historical Resources,” accessed online May 31, 2023 from https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=name&criteria=rengstorff. 9 National Park Service, “National Register of Historic Places,” NPGallery Digital Archive, accessed online December 2, 2022 from https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults?view=list. 89 Previous Surveys, Studies & Reports City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 12 August 10, 2026
While the Julius Weilheimer House at 938 Villa Street and Air Base Laundry at 954 Villa Street were previously nominated to the National Register and deemed eligible by the National Park Service’s Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, neither property was ultimately listed in the National Register due to owner objection.10 As the properties were determined eligible for listing in the National Register, they were automatically listed in the California Register.
10 National Park Service, “Weekly List 20190426,” National Register of Historic Places, accessed online May 13, 2024, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list-20190426.htm; and National Park Service, “Weekly List 20190614,” National Register of Historic Places, accessed online May 13, 2024, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list20190614.htm. 90 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 13 August 10, 2026
III. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION
The following section assesses themes significant to the developmental history of the City of Mountain View and defines major property types that are representative of these themes. The section concludes with general guidelines for evaluating properties for the national, state, and local registers.

A. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT THEMES & PROPERTY TYPES
The Mountain View Historic Context Statement (HCS) utilizes themes and periods of development as its primary organizing principle. “Themes” are ways to organize and understand information about events, activities, people, communities, and patterns of change that have influenced historic and cultural development of an area. The National Park Service revised its framework for historic themes in 1994, replacing a more chrono-centric approach with themes intended to capture “the full diversity of American history and prehistory.”11 This HCS discusses the following themes relative to the growth and evolution of the built environment in Mountain View:
• Residential Development
• Commercial Development
• Agricultural & Industrial Development
• Transportation & Infrastructure
• Civic Growth and Social, Cultural & Institutional Development • Technology & Innovation.

These themes contribute in varying degrees to the Mountain View HCS and are manifested in different ways throughout the city’s history. These themes are discussed more specifically as they relate to each of Mountain View’s six notable periods of development. It should be noted that ethnic and cultural diversity is a major thread that runs through all of these themes. As such, the history and contributions of Mountain View’s diverse communities are discussed throughout this Historic Context Statement as they are inextricably woven into the overall history of the city.

This report also considers intangible cultural heritage, which includes traditions or living expressions inherited from ancestors and passed on to descendants. Oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts are examples of intangible cultural 11 Revision of the National Park Service’s Thematic Framework, 1994, accessed September 12, 2022, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSthinking/thematic.htm. 91 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 14 August 10, 2026
heritage.12 Intangible cultural heritage may be linked to a specific property that is owned or occupied by a cultural community, such as community center, social hall, commercial storefront, or religious property, even if the intangible traditions are not all practiced or executed at that physical location.

For example, the Portuguese community’s Holy Ghost festival and parade might be an aspect of intangible cultural heritage that is associated with their social hall as the community’s primary meeting space, even if some of the parade and festival activities occur at other venues or locations in the city.

RELATING THEMES WITH PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
The periods of development in this HCS combine specific timeframes with themes that encompass related events, patterns of settlement and construction, activities of people important to the area, and socioeconomic changes. Each of the periods of development is also associated with specific property types that originated within or characterize the period. The periods of development also represent the potential periods of significance for properties associated with the respective contexts. A period of significance is the time span during which a property (or property type) attained its historic significance. In some cases, a property may have multiple periods of significance or have a longer period of significance that extends between multiple development eras.

The periods of development utilized for the Mountain View HCS have been identified by Page & Turnbull in consultation with the City of Mountain View Community Development Department.

These periods are as follows:

Indigenous Settlement (Before 1775)
The Ohlone, called Costanoan or “coast dweller” by the Spanish, were the indigenous people of the greater San Francisco Bay area. Their extensive territory and trading network spanned from San Francisco in the north to Carmel in the south and as much as 60 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, usually following creeks and rivers. The Tamien Nation specifically occupied the land that became present-day Mountain View. As a nomadic hunter-gatherer tribe, the Ohlone and its subgroups did not build permanent architecture that has survived to the present day, yet evidence of their lifestyle and culture has been found within the vicinity of Mountain View, particularly the Castro Mound (no longer extant) once located in the Monta Loma neighborhood.

Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850)
Spanish Lieutenant Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza’s 1775-1776 expedition departed Horcasitas, Mexico and meandered through “New Spain” to establish a presidio and pueblo 12 UNESCO, “What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?” accessed online March 8, 2023, https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-isintangible-heritage-00003. 92 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 15 August 10, 2026
at San Francisco in Alta California. This 1,800-mile journey brought some of the first nonNative families into the region. The expedition took two routes crossing through the presentday Mountain View vicinity. The southern trail corridor was the expedition’s initial path to San Francisco. After surveying near present-day Palo Alto, Anza and several other members reversed course and followed the bay shore south to explore the foothills in east San Francisco Bay. Today, sections of Anza’s approximate route are honored as a Historic Trail Corridor.

The bountiful natural resources and fair climate of the Santa Clara Valley supported early Spanish missions and pueblos. However, political control of the new Spanish territory was far from settled. The Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821) placed the entirety of California under Mexican rule by 1822. This divorce with Catholic Spain transformed the California economy, population, and land ownership patterns-namely the division of mission lands into privately held ranchos. Mission Santa Clara was one of the last missions to undergo secularization when its Mission Indians were freed and its landholdings were dispersed in 1836, creating several ranchos including Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas (also known as Rancho del Refugio) and Rancho Posolmi in present-day Mountain View.

American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1850-1909)
Agricultural interests continued to lure settlers from other American states and abroad to California’s Santa Clara Valley during its Early American Period of the mid-nineteenth century, including German-immigrant Henry Rengstorff (1821-1902). One of Mountain View’s earliest farmers, Rengstorff later purchased bayside land to construct Rengstorff Landing, where farmers could ship crops to San Francisco and Mountain View received building supplies for its growing region. In 1852, a stagecoach rest stop was established on El Camino Real within the Castro rancho near Stevens Creek. A village supported by surrounding fruit tree orchards and farms soon developed around this stopover on the route between San Francisco and San José and became known as Mountain View, a name credited to the town’s first postmaster Jacob Shumway.

As the Southern Pacific Railroad established its track down the Peninsula in 1860s following the stagecoach route, it bypassed the rural village of Mountain View. While a makeshift stop was created in 1864, a permanent train depot was not constructed until 1888 in an area that became known as Mountain View Station or New Mountain View. This depot spurred commercial development along the newly plotted Castro Street, eventually becoming the city’s Main Street corridor. The two distinct villages of Old and New Mountain View operated independently until the City of Mountain View was incorporated on November 7, 1902. A city hall was built in 1909 on the corner of Castro and California streets and held city government 93 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 16 August 10, 2026
offices, the police department, a small jail, and the public library, and the civic and commercial heart of Mountain View shifted to Castro Street.

Early Twentieth-Century Development, Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) The early twentieth century was a time of continued expansion and diversity for Mountain View, with distinct ethnic and religious enclaves in place by the 1920s, particularly Seventhday Adventists along the city’s western periphery surrounding the Pacific Press Publishing Company complex; Japanese along View Street; and Mexicans in the Castro City and Frog Pond neighborhoods. Large numbers of Filipino, Spanish, Eastern European, Italian, and Portuguese immigrants continued to arrive for work in Mountain View’s agricultural jobs. In 1923, Mountain View’s first city park was established on Castro Street near City Hall. In 1924, Mountain View Union High School, designed by renowned California architect William H.

Weeks in the Mission style, opened on Castro Street.13
The Great Depression (1929-1939) stifled Santa Clara Valley’s agriculture-export economy, with fruit deemed an unnecessary luxury, and halted most new construction in downtown Mountain View. Nearby Moffett Naval Air Station was established in 1933 and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics’ (NACA) Ames Research Center in 1939, attracting an educated and diverse workforce. The construction and operation of these two federal facilities provided hundreds of Mountain View residents with much-needed jobs as the Great Depression wore on. However, the city was divided in the early years of World War II when Japanese citizens were sent to internment camps for the duration of the war, many to remain in the Central Valley instead of returning to the Bay Area.14 Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) The City of Mountain View’s jagged southern boundary resulted from various annexations following the incorporation of the neighboring City of Los Altos in 1952. In 1956, controversial inventor William Shockley established the first silicon-device research and manufacturing laboratory in an old apricot barn on San Antonio Road, signaling the pivot of Mountain View industry from agriculture in the “Valley of Heart’s Delight” to technology in “Silicon Valley.” Other early technology-based innovators include GTE Sylvania, Fairchild Semiconductors, and Intel, setting the stage for the Dot-Com Boom. Mountain View of the 1960s through the 1970s saw continued conversion of orchards and farmland to tracts of single-family and multi-family housing, supporting a mushrooming population of just 6,500 13 Nicholas Perry, Images of America: Mountain View (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2006), 62. 14 Rya Jetha, Bay City News Foundation, “Ten maps that show where Asian American communities reside in the Bay Area” Local News Matters, August 26, 2022, accessed online November 1, 2022 https://localnewsmatters.org/2022/08/26/ten-mapsthat-show-where-asian-american-communities-reside-in-the-bay-area/. 94 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 17 August 10, 2026
in 1950 to over 54,000 by 1970, as well as office parks to support new high-tech manufacturing and research and development.
15 Simultaneously, outlying shopping malls
decentralized Mountain View’s historic business district, triggering a downtown redevelopment plan in the 1960s.

Recent Past (1980-2026)
Silicon Valley’s Dot-Com Boom of the 1990s erased almost all remaining vestiges of Mountain View’s agrarian past as massive technology campuses were constructed atop farmland along with experiments in New Urbanist housing developments. Use of the H-1B visa in the 1990s attracted people from Asian countries with specialized knowledge in technology fields, contributing to an ever more diverse workforce in Mountain View.16 In 1994, the Silicon Graphics Incorporated (SGI) building at 1401 North Shoreline Boulevard was converted to house the Computer History Museum, paying homage to tech- and computer-industry trailblazers, including Shockley Laboratories and Fairchild Semiconductor, while SGI’s Charleston Park headquarters and many surrounding office park buildings were converted to serve as Google’s global headquarters.17 In addition to the demolition of a number of notable older buildings, including the Mountain View Union High School, a number of notable building rehabilitations and reconstructions were undertaken during this period to preserve Mountain View’s heritage. Major infrastructure projects included Shoreline Park and Amphitheatre and the redevelopment of Castro Street and the Civic Center.

SUMMARY OF PROPERTY TYPES
Each period of development has one or more associated property types that help illustrate the period’s significant themes. Property types that are discussed in this document are defined as follows:
• Residential properties: Single-family residences, duplexes, condominium and apartment complexes, designed residential landscapes, mobile homes. • Commercial properties: Retail stores, including buildings with retail on all floor(s) or mixeduse commercial buildings with retail on the ground floor only with office space or residences above; shopping malls/centers; former printing press facilities; motels and hotels; restaurants; auto-oriented businesses, such as gas stations, service centers, car washes, drive-in restaurants, drive-in theaters, etc.; banks; mortuaries and funeral homes; and business signs.
15 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 8. 16 Jetha, “Ten maps that show where Asian American communities reside in the Bay Area.” 17 Nicholas Perry, Then & Now: Mountain View (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2012), 93. 95 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 18 August 10, 2026
• Agricultural and industrial properties: Working or former farmsteads; orchards; barns; lumber yards; light industrial properties; and other buildings where goods were made, stored, and/or repaired. Agricultural properties may also include rural agricultural landscapes (a type of cultural landscape).
• Civic, cultural, and institutional properties: Municipal buildings, such as city hall, police and fire stations; post offices; libraries; schools; community centers; religious buildings; social halls and club/organization buildings; preforming arts buildings; medical facilities; public art; civic and infrastructure improvements; recreational properties; and designed landscapes, such as parks or plazas.
• Transportation and infrastructure properties: Train depot and rail lines or segments. • Corporate and technology campuses/offices: Office buildings, suburban corporate campuses, suburban corporate estates, and office parks. • Historic districts: An area within the City of Mountain View, with defined physical boundaries, that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, and/or objects united historically and/or aesthetically by plan or physical development.
18 Historic districts may include a mix of property types or could be geographical unified groups of predominantly similar property types, such as an older residential neighborhood, commercial strip, or corporate office campus/complex. • Archeological resources: If discovered, archeological resources are likely to be significant, but discussion of these resources is outside the scope of this document.

Each section of this historic context statement identifies relevant associated property types, provides a description of their character and distribution, and outlines the requirements for resource registration.

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following discussion of significance and integrity generally guides the property type analyses found in later chapters of this document and should be used to support future evaluation of historic resources in Mountain View. It is important to note that each property is unique; therefore, significance and integrity evaluation must be conducted on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines should be implemented as an overlay to the particular facts and circumstances of each individual resource. An extended discussion of archeological resources and their registration requirements under Criterion D/4/4 is not included in this report, which primarily focuses on extant buildings and structures.
18 City of Mountain View, California, Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 15 – Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources, §36.55.02. Definitions. Accessed online July 22, 2026, URL TBD. 96 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 19 August 10, 2026

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. Administered by the National Park Service, the National Register lists buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. According to National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, resources over fifty years of age are typically eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance (A through D) and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. These criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin No. 15. The California Register of Historical Resources follows nearly identical guidelines to those used by the National Register but identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically.

The four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National or California registers are:

Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and
Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.19
A resource can be considered significant to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture on a national, state, or local level. Perhaps the most critical feature of applying the criteria for evaluation is establishing the relationship between a property and its historic context, which is defined as “those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear.”20
19 Any archaeological artifact found on a property in Mountain View has the potential to yield knowledge of history and could therefore prove significant under this criterion. However, analysis under this criterion is beyond the scope of this report. 20 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, rev. 1995), 7. 97 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 20 August 10, 2026
National Register Criteria Considerations
Certain types of properties are usually not considered for listing in the National Register. However, these properties can be eligible for listing if it meets special requirements, or Criteria Considerations. If working with one of these excluded property types, an evaluator must determine that a property meets the Criteria Considerations in addition to one of the four evaluation criteria described above to justify its inclusion in the National Register. These considerations are defined as follows:

Criteria Consideration A: Religious Properties: A religious property is eligible if it derives its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties: A property removed from its original or historically significant location can be eligible if it is significant primarily for architectural value or is the surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces & Graves: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure is eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life.

Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries: A cemetery is eligible if it derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties: A reconstructed property is eligible when it is accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same associations has survived. All three of these requirements must be met.

Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties: A property primarily commemorative in intent can be eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance.

Criteria Consideration G: Properties that Have Achieved Significance within the Past Fifty Years: A property achieving significance within the past fifty years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.
98 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 21 August 10, 2026
NPS Multiple Property Documentation Forms
Properties that are associated with the Latino or Asian American and Pacific Islander communities in Mountain View may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the cover of existing National Park Service (NPS) Multiple Property Documentation Forms (MPDFs). An MPDF establishes the historic context, associated property types, and registration requirements for nominating resources under its cover. Once the MPDF is adopted by the NPS, future individual nominations can reduce the amount of documentation needed by referencing the historic context in the MPDF. As such, properties that are associated with the Latino or Asian American and Pacific Islander that are found eligible for listing in the National Register could be designated under the relevant MPDF cover with a more abbreviated submission.

Refer to:
• California Office of Historic Preservation. Latinos in Twentieth Century California: National Register of Historic Context Statement. Sacramento: California State Parks, 2015. Accessed online March 7, 2023, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/latinosmpdf_illustrated.pdf. • Page & Turnbull and Donna Graves. “Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1970.” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form.

August 2019. Accessed online March 7, 2023,
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/CA_MultipleCounties_AsianAmericans-andPacificIslanders-in-California%20MPS_MPDF_SLR.pdf.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.

The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.

In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following four criteria. Resources listed in the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register.

Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
99 Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 22 August 10, 2026
Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.

Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.21
California Register Special Criteria Considerations
The California Register does not have the same strict Criteria Considerations as the National Register and is more flexible about integrity, moved properties, and properties less than fifty years of age.

The “Special Criteria Considerations” for the California Register are as follows:

Moved buildings, structures, or objects. The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) encourages the retention of historical resources on site and discourages the nonhistoric grouping of historic buildings into parks or districts. However, it is recognized that moving an historic building, structure, or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction. Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource. A historical resource should retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment.

Historical resources achieving significance within the past fifty years. In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.

Reconstructed buildings. Reconstructed buildings are those buildings not listed in the 21 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001), 11-2. 100
Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 23 August 10, 2026
California Register under the criteria stated above. A reconstructed building less than fifty years old may be eligible if it embodies traditional building methods and techniques that play an important role in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices (e.g., a Native American roundhouse).
22 MOUNTAIN VIEW REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
The eligibility criteria for local listing in the City of Mountain View’s Register of Historic Resources are similar to the National Register and California Register criteria outlined previously. Specifically, as described in the City of Mountain View’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code §36.55.10), a building, structure, site, or other improvement may be designated as a historic resource and placed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources if the city council finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to history and cultural heritage within the City of Mountain View; Criterion 2: Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history, or development of the City; Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction significant to the City’s history or cultural heritage, or represents the work of an architect, design professional, or builder of merit, or possesses high artistic value; or Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the City’s precontact era or history.

HISTORIC INTEGRITY
In addition to qualifying for listing under at least one of the National Register, California Register, and/or local criteria, a property must be shown to have sufficient historic integrity. The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historic resources and in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historic resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.” The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility 22 California Office of Historic Preservation, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purpose of determining eligibility for the California Register) (Sacramento:

California Office of State Publishing, March 14, 2006), 3-4. 101
Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 24 August 10, 2026
for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and/or the Mountain View Register.

According to the National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, these seven characteristics are defined as follows:

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The original location of a property, complemented by its setting, is required to express the property’s integrity of location.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property. Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of design are its form, massing, construction method, architectural style, and architectural details (including fenestration pattern).

Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of setting are its location, relationship to the street, and intact surroundings (e.g., neighborhood or rural).

Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of materials are its construction method and architectural details.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of workmanship are its construction method and architectural details.

Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of feeling are its overall design quality, which may include form, massing, architectural style, architectural details, and surroundings.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of association are its use and its overall design quality.

Evaluation of integrity may be subjective, so it must be grounded in an understanding of how a historic resource’s physical features relate to its historic significance, designation criteria, and period 102
Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 25 August 10, 2026
of significance. Since most physical features experience change over time, and those changes may acquire significance in due course, it remains vital that enough of the essential physical attributes remain to associate the physical resource with its historic significance.

Evaluating Historic Integrity in Mountain View
For evaluation purposes, a building ultimately either possesses integrity or does not. While it is understood that nearly all properties undergo change over time—and thus minor alterations or changes are not uncommon—a building must possess enough of its original features to demonstrate why it is significant. Evaluators of potential historic resources should look closely at characteristics such as massing, roof forms, fenestration patterns, cladding materials, and neighborhood surroundings when evaluating a property’s integrity.

The City of Mountain View defines integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its significance, typically evidenced by the retention of attributes, or a character-defining feature(s), that existed during its period of significance and including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.”23 The Mountain View Register of Historic Resources may allow lower and/or more flexible integrity thresholds than the California and National registers, specifically for resources constructed prior to 1939 and resources in the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street and side streets within one block thereof, given the rarity of such buildings and structures locally.

To convey its historical significance, a property that has sufficient integrity for listing in the national or state register will generally retain a majority of its character-defining features. However, the necessary aspects of integrity also depend on the reason the property is significant. High priority is typically placed on integrity of design, materials, and workmanship for properties significant for their architectural design (Criterion C/3/3), while for properties significant in association with events or people (Criteria A/1/1 and B/2/2), these aspects are only necessary to the extent that they help the property convey integrity of feeling and/or association. Similarly, integrity of location and setting are crucial for properties significant in association with events (Criterion A/1/1) but are typically less important for properties significant in association with people (Criterion B/2/2) or architectural design (Criterion C/3/3). For properties significant under any of these criteria, it is possible for some materials to be replaced without drastically affecting integrity of design, as long as these alterations are subordinate to the overall character of the building. For example, minor alterations such as window replacement may be acceptable in residential districts, but not in an individual property designed by a notable architect or builder.
23 City of Mountain View, California, Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 15 – Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources, §36.55.02. Definitions. Accessed online July 22, 2026, URL TBD. 103
Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 26 August 10, 2026
On the other hand, properties that are significant for their association with an ethnic or cultural group may be a rare extant property or may be associated with intangible cultural heritage, and it should be understood that these properties may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property associated with an ethnic or cultural group may have some alteration to its design, but may remain eligible as long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.

Evaluations of integrity should also include some basis of comparison. In other words, the evaluator should understand the relative levels of integrity associated with each property type. Some properties may rate exceptionally highly in all aspects of integrity; such properties should be given high priority in preservation planning efforts and are more likely to be eligible for listing in the National Register, in addition to the California and Mountain View registers. Generally, a property with exceptional integrity will have undergone few or no alterations since its original construction and will not have been moved from its original location.

Conversely, increased age and rarity of the property type may lower the threshold required for sufficient integrity. For local eligibility determinations, this principle is applicable to buildings and structures of any type constructed before World War II, as the properties are increasingly rare in Mountain View. This principle is also applicable to commercial buildings located within the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Castro Street, which comprise the City of Mountain View’s historic commercial core, as the City of Mountain View and its residents place a high value on the character of its downtown corridor.

Where properties have previously been altered, historic integrity can be increased if restoration or rehabilitation projects are conducted accurately based on documentary evidence, such as historic photographs and/or original drawings.

Finally, it should be stressed that historic integrity and condition are not the same. Buildings with evident signs of deterioration can still retain eligibility for historic listing if it can be demonstrated that they retain enough character-defining features to convey their significance. 104
Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 27 August 10, 2026

HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Historic districts are a group of buildings which may not be significant individually, but are significant as a whole. Evaluation and designation criteria for historic districts have been established for the National Register, California Register, and the Mountain View Historic Register.

Historic districts are not collections of individually significant buildings; instead, districts are made up of components which are significant only when grouped together. Districts must work together to tell the story of their significance and must have distinguishable boundaries. Typically, while working toward understanding the historic context and significance of an area, historic districts become apparent. Boundaries of a historic district are frequently defined by use (e.g., theater district), connection to an event (e.g., commercial district), or architectural style (e.g., Craftsman Bungalow district). Historic districts will include both contributors and non-contributors, and not all resources need to be of the same historical or architectural quality. The district functions as a group, and includes both contextual buildings and the stand-outs which help anchor a district.

Eligibility for listing for historic districts, just as for individual resources, is based on two factors:

Criteria and Integrity. Criteria are a means of evaluating a resource’s historical significance. In addition to embodying one or more of the necessary criteria, it is also imperative that the district have sufficient integrity. In the case of historic resources, integrity is defined as the physical characteristics which must be maintained in order to allow a resource to convey its historical significance.

In order to retain sufficient integrity for eligibility for designation as a historic district, a majority of the properties or components (approximately 60 percent or more) within the district boundary should contribute to the district’s significance. An eligible district should retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance, and contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. In-kind replacement of features and materials are acceptable within historic districts, as well as reversible additions or alterations. Substantial alterations to a building’s massing, form, roofline, and fenestration pattern, especially if such alterations render the original design intent or storefront configuration unrecognizable, the building may be considered a non-contributor to the district.

Evaluating Historic Districts in Mountain View
The City of Mountain View uses the terms “primary contributor” and “limited contributor” to classify individual historic resources within an eligible Historic District that is eligible for the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. Primary contributors as defined as “a parcel that contains one or 105
Guidelines for Evaluation City of Mountain View, CA
[21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 28 August 10, 2026
more building(s), structure(s), or object(s) that contributes to the significance of a historic district and possesses sufficient integrity to convey that significance.”24 This term is equivalent to “contributor” in the evaluation of historic districts for the California and National registers. A limited contributor is defined as “a parcel that is within the boundaries of a historic district that does not contain a building, structure, or object that contributes to the district’s significance, either by the absence of any such building, structure, or object or by same’s lack of sufficient integrity to convey that significance.”25 Although the parcel may not contribute directly to the historic district’s significance, altering it may detract from the district's overall ability to convey its significance, such that proposed projects within limited contributor parcels may require discretionary review. This local term is generally equivalent to “non-contributor” in the evaluation of historic districts for the California and National registers.
24 City of Mountain View, California, Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 15 – Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources, §36.55.02. Definitions. Accessed online July 22, 2026, URL TBD. 25 City of Mountain View, California, Code of Ordinances. Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 15 – Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources, §36.55.02. Definitions. Accessed online July 22, 2026, URL TBD. 106
Historic Contexts: Indigenous Settlement (Before 1775) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 29 August 10, 2026
IV. HISTORIC CONTEXTS
It is acknowledged that the City of Mountain View exists on the occupied territory of indigenous peoples, including the Ohlone nation, stewards of the land since time immemorial. The City of Mountain View is committed to supporting the ongoing relationships between these tribes, their ancestral territories, and the resilience, strength, and sovereignty that continues to be demonstrated by California’s first peoples. The City of Mountain View aims to secure meaningful partnership and inclusion in the stewardship and protection of their cultural resources and homelands, and honors and is grateful for the land it occupies.

A. INDIGENOUS SETTLEMENT (BEFORE 1775)
The Ohlone, called Costanoan or “coast dweller” by the Spanish, were an extensive indigenous tribe of the San Francisco Bay area (Figure 2). Their far-reaching territory and trading network spanned from San Francisco in the north to Carmel in the south and as much as 60 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, usually following creeks and rivers. The greater Santa Clara Valley, including Mountain View, was specifically the territory of the Tamien subgroup of the Ohlone nation. It is believed that this hunter-gatherer tribe inhabited the area since 500 AD, if not earlier, grew to a population of approximately 300,000, and spoke between 64 to 80 different dialects. 26 The Ohlone were skilled
weavers, known for their basketmaking and cordage, tule boat construction, and conical reed huts.

Figure 2: 1822 watercolor of traditional Ohlone headdresses for dancing by Louis Choris.

Source: National Library of Australia Digital Collection. 26 Richard Levy, “Costanoan” in Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8: California, ed. William C. Sturtevant and Robert Heizer (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, 1978), 485-95. 107
Historic Contexts: Indigenous Settlement (Before 1775) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 30 August 10, 2026
The origin story of the Ohlone is one of a great flood with Mount Umunhum, Ohlone for "resting place of the hummingbird,” being a most sacred site of refuge within the present-day Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve in the Santa Cruz Mountains.27 The Ohlone built no permanent architecture but rather migrated with the seasons to harvest various dietary staples through harvesting (ruta), fishing (huyni), and hunting (payta).28 Their diet consisted of acorns and other seeds, roots and berries, fish, mussels, oysters, seals, waterfowl, and land mammals. Though not an agricultural society, the Ohlone practiced controlled burning of grassland and oak forest to manage the production of certain plants, a practice later terminated by the Spanish.29 The Ohlone and its subgroups generally settled in small communal villages with unrelated familial groups collaborating in harvesting, hunting, religious practices, and settling disputes. At least one of these settlements was located in the present-day city limits of Mountain View, straddling the border between the Monta Loma neighborhood and the neighboring City of Palo Alto. In 1893, a group of Stanford University anthropologists identified the “Castro Mound” and were provided exclusive digging rights to the site by 1894. Originally measuring approximately 400-feet long by 300-feet wide by 10-feet tall, the shell mound was the largest of its type in the south San Francisco Bay region.

Excavations yielded cremated human remains, beads, shells, and other decorative ornaments, all providing clues into the lifestyle and culture of the indigenous peoples. When the mound was doomed for suburban development in 1946, researchers dug in relays to retrieve as many artifacts as possible (Figure 3).
30 In 1989, Stanford University turned over a collection of over 550 items to Ohlone descendants. Radiocarbon dating estimates the origin of the Castro Mound to the 1460s, give or take a century.
31 27 "Sierra Azul Preserve – History,” Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, accessed online December 6, 2022, https://www.openspace.org/preserves/sierra-azul#history. 28 “Food Sovereignty,” Tamien Nation, accessed online December 6, 2022, https://www.tamien.org/food-sovereignty. 29 Levy, “Costanoan,” 485-95. 30 “Bulldozer Is Leveling Indian Mound Near By,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, November 19, 1946. 31 Polly McW. Bickel, “Changing Sea Levels Along the California Coast: Anthropological Implications” The Journal of California Anthropology 5, no. 1 (1978), 5.
108
Historic Contexts: Indigenous Settlement (Before 1775) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 31 August 10, 2026
Figure 3: 1947 aerial photograph of the Castro Mound being leveled.

Source: Gullard and Lund, History of Palo Alto: The Early Years (1989).

Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (Before 1775) The various shell mounds recorded in and around the City of Mountain View clearly indicate an extended period of indigenous occupation. Any dwellings or other structures constructed by these first peoples have disappeared over the centuries as the Euro-American presence in the area has grown. As such, the indigenous period in Mountain View is not represented by any extant built resources. However, it is possible that archaeological resources, such as the sub-surface remains of shell mounds, village deposits, and burials, may still be present in Mountain View. These would most likely be encountered during excavation activities in areas in proximity to historic sources of water. If such remains are encountered, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to further assess the site. Any artifacts dating to the indigenous period may have the potential to yield information important to pre-contact and thus make the site significant under National Register Criterion D, California Register Criterion 4, and/or Mountain View Register Criterion 4. 109
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 32 August 10, 2026
B. SPANISH TRAILS & MEXICAN RANCHOS (1775-1850)
Though the Spanish crown funded a “Sacred Expedition” into California in 1769 under the leadership of Franciscan priest Junípero Serra, it wasn’t until Lieutenant Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza’s 1775- 1776 expedition that Spanish civilian settlement was established in “New Spain.” The de Anza expedition departed Horcasitas, Mexico and meandered through the new territory to establish a presidio and pueblo at San Francisco in Alta California. This 1,000-mile journey brought some of the first non-Native peoples into the region, mainly provincial, mixed-race families. The expedition took two routes crossing through present-day Mountain View, likely traversing indigenous trade paths and game trails.
32 The southern trail corridor was the expedition’s initial path to San Francisco. After surveying near present-day Palo Alto, de Anza and several other members reversed course and followed the bayshore south to explore the foothills in east San Francisco Bay (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Map indicating the approximate campsites of the final leg of de Anza’s expedition, edited to show the San Francisco Bay area with the approximate location of the City of Mountain View marked with a black star.

Source: Delgado, “Mapping Historic Campsites of the Anza Colonizing Expedition,” National Park Service.

In an effort to fortify Spain’s foothold in Alta California, Serra established Mission San Francisco de Asís in June 1776 at the north end of the bay (the sixth Spanish mission in Alta California), while Father Tomás de la Peña established Mission Santa Clara de Asís in January 1777 towards the south end of the bay (the eighth Spanish mission in Alta California). Members of the de Anza expedition constructed El Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe in November 1777, the first civil settlement in Alta 32 Overtime, these trails changed uses as transportation modes evolved, later becoming migration routes, stagecoach roads, and eventually major thoroughfares. Today, State Route 237 between Mountain View and Milpitas is a designated Anza trail corridor. De Anza’s routes were recognized as a National Historic Trail in 1990. Refer to: “Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail: Maps,” National Park Service, accessed online October 26, 2022, https://www.nps.gov/juba/planyourvisit/maps.htm.
110
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 33 August 10, 2026
California, to ranch and farm the vast landholdings of Mission Santa Clara that spanned as far west as present-day Palo Alto. Descendants of two of these pioneering families, the Castros and the Peraltas, would marry and eventually come to own over 8,000 acres of land in the area where Mountain View was later founded.

As the Spanish systems of Catholicism and colonization took effect, Native peoples were indoctrinated as neophytes, expected to relinquish their indigenous culture and practices to fully support the self-sufficiency of the mission through European methodologies. Forced into supervised settlements called rancherias (or laborers’ quarters), Mission Indian populations experienced chronically higher death rates than birth rates, requiring a certain degree of “recruitment” from outlying tribes to satisfy a mission’s need for converts and labor. The introduction of European diseases, such as smallpox, measles, and influenza, coupled with poor diets, unsanitary living conditions, stress, and hard labor were predictable causes of Mission Indian mortality.33 Part of this colonial work also included the establishment of a road network. The San Francisco Road, also known as Camino Antiguo Verano or the Old Summer Road, was established to connect the Bay Area missions, coursing through present-day Mountain View along the general path of today’s Highway 101. El Camino Real (“Royal Road” or “King’s Highway”), the 600-mile route that once connected California’s 21 Spanish missions, also extends through Mountain View as State Highway 82, generally following its historic course.

Although Spanish missionaries developed the nearby Mission Santa Clara southeast of the presentday location of the City of Mountain View, there do not appear to have been any built resources associated with the mission or evidence of any physical permanent Spanish presence in Mountain View specifically. Under Spanish rule, the mission land was not privately owned. Early ranching efforts on mission land likely resulted in the construction of simple wood or adobe structures used for agricultural support facilities, but no extant resources are confirmed. If such resources are discovered, the site may be significant under Criterion D/4 for its potential to yield information important to history.

The bountiful natural resources and fair climate of the Santa Clara Valley supported the early efforts of the Spanish missions and pueblos. However, political control of Alta California was far from settled. The Mexican War of Independence (1810–1821) earned the new country its independence from imperial Spain in 1821 and placed the entirety of California under Mexican rule by 1822. This divorce with a major European power transformed the California economy, population, and land ownership patterns-namely the division of Spanish mission lands into privately held Mexican 33 Robert H. Jackson, Indian Population Decline: The Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1687 – 1840 (Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press, 1995), 140.
111
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 34 August 10, 2026
ranchos. The Colonization Law of 1824 encouraged the settlement of vacant public land in California, while the Reglamento of 1828 codified rules for establishing land grants. 34 Though land grants
became easier to obtain, the final act to void Spanish authority and dissolve the Catholic-based mission system occurred in 1833 with the Secularization Act, wherein each rancheria became its own self-governing town. Mission Santa Clara was one of the last missions to undergo secularization with its Mission Indians freed and its landholdings dispersed in 1836, creating several ranchos including Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas (also known as Rancho del Refugio) and Rancho Posolmi across present-day Mountain View.

Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas (or Ranch of the Lamb’s Pasture) was an 8,800-acre Mexican land grant to Francisco M. Estrada and his wife Inez Castro by Governor Juan Alvarado in 1842, while Estrada’s son José Ramon Estrada served as land administrator for Mission Santa Clara (Figure 5). At the time, administrators were prohibited from requesting land for immediate family members. 35 The
Estrada family built a small adobe near today’s Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway and raised livestock, allowing their operations to gradually encroach upon the neighboring Rancho Posolmi (Figure 6).36 Estrada’s wife Inez (Castro) died in 1844 and Estrada died shortly thereafter in 1845, initiating the inheritance of the rancho to Estrada’s father-in-law, Mariano Castro (1784-1857).

Once Castro owned Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas, he and his family of 10 lived in the Estrada adobe part-time to ranch cattle. Like most Californio families, the Castros hired ex-Mission Indians to perform the majority of tasks required to operate a successful rancho; between 75 and 100 of these quasi-indentured servants lived and worked at Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas. 37 34 Dorothy Krell, The California Missions (Menlo Park, CA: Lane Publishing Company, 1989), 172. 35 Ogden Hoffman, “1862 - Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court of Northern California, Volume 1, Ogden Hoffman, District Judge,” accessed online October 4, 2022, https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_usa_3_d/16/; and Mary Jo Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California (Cupertino, CA: California History Center and Foundation, 2002), 25. 36 The modest Estrada-Castro Adobe is no longer extant and is not to be confused with Mariano Castro’s Mission Revival-style Villa Francisca, constructed in 1911 on the grounds that now comprise Rengstorff Park near Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway, though the two were likely in close proximity. Villa Francisca was damaged by fire in 1961 and subsequently demolished to develop the city park. Mountain View Historical Association, “Castro Family History: How Castro City & Rengstorff Park Got Their Names,” accessed online May 2, 2023, https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/castro-cityrengstorff-park/. 37 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 26. 112
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 35 August 10, 2026
Figure 5: Rancho del Refugio, or Pastoría de las Borregas, granted to Francisco Estrada in 1842 and a black dot marking Mariano Castro’s adobe. Source: UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library Digital Archives.

Figure 6: Survey of Rancho Posolmi and Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas circa 1853 with Mariano Castro’s residence outlined in black. Source: UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library Digital Archives. 113
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 36 August 10, 2026
In 1849, Castro sold approximately half of Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas to Irishman Martin Murphy, Jr. (1807-1884). In preparation for the sale, Castro commissioned a survey of the rancho lands. The survey noted the nearby residences of Lopez Yñigo, John Whisman (a squatter on Yñigo’s Rancho Posolmi), and several other residences. Both Castro and Murphy built new homes on their respective parcels in 1850 (Figure 7).
38 Murphy would go on to found the neighboring town of
Sunnyvale on his parcel, entice the expansion of the Southern Pacific Railroad further south, and help establish the Covenant of Notre Dame and Santa Clara College.39 As required by the Land Law of 1851, Castro and Murphy filed claims for their respective halves with the Public Land Commission.

Castro’s claim was patented in 1881, while Murphy’s was expediently patented in 1865.40 Figure 7: Map of land bought by Martin Murphy, Jr. from Mariano Castro’s Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas c. 1850. Source: UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library Digital Archives.

Rancho Posolmi (and also known as Las Positas de las Animas or “little wells of souls”) measured 3,400 acres, and emancipated Mission Indian Lopez Yñigo (1781-1864) requested ownership of this, his 38 Lopez Yñigo’s name has been spelled a number of ways, including Lope, Lupe, Inigo, Indigo, Ynego, and others. This report uses the traditional Old Spanish spelling of his name as found on historic maps and records. 39 “The Murphy Family,” Sunnyvale Heritage Park Museum, accessed online October 4, 2022, http://www.heritageparkmuseum.org/murphy.html. 40“General Land Office Records: BLM Accession #136852,” Bureau of Land Management, accessed online October 4, 2022, https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx.
114
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 37 August 10, 2026
ancestral land, from Governor Alvarado in 1839 (Figure 8). 41 This grant was one of the few Mexicanera land grants given to a Mission Indian, and it also included livestock and the custody of his son and grandson, both still under mission guardianship at the time. 42 By 1843 after continued
encroachment issues with the Estradas at Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas and other squatters, Yñigo consulted the local administrator. While written record of Yñigo’s land grant had supposedly been lost, the new California governor Manuel Micheltorena officially granted Yñigo 1,695 acres, about half of what was initially granted to him in 1839. Yñigo’s final landholdings extended “from his house to the first spring of water inclusive called Las Animas, and from the Sausal to Los Esteros.”43 Figure 8: Lopez Yñigo (1781-1864) circa 1860. Source: Santa Clara University, Online Archive of California.

One of Yñigo’s pesky squatters was John W. Whisman, who overlanded with his wife and four children from Missouri in 1846. They constructed Willigrove Inn to board travelers of Lower San Francisco Road in addition to harvesting grain and raising livestock.44 So popular did Willigrove Inn become that Whisman started a stagecoach line in 1849, running his boarders between San Francisco and San José. He sold this short-lived venture to competitors Hall & Crandall in 1850, and it 41 The name Posolmi is after the previous large Native American settlement that was once located in the area of present-day Moffett Airfield. Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 25. 42 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 91. 43 Circuit Court of Northern California. United States v. Castro (1854), Docket 257, 57. 44 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 34. 115
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 38 August 10, 2026
was this consistent mobility that allowed a settlement to develop. 45 In 1850, Yñigo sold the eastern
half of his land to Scotsman Robert Walkinshaw (1788-1858), who arrived in California in 1847 via Mexico to manage the New Almaden quicksilver mine for the firm Barron, Forbes & Company.46 This land remained with the Walkinshaw family until 1882, and eventually passed into the ownership of the City of Sunnyvale in 1930 and then the United States Navy to became Moffett Federal Airfield in 1931.47
Immigrants and American settlers continued to migrate to California through the 1840s, despite the territory being on the cusp of international conflict again. Declared by the United States, the Mexican American War began in 1846 as a boundary dispute between the two young nations. With less military presence in Alta California since the dissolution of the missions, Mexican defense forces were limited. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848 ending the conflict with Mexico, which had to surrender Alta California and the Southwest to the United States. The treaty further granted Mexican citizens who stayed in the United States full citizenship and property rights, but these points would prove troublesome in coming years with the California Land Act of 1851, an attempt to settle the confusion and conflict over the validity of land claims in California. 48 The national announcement of the discovery of gold in 1848 inundated the California territory with ever more settlers and homesteaders ravenous to lay stake to their fortune, often building homes and taking livestock wherever they assumed land was unoccupied. By 1850, California’s growing population was sufficiently large enough that the territory could apply for statehood. The United States Congress signed the Compromise of 1850, admitting California as a state to the union. The early laws and acts passed by the provisional California state government clearly favored American and European settlers. For example, the Foreign Miners Tax Law of 1850 required all non-native miners-targeting Mexican and Chinese prospectors specifically-to pay the state a monthly fee of $20 for the right to mine.49 These taxes coupled with the harsh realities of prospecting impelled many to pursue other more lucrative pursuits. Horticulture lured many a failed prospector and settlers from other American states and abroad to the Santa Clara Valley.

The Mexican era marks the first formal subdivision of the land that would become the City of Mountain View, the majority of which was predominately used for cattle ranching and farming.

These operations are not represented by extant built resources, though historic photographs 45 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 36. 46 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 26. 47 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 26. 48 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 28. 49 “Early California History: From Gold Rush to Golden State,” Library of Congress, accessed online March 14, 2023, https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-history/from-gold-rushto-golden-state/. 116
Historic Contexts: Spanish Trails & Mexican Ranchos (1775-1850) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 39 August 10, 2026
provide insight into the general type, design, and style of the buildings. The types of facilities associated with ranch operations, such as corrals, storage cribs, barns and shelters, and worker housing were typically removed by development during subsequent decades. While the various residences associated with the early rancho families are no longer extant, historic photographs often illustrate these homes as one-story, wood-framed adobes. The original Castro adobe with its large, west-facing porch, for example, replaced the small Estrada adobe around 1850 (located near what is now Central Expressway and Rengstorff Avenue), and combined the old adobe style of building with wood construction and the budding influence of Euro-American stylistic elements (Figure 9).50 This Castro adobe is no longer extant.

Figure 9: The Castro family adobe circa 1850. Source: Mountain View Historical Association.

Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1775-1850) Few, if any, above-ground resources from this period of development are still extant in Mountain View today. Any buildings identified as constructed between 1775 to 1850 may have significance as a rare, surviving property from this time in Mountain View’s history and a lesser threshold of integrity may be warranted given its rarity.
50 Mountain View Historical Association, “Castro Family History: How Castro & Rengstorff Park Got Their Names,” https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/castro-city-rengstorff-park/. 117
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 40 August 10, 2026
C. AMERICAN PIONEERS & AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION (1851-1909) The California Land Act of 1851 required all holders of Spanish or Mexican land grants in California to prove undeniable ownership, often through a lengthy and expensive legal process. Through this course, Californio landowners endured squatters and most ultimately lost their landholdings. The same held true within the area that would become Mountain View. The Castros initiated their claim case for Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas in 1852 and utilized two surveyors who previously recorded their property boundaries as witnesses. When surveyor Antonio Suñol attempted to retrieve his 1843 survey of the rancho, he discovered pages ripped from the record book and believed that American alcaldes (the local mayor) were to blame, allowing squatters and homesteaders a better chance at gaining title.51 The Land Commission initially confirmed Castro’s title in 1854, though it was immediately appealed by the United States government, and his case was not fully settled until 1871. To fund the ongoing legal battle, the Castros were forced to parcel off and sell portions of their rancho lands.52 When Mariano Castro died in 1856, the family retained only 3,500 of the original 8,800 acres of the Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas land grant.

Acrimonious land disputes in the environs of the rancho involving title complications, squatters, and expensive legal counsel continued through the late nineteenth century, illustrating the cultural conflicts between native Californios and newcomers. Several boardinghouses clustered on the Old Road between San Francisco and San José to serve the increasing demand for accommodations. The first was the Fremont House, constructed by George and Sarah Harlan in 1847 (later called Taylor’s Inn), and the second was John Whisman’s Willigrove Inn. Whisman’s boardinghouse was so successful that he started a stagecoach service in 1849. An unsuccessful venture, it was soon bought out by competitors Hall & Crandall, who had also acquired the federal contract to deliver mail in the area. Hall and Crandall established a stagecoach stop west of Stevens Creek on the Castro’s ranchlands.53 It was a natural stopping point where travelers had to prepare to ford the creek, since a bridge was not yet constructed. This new stagecoach stop provided the foundational elements for the town of Mountain View to establish, a name given by its first postmaster, Jacob Shumway.

Nineteenth-century Mountain View’s livelihood centered on ranching and farming, primarily grain and hay. Early residents were supported by several stores and service providers, saloons, a school, and a church, and El Camino Real formed the preferred route through town. Residences also located along El Camino Real between Grant Road and Calderon Street. The arrival of the railroad was imminent.
51 United States v. Castro, Docket 257.
52 Ignoffo, Milestones: A Mountain View History, 29. 53 Carey & Co., Citywide Historic Properties Survey, City of Mountain View, Vol. I (prepared for City of Mountain View, September 1, 2008), 11.
118
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 41 August 10, 2026
The Castro family’s lawyer, Sherman Houghton, received 500 acres of ranch land as payment for his services during their land claim and squatter cases of the 1850s and 1860s. Houghton named his new estate “Villa Lands” and plotted several blocks that would become the Castro Street area of New Mountain View. When the San Francisco and San José Railroad laid its tracks between its namesake cities and initiated service in January 1864, it bypassed the town of (Old) Mountain View. This initiated a shift of the town center and commercial interests toward the blocks of Houghton’s Villa Lands, and Old Mountain View and its stagecoach service were rendered idle. A two-story hotel and saloon overlooking Castro Street was one of its earliest buildings (circa 1864 or 1865), and it doubled as a ticket office for the rail station constructed in 1888. Once Castro Street was anchored by the depot on its north end, the corridor quickly became Mountain View’s main thoroughfare and central business district. Many businesses once located in Old Mountain View relocated or opened second locations in New Mountain View, such as the general stores owned by the Weilheimers, the Manfredis, and the Rogers brothers.
54 As large ranchland holdings were subdivided and sold, new proprietors replaced grazing pastures and wheat fields with more specialized crops, including fruit and nut trees, beets, artichoke, and grapevine. Gradually, fruit orchards came to dominate the Mountain View landscape by the late 1800s and the greater Santa Clara Valley became known as the “Valley of Heart’s Delight.” Prominent local farmers of the time included Edward Dale (apricot orchardist), Andrew Jurian (orchardist and dry goods merchant), Henry and Christine Rengstorff (farmer turned shipping and warehousing magnate), and John Showers. Other early prominent townsfolk included community leaders Frank and Eunice Sleeper, blacksmiths Daniel Whelan and Jacob Mockbee, and physician Nathanial Eaton.
55 Mountain View incorporated as a city in 1902.

The rapid influx of gold-hungry newcomers to California in the mid- to late nineteenth century provided a customer base for Mountain View’s agricultural products. Area ranchers and farmers utilized warehouses along the railroad tracks and the landings along San Francisco Bay to store goods prior to shipping. These agricultural-based industries, particularly fruit picking, attracted and ultimately became reliant upon Chinese and later Japanese laborers after an anti-Chinese organization formed in 1886. These immigrant workers were often employed in jobs that offered the lowest wages, the most dangerous conditions, and required the heaviest physical labor. Large groups of Filipino, Spanish, Eastern European, Italian, Portuguese, and Mexican immigrants also came to Mountain View for agricultural work, expanding the city’s population to over 1,600 by 1910.56
54 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 52. 55 Carey & Co., Citywide Historic Properties Survey, City of Mountain View, Vol. I, 14. 56 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 165. 119
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 42 August 10, 2026
On April 18, 1906, a tremendous earthquake shook most of the American west coast and hit San Francisco Bay urban centers particularly hard. There was no reported loss of life in Mountain View, but many injuries were reported and buildings were destroyed or seriously damaged. The second stories of Castro Street’s Olympic Hall and Rogers & Rogers General Store buildings slid off their first stories, “the [Mountain View Fruit Exchange] packinghouse, the Pacific Press Publishing Company’s brick building were completely wrecked, and the tanks of the [newly formed municipal] water works were thrown down,” in addition to homes and businesses experiencing varying degrees of damage.57 Mountain View’s damage resulting from the 1906 earthquake was valued around $175,000, approximately $37 million in construction costs today.58 Theme: Residential Development (1851-1909)
Residential development in Old Mountain View was laid out in larger tracts of land geared towards farming. Many of Mountain View’s early prominent citizens built two-story farmhouses and associated structures for their farming operations (Figure 10 and Figure 11). In 1865, a newly plotted township known as Villa Lands aligned with the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and included Castro, Hope, Villa, Dana, Franklin, and Oak Streets.59 As development patterns shifted commerce towards Castro Street in New Mountain View for easier access to the railroad, residents followed (Figure 12). In-town homes were constructed on smaller lots in the blocks adjacent to the Castro Street commercial corridor. Other turn-of-the-century subdivisions included the Platt subdivision with graded and graveled streets, the Garliepp subdivision, the Bailey subdivision, and Beverly Addition in Old Mountain View.60
57 “Loss One Billion; San Francisco Razed,” Los Gatos Mail, April 19, 1906. 58 This inflation measurement is based on the cost of a construction project or the loss in a historic event, such as the 1906 earthquake. Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 84. 59 Louise Katz, “Weilheimer/Chez TJ and Air Base Laundry/Tied House Preserved,” Livable Mountain View, accessed online October 26, 2022, https://www.livablemv.org/2019/07/24/weilheimer-cheztj-air-base-tied-house-preserved/. 60 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 65-8. 120
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 43 August 10, 2026
Figure 10: Residence of Mountain View's first
mayor Daniel Frink circa 1870s. Source: Thompson
& West Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County.

Figure 11: B.T. Bubb ranch in 1876, located northeast
of the present-day Miramonte and Cuestra Drives
intersection. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 12: Detail of an 1876 map edited to show the two nodes of Mountain View development, Old Mountain View (at lower right) and New Mountain View (at upper center).

Source: David Rumsey Map Collection.
121
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 44 August 10, 2026
With the establishment of several landings on San Francisco Bay, the area north of the railroad slowly filled in with residential development. At first, this development was much like Old Mountain View-large farmhouses on large tracts. For example, German immigrant Henry Rengstorff built a high-style Italianate home at 1737 Stierlin Road in the 1880s (later relocated to 3070 N. Shoreline Boulevard) (Figure 13).
61 Figure 13: The Rengstorff House pictured in 1974, prior to relocation. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

The homes built during this period were often rural in character and built far apart, on large tracts of land, rather than in dense subdivisions as would be common later. Residences were often expanded as resources allowed or as families grew, and some houses are known to have been relocated. For example, the Eaton House, originally located on what is now Highway 101, was relocated in 1903; the property was relocated a second time to its current location at 1076 Wright Avenue (Figure 14 and Figure 15).
61 The Rengstorff House was as moved to Shoreline Park in 1980 and rehabilitated. 122
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 45 August 10, 2026
Figure 14: The Eaton House was moved twice,
shown here in 1903 during its first move.

Source: Mountain View Historical Association.

Figure 15: Now known as the Eaton-Manfredi House,
currently located at 1076 Wright Avenue in 2024.

In 1904, childhood friends turned business partners Jacob Mockbee and Julius Weilheimer (son of Seligman and Sophie Weilheimer) plotted a new subdivision north of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Gridded into 50-foot by 135-foot residential plots, the Mockbee-Weilheimer Addition created an affordable location for residential development, albeit further from downtown Mountain View, anchored along Alma, Washington, and Jackson Streets. The area was initially popular with Spanish immigrants who built modest homes there through the 1920s, earning it the nickname “Spanish Town” among Mountain View locals and La Charca de la Rana or “the frog pond” among neighborhood residents because of the muddy condition of the unpaved streets.62 The early establishment of this Spanish-speaking barrio laid the foundation for Mexican immigrants who moved to Mountain View in the midcentury for agricultural and cannery work.

In 1908, the University Park neighborhood was plotted south of the railroad tracks. Bounded by Rengstorff Avenue, Stanford Avenue, College Avenue, and Leland Avenue, it was developed with the intention to attract professors from nearby Stanford University. However, it remained relatively vacant until the 1930s, when cannery cottages from Campbell were moved onto the site and Latino cannery workers and agricultural laborers began to move in, initiating the formation of the “Castro City” iteration of the neighborhood.
63 Also in 1908, residential activity along the western edge of the city was booming as Seventh-day Adventists settled around the Pacific Press campus, mostly along Pettis Street and Latham Street.
64 62 Nicholas Perry, “Boulevard through the Barrio: The Planning History of the Latino Barrios in Mountain View, California,” unpublished term paper, City Planning 200, University of California Berkeley (November 22, 2005), 4. 63 By the 1940s, the University Park neighborhood was known as Castro City. “Castro City,” Palo Alto Online, January 22, 2009, accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/01/22/castro-city. 64 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 82. 123
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 46 August 10, 2026
Theme: Commercial Development (1851-1909)
In 1854, Richard Carr opened the first general merchandise store in Old Mountain View to supply area farmers and ranchers with basic goods and equipment (Figure 16 and Figure 17). Seligman and Sophie Weilheimer, Jewish German immigrants who arrived in Mountain View in the 1850s, opened a general store on El Camino Real about the same time. The Manfredi family from Italy also established a general store in the 1880s, illustrating the growing population and needs of Mountain View citizens in the late nineteenth century (Figure 18).

Figure 16: S. Weilheimer's "Farmer's Store" (left) circa 1865, next to the Weilheimer Hotel, later the American
Hotel (right). Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 17: S. Weilheimer & Sons General
Merchandise store at 124 Castro Street c. 1900.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 18: Italian immigrant Victor Manfredi opened a grocery store in Old Mountain View (near what is now El Camino Real and Grant Road) soon after his arrival in 1880. Source: Mountain View Public Library. 124
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 47 August 10, 2026
With the arrival of the railroad in the 1860s, commercial activity shifted to Castro Street in New Mountain View. Generally running north to south with the train depot and associated warehouses acting as the corridor’s northern anchor, Castro Street quickly became the place to do business.

Some Old Mountain View businesses opened second locations on Castro Street to cash in on the expanding market, while others abandoned Old Mountain View and relocated to the town’s second node of activity.

With commerce also came banks. The Bank of Mountain View opened in 1900 followed by the sandstone-faced Farmers and Merchants Bank in 1905 at 201 Castro Street (Figure 19). In 1927, it became a Bank of Italy branch, predecessor to Bank of America.

Figure 19: Farmers and Merchants Bank on Castro Street circa 1905. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

The Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing company, first organized in Oakland, California in 1875, before moving to Mountain View in 1904, bringing its weekly Sign of the Times newspaper with it and initiating a monthly publication in 1908 (Figure 20 through Figure 25).65 Much like Palo Alto’s Stanford University, the Pacific Press introduced “an institution of fine qualities” to an urbanizing Mountain View, at the time a town of just 800 citizens. Immigrating Seventh-day Adventists mostly settled along the western edge of town (now known as the Shoreline West neighborhood) close to the publishing company’s new plant, which included a composing room, 65 N.W. Ayer & Son’s American Newspaper Annual And Directory (Philadelphia: N. W. Ayer & Son, 1921), 89, accessed online January 4, 2023, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924087717553&view=1up&seq=25. 125
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 48 August 10, 2026
press room, business office, and bindery.66 The original 1904-era brick buildings of the complex were wrecked during the 1906 earthquake, requiring most to be fully reconstructed. The rebuilt complex served as company headquarters from 1907 to 1983, when the Pacific Press relocated to Nampa, Idaho. In 2011, Google purchased the campus at 1200 Villa Street and restored the campus’ status as home to Mountain View’s largest employer.67 Several contemporary buildings have been constructed on the campus and most of the historic 1907-era buildings have been extensively altered (Figure 26 and Figure 27).

Figure 20: Tents as early worker housing at Pacific Press plant circa 1904, between Villa Street and the railroad.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 21: Pacific Press interiors c. 1905.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 22: Pacific Press plant circa 1905.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 23: Pacific Press campus following the 1906
earthquake. Source: Mountain View Public
Library.
66 Daniel DeBolt, “Google buys former home of the Pacific Press,” Mountain View Voice, May 26, 2011, accessed online October 25, 2022, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2011/05/26/google-buys-former-home-of-the-pacific-press. 67 Perry, Then & Now: Mountain View, 31. 126
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 49 August 10, 2026
Figure 24: Seventh-Day Adventist church at
Bailey Avenue (now Shoreline Boulevard) and
West Dana Street c. 1907 (demolished). Source:

Mountain View Historical Association.

Figure 25: 1909 bird's eye view of Mountain View with the Pacific Press campus at the far right.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 26: Aerial view of the Pacific Press publishing facilities (outlined in dashed black), c. 1950s, looking northeast. Source: Mountain View Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 127
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 50 August 10, 2026
Figure 27: 2022 aerial view of the redeveloped Pacific Press complex (outlined in dashed white), looking northeast. Source: Google Earth. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

The Origins of Castro Street
The extension of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks down the Peninsula following the stagecoach route shifted Mountain View’s town center northwest. A makeshift passenger shelter was fabricated alongside the tracks in 1864 as the line originally planned to bypass the town. With the completion of the permanent New Mountain View train depot in 1888 along with various nearby grain and freight warehouses, the Castro Street corridor solidified its placement as the young city’s new central business district and primary thoroughfare. Businesses of all types conglomerated along Castro Street in one- and two-story storefront buildings (Figure 28). It was serviced with public utilities, including electric streetlights, telephone service, and a municipal water system by 1902-the same year the City of Mountain View incorporated (Figure 29). The 1906 earthquake inflicted significant damage across Mountain View and specifically to businesses on Castro Street (Figure 30 and Figure 31). Despite this natural disaster, several extant buildings from this period include Weilheimer’s store at 124-126 Castro Street, built in 1874; the Rogers Building at 142-156 Castro Street, built in 1894; and the Ames Building at 169-175 Castro Street, built in 1903. 128
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 51 August 10, 2026
Figure 28: Castro Street, 1895. Source: Mountain View Public Library Figure 29: 1904 view down Castro Street taken near Front Street (now Evelyn Avenue), showing Olympic Hall on the left and Weilheimer's General Merchandise Store on the right. Source: Mountain View Public Library. 129
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 52 August 10, 2026
Figure 30: Olympic Hall in 1905, demolished
following the 1906 earthquake. Source: Mountain
View Public Library.

Figure 31: The Ames Building following the 1906
earthquake. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

The Origins of Chinatown
Chinese merchant Yuen Lung arrived in Mountain View in 1879 and opened a general store on the northwest corner of Villa and View Streets (Figure 32).68 His store initiated the establishment of Mountain View’s Chinatown neighborhood and other small Asian-owned businesses, including Japanese, conglomerated nearby, particularly laundries and other shops. Lung’s store flourished through the 1920s, and doubled as an employment agency, advertising “first class Chinese servants and laborers.”69 The Chinatown area burned down in 1946 and was never rebuilt (Figure 33).

Figure 32: Chinese immigrant Yuen Lung's store at
Villa and View Streets circa 1910s. Source:

Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 33: Mountain View's Chinatown burning on April
1, 1946. Source: Mountain View Public Library.
68 Perry, Then & Now: Mountain View, 26. 69 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 80. 130
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 53 August 10, 2026
Theme: Agricultural & Industrial Development (1851-1909) Santa Clara County led the transformation of the California agricultural industry as it shifted away from wheat production and towards more specialized crops, like fruits, vegetables, and wine grapes.

With plantings started by the 1860s, fruit orchards came to dominate the Santa Clara Valley landscape, specifically apple, peach, pear, and apricot, earning it the nickname “Valley of Heart’s Delight.” Several wood-framed warehouses and a “wine shed” were constructed alongside the San Francisco and San José Railroad tracks to store the region’s agricultural exports. As fruit drying and canning methods improved through the 1870s, canneries and associated facilities expanded in Mountain View. The invention of the tractor in 1892 and the automobile in 1893 led to improved efficiency in the growing and harvesting of agricultural products.70 In 1903, the Mountain View Fruit Exchange Company opened its packing and storage facility in an old warehouse owned by the Bubb family, prominent farmers in the early days of New Mountain View (Figure 34).

Figure 34: The completely reconstructed Mountain View Fruit Exchange building in 1906, following the earthquake, located at the end of Oak Street along the railroad tracks. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

As Mountain View’s construction needs grew, so did mills. The Parkinson Brothers constructed a large wood-framed warehouse on Front Street (now Evelyn Avenue) for their lumber and hardware company in 1897. The brothers continued operating their hardware store on Castro Street, too. In 1911, Earl Minton purchased the company and expanded its facilities over the years (Figure 35). Also a construction company responsible for many vernacular and high-style houses of the early twentieth century, Minton Lumber operated from the site until 1996, when it was redeveloped for housing.71 After nearly 100 years of business, Minton Lumber Company closed in 2010. 70 AgAmerica, “Historical Moments in American Agriculture,” accessed online March 16, 2023, https://agamerica.com/blog/history-agricultural-inventions/. 71 Perry, Then & Now: Mountain View, 26. 131
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 54 August 10, 2026
Figure 35: The Minton Lumber Company on Front Street circa 1920s, razed by fire in 1995.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Immigrants in Agriculture
Starting in mid-nineteenth century, Mountain View’s burgeoning agricultural industries attracted increasing interest from various immigrant communities. Large numbers of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Eastern European, Italian, and Portuguese settled into the Santa Clara Valley for work.

Italian farmers introduced broccoli, bell peppers, eggplant, and artichoke to the Valley and established a 50-acre “Italian Vegetable Garden” in the northwest of Mountain View.72 Vineyards were also established in droves in the Mountain View countryside, and Japanese and Portuguese farmers established the agricultural lands along Stierlin Road. The sheer number of Chinese immigrants in particular made them key labor force participants in developing the Valley’s major economic sectors and public works infrastructure, particularly its shift from wheat-growing to orcharding.73 However, these waves of immigration were not without strife. The federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited Chinese immigration for the next 10 years. An anti-Chinese club of sorts formed in Mountain View in 1886 as Euro-American workingmen feared competition from the lower-paid Chinese labor.74
Theme: Transportation & Infrastructure (1851-1909)
In 1852, Whisman’s and later Hall and Crandall’s stagecoach service spurred development of a rest stop on El Camino Real within the Castro rancho near Stevens Creek. Boarding houses like the Taylor Hotel, constructed in the late 1850s and destroyed by fire in 1910, were constructed to house newcomers and serve as social and religious gathering places (Figure 36). These early transportation routes initiated the beginning of the town of Mountain View. 72 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 56. 73 Michael S. Chang, ”150 Years of Chinese Lives in the Santa Clara Valley,” in Toward the Golden Mountain: The History of the Chinese in Santa Clara Valley: An Exhibit at the Cupertino Historical Society & Museum, ed. H. John (Cupertino, CA: Cupertino Historical Society & Museum, March 16, 1997), 8; and Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 58. 74 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 58. 132
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 55 August 10, 2026
Figure 36: Taylor’s boarding house was later known as the Mountain View House and finally as the Outside Inn, pictured here circa 1910 on El Camino Real (razed by fire in 1911). Source: Mountain View Public Library.

The Pacific Railroad Act authorized the construction of a transcontinental railroad to California in 1862. As the Southern Pacific Railroad established its track down the Peninsula, it originally bypassed the town of Mountain View by about a mile to its north, requiring Mountain View passengers to utilize a discarded boxcar as a temporary depot shelter beginning in 1864. This makeshift stop spurred the reorganization of Mountain View’s central business district to the northwest, away from its stagecoach stop origin on El Camino Real near Stevens Creek. As the Villa Lands population increased and freight and grain warehouses conglomerated near the tracks, a permanent depot was constructed in 1888 and this node of development became known as Mountain View Station or New Mountain View (Figure 37).

Figure 37: Original Mountain View train depot circa 1890 (since demolished, later reconstructed in 2003).

Source: San José Public Library, California Room.
133
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 56 August 10, 2026
In the 1860s, businessmen also eyed the bayshore for expanding their commercial pursuits. Henry Rengstorff, John G. Jagels, and Charles Guth built docks and warehouses along the shoreline about two miles north of New Mountain View’s downtown for the purpose of shipping and receiving the region’s produce and supplies. In its earliest days, the landings moved hay and grain. By the late 1800s, fruit and canned goods were primary exports.

The thoroughfare that became Bayshore Highway (also known as US Highway 101) is one of California’s earliest state routes, being proposed as early as 1896, adopted in 1909, and constructed starting in 1912.75 With origins dating back to the rancho period, Bayshore Highway was originally known as Camino Antiquo Vernano or the Old Summer Road. It was the most direct path between San Francisco and San José but became impassable with winter rains, making El Camino Real the preferred route.76
Theme: Civic Growth and Social, Religious & Cultural Development (1851-1909) In 1851, a small group of Presbyterians organized Mountain View’s first religious congregation. A dedicated building for the Mountain View Cumberland Presbyterian Church was built by 1860 at the corner of Castro and Church Streets and was the first Presbyterian church constructed between San Francisco and San José (Figure 38).77
Figure 38: The Cumberland Presbyterian Church in 1898, near the future corner of Castro and Church Streets.

Standing in the foreground is Rev. Whittemore with his wife and daughter.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.
75 Daniel Faigin, “California Highways: US Highway 101,” California Highways, accessed online October 26, 2022, https://cahighways.org/ROUTE101.html. 76 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 92. 77 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 40. 134
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 57 August 10, 2026
In 1867, Mountain View’s early Catholic community built St. Joseph Church as a small wood building topped with a cross at the intersection of El Camino Real and Alviso Road on land donated by John Sullivan. Reverend John J. Cullen was the first appointed Catholic pastor to serve in Mountain View starting in 1901. As the parish grew, the prominent Castro family donated land at the intersection of Church and Hope Streets for the construction of a larger church, breaking ground in 1905. St. Joseph Parish at this time serviced the towns of Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and Mayfield. On March 18, 1928, the church burned down, and rebuilding was underway by 1928 (Figure 39 and Figure 40).78 This third iteration of St. Joseph remains extant at present (Figure 41 and Figure 42).

Figure 39: Second iteration of St. Joseph
circa 1910. Source: Mountain View Public
Library.

Figure 40: The fire-gutted St. Joseph on Hope Street in March 1928. Source: Mountain View Public Library.
78 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 7; and “Parish History,” St. Joseph Catholic Church, accessed online October 26, 2022, https://www.sjpmv.org/parish-history.
135
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 58 August 10, 2026
Figure 41: The third iteration of St. Joseph
Catholic Church circa 1944.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 42: View of St. Joseph Catholic Church, 2022.

A public school district was formed in 1854 with its first grammar school opened in 1857.79 In 1902, Mountain View constructed its first high school next to the second iteration of its grammar school on El Camino Real near Calderon Avenue (Figure 43). The original 1858 grammar school burned down in 1872, and it was rebuilt in 1875.80 Both buildings were razed in 1928 for the construction of Highway Elementary School, razed in 1962. The Courier was Mountain View’s first local newspaper, established in 1885, but only lasted several months.81 Shortly following in 1888, the Mountain View Register was created by struggling San José Mercury journalist Frank Bacon, who initiated publication and distribution (Figure 44).82 In 1903, then-proprietor B.C. Nichols provided space for a lending library and stationary shop.83
79 “A look back: Timeline of Mountain View History,” The Mercury News, February 24, 2007, accessed online January 4, 2023, https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/24/a-look-back-timeline-of-mountain-view-history/. 80 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 28. 81 “Pacific Coast Items” The Los Gatos News, July 24, 1885. 82 N.W. Ayer & Son’s American Newspaper Annual and Directory, 89. 83 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 63. 136
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 59 August 10, 2026
Figure 43: A 1902 view of Mountain View's first high school (left) and the second iteration of the grammar school (right), located near El Camino Real and Highway 237 (both demolished).

Source: Mountain View Historical Association.

Figure 44: Mountain View Register
building circa 1900s, location
unknown and likely demolished.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

A Masonic Lodge was organized in 1868, the Odd Fellows Lodge in 1876, the Ancient Order of United Workmen (AOUW) in 1877, and the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) in 1888. 84 The Mountain View
Woman’s Club was established in 1904 and relocated the Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church building, which originally fronted Hope Street, to 440 Castro Street to use as their meetinghouse (Figure 45). The Woman’s Club assisted in the founding of the Mountain View Library and worked to improve education, safety, and the health standards for families in Mountain View.85 Figure 45: Mountain View Woman's Club at 440 Castro Street (demolished circa 1980).

Source: Mountain View Public Library.
84 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 54. 85 “Who We Are,” Mountain View Federated Woman’s Club, accessed online March 13, 2023, http://mtviewwomansclub.org/who-we-are.html.
137
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 60 August 10, 2026
The two-story Mission Revival-style city hall was built in 1909 on the southwest corner of Castro and California streets (Figure 46). This city hall facility held city government offices, the police department, a small jail, and the public library. The library moved out in 1952 and the structure was demolished in 1962.86
Figure 46: Original city hall at the corner of Castro and California Streets, constructed in 1909 (demolished 1962). Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Mountain View’s Seventh-day Adventist congregation also built a church in 1907 at the corner of Baily Avenue (now Shoreline Boulevard) and West Dana Street (Figure 24).

Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1851-1909) One of the primary tools for researching Mountain View’s development during this era included the analysis of maps produced by the Sanborn Map Company in 1888. Originally designed to help insurance companies set rates according to the fire risks associated with a specific place, these maps illustrate lot-by-lot and block-by-block development, including the building’s use, site plan, and construction materials. These exceptionally detailed views primarily focus on areas with the densest concentration of buildings and do not necessarily provide details for the entire City of Mountain View during this era. Isolated buildings located further from activity centers (where the risk of fire was greatest) were generally excluded, though some isolated buildings of local significance or great commercial activity were included as insets.

The historical record clearly indicates that the areas of Old Mountain View (along the stagecoach line near Stevens Creek) and New Mountain View (along the Southern Pacific Railroad) were the primary nodes of developmental activity during this American pioneer and agricultural expansion period. 86 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 57.
138
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 61 August 10, 2026
Whereas Old Mountain View constituted the town’s agrarian and residential origins, the establishment of New Mountain View illustrates an industrializing and growing town spurred by the development of contemporary transportation modes of the era, such as rail and bayshore shipping (Figure 47). Surviving buildings from this period are limited (less than one percent of Mountain View’s extant building stock as of 2021), and are therefore significant as each represents the pioneering efforts of Mountain View’s earliest residents to settle a relatively undeveloped landscape.87
Figure 47: 1891 Sanborn map of New Mountain View's core downtown. Source: Sanborn Map Company, via FIMo, San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Residential Properties (1851-1909)
Residential buildings of this period were typically one or two stories in height, laid out with simple rectangular plans, and constructed of wood framing. Buildings ranged in size from modest cottages to large farmhouses to boardinghouses. Roofs were typically gable or hip, and covered front porches were a common feature. The homes would have been clad in wood clapboard siding or similar, and incorporated double-hung wood-sash windows and paneled doors. Many homes of this period had associated ancillary structures, including barns, storage sheds, tank houses, and windmills. 87 According to year-built data provided by the City of Mountain View through 2021, approximately 0.7% of currently extant buildings within city limits were constructed between circa 1890 and 1909. Refer to map in Appendix B. 139
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 62 August 10, 2026
Stylistically, most homes would be identified as Folk Victorian, Queen Anne, Italianate, and Gothic Revival.

Extant houses of this era are primarily found singly and at a great distance from one another, reflecting the rural composition of the area (i.e., single farmhouses located on large tracts of land).

Surviving examples are known to have belonged to prominent pioneer families. Other extant residential properties from the period may include highly altered, moved, or reconstructed buildings.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Residential buildings from this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with the early patterns of agricultural and industrial development in Mountain View. In particular, properties associated with fruit growing, farming, and packing were significant to the early agricultural history of Mountain View. A property may also be eligible for its association tied to the establishment of New Mountain View and the building out of blocks surrounding Castro Street, an early business venture, or as the site of a historical event. The oldest extant residences in Mountain View are generally clustered around Old Mountain View and Shoreline West, which just began to be developed in association with the Pacific Press facilities, with scattered examples in former agricultural areas. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Residential buildings from this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with persons significant to the early agricultural and industrial development of Mountain View, such as a prominent pioneer, landowner, entrepreneur, or labor organizer. Notable Mountain View pioneers include, but are not limited to, Mariano Castro, Edward Dale, Nathaniel Eaton, the Manfredis, Jacob Mockbee, the Rengstorffs, the Rogers, John Showers, the Sleepers, Samuel Taylor, the Weilheimers, and the Whelans. If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Residential buildings from this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their architecture, as expressed by intact stylistic features, forms or construction methods.

Individual resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features. Modest homes and grander residences may both be significant under these criteria as examples of their respective typologies. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980). 140
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 63 August 10, 2026
Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Standard integrity thresholds should apply when evaluating buildings and structures for eligibility for all registers.
• Properties dating to this period are relatively rare, and therefore, discretion is warranted when considering integrity for local eligibility. Buildings may qualify as individual resources if they retain most of their original features and overall character. • It was not at all uncommon for houses to be moved during this period, and so integrity of location and setting should not be considered a paramount concern. • It is generally acceptable for entry stairs and porch features to have been replaced, as these are subjected to greater deterioration from weathering and use. However, replacement porches should substantially conform to the original configuration, and should not detract from the overall character of the residence. Incompatible porch replacement would likely jeopardize a residence’s eligibility for all registers. • Additions may be acceptable, particularly those made prior to approximately 1920 when construction materials were generally from the same palette. Rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are also generally acceptable. However, more modern additions that compromise a building’s form and scale are not acceptable.

Replacement of exterior cladding would also likely jeopardize a residence’s eligibility for all registers.
• The retention of original windows greatly enhances integrity of materials, and likewise enhances integrity of design and workmanship. However, it should be recognized that window replacement is a common alteration to improve energy efficiency. Thus, the fact that a building does not retain its original windows should not, in and of itself, be viewed as an obstacle to historic registration. Far more important is that the building retain its original configuration and dimensions of window openings, and that the replacement windows are located within the original frame openings. The National Park Service notes that “a property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation.”88 • Nearly all residences from this period—especially larger homes—originally had associated ancillary structures, but most have been demolished over the years. An early Mountain View residence that retains its original ancillary buildings would be considered to have especially 88 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 46. 141
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 64 August 10, 2026
high integrity. These outbuildings derive their significance from the significance of the residence and are typically not eligible in their own right. • The presence of original site or landscape features is not essential but could enhance a property’s significance and integrity. These elements include retaining walls, fences, steps, paths, heritage trees, etc.
• Residences that have been converted to commercial use are still eligible for listing under all criteria as long as it retains its overall form and architectural character. While such buildings no longer retain their original use, they can still be fine examples of Victorian-era and turnof-the-century architectural styles and residential development patterns. • Residential properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rarer, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.

Residential Historic Districts
Groups of residences may be better able to convey local patterns of development compared to an individual structure; evaluators should consider the presence of historic districts that illustrate Criterion A/1/1, though some properties may also qualify individually for their architectural merits or associations with prominent individuals under other criteria.

It is unlikely that enough extant residential properties from this period survive to form a historic district. In order to retain sufficient integrity for eligibility for designation, a majority (60 percent or more) of the properties or components within the district boundary should contribute to the district’s significance. An eligible district should retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance, and contributors/primary contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. In-kind replacement of features and materials are acceptable within historic districts, as well as reversible additions or alterations. Substantial alterations to a building’s massing, form, roofline, and fenestration pattern, especially if such alterations render the original design intent or storefront configuration unrecognizable, the building may be considered a non-contributor/limited contributors to the district.
142
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 65 August 10, 2026
Commercial Properties (1851-1909)
This era represents an early stage of development in Mountain View when the population was still very small (about 1,000 residents) and commercial development was still limited. Commercial properties in Old Mountain View served local ranchers and farmers, stagecoach passengers commuting between San Francisco and San José, and basic daily needs. With the establishment of the railroad in the 1860s, a second node of commercial development occurred along Castro Street in New Mountain View. Many commercial buildings from this era have been lost to fire, natural disaster, or redevelopment. Stylistically, commercial buildings tend to be vernacular, modest early Twentieth Century Commercial, Western False Front, and Spanish Colonial or Mission Revival styles with either wood-framed or brick construction and generally one and two stories tall. However, more prominent buildings, such as the Farmers and Merchants Bank on Castro Street, exhibit higher styles and materials (Richardsonian Romanesque style with sandstone block cladding). Those still extant appear to have significant alterations, including vertical additions, altered rooflines and parapets, modernized storefronts, replacement doors and windows, and/or general loss of stylistic ornamentation. Two-story commercial buildings from this era that originally contained residential units on the second floor have often been converted into commercial space throughout.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Commercial properties of this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with the early development of retail operations and main street corridors in Mountain View. In particular, properties associated with stores and retail, banks, publishing, and/or otherwise associated with the development of commercial centers, were significant to the early commercial history of Mountain View, while others are associated with the establishment of commerce during an early period of Mountain View development. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Commercial properties of this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with persons significant to the early business development of Mountain View, such as a prominent business owner, banker or financier, entrepreneur, or labor organizer.

Notable early business owners include, but are not limited to, Nathaniel Eaton, the Manfredis, Jacob Mockbee, the Rengstorffs, the Rogers, Samuel Taylor, the Weilheimers, and the Whelans. If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance. 143
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 66 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Commercial properties from this period (1851-1909) may be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style and/or may have significance as a distinctive example of an increasingly rare building typology or method of construction. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• The aspects of integrity deemed most important for commercial properties of this period are location, setting, association, and feeling.
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • Retains at least some of its original ornamentation, with retention of entry, window, and/or roofline ornamentation considered most important.
• Commercial buildings from this period that retain their original storefront configurations are extremely rare. In multi-story commercial buildings, ground floor alterations should be considered acceptable if they are subordinate to the overall character of the building and other aspects of integrity are retained. Similarly, storefront alterations that demonstrate evolving commercial design patterns associated with a subsequent historically significant context may be acceptable.
• National/California Register Eligibility: Standard integrity thresholds should apply when evaluating commercial buildings and structures from this period for National Register and/or California Register eligibility. For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3, it should retain the distinctive character-defining features of the style, type, or method of construction. o Properties eligible for the California Register and/or National Register will retain their original form and roofline.
o Buildings qualified as individual resources for the California Register or National Register should exceed the minimum requirements and should retain a substantial majority of its original features.
o Rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable. However, more recent additions, especially those that compromise a building’s form, roofline, and scale, are not acceptable. 144
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 67 August 10, 2026
o Rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable. However, more recent additions, especially those that compromise a building’s form, roofline, and scale, are not acceptable. • Mountain View Register Eligibility: Commercial properties from this era are quite rare, and therefore discretion is warranted when considering integrity for local eligibility under any criteria, particularly for those commercial buildings located within the first three blocks (100, 200, and 300 blocks) of Castro Street. Commercial properties from this era that retain their essential form and some physical characteristics of their period of construction may be eligible for local listing only if they contribute to the overall character of the downtown streetscape. Commercial properties that have been restored, even if lacking integrity of materials and workmanship, may be eligible for local listing only. Properties eligible for the local register may have additions or altered form, including rear, side, or rooftop additions, but the original form should still remain legible.
• Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2: Commercial properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group (either owned by and/or primarily serving a specific ethnic or cultural group) under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rare, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage.

As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design, but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.

Commercial Historic Districts
It is unlikely that there is a geographically contiguous grouping of extant commercial properties built exclusively in the 1851-1909 period would be eligible as a historic district. However, a commercial historic district with a longer period of significance (extending later in the twentieth century) may be identified. In order to retain sufficient integrity for eligibility for designation, a majority (60 percent or more) of the properties or components within the district boundary should contribute to the district’s significance. An eligible district should retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance, and contributors/primary contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. In-kind replacement of features and materials are acceptable within historic districts, as well as reversible additions or alterations. Substantial alterations to a building’s massing, form, roofline, and fenestration pattern, especially if such alterations render the original design intent or storefront 145
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 68 August 10, 2026
configuration unrecognizable, the building may be considered a non-contributor/limited contributor to the district.

Agricultural & Industrial Properties (1851-1909)
Common agricultural and industrial properties from this period included warehouses, packinghouses, lumberyards, blacksmiths, and tin-wrights. These buildings were generally one-story in height, of wood construction, and utilitarian in style. The majority of warehouses, which required larger lots, were located along the San Francisco and San José Railroad tracks, clustered more around the train depot. Smaller operations, such as blacksmiths and tin wrights, were located in central commercial streets, such as along Castro Street and El Camino Real. It is unliked that any agricultural and/or industrial buildings remain extant; most, if not all, have been demolished for subsequent redevelopment.

Extant agricultural and industrial properties from the period may include residual farming or orchard land and associated buildings and structures, including bunkhouses, windmills, tank houses, and packinghouses, and buildings associated with railroad operations. Along Castro Street, there may be extant commercial buildings that originally operated in an industrial capacity but have had a subsequent change-of-use.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Agricultural and industrial properties of this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with the early patterns of agricultural and industrial development in Mountain View. In particular, properties associated with fruit growing, processing, packing, and distribution were significant to the early agricultural history of Mountain View. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Agricultural and industrial properties of this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with persons significant to the early agricultural and industrial development of Mountain View, such as a prominent pioneer, landowner, entrepreneur, or labor organizer, such as Edward Dale, Andrew Jurian, and others. If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance.
146
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 69 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
In rare cases, agricultural and industrial properties from this period (1851-1909) may be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style. Properties may have significance as a distinctive example of an increasingly rare building typology or method of construction. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• Agricultural and industrial properties dating to this period appear to be extremely rare, and therefore discretion is warranted when considering integrity for local eligibility. • Buildings may qualify as individual resources if they retain a majority of their original features, including those buildings that have been relocated, such as Immigrant House. • At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • For a property to be eligible Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive character-defining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • An eligible property will be a clear example of agricultural and/or industrial architecture from this period exhibiting its original form and roofline.
• An eligible property will substantially retain the original pattern of windows and doors.

Replacement windows and doors are acceptable as long as they conform, or substantially conform, to the original window and door pattern and the size of the openings. • Original cladding (or cladding has been repaired/replaced in-kind such that it substantially duplicates the original pattern) is acceptable.
• Agricultural and industrial buildings from this period were often adapted over time for evolving production methods. Thus, additions made in association with a significant historic context should generally be considered acceptable.
• Agricultural or industrial properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rare, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage.

As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to 147
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 70 August 10, 2026
convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.

Agricultural & Industrial Historic Districts
It is unlikely that enough extant agricultural and/or industrial properties from this period survive to form a historic district.

Transportation & Infrastructure Properties (1851-1909)
Historic resources evaluated under this theme are significant for their association with Mountain View’s earliest development of transportation networks, leading up to and following the city’s incorporation. No known surviving transportation resources from this era are known to be extant, but could include segments of stagecoach routes (now likely roads); rail lines (including spur lines and switches); railroad company‐owned freight or storage buildings; support structures, such as turntables, equipment mounts, and crossing structures; vestiges of demolished railroad buildings; and bridges and culvert crossings. Since there are no known groupings or concentrations of transportation‐related resources that date to this period, resources associated with this theme will likely be evaluated for their individual merit and a lower threshold of integrity may be warranted.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Transportation and infrastructure properties from this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with the early development patterns in Mountain View.

In particular, properties associated with the early and diverse transportation networks were significant to the development of Mountain View. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Transportation and infrastructure properties from this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with persons significant to the early development of Mountain View, such as a prominent town booster, landowner, politician, or businessman. If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance. 148
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 71 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Transportation and infrastructure properties from this period (1851-1909) are unlikely to be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style, but may have significance as a distinctive example of an increasingly rare building typology or method of construction. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • Reconstructed properties may be eligible for listing in the Mountain View Register if they represent a significant association with the city’s early transportation history, such as the Mountain View train station. However, except in very rare cases, a reconstructed property is unlikely to be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register. Refer to criterion considerations in Section III-B. Evaluation Criteria for further discussion of reconstructed properties.
• For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Retains its original form and roofline, a substantial majority of its original ornamentation, its original pattern of windows and doors, and its original cladding or like-kind replacement. • Additions may be acceptable as long as the essential character of the original building is recognizable. Rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Transportation and/or infrastructure buildings may be adapted to new uses over time, which is acceptable as long as original materials, roof form, massing, and ornamentation are intact such that it can convey an association with its original use.

Transportation & Infrastructure Historic Districts
It is unlikely that enough extant transportation and/or infrastructure properties from this period survive to form a historic district.

Civic, Cultural & Institutional Properties (1851-1909)
Civic, cultural, and institutional properties were relatively limited during this period with the majority being churches and schools, most of which have been demolished for redevelopment or previously 149
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 72 August 10, 2026
lost to fire. Civic, cultural, and institutional buildings of the period would have exhibited similar plans, stylistic elements, and building materials as commercial buildings of the period. If a religious property from this period is to be considered for listing in the National Register, it must also meet National Register Criteria Consideration A and derive its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance (refer to: National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation). This information may also prove useful in evaluating the significance of a religious property for inclusion in the state and/or local registers.

Extant civic, cultural, and institutional properties from the period may include social halls along Castro Street and churches in that same vicinity. Many of the schools and early civic buildings, such as post offices and police and fire stations, are known to have been demolished for later redevelopment.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Civic, cultural, and institutional properties from this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with the early settlement patterns in Mountain View. In particular, properties associated with the first civic services as well as the Seventh-day Adventist and immigrant communities were significant to the early history of Mountain View. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Civic, cultural, and institutional properties from this period (1851-1909) may be significant for their association with persons significant to early town development of Mountain View, such as a prominent pioneer, landowner, politician, or religious official. If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance. 150
Historic Contexts: American Pioneers & Agricultural Expansion (1851-1909) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 73 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Civic, cultural, and institutional properties from this period (1851-1909) are unlikely to be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style, but may have significance as a distinctive example of an increasingly rare building typology or method of construction. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • A lower and/or more flexible threshold of integrity can be applied for listing on the Mountain View Register if a civic, cultural, or institutional property is of particular significance to the community and/or exemplifies a rare or early property type in Mountain View. • For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • An eligible property will retain its original form and roofline, a substantial majority of its original ornamentation, its original pattern of windows and doors, and its original cladding or like-kind replacement.
• Additions may be acceptable as long as the essential character of the original building is recognizable. Rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Civic, cultural, and/or institutional buildings may be adapted to new uses over time, which is acceptable as long as original materials, roof form, massing, and ornamentation are intact such that it can convey an association with its original use.

The Webb-Alien Land Law of 1913 limited the right of Japanese immigrants to own property in the United States and it was soon followed by a more restrictive law in 1920. The Immigration Act of 1924 halted nearly all immigration to the United States. Despite legal marginalization and much like the Chinese before them, Japanese immigrants forged relatively self-sufficient, cultural-based communities in towns across the United States. By World War I, there were at least seven Japaneseowned businesses in Mountain View located in and around its Chinatown neighborhood.89 The Great Depression (1929 to 1939) took longer to affect California compared to other parts of the United States, since its economy was not reliant on heavy manufacturing and the Santa Clara Valley alone produced 30 percent of American canned fruit by 1925.90 Thousands of displaced farm workers from the Dust Bowl region of the American Midwest drove westward to California with the hope of finding work in the state’s vast fields and orchards. However, demand for fresh and canned fruit declined, which led to plummeting prices for the goods and lowering laborer wages. As Santa Clara Valley farmers found it increasingly difficult to turn a profit, many farms were foreclosed and those located within the planned area of the proposed Sunnyvale Naval Air Station (later renamed Moffett Airfield) were particularly targeted.91 The air station, constructed in the vicinity of Mountain View, was completed in 1933. The station and its huge hangar for the USS Macon dirigible brought much-needed jobs to the area.92 Along with the Ames Research Center, established in 1939, Sunnyvale Naval Air Station initiated Mountain View’s transition from an agricultural economy to one of aeronautics, national defense, and technology.93 New inventions resulting from research performed at Stanford University, such as electronics and television transmission, sparked new industries in the Mountain View vicinity.
89 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 92-3, 118-9. 90 Kevin Starr, Endangered Dreams: The Great Depression in California (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 68-9, 121. 91 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 116. 92 Several individual buildings at Moffett Field and NASA-Ames are individually listed in the National Register, along with the U.S. Naval Air Station, Sunnyvale, California, Historic District (NR# 94000045, listed 1994). 93 A dirigible is an airship with a rigid structure, such as a blimp or zeppelin. 152
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 75 August 10, 2026
Various communities in Mountain View were greatly affected again during the World War II years (1939 to 1945), but none more than Mountain View’s Japanese citizens following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in December 1941. Mountain View’s Japanese and Americans of Japanese descent were forcibly relocated to internment camps across the American West for the duration of the war. With manpower at a premium during this period, agricultural and related industries hired Latino workers in fulltime capacities, an act previously unconsidered. As soldiers returned to Mountain View, many Latino workers were released from their positions, fueling social reform efforts organized by Father Donald McDonnell of Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church in the 1940s.

Budding technological industries provided jobs for returning soldiers at Moffett Airfield and the Ames Research Center, sending Mountain View’s population to over 6,500 by the end of the 1940s. A 1938 aerial photograph captures the evolution of agricultural town to growing technological city (Figure 48).
153
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 76 August 10, 2026
Figure 48: Downtown Mountain View in 1938, surrounded by orchards and fields, with Permanente Creek on the left and Stevens Creek on the right. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight C-5750, Frame 285-81, January 1, 1939, UCSB FrameFinder. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
154
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 77 August 10, 2026
Theme: Residential Development (1910-1944)
After the incorporation of Mountain View in 1902, some residents and local businessmen became involved in speculative real estate development in the 1910s and 1920s. Tracts of land were purchased from former ranches and farms to be subdivided into smaller lots, though homes were generally not constructed by these speculators. Early twentieth-century residential development occurred most significantly in the blocks west of Castro Street and south of the railroad tracks in the Shoreline West neighborhood, specifically along Bailey Avenue, Mountain View Avenue, and Pettis Avenue, associated with the growth of the Pacific Press facilities which were a major local employer (Figure 49). Infill within the blocks surrounding the Castro Street commercial district was also common. Adjacent to the west of Shoreline West, the Castro City neighborhood was also growing, as well as the node of immigrant residences north of the railroad tracks in the “Frog Pond” (now Jackson Park) neighborhood. Homes in these areas were typically one- and one-and-a-half-story, wood-framed bungalows in various styles of the era (mostly Craftsman and Period Revivals) with detached garages and/or ancillary structures, such as windmills and tank houses (Figure 50).

Figure 49: The Stover House at 340 Palo Alto Avenue in
1922 (extant).

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 50: Postcard illustrating the first house in
the University Park Development (now Castro
City) at Rengstorff Avenue near the railroad
tracks. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

On a grander scale, Crisanto Castro constructed Villa Francesca in 1911 in the Mission style as a family home to memorialize his pioneering family’s former reign over the landscape that became Mountain View. Named for his late wife, the home featured shaped parapets on the gabled roof and dormers, coping, decorative roof vents, stucco cladding, and a broad arcaded front porch (Figure 51). The final member of the Castro family, a daughter named Mercedes, resided in the house until 1958, when she sold the 23.5-acre property-the last vestige of the originally 8,800-acre Castro rancho-to the City of Mountain View. Her hope was that the grounds would serve as a city park, 155
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 78 August 10, 2026
while the villa would provide a community gathering space or senior center.94 A fire in 1961 destroyed the west wing of the villa, and city officials decided to demolish the building to create Rengstorff Park adjacent to the Castro City neighborhood.

Figure 51: Some of Crisanto and Francesca Castro’s children photographed in front of Villa Francesca circa 1940s (demolished). Seated left to right are Susan, Crisanto IV, and Mercedes, while Frank stands behind.

Source: Mountain View Historical Association.

While the vast majority of residential construction during this period was single-family, some multifamily buildings were constructed. Earl Minton of Minton Lumber Company addressed the growing demand for housing by constructing Mountain View’s first modern apartment house. The six-unit “California Apartments” building (392 Hope Street) was constructed in 1924 at the corner of California and Hope Streets in the Palmita Park subdivision (Figure 52). 95 Other multi-family building
typologies that were constructed in the early twentieth century include bungalow or cottage courts, which feature multiple single-family buildings arranged around a shared landscape or driveway (Figure 53).
94 Mountain View Historical Association, “Castro Family History: How Castro & Rengstorff Park Got Their Names,” https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/castro-city-rengstorff-park/. 95 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 103. 156
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 79 August 10, 2026
Figure 52: The California Apartments (392 Hope
Street), an early extant apartment building in
Mountain View.

Figure 53: Spanish Colonial Revival-style bungalow
court near Shoreline West.

Other residential neighborhoods developing during this period (by the early 1940s) included North Whisman, Stierlin Estates, Willow Gate, Waverly Park, and Springer Meadows (Figure 54).

Figure 54: Bird’s eye view of southwest Mountain View, taken from the top of the old city water tank on the 100 block of Franklin Street, 1913. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Ethnic Enclaves
By the 1920s, distinct ethnic neighborhoods formed within Mountain View, including the Frog Pond barrio north of the Southern Pacific Railroad (now Jackson Park) and Castro City to the west of Shoreline West.96 The Frog Pond neighborhood was roughly bounded by Jackson Street on the north, Stierlin Road on the east, the railroad to the south, and what is now Shoreline Boulevard on the west (Figure 55). Residents of these Spanish-speaking enclaves often worked in seasonal horticulture positions or established small, family-operated businesses. During World War II, the majority of these workers were hired in full-time capacities in agricultural fields and canning 96 Perry, Nicholas. Then & Now: Mountain View, 10.
157
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 80 August 10, 2026
operations. However, most were released after the war as soldiers returned. Stemming from these workforce tensions, many of Mountain View’s Latino citizens looked to the local Catholic church for assistance. Father Donald McDonnell of St. Joseph Church spent much time working with residents of the Frog Pond neighborhood to reform local social justice issues, including horticultural labor disputes and associated discrimination.97
Figure 55: 1938 aerial photo of Mountain View with the Frog Pond neighborhood outlined in white.

Source: CIV-285-82, UCSB FrameFinder.

Theme: Commercial Development (1910-1944)
The 1910s and 1920s were a boom era for commercial activity along Castro Street and the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce established in 1922. This business district now stretched several blocks south from the train station. Buildings along Castro Street housed various stores and offices, city hall, a high school, pool halls, liquor stores, drug stores, banks, a theater, and a hotel, predominately owned by Euro-American businessman. Increasingly more businesses were oriented to auto-related goods and services and construction needs, such as paints, hardware, and plumbing supplies (Figure 56). Progressively more businesses were established by immigrants, particularly Japanese, 97 After Father McDonnell left St. Joseph in 1951, he went on to work closely with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers organization in San José.
158
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 81 August 10, 2026
including a nursery, a florist, a tea and rice shop, a few billiard parlors, and laundries.98 Commercial buildings of this period were usually of one- or two-story, wood-framed construction, often following the Mission style to varying degrees (Figure 57). Stucco was the most common exterior cladding, though some commercial buildings were faced with brick or stone. Evidence of Mountain View’s growing prosperity can be found in the several less practical businesses that began to operate on Castro Street, such as movie theaters, a jeweler, a confectionary shop, a stationary shop, and a musical instruments shop.

Figure 56: 1921 Sanborn map edited to show Castro Street’s commercial density between Dana Street (left) and Front Street (right). Source: Sanborn Map Company, via FIMo, San Francisco Public Library.

Edited by Page & Turnbull.
98 At the turn of the twentieth century there were fewer than 300 Japanese people in Santa Clara County. Within a decade that number increased ten-fold with most Japanese immigrants employed in agriculture. Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 92.
159
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 82 August 10, 2026
Figure 57: Looking south down Castro Street circa 1910 with the Farmers and Merchants Bank building on the left midground. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Fritz Campen opened the Glen Theatre in 1910 at 174 Castro Street (in the Swall Building) next door to his bakery (Figure 58). He expanded his moving picture business to include the Campen Theater (later Mountain View Theater), constructed in 1926 at 228 Castro Street (Figure 59). Its ornate Mission Revival façade was designed by San Francisco architect Alexander A. Cantin and constructed by Minton Lumber Company. A local newspaper proclaimed that “there will not be another show house on the peninsula with a more beautiful, and few, if any, with a more commodious or more comfortable interior” when it opened.99 In 1934, Antonio Blanco opened Cinema Theatre (later known as Blanco’s Theater and Teatro Cinema) in a former auto dealership on Dana Street at Bryant Street; the theater had a capacity of 750 people and adopted a Spanish-language format in 1940, becoming a central social space for Mountain View’s Spanish-speaking immigrant communities.100 Teatro Cinema was demolished in 1955.
99 Nick Perry, “Mountain View Theater,” accessed March 14, 2023, http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/1765. 100 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 67. 160
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 83 August 10, 2026
Figure 58: Mountain View's first movie theater, the
Glen Moving Picture Theatre at 174 Castro Street,
circa 1910s (demolished). Source:
welcometosilentmovies.com.

Figure 59: Original façade of the Mountain View
Theatre at 228 Castro Street (extant) circa 1930.

Source: California Revealed.

The Temperance Movement was gaining momentum in early twentieth-century American culture.

While the neighboring town of Mayfield elected to be dry, the City of Mountain View was divided on the issue and always hosted a number of saloons. The Blue and Gold Kennel Club, a euphemism for the seven-bedroom house at the corner of Eunice Avenue and Porterfield Court that operated as a speakeasy, brothel, and greyhound racing venue, open in 1928.101 Italian immigrant Louis Tambini’s Richelieu liquor store and saloon was a castle-like building on the northeast corner of Castro and Dana Streets (Figure 60). Starting in the late 1920s, national brands expanded into Mountain View.

The first Safeway grocery store was a one-story, tiled-roof building within the 200 block of Castro Street (Figure 61). J.C. Penney also opened a department store on the 200 block of Castro Street in the 1920s.102 The Great Depression halted most new construction in downtown and building owners settled for less expensive improvements during these years, as evidenced by the profusion of neon signs topping Castro Street businesses (Figure 62). Since many downtown businesses did not survive the Depression, the previous trend of local ownership gave way to one of chain stores in the 1940s in a variety of industries, from grocers to hardware. 101 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 107. 102 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 68. 161
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 84 August 10, 2026
Figure 60: The Richelieu liquor store and saloon on the northeast corner of Castro and Dana Streets photographed circa 1910s with proprietor Louis Tambini (right). Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 61: The 200 block of Castro Street looking north from Villa Street in 1927. The arrow indicates Mountain View’s first Safeway grocery store. Source: Mountain View Public Library. 162
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 85 August 10, 2026
Figure 62: View down Castro Street in 1937, looking southwest over the railroad tracks.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Spangler Mortuary was established in 1934 at 895 Castro Street by Martin and Mary Spangler (Figure 63 and Figure 64). At the time of construction, this southern section of Castro Street was relatively vacant and illustrates the commercial growth and diversity of businesses operating in Mountain View during this period.

Figure 63: A 1938 ad for Spangler Mortuary.

Source: www.spanglermortuary.com.

Figure 64: Spangler Mortuary, built 1934 at 799 Castro Street (extant), photographed in 1993.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.
163
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 86 August 10, 2026
Immigrant-owned Businesses
The Castro City neighborhood also evolved into an affordable, predominantly Latino enclave. The Castro City grocery store and gas station, run by the Nakamura family, was a neighborhood landmark until 1992, and the building is now home to La Plaza Market (Figure 65).103 Figure 65: Castro City Grocery & Gas Station at Rengstorff Avenue circa 1920s. Since remodeled as La Plaza Market. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

The Japanese community in Mountain View and its vicinity was large enough to support various Japanese-owned business establishments during this period. Other Japanese immigrants operated small vegetable or flower farms and nurseries around Mountain View, while others still were truck farmers or worked in the local horticultural fields and packing houses (Figure 66).

Figure 66: 1921 Sanborn map edited to show the Japanese nurseries north of the railroad anchored around the Wright and Bailey Avenue intersection. Source: Sanborn Map Company, via FIMo, San Francisco Public Library.

Edited by Page & Turnbull.
103 Castro Family History: How Castro & Rengstorff Park Go Their Names,” Mountain View Historical Association, accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/castro-city-rengstorff-park/. Bailey Avenue 164
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 87 August 10, 2026
Theme: Agricultural & Industrial Development (1910-1944) Mountain View was a central agricultural city in the Valley of Heart’s Delight, growing many varieties of fruits, vegetables, wine grapes, and nuts. Its utilization of the various landings along the bay and the railroad allowed Mountain View farmers, packing houses, and canneries to export their agricultural goods to further and further markets. Many of these drying, canning, packing, and warehouse facilities collocated along the rail corridor and employed many women (predominately in the cooking and packing rooms) and immigrants.

As men were drafted during World War I (1914-1918), fruit farms and canneries supplemented their labor force with even more women and immigrants as the war years increased demand for canned fruits and vegetables (Figure 67). Major canneries of the era included the Sanguinetti Cannery on Bailey Avenue near the railroad (later the John W. McCarthy Jr. & Co Cannery), the Mountain View Canning Company, the California Supply Company (also known as “the pickle works”), and the Clark Cannery. In order to attract new employees, particularly married women, the Sanguinetti Cannery constructed worker cottages south of its facility along Villa Avenue (Figure 68). “Rose Court,” as the cottage complex came to be known, was demolished in the 1990s and replaced with two-story single-family houses.

Figure 67: Packing shed in Mountain View in 1931 highlighting its diverse workforce.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.
165
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 88 August 10, 2026
Figure 68: 1921 Sanborn map edited to show the old Sanguinetti Cannery (McCarthy Cannery at this time) with its Rose Court worker cottages outlined in dashed black. Source: Sanborn Map Company, via FIMo, San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
166
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 89 August 10, 2026
In 1915, the California Supply Company, a tomato and cucumber processing plant on Franklin and Villa Streets, opened. Through the years, ownership changed to Hunt Foods, Inc. and finally the California Conserving Company (Figure 69). However, the factory was always known as the “pickle works" for the pungent aromas that wafted into adjacent neighborhoods from its cooking rooms.

The massive complex was demolished in February 1963, and the Police and Fire Administration Building was later constructed on the site.

Figure 69: The pickle works at Franklin and Villa Streets, operating as Hunt Foods in this 1951 photograph (demolished 1963). Source: Mountain View Public Library.

One specialty agricultural outfit was the Ambra Olive Oil Company, which opened in 1926 at 987 North Rengstorff Avenue (Figure 70). It was founded by Mario Ambra (1887–1968), a native of Pachino, Italy who arrived in the United States in 1906, and his wife Rosaria (1890–1981). Upon his retirement in 1953, his son, Concetto, continued the family business. Their grandson, also named Mario Ambra, went on to be mayor of Mountain View.

Figure 70: Ambra Olive Oil Company at 987 North Rengstorff Avenue, circa 1995 (extant; no longer in operation).
167
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 90 August 10, 2026
While much of Mountain View was dedicated to agricultural uses in the early twentieth century, including numerous orchards, the Francia apricot orchard on North Whisman Road appears to be the last remaining orchard in the city; the orchard is extant, but untended and was in operation through at least 2006 (Figure 71).

Figure 71: Francia Apricot Orchard (N. Whisman Road between E. Middlefield Rd. and Pacific Dr.) appears to be the last remaining orchard in Mountain View and has several associated residential and ancillary buildings on site. Source: Google Maps, 2023.

Theme: Transportation & Infrastructure (1910-1944)
This period of Mountain View history showcases the full breadth of transportation evolution in Mountain View. After the warehouses at the bayshore landings were mostly destroyed in the 1906 earthquake, the shipping of goods was reduced dramatically. However, around 1920 the South Shore Port Company dredged the slough at Jagels Landing to establish a ferry and freight service to San Francisco that started in 1923. The elaborate port project also included the construction of an amusement park and large saltwater swimming pool called Kingsport Plunge, which opened in 1925. 168
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 91 August 10, 2026
However, the venture failed, and the company declared bankruptcy in 1927. By the 1930s, goods were moved predominately by rail.
104
Increasingly more Mountain View roads were paved through the 1920s and 1930s, providing expanded opportunities for the new construction of homes and places of business. El Camino Real developed as a secondary commercial corridor (compared to Castro Street) as automobiles became more prevalent. This shift also necessitated the need for road safety infrastructure, such as crosswalks and traffic signage. An electric “Mountain View” sign was installed over Castro Street near its intersection with the railroad tracks in 1915 and Castro Street itself (and a few other main streets) were paved by 1920 (Figure 72).105 In 1924, construction of the Great Bayshore Highway (Highway 101) began and reached Mountain View in 1930.

Figure 72: The electric "Mountain View" sign in 1915. Source: Mountain View Historical Association.

Also evocative of the changing times, Pastoria Avenue, originally named after the Castro rancho through which it coursed, was renamed Rengstorff Avenue in 1929. Mountain View also claimed the first arterial street into Moffett Airfield; Moffett Boulevard was paved in 1933 and dubbed “the gateway to Mountain View” (Figure 73).106 Mountain View Airport opened in 1936 on the outskirts of the city.
104 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California. 105 Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 87, 97. 106 Originally named Naval Air Station (NAS) Sunnyvale, the campus was renamed as NAS Moffett Field in 1933, following the death of Rear Admiral William A. Moffett who championed the creation of the airfield. Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View, California, 112.
169
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 92 August 10, 2026
Figure 73: 1944 map edited to show the existing road network in the general Mountain View area and early neighborhood formation. Castro Street is marked in heavy black.

Source: San José Public Library, California Room. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

NORTH

WHISMAN
CASTRO

CITY JACKSON

PARK WILLOW
GATE

STIERLIN

ESTATES

SPRINGER

MEADOWS

SHORELINE
WEST
170
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 93 August 10, 2026
Theme: Civic, Cultural & Institutional Properties (1910-1944) Sanborn maps from this period indicate numerous civic, cultural, and institutional buildings, most of which have been lost to redevelopment in more recent decades. The one-room San Antonio Schoolhouse was discontinued in 1917, while the public school (1867) and Mountain View High School (1902) on El Camino Real remained in operation (Figure 74). In 1923, architect William Weeks (1867-1936) designed a new Mountain View Union High School on Castro Street. The two-story, 22 classroom, Mission-style building was laid out in an L-shaped plan with a one-and-a-half story archway as the main entrance (Figure 76). The arched entryway was flanked on either side by Ionic pilasters and a decorative shield adorned the gable above. Arched windows flanked the entrance, and balconies with low balustrades completed the facade of this wing. The school opened in September 1924 and closed in June 1981. The 1943 Sanborn map shows an expanded grammar school fronting El Camino Real (Figure 75), a public school on Dana Street between Bailey Avenue and Oak Street, the Miramonte School on Villa Street, and a Boy Scouts Hall at 179 Hope Street and a Girl Scouts Hall at 250 View Street, both in the vicinity of Chinatown anchored by View and Villa Streets.

Figure 74: 1921 Sanborn map cropped to show
Mountain View's school block, consisting of Union
High School with an outlying “domestic sciences”
building to the west and the Grammar School to the
east). Source: Sanborn Map Company, via FIMo, San
Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Figure 75: 1943 Sanborn cropped to show the
redeveloped school block now occupied by the
singular and expanded Mountain View Grammar
School. Source: Sanborn Map Company, via FIMo,
San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page &
Turnbull.
171
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 94 August 10, 2026
Figure 76: Mountain View Union School at Castro Street and High School Way in the late 1920s (demolished 1987). Source: Angel Santuario, “Then & Now: Mountain View Union High School,” Patch, November 7, 2010.

In 1928, St. Joseph Catholic Church burned down, and rebuilding was underway later that same year with an increased capacity of 650 congregants.107 The Mountain View Adobe was constructed in 1934 in a Spanish Revival style with stucco cladding and red clay tile roofing (Figure 77). Built on a concrete foundation, construction of the adobe involved pouring a concrete frame of columns and beams to support the wood-framed gable roof and infill of the walls with adobe brick between the columns.108 It was designed by Mountain View City Engineer Don Reinhoel and meant to provide the city with a meeting place as well as an employment opportunity during the years of the Great Depression as a Civil Works Administration (CWA) project. It was nominated to the National Register in 2002 with a period of significance of 1934 to 1952.109 107 “Parish History,” St. Joseph Catholic Church, accessed online October 26, 2022, https://www.sjpmv.org/parish-history. 108 Kuza, “National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet: Mountain View Adobe,” 6. 109 National Register of Historic Places, Mountain View Adobe, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, CA, National Register #02001256, listed 2002.
172
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 95 August 10, 2026
Figure 77: Mountain View Adobe at 157 Moffett Boulevard circa 1940s (extant).

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Cultural-based Institutions
Minton Lumber constructed a Japanese language school on a corner of its lumber yard in 1915, which outgrew the location by 1924 (Figure 78). The Mihongo Gahuen (or Mihongo Academy) relocated a block away to 260 View Street and officially incorporated in 1929 (Figure 79). The 100 Issei (first generation Japanese immigrant) families around Mountain View at the turn of the twentieth century had to make the difficult trek to the San José Buddhist Church to attend services before the ministers started hosting meetings and services at local family homes in Mountain View in the 1920s. By the early 1930s, there was enough local interest to form a Buddhist Sunday School.

In 1932, the group leased space on the second floor of the Oyamada Confectionery Store near the corner of Dana and View Streets (in the general Chinatown area) to host weekly services. This established the first regular place of worship for Buddhists in the City of Mountain View. 110 Japanese
community efforts were halted in 1942, when citizens of Japanese descent were sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II (Figure 80). Those that chose to return to Mountain View began their property search so that they could construct their own temple. 110 “Our History,” Mountain View Buddhist Temple, accessed online March 13, 2023, https://mvbuddhisttemple.org/aboutmvbt/our-history/. 173
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 96 August 10, 2026
Figure 78: 1921 Sanborn map edited to show Minton's Japanese language school on his lumber yard lot, dashed in black. Source: Sanborn Map Company, via FIMo, San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Figure 79: The Japanese language school at 260 View Street in 1925 (demolished in 1962).

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

View Street
Bush Street
S.P. Railroad
174
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 97 August 10, 2026
Figure 80: Japanese evacuation on June 4, 1942. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Mountain View is one of few California towns of comparable size to boast two Portuguese social halls during this period. 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.111 In 1929, the organization split, and the Sociedade da Festa Velha (SFV) was created. IFES constructed their social hall at 432 Stierlin Road in 1931, which has been expanded over the years (Figure 81).
112 SFV constructed their Portuguese Hall of Mountain View at 361 Villa Street in 1935.

Figure 81: IFES social hall at 432 Stierlin Road, circa 2010s. Source: IFES. 111 Perry, Images of American: Mountain View, 118. 112 “About,” IFES Society of Mountain View, accessed online March 13, 2023, https://ifessociety.org/about/. 175
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 98 August 10, 2026
Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1910-1944) The overarching themes of this period include the modernization of Mountain View’s agricultural economy, the introduction of the personal automobile, and the expansion of the school district.

Mountain View’s population of 1,161 people in 1910 grew to nearly 4,000 in 1940. Maps and aerial photographs highlight the early formation of residential neighborhoods beyond the core downtown area and secondary commercial districts beyond Castro Street. More and more businesses related to the auto industry opened and Castro Street hosted numerous gas stations and repair shops.

Surviving buildings from this period are limited (approximately 4.1 percent of Mountain View’s extant building stock as of 2021) and are therefore potentially significant, given their construction and establishment during a period of restricted opportunity during years of international wars and national economic conditions.

Residential Properties (1910-1944)
The bungalow and the bungalow court became popular residential forms in Mountain View during the 1910s and 1920s, and several neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown core exhibit these trends, including Shoreline West. Early bungalows featured simple, utilitarian styles, while Craftsman architectural features were adopted later. All bungalows typically take the form of a one or one-anda-half-story building with an informal floor plan and a prominent porch on one or two façades.

Usually constructed of wood with a gable or hip roof structure and clad in wood clapboard or similar, affordability and simplicity were prime traits of these residences. Though the bungalow style remained popular through the 1920s, revival styles marked another trend in early twentieth century residences in Mountain View. Most commonly seen are Colonial Revival, Mission and Spanish Colonial Revival, and Tudor Revival. While most are also constructed of wood, builders employed various cladding and veneering techniques to make these revival style homes appear to be constructed of brick, stone, or adobe.

Residential buildings constructed during and immediately following the Great Depression years exhibit Minimal Traditional styling with traditional forms and proportions and restricted ornamentation. Small, inexpensive houses were built in the 1940s following Federal Housing Authority (FHA) guidelines, whose goal was to encourage affordable houses with modern features.

These small houses are often referred to as World War II-era Cottages and Transitional Ranches; the latter mostly constructed in the late 1940s and outside this period of development. Overall, houses of the 1940s occasionally reference revival styles, particularly those with strong California influences, such as the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
176
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 99 August 10, 2026
Extant residential properties from the period may include free-standing, single-family historic resources in the Shoreline West, Castro City, and Jackson Park neighborhoods, generally constructed between 1910 and 1935, with a predominance of Craftsman style bungalows and vernacular cottages, as well as some revival styles. These buildings are typically set back from the sidewalk with a small front lawn, edge plantings, and a driveway with an adjacent detached garage. Recurring design features include front-gabled or hipped roofs, open porches with battered or square columns, wood sash windows with small-paned lites, and internal brick chimneys. Most are one story tall, evidencing two-story residences as altered or later infill construction.

The bungalow or cottage court form is another extant multifamily example from this period, most often found in the Shoreline West and Old Mountain View neighborhoods. These small-scale developments paired the amenities of a single-family home with lower costs as the land and maintenance costs associated with the communal courtyard and/or driveway were shared among all residents. Mountain View’s bungalow courts vary in architectural style, including Craftsman, Minimal Traditional, and Spanish Colonial Revival, and the bungalows within typically face a shared driveway with individual parking spaces between units and at the rear of the property.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Residential buildings from this period (1910-1944) may be significant for their association to Mountain View’s continued role in agriculture, an early period of reconstruction and modernization following the 1906 earthquake, as well as suburban expansion associated with the emerging local technology and defense industries during World War II (1939- 1945). Early apartment buildings and bungalow courts may better reflect this period’s post-1906 residential growth and increasing diversity of housing types. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Residential buildings from this period (1910-1944) may be significant for their association with persons important to Mountain View’s history. If this is the case, however, the residence should be the best or only remaining property capable of representing that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.
177
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 100 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Residential properties may be eligible as distinctive examples of an architectural style or type from the 1910-1944 period, or as an example of an innovation in design or building technology, as expressed by intact stylistic features, forms, or construction methods.

Properties should be exemplary in terms of style and era, embodying the characteristics that make the style significant with distinctive quality or design, engineering, or workmanship; a typical example of an architectural style of the period is not sufficient for eligibility.

Simple cottages, bungalow courts, and grander residences may all be significant under these criteria if determined to be distinctive examples of their respective typologies, so long as the building exhibits the necessary aspects of integrity (see below). Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • A property that has lost some historic materials or details may still be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its original style and appearance in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, and fenestration pattern. o It is generally acceptable for entry stairs and porch features to have been replaced, as these are subjected to greater deterioration from weathering and use. However, replacement porches should substantially conform to the original configuration, and should not detract from the overall character of the residence. Incompatible porch replacement would likely jeopardize a residence’s eligibility for all registers. o Additions may be acceptable, particularly those made prior to approximately 1920 when construction materials were generally from the same palette. Rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are also generally acceptable.

However, more modern additions that compromise a building’s form and scale are not acceptable. Replacement of exterior cladding would also likely jeopardize a residence’s eligibility for all registers.
178
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 101 August 10, 2026
o The retention of original windows greatly enhances integrity of materials, and likewise enhances integrity of design and workmanship. However, it should be recognized that window replacement is a common alteration to improve energy efficiency. Thus, the fact that a building does not retain its original windows should not, in and of itself, be viewed as an obstacle to historic registration. Far more important is that the building retain its original configuration and dimensions of window openings, and that the replacement windows are located within the original frame openings. The National Park Service notes that “a property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation.”113 • A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying form and massing but has lost the majority of features that characterized its appearance during its historical period. The rarity of a property type and/or style should also be considered when assessing integrity. As resources associated with this theme are more abundant than previous periods of development, the integrity of eligible properties should be higher, though greater latitude may be allowed for very rare examples within a particular area of the community, or for properties being considered for listing on the local register only. • Residences that have been converted to commercial use are still eligible for listing under all criteria as long as it retains its overall form and architectural character. While such buildings no longer retain their original use, they can still be fine examples of early twentieth-century architectural styles and residential development patterns. • Residential properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rarer, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design, but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.

Residential Historic Districts
In general, minor or reversible alterations or in‐kind replacement of original features and finishes are acceptable within historic districts. Significant alterations that change the massing, form, 113 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 46. 179
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 102 August 10, 2026
roofline, or fenestration patterns of an individual building, alter the original design intent, or that are not reversible may result in noncontributing status for an individual building. For a historic district to retain integrity, the majority (60 percent or more) of its component parts should contribute to its historic significance. A contributing building must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district.

Commercial Properties (1910-1944)
Commercial buildings of the era exhibited substantial, block-like forms with flat roofs with stepped parapets or followed the conventions of traditional Western false front buildings. Poured concrete construction was typical (usually unreinforced), and masonry and stucco cladding remained the most common exterior material. The Great Depression caused building construction to slow through much of the 1930s. Commercial buildings that were constructed were often small and simple in form and style, a precursor to the modern, clean-line styles of the war years. Alternatively, larger residences were occasionally converted for commercial uses, and necessarily located on, what was then, the outskirts of town.

Extant commercial properties from the period may include retail and/or office buildings; two- or three‐story mixed‐use buildings; auto‐related buildings, like sales buildings and lots, repair shops, parts supply stores, service stations, or garages; hotels; signs; and geographically unified groupings of commercial properties (historic districts). Extant commercial properties from this period are expected to be concentrated in the blocks along Castro Street and El Camino Real.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Commercial properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant for their association with immigrant-owned businesses, or majority immigrant workforces, construction, and economic viability through the years specifically associated with Great Depression, and/or as a site of a significant historic event from this period.

B/2/2 (Persons)
A commercial building from this period (1910-1944) might be significant for its association with a person important to Mountain View’s history, such as a prominent merchant or businessowner (like the Mancinis of local service station and auto dealership notoriety). If this is the case, however, the building should be the best or only remaining property capable of representing that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance. 180
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 103 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Commercial properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant as an excellent example of an architectural type from the period, as an embodiment of a significant architectural innovation. Commercial buildings constructed between 1910 and 1929 were commonly designed in the Mission and Spanish Colonial Revival architectural styles or variations thereof. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Mountain View Register Eligibility: Commercial properties from this era are quite rare, and therefore discretion is warranted when considering integrity for eligibility to the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, particularly for those commercial buildings located within the first three blocks (100, 200, and 300 blocks) of Castro Street. Commercial properties from this era that retain their essential form and some physical characteristics of their period of construction may be eligible for local listing if they contribute to the overall character of the downtown streetscape. Commercial properties that have been restored, even if lacking integrity of materials and workmanship, may be eligible for local listing only. • A property that has lost some historic materials or details may still be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its original style and appearance in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, and fenestration pattern. • Minor alterations, such as door replacement, reroofing, or compatible re‐stuccoing, shall not, in and of themselves, render a resource ineligible. However, the cumulative impact of multiple minor alterations may compromise a resource’s overall integrity. More substantive alterations that are difficult to reverse, such as extensive storefront modifications that obscure the original form and program of the building, modification of original fenestration patterns, and/or the removal of historic finishes or features, compromise the property’s integrity and are likely to render it ineligible for the National and/or California Registers. • Commercial properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group (either owned by and/or primarily serving a specific ethnic or cultural group) under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 181
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 104 August 10, 2026
should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rare, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.

Commercial Historic Districts
It is unlikely that there is a geographically contiguous grouping of extant commercial properties built exclusively in the 1910-1944 period would be eligible as a historic district. However, a commercial historic district with a longer period of significance (beginning before 1910 and/or extending into the postwar period) may be identified. In order to retain sufficient integrity for eligibility for designation, a majority (60 percent or more) of the properties or components within the district boundary should contribute to the district’s significance. An eligible district should retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance, and contributors/primary contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. In-kind replacement of features and materials are acceptable within historic districts, as well as reversible additions or alterations. Substantial alterations to a building’s massing, form, roofline, and fenestration pattern, especially if such alterations render the original design intent or storefront configuration unrecognizable, the building may be considered a noncontributor/limited contributor to the district.

Agricultural & Industrial Properties (1910-1944)
Resources evaluated under this theme are significant for their association with Mountain View’s agricultural and industrial development from the 1910s through World War II, when the shift from agriculture to technology-base industry is most obvious. Extant agricultural and industrial properties from the period are likely to exist singly, given Mountain View’s development and infill practices in more recent decades. Only one orchard is known to remain extant in Mountain View, but other agricultural properties or ancillary support structures like sheds, windmills, tank houses, oil tanks, garages, may remain extant. No known lumberyard or packing houses, once common particularly along the railroad alignments, are known to remain extant. Since there are no known groupings or concentrations of agricultural or industrial resources that date to this period, resources associated with this theme will likely be evaluated for their individual merit. Industrial resources from this 182
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 105 August 10, 2026
period were known to be concentrated in the blocks fronting the railroad tracks along Evelyn Avenue (previously Front Street), but no extant industrial properties are known to exist in this area.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Agricultural and industrial properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant for their association with the primary period of growth in the canning and packing industries in Mountain View. Extant examples of agricultural and industrial properties from this period are rare.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Agricultural and industrial properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant for their association with a person (or persons) significant in the history of Mountain View, such as business owners in the canning and packing industries. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Agricultural and industrial properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant as an excellent example of an architectural type, an embodiment of a significant architectural innovation, and/or for possessing high artistic value. In rare cases, industrial and agricultural properties from this period may be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style. Properties may have significance as a distinctive example of an increasingly rare building typology or method of construction. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • Extant agricultural and industrial properties from this era are very rare in Mountain View but are associated with an important aspect of the city’s early history and development. The rarity of a property type should also be considered when assessing integrity for local eligibility and some latitude should be applied when evaluating integrity. As these types of historic resources were built when Mountain View was still relatively small and in its earlier stages of development, resources associated with this theme are likely to have experienced a dramatic change in setting over time. A greater degree of alterations may not preclude a resource from being eligible, though it must still retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance.
• For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. 183
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 106 August 10, 2026
• A resource that has lost some historic materials but maintains its original design intent and is recognizable as an agricultural and/or industrial resource may still be eligible under Criterion A/1/1.
• A resource that has lost some historic materials or detailing may still be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its original style and appearance in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation.
• A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying form and massing but has lost most features that originally characterized its type. • Agricultural or industrial properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rare, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage.

Agricultural & Industrial Historic Districts
Due to the fact that very few agricultural and industrial properties from this era remain extant, it is unlikely that an eligible historic district may be identified. However, vernacular cultural landscapes, including agricultural properties such as farmsteads, orchards, or other agricultural production and processing facilities should be evaluated as a whole, and constituent site and landscape features (such as, but not limited to, tank houses, windmills, planted orchards, ancillary/support buildings, etc.) should be considered as contributing or character-defining features to the property.

Transportation & Infrastructure Properties (1910-1944)
This period of development showcases the modernization of Mountain View’s transportation networks. The railroad remained the city’s primary means to move goods and people. However, the advent of the personal automobile required more roads to be paved and, in turn, installation of various road safety measures. Vehicles allowed development to expand to further distances from Mountain View’s traditional centers of activity, and both neighborhoods and commercial districts were established beyond Castro Street. Road networks also allowed Mountain View drivers to access cities at farther distances by way of interstate highways. 184
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 107 August 10, 2026
Since there are no known groupings or concentrations of transportation‐related resources that date to this period, resources associated with this theme will likely be evaluated for their individual merit and a lower threshold of integrity may be warranted.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Transportation and infrastructure properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant for its association with ongoing railroad operations, the earliest patterns of auto-related transportation development, and/or transportation and infrastructure related to the general growth in Mountain View.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Transportation and infrastructure properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant for its association with a person (or persons) significant in the rail, automobile, and shipping industries of Mountain View as well as the general employment trends which utilized an immigrant-majority workforce. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Transportation and infrastructure properties of this period (1910-1944) may be significant as an excellent example of an architectural type, such as rail- or auto-related infrastructure or airports, an embodiment of a significant architectural innovation, and/or for possessing high artistic value. In rare cases, transportation and infrastructure properties from this period may be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style. Properties may have significance as a distinctive example of an increasingly rare building typology or method of construction.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Since resources associated with this theme are rare, some latitude shall be applied when evaluating integrity. As they were built when Mountain View was in the early stages of rail and auto-related development, resources associated with this theme are likely to have experienced a dramatic change in setting over time. A greater degree of alterations may not preclude a resource from being eligible, though it must still retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance.

Transportation & Infrastructure Historic Districts
185
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 108 August 10, 2026
It is unlikely that enough extant transportation and/or infrastructure properties from this period survive to form a historic district.

Civic, Cultural & Institutional Properties (1910-1944)
The expansion of Mountain View’s school district was significant during this era of Early TwentiethCentury Development, Immigration & Multiculturalism. The needs for other civic and institutional buildings had been satisfied by the previous development period and the wars and Great Depression of this period stifled growth to some degree with limitations on construction materials and labor. Residents found a sense of community beyond the sprouting residential neighborhoods through various existing churches, social halls, and cultural centers, and enjoyed new forms of entertainment through the multiple moving picture theaters-one of which was dedicated to Spanishlanguage films.

Extant civic, cultural, and institutional properties from the period may include school buildings; religious buildings; buildings seeing long‐term use by fraternal, social, or interest‐based organizations; and geographically unified groupings of civic, cultural, and/or institutional properties (historic districts). These buildings are most likely to be found along Castro Street and the surrounding blocks that comprise downtown as well as in correlation to residential neighborhoods.

If a religious property from this period is to be considered for listing in the National Register, it must also meet National Register Criteria Consideration A and derive its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance (refer to: National Register Bulletin #15:

How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation). This information may also prove useful in evaluating the significance of a religious property for inclusion in the state and/or local registers.

Note on Intangible Cultural Heritage: Cultural and institutional properties, including social halls, religious buildings, and other community gathering spaces, may also be associated with intangible cultural heritage such as annual festivals, parades, or other cultural events. 186
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 109 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Civic, cultural, and/or institutional properties of this period (1910-1944) are likely associated with the origin stories of various social, religious, and cultural organizations in Mountain View, many of which are still active today. Additionally, this period represents significant development in educational intuitions such as public schools. An institutional building may be individually significant for its association with a specific important event or organization. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

B/2/2 (Persons)
A civic, cultural, and/or institutional building from this period (1910-1944) might be significant for its association with a person important to Mountain View’s history. If this is the case, however, the building should be the best or only remaining property capable of representing that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Civic, cultural, and/or institutional buildings from this period (1910-1944) may be significant for their architecture, as expressed by intact stylistic features, forms or construction methods. Buildings might also qualify as the work of a notable architect, builder, or other designer and/or for possessing high artistic value. Individual resources should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain a substantial amount of their original features.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • A lower and/or more flexible threshold of integrity can be applied for local listing if a civic, cultural, or institutional property is of particular significance to the community and/or exemplifies a rare or early property type in Mountain View. • An eligible property will be a clear example of a civic, cultural, and/or institutional property from this period and retain a substantial majority of its original form, roofline, and features. 187
Historic Contexts: Early Twentieth Century Development, City of Mountain View, CA Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 110 August 10, 2026
• An eligible property will retain its original pattern of windows and doors and most of its original ornamentation with retention of the entry, window, and/or roofline ornamentation considered most important. Replacement of doors and windows can be acceptable as long as they conform to the original door/window pattern and the size of the openings. • Retention of the original exterior cladding is important, but not absolute and in-kind or likekind replacements can be considered acceptable. • Additions may be acceptable as long as the essential character of the original building is recognizable. In particular, rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Civic, cultural, and/or institutional buildings may be adapted to new uses over time, which is acceptable as long as original materials, roof form, massing, and ornamentation are intact such that the building can convey an association with its original use during this time period. • Institutional properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties may be rarer and that these properties may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community and are likely associated also with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.
• An institutional property may have been constructed by an associated ethnic, cultural, or religious group, or have been used by that group after its construction by another entity. As such, the period of significance may be a date or range that is later than the property’s original construction; furthermore, the period of significance may extend through multiple eras of Mountain View’s development.

Civic, Cultural & Institutional Historic Districts
It is unlikely that enough extant civic, cultural, and/or institutional properties from this period survive in a concentrated area to form a historic district. It is possible that civic, cultural, and/or institutional properties might contribute to a broader downtown historic district with a mix of such properties and commercial properties, if one were identified; refer to Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements for Commercial Properties (1910-1944). 188
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 111 August 10, 2026
E. POSTWAR SUBURBANIZATION, CITY BUILDING & SILICON VALLEY INNOVATION (1945-1979)
The post-World War II period was a period of dramatic change and growth for Mountain View, along with the surrounding San Francisco Bay Area. It was this period when Mountain View fully transitioned from the “Valley of Heart’s Delight” to “Silicon Valley.” The population swelled with people choosing to remain in the Bay Area after having moved to the region for wartime employment, others returning to the area from other wartime posts, and many making the move to take advantage of the jobs in the burgeoning technology and aerospace sectors. The postwar baby boom, G.I. Bill, and new FHA mortgage regulations made suburban life enticing and economical—at least for many White families. Black, Asian, and Latino residents suffered from racial discrimination and redlining in the housing market, as well as displacement from infrastructure and other city redevelopment initiatives. Fair housing laws implemented in the 1960s and increased construction of multi-family housing in Mountain View led to the city being more racially and economically integrated than its surrounding neighbors.

Suburban housing tract development was quickly followed with the construction of new suburban schools, parks, and shopping malls, as life also became increasingly oriented around automobile travel. Former agricultural land was redeveloped for large housing tracts, as well as for new technology campuses and office parks. While previously, fruit growing and packing and the Pacific Press publishing operation had been major economic drivers and local employers, siting between Stanford University and Moffett Field—Mountain View became an incubator for many of the individuals and ideas that drove the development of ‘Silicon Valley.’ In 1940, the population of Mountain View was just under 4,000 people, by 1950 had increased to about 6,500, and by 1960 had jumped to nearly 31,000.114 The population further increased to around 51,000 people in 1970 and around 58,600 in 1980—an approximately 1,365 percent increase from 1940. While this spike was in large part due to the number of people moving to the area and growing families, another major factor was Mountain View’s aggressive program of annexation following the incorporation of the neighboring City of Los Altos in 1952 (Figure 82 and Figure 83). 115
The city was competing with Los Altos, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto to capture the tax basis of previously unincorporated Santa Clara County as the area rapidly transitioned from orchards and agricultural fields to suburban residential tracts and corporate office parks. During this period, the last remaining commercial buildings in Old Mountain View were demolished. 114 Refer to Appendix A – Mountain View Population by Decade. 115 Perry, Then & Now: Mountain View, 10. 189
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 112 August 10, 2026
Figure 82: Map of City of Mountain View boundaries at the end of the 1940s. Source: “Mountain View Annexation History 2.0,” City of Mountain View, ArcGIS Online map, May 13, 2016, updated 2018. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Figure 83: Map of City of Mountain View boundaries at the end of the 1970s. Source: “Mountain View Annexation History 2.0,” City of Mountain View, ArcGIS Online map, May 13, 2016, updated 2018. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
190
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 113 August 10, 2026
Theme: Residential Development (1945-1979)
During the post-World War II period, housing development boomed in Mountain View, attempting to keep pace with the increasing population. Residential development during this period can be categorized by three major trends: infill development of older neighborhoods such as Old Mountain View and Shoreline West, which included custom homes and smaller tract development; construction of new, single-family suburban tract developments; and construction of new multifamily apartment buildings and housing complexes (Figure 84). Generally, the new single-family residential tracts tended to be constructed south of El Camino Real or north of Central Expressway, replacing former orchards and agricultural lands. The majority of the new multi-family housing complexes were built adjacent to and between El Camino Real and Central Expressway and in some areas north of Central Expressway.

Figure 84: Central neighborhoods of downtown Mountain View, looking north to Castro Street, 1950s. The majority of these lots were infilled in the subsequent decades. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Redlining, Racial Discrimination & Displacement
Residential development in this period was further characterized by a tension between racially discriminatory laws and ongoing lending practices, burgeoning advocacy for inclusionary and fair housing practices resulting in new laws, and a community desire to build a diverse range of housing options.
191
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 114 August 10, 2026
Racially restrictive covenants, also known as “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions” (CC&Rs), had been included in the legal deeds in Mountain View’s older neighborhoods and tracts developed in the 1930s and 1940s, excluding Black, Latino, and Asian residents from living in certain neighborhoods. By the 1950s, some Mountain View residents, including White residents, were advocating for fair housing and seeking diverse communities to live in. Since Joseph Eichler had made a policy of non-discrimination in his other developments in nearby Palo Alto, many knew the Eichler-developed Monta Loma neighborhood was an option for non-exclusionary housing.116 However, some accounts indicate that Asian homebuyers, and perhaps others, weren’t always immediately welcomed; one woman recounted that her father, an Asian American veteran, was initially turned down when trying to purchase a home in the Monta Loma Eichler tract in 1955, but complained directly to Joseph Eichler, and after this appeal was able to purchase the home.117 The California Fair Housing Act of 1963, known as the Rumford Act, enacted laws to enforce nondiscrimination in housing, even before the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (or the Civil Rights Act of 1968); although the Rumford Act was repealed in 1964 by state Proposition 14, it was reinstated in 1966 by the California Supreme Court.118
In addition to outright discrimination in the sale or renting of homes to people of color, these communities also faced the threat of displacement as Mountain View was rapidly growing and changing. In 1953, the Spanish-speaking neighborhood of Castro City was annexed by the City of Mountain View.
119 Discussions about demolition began thereafter in 1962, which would have forced the relocation of dozens of Latino households, destabilizing the established cultural and social cohesion within an existing community of color.
120 While demolition of Castro City did not proceed, a
number of individual homes were condemned and demolished.121 Additionally, despite robust internal collaboration and solidarity through the 1950s, the Frog Pond barrio (by now known as Jackson-Washington) was not safe from city and county planners starting in 1962 with the widening of Alma Street, the neighborhood’s southern boundary. The two-lane road was expanded into four lanes to create Central Expressway, along with an overpass at Shoreline Boulevard (formerly Bailey Avenue), requiring the demolition of approximately 20 houses and displacing many more families— 116 For more on Eichler and his company’s racial non-discrimination policy, including the interactions with Black and Asian homebuyers that lead to these policies, refer to “Democratic Potential: Confrontations with Racial Politics” in Paul Adamson, Eichler: Modernism Rebuilds the American Dream (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2002): 197-204. 117 Michael Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors? The History of Housing in Mountain View,” July 26, 2022, YouTube, 6:10, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMc_Iew5meo. 118 Herbert G. Ruffin II, “The California Fair Housing Act [The Rumford Act] (1963-198),” Black Past, June 5, 2011, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/california-fair-housing-act-rumford-act-1963-1968/. 119 “Annexation election in MV tomorrow,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, August 17, 1953. 120 Peter Shaw, “Mountain View facing major crisis over Castro City demolition,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, October 3, 1962. 121 Perry, “Boulevard through the Barrio,” 19. 192
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 115 August 10, 2026
most of whom were Latino—and effectuating a deeper divide between the Frog Pond and the rest of Mountain View in 1969 (Figure 86).
122
Additional roadway expansions were outlined in the revised 1968 General Plan to accommodate the rapid growth of post-war Silicon Valley industry. However, by contrast, a planned road widening project at Calderon Avenue that might have displaced predominately White families was never executed.123 Against the backdrop of these disruptions to the two predominately Latino neighborhoods in Mountain View, the Chicano Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and student protests in Los Angeles in 1968, the Chicano Student Union of Mountain View High School was given a Mayor’s Award in 1969 for “helping create mutual understanding between whites and Mexican Americans.”124
On the other hand, Mountain View continued to remain a racially and socioeconomically diverse community, especially compared to some of its neighboring cities, in no small part due to the range of housing types and levels of affordability available. Unlike many suburban communities at the time, Mountain View zoned large areas for multi-family housing in its 1968 General Plan, allowing for the construction of more housing units in terms of both quantity and affordability (Figure 86). 125
Even into the 1970s, despite fair housing laws on the books, Mountain View’s diverse neighborhoods still faced discrimination through redlining by housing lenders, limiting housing opportunities for communities of color and stifling their ability amass generational wealth. 126 In the late 1970s and
early 1980s, some Mountain View residents advocated for rent control and eviction protections.

Finally in 2016, residents voted to add rent stabilization and eviction protection to the City Charter.127
122 Perry, “Boulevard through the Barrio,” 9; and Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors?” YouTube, 8:26. 123 Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors?” YouTube, 8:42. 124 “Socio-Cultural Contributions: Mayor Fetes Fifteen,” San Jose News, October 16, 1969, 105. 125 Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors?” YouTube, 12:14. 126 Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors?” YouTube, 19:36. For more on redlining and FHA loan practices, refer to Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017).
127 Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors?” YouTube, 17:12; and “The Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act,” City of Mountain View, accessed online March 3, 2023,
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/rentstabilization.asp. 193
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 116 August 10, 2026
Figure 85: Widening of Alma Street to create Central
Expressway, and construction of the Shoreline
Boulevard overpass (formerly Bailey Avenue), c.
1969. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 86: Mountain View Planning Director, Bob
Lawrence, pointing to the 1968 General Plan Land
Use Map. Yellow indicates single-family residential
zoning, brown indicates multi-family residential, red
indicates commercial, dark blue indicates industrial,
and light blue indicates office park/light industrial.

Source: Kahn, “The City of Good Neighbors?”

Single-Family Residential Tracts
Tract development was by far the most common type of single-family residential development in the post-World War II period, ranging from smaller tracts of a dozen or so homes to large tracts of hundreds of homes. Typically, these tracts were built by developers or merchant builders using a series of fairly standardized home designs, typically utilizing the Minimal Traditional, Ranch, or Midcentury Modern styles and adopting Federal Housing Administration (FHA) design principles for lot size and road planning, including use of cul-de-sacs and limited cross-streets and four-way intersections, to ensure financing. While in the pre-World War II era, developers would typically subdivide land, plat streets, and build some utilities like sewer lines before selling off parcels for individuals to develop, in the post-World War II era, federal subsidies incentivized builders to construct tracts of housing. Responding to the increasingly automobile-oriented society, these suburban tracts typically included an attached front garage and a fairly private face to the street. In the 1950s and 1960s, suburban tract homes in the area were typically one-story, but vertical secondstory additions have been a fairly common alteration in ensuing decades.

The first major post-World War II housing tract was Rex Manor, developed by William Blackfield, north of Alma Street (now Central Expressway). The development opened in 1950 and eventually include 394 homes, all one-story homes designed in the Minimal Traditional style with attached front garages (Figure 88).
194
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 117 August 10, 2026
Figure 87: Map of Mountain View residential neighborhoods, as named and generally understood in the twentyfirst century. Source: “Mountain View Neighborhoods,” Palo Alto Online, 2010, updated 2019.

Figure 88: Rex Manor, developed by William Blackfield, 1950. Source: Mountain View Public Library. 195
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 118 August 10, 2026
In 1952, Mountain View planning commissioners approved Joseph Eichler’s 154-home subdivision on a recently annexed 40-acre airport parcel at San Antonio and Middlefield Roads (Figure 89).128 The Eichler tract, originally known as “Fairview” but now more commonly referred to as the “Monta Loma Eichlers,” was built c.1954-57, and ultimately had around 200 homes. Eichler, not an architect himself, was notable for hiring progressive architects to design stylish yet affordable Midcentury Modern homes—building some 11,000 in California over the course of several decades.

Characterized by their post-and-beam construction, distinctive roof line, wood paneling, expansive rear glazing, and integrated courtyards and patios, Eichler homes epitomized the California style of indoor-outdoor living.

The homes in the Fairview tract, which has primarily three-bedroom, two-bathroom models, were designed by the two firms that worked closely with Eichler at the time—Anshen & Allen and Jones & Emmons. The Midcentury Modern style homes were low-slung, one-story in height, and were characteristically modest at the street façade, while opening up to expansive rear glazing, creating an indoor-outdoor connection with rear patios or courtyards (Figure 90). The homes generally had low-pitched gabled or shed roofs, or flat roofs. The Monta Loma neighborhood also included two other tracts of Midcentury Modern homes—“Oakwood” developed by John Mackay and “Mardell Manor” by Mardell Building Company.129 Mackay, a local competitor to Eichler, also hired Anshen & Allen, which is why the Oakwood tract has many aesthetic similarities to the adjacent Eichler tract (Figure 91).
130 Built between 1955 and 1956, Oakwood included over 200 three-bedroom, two-bath homes. Mardell Manor also included one-story homes in the Midcentury Modern style, but that were somewhat more modest in their design. The 234 Mardell Manor homes were built between 1955 and 1959.131 In 1959, Steve Jobs, then a child, moved to the Monta Loma neighborhood with his family, where they lived in a Mackay house at 286 Diablo Avenue.132 128 “’Trendsetting’ subdivision planned in MV,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, November 28, 1952. 129 Dave Weinstein, “LomaLiving,” Eichler Network, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/lomaliving. 130 Dave Weinstein, “Meet the Mackays,” Eichler Network, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/meet-mackays?page=0,0. 131 Pat Jordan, “Home Styles,” Monta Loma Neighborhood Association, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.montaloma.org/monta-loma/home-styles/. 132 Daniel DeBolt, “Steve Jobs called Mountain View home as a child,” Mountain View Voice, October 7, 2011, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2011/10/07/steve-jobs-called-mountain-view-home-as-a-child. 196
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 119 August 10, 2026
Figure 89: Map of Monta Loma, showing the
approximate boundaries of the Eichler, Mackay, and
Mardell tracts. Source: Pat Jordan, Monta Loma
Neighborhood Association.

Figure 90: Eichler home in the Fairview Tract of the
Monta Loma neighborhood.

Figure 91: “California Courtyard” in the Mackay Bel
Aire model, advertised in an Oakwood sales
brochure. Source: Eichler Network.

Later, in 1972, Eichler developed a second tract in Mountain View—a smaller tract of just 53 homes, nestled between Permanente Creek and Miramonte Avenue at Trophy and Eichler drives. Originally known as the “Grandmeadow” tract, the neighborhood is now known as the “Bell Meadows” Eichlers.

These four-bedroom homes had many of the characteristic rooflines of later Eichler homes designed by Claude Oakland, who had worked at Anshen & Allen’s firm before splitting off and continuing to collaborate with Eichler on many developments. His designs included wide, low gable roofs and steep central gables flanked by flat roofs (Figure 92). 133
Among numerous other post-World War II tract developments, the homes along and near Easy Street in the Wagon Wheel neighborhood were notable for their inclusion of wood wagon wheels in features such as exterior brick chimneys and porch columns or railings (Figure 93). These homes, developed by Art Walker in the 1950s, were otherwise typical Ranch style homes, except for the 133 Dave Weinstein, “Building Community in a Peninsula Tract,” Eichler Network, July 6, 2022, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.eichlernetwork.com/blog/dave-weinstein/building-community-peninsula-tract. 197
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 120 August 10, 2026
unique wagon wheel decorative motif. Art Walker also owned Walkers Wagon Wheel, a bar and restaurant in the neighborhood that catered to nearby employees of Fairchild and its spin-offs (Figure 126).

Figure 92: Eichler home in the “Grandmeadow” tract,
now known as Bell Meadows.

Figure 93: House in the Wagon Wheel neighborhood
developed by Art Walker.

Multi-Family Housing: Apartments & Condos
By the early 1960s, Mountain View was a majority renter city, owing to the ample amount of land zoned for multi-family housing and the construction of numerous new apartment buildings.134 As previously noted, this was due to the fact that Mountain View zoned large portions of the city for multi-family zoning, which was not typical in many other suburban communities. In older neighborhoods like Shoreline West, one- or two-story apartment buildings were constructed at a scale to fit in with the existing, generally one- to two-story, single-family homes, often utilizing stylistic features of Midcentury Modern or Minimal Traditional architectural styles (Figure 94). A large cluster of apartment buildings constructed in the 1950s and 1960s was built along California Street, between Chiquita and Rengstorff avenues. The block between Escuela and Rengstorff was populated with two-story, U- and O-shaped apartments with exterior corridors and central courtyards, most of which had a pool. The architectural styles included Minimal Traditional, Midcentury Modern, and Neo-Mansard.

In addition to apartment and condominium buildings, Mountain View opened at least six mobile home parks in the post-World War II period, all six of which are extant. The oldest, Moffett Mobile Home Park (440 Moffett Blvd., opened c. 1956-60), was soon followed by four others near the confluence of El Camino Real, CA-85, and HWY-237—Moorpark (501 Moorpark Way, c. 1960-68), New Frontier Mobile Home Park (325 Sylvan Avenue, c.1960-68), Sunset Estates Mobile Park (433 Sylvan Avenue, c. 1968-80), and Sahara Mobile Village (191 E. El Camino Real, c. 1968-80)—and another near 134 Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors?” YouTube, 13:11. 198
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 121 August 10, 2026
Moffett Field called Santiago Villa (1075 Space Park Way, c. 1968-80). The mobile home parks were built with senior citizens in mind, who had limited disposable income. While now the homes are generally stationary, when Don L. Kimball, deemed the “patriarch of mobile home living in the greater Bay Area” in one San Francisco Examiner article, opened New Frontier Mobile Home Park, the homes where on wheels and Kimball believed that by the 1970s “more than 10 percent of the nation’s population will live on wheels” (Figure 95).135 Figure 94: Article about new apartment construction in
Mountain View. Source: “Old neighborhood gives way to new in Mt. View,” Palo Alto Times, October 24, 1962, 6.

Figure 95: New Frontier Mobile Home Park
advertisement. Source: San Francisco
Examiner, January 3, 1965, p. 6.

Theme: Commercial Development (1945-1979)
While prior to World War II, commercial activities in Mountain View were primarily concentrated in Old Mountain View and along Castro Street, during the post-World War II period, retail and commercial development expanded beyond the downtown core. During this period, the last remaining commercial buildings in Old Mountain View were demolished, including the Beverly Home and Enterprise Hall. Castro Street remained an active commercial shopping destination in the 1950s and early 1960s, and many of the older commercial buildings were modernized with new storefront facades. However, new suburban shopping malls and shopping centers were built throughout the city, and automobile-oriented businesses sprouted up along El Camino Real. In addition to the shopping mall, many new postwar commercial typologies emerged, including drive-in movie 135 “Don L. Kimball—The Patriarch of Bay Area Mobile Home Living,” San Francisco Examiner, January 3, 1965, 6. 199
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 122 August 10, 2026
theaters and restaurants, and others evolved to better cater to an increasingly automobile-centric populous.

Castro Street Evolves
During the postwar period, many of the existing businesses along Castro Street modernized their storefronts with new cladding and large blade signs to attract the attention of drivers-by (Figure 96).

These renovations were inspired both by a desire to stay relevant in the changing retail environment, and by a City-initiated “rehabilitation program” and safety inspections in the 1960s that could result in the condemnation of a building if it was found to be beyond repair.136 The train depot at the north end of Castro Street was demolished in 1959, and the Chamber of Commerce advocated for demolition of buildings for more parking downtown. Buildings along Hope and Bryant streets in particular were demolished for surface parking behind the main blocks of Castro Street.

Figure 96: Castro Street, 1957. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 97: Remodeled facade of the
Mountain View Theatre, 1962. Source:

Mountain View Public Library.

New commercial buildings just of off Castro Street, on intersecting streets, were also constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s, generally exhibiting the Midcentury Modern style with flat canopies, Roman brick bulkheads, and angled storefront entrances. Other businesses opening along Castro Street included drug stores, a Greyhound bus ticket office, new restaurants, and clothing stores. The Mountain View Theater (originally opened in 1926), underwent an extensive interior and exterior remodeling in 1962 and eventually closed in 1986, and has subsequently been used by various 136 Ignoffo, Milestones, 137.
200
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 123 August 10, 2026
nightclubs and restaurants (Figure 97).
137 To serve the rapidly growing community, many of whom also needed loans to start new businesses or buy a house, a number of new banking institutions opened along or near Castro Street. Among these were the Mountain View Home Savings & Loan Association, in a Midcentury Modern building at 501 Castro Street (now Bank of the West) built in 1959 by notable local architect Hollis Logue, Jr. Later, the Home Savings & Loan Association, in a New Formalist building at 749 West El Camino Real (now Chase Bank) built in 1977 by renowned designer Millard Sheets and his collaborative design studio, featured integrated artwork including an mosaic with motifs related to local history (Figure 98 and Figure 99). 138
Figure 98: Mountain View Home Savings & Loan
Association at 501 Castro Street, built 1959 by Hollis
Logue, Jr.

Figure 99: Home Savings & Loan Association at 749
W. El Camino Real, built 1977 by Millard Sheets
Designs, Inc. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

In 1962, the City spent some $850,000 on improvements to Castro Street, including widening the street and installing new streetlights and traffic signals.139 By the late 1960s, however, the shopping malls, with their concentration of department stores and other amenities like climate-controlled interiors and convenient parking, drew many shoppers away from downtown and Castro Street.

Although what remained of the historic Chinatown in Mountain View was effectively demolished in a fire in 1946, the 1960s and 1970s comprised a new era for Asian businesses downtown, especially Chinese and Vietnamese businesses (Figure 100). While referred to as “Chinatown,” the microneighborhood around Villa and View streets was also home to a number of Japanese businesses.140 In the 1970s, many Asian business owners, particularly of Chinese and Vietnamese descent, took 137 “Mountain View Theatre,” California Revealed, Mountain View Public Library, accessed online January 4, 2023 https://californiarevealed.org/islandora/object/cavpp%3A29951. 138 “Construction Contracts Awarded and Miscellaneous Personnel Data – Bank Bldg,” Architect & Engineer vol. 217, no. 4 (April 1959), 41; and Adam Arenson, Banking on Beauty: Millard Sheets and Midcentury Commercial Architecture in California (Austin:

University of Texas Press, 2018), 197.
139 Ignoffo, Milestones, 140. 140 “Our History,” Mountain View Buddhist Temple, accessed online March 6, 2023, https://mvbuddhisttemple.org/aboutmvbt/our-history/. 201
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 124 August 10, 2026
advantage of the lower rents along Castro Street, opening new retail stores and restaurants, keeping some life along Castro Street, while many businesses were moving out to suburban shopping centers.141 An early example of this trend was Andy’s Chinese Restaurant (174 Castro Street), opened in 1962 (Figure 101). In contrast to the very long-standing Chinese community, the Vietnamese community grew quickly starting only in the mid-1970s, following the fall of Saigon and American evacuation of Vietnamese refugees; Santa Clara County now has the second largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam.142
Figure 100: The remaining buildings in Mountain View’s
Chinatown around Villa and View streets, which burned
down in 1946. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 101: Andy’s Chinese Restaurant (174 Castro
Street) opening ribbon cutting, 1963. The
restaurant has since closed, and the façade
altered. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Mountain View only has one postwar high-rise office building: the International Environmental Dynamics (IED) Building (now known as Mountain Bay Plaza) at 444 Castro Street. Designed in the 1960s and completed by 1971, the tower was designed to serve as an icon for the revitalization of downtown Mountain View. The 11-story building was designed by the architecture and development firm International Environmental Dynamics, giving it its original name. Working with architects Bryce I. Cann and David E. Termohlen, John Conte, a mathematician, patented the innovative new structural system.143 The building was constructed from the top down, with each floor suspended by steel straps from two central core towers (Figure 102). However, IED went into foreclosure on the building right around the time of completion, and the building was left vacant for 11 years. Subject to deterioration, deferred maintenance, and vandalism, a pack of Dobermans was released inside the building to deter intruders—but only resulted in further damage to the building. While the 141 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 78. 142 Hataipreuk Rkasnuam and Jeanne Batalova, “Vietnamese Immigrants in the United State,” Migration Policy Institute, August 25, 2014, accessed online March 7, 2023, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/vietnamese-immigrants-united-states-2012. 143 PPG Industries advertisement, Progressive Architecture (July 1971), 112. 202
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 125 August 10, 2026
building did not end up embodying the optimistic symbolism that the City had hoped, at least in the 1970s, the building did contribute to the revitalization of Castro Street and downtown in the form of tax revenue. In 1981, Perrini Land and Development Company purchased the building and spent nearly $5 million on renovations. It opened it in 1982 as Mountain Bay Plaza.144 Subsequently, the building has been home to various financial services, technology startups, and other office tenants, with Bank of America as a ground floor anchor tenant (Figure 103).

Figure 102: The IED Building under construction in
1970. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 103: A 1994 view of the IED Building, now
known as Mountain Bay Plaza, which housed several
tenants including the Bank of America.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

El Camino Real & Auto-Oriented Businesses
El Camino Real became a new kind of main street for Mountain View in the postwar period as it catered to new automobile-oriented businesses.145 By 1940, Ugo Mancini, whose family had opened an auto service station in the 1920s, had expanded the business to become Mancini Motors at the 144 Daniel DeBolt, “Mt. Bay Plaza’s muddy beginnings,” Mountain View Voice, January 5, 2000, accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2009/01/05/mt-bay-plazas-muddy-beginnings. 145 For more on roadside restaurants, generally, refer to: Chester H. Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture (Boston: A New York Graphic Society Book, 1985); and John A. Jakle and Kieth A. Sculle, Fast Food: Roadside Restaurants in the Automobile Age (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999). 203
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 126 August 10, 2026
intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street, marking the beginning of this trend; the complex of Art Deco and Quonset hut buildings, which served as a Plymouth and DeSoto dealership, was later demolished in the late 1970s (Figure 104). Other gas stations and service stations soon followed nearby and began to stretch out along El Camino Real. Lozano Car Wash, one of several Googie style carwashes built in the San Francisco Bay Area, was constructed at 2690 West El Camino Real in Mountain View with a cable-suspended roof from dramatically angled metal bracing. It remains extant. New businesses included drive-in restaurants such as Spivey’s, Linda’s, Lane’s, A&W, and Bob’s Big Boy, all designed in the Midcentury Modern or Googie styles (all since demolished). In addition, Monte Vista Drive-In Theater opened 1950 at Grant Road and El Camino Real. It closed in 1950 and was subsequently redeveloped (Figure 105). While most properties developed along El Camino Real in the postwar period embodied some type of Modernist architectural style, a few commercial properties deviated from this norm by using neo-revival or vernacular styles.

Figure 104: Grand opening of Mancini Motors in
1940, at the intersection of El Camino Real and
Castro Street. Globe tower sign purchased by and
relocated from the Golden Gate International
Exposition by owner Ugo Mancini. Demolished in the
1970s. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 105: Illustration of Linda’s Drive-In at El
Camino Real and Escuela Avenue, c.1991. Opened by
Rebecca and Dean Riggs in 1956, closed in 1985 and
since demolished. Source: eBay.com
A number of motels along El Camino Real were also constructed during this period, such as the Sundial Motel (93 West El Camino Real; altered) (Figure 106). One uniquely Mountain View business was the Byte Shop (1063 West El Camino Real), one of the world’s first computer stores, opened by Paul Terrell in 1975, and the first to sell the Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak’s Apple-1 computer; since altered, the building stands next to a small free-standing barber shop (Figure 107 and Figure 108).
146
146 Harry McCracken, “Behold, Some of the First Apple Computer Photos Ever,” TIME, November 22, 2012, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://techland.time.com/2012/11/22/behold-some-of-the-first-apple-computer-photos-ever/. 204
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 127 August 10, 2026
Figure 106: Postcard from Sundial Motel (later Hotel Strata, 93 W. El Camino Real). Building is extant but substantially altered from the original Midcentury Modern design. Source: CardCow.com.

Figure 107: Byte Shop at 1063 W. El Camino Real sold the first Apple I computers in 1975. Source: Byte Shop,
Facebook.

Figure 108: 1063 W. El Camino Real, former
Byte Shop location, today.

Restaurants serving a more diverse array of cuisines also began opening in the post-World War II, including Sakura Gardens—one of the earliest Japanese restaurants in the area, opened in the mid1950s at 2116 West El Camino Real by Fed T. Yonemoto and 13 of his friends.147 The building, which 147 Kazuyo Yonemoto, “Sakura Gardens, An Early Japanese Restaurant In Mountain View,” My Heart Mountain, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://myheartmountain.weebly.com/sakura-gardens-restaurant.html. 205
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 128 August 10, 2026
was Midcentury Modern building with Japanese architectural influences, was U-shaped in plan, wrapping around a Japanese style garden and pond, and the interior featured traditional tatami rooms and waitresses dressed in kimonos (Figure 109). The restaurant closed in the 1960s and the building was subsequently demolished in the 1990s.

Figure 109: Sakura Gardens restaurant at 2116 W. El Camino Real (since demolished), 1957. Source: Arnold Del Carlo, photographer. Sourisseau Academy for State and Local History.

The long-standing Castro City market at Rengstorff and Leland avenues was run by the Japanese American Nakamura family from 1947 to 1992; the building has since been remodeled and is home to La Plaza Market.148

Shopping Moves to the Malls
The development of the shopping mall, or shopping center, in the middle of the twentieth century was the result of changing patterns of American life, including residential and commercial density, transportation patterns and networks, post-war prosperity, and the suburban lifestyle. Beginning in the early 1950s, shopping malls rapidly became popular as they catered to convenience and the social need for a “third place” in modern American society. The growing suburban population of Mountain View and its neighboring cities (some of which have more limited commercial development) were served by multiple shopping malls during the postwar period: San Antonio Shopping Center (1957), Blossom Valley Plaza (1957), Mayfield Mall (1966), Emporium Department Store (1970), and Old Mill Specialty Center (1975).
148 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 13.
206
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 129 August 10, 2026
San Antonio Shopping Center (also known as San Antonio Center) started as just a Sears department store in 1957, then evolved over the years with the addition of new stores (Figure 110). In the 1970s, an extensive remodel turned the complex into a true outdoor pedestrian mall, with landscape features such as fountains (Figure 111). In 1995, suffering from high vacancy, the San Antonio Shopping Center was remodeled again and a Wal-Mart was added. Since Sears closed in 2010, a portion of the complex was redeveloped as “The Village,” including a Safeway supermarket, apartments, and other retail and restaurants.149 Another mixed-use redevelopment project was initiated on the site in 2015, and in 2019, 12 acres of the complex was sold to Los Altos School District so that it could construct a new school.150
Figure 110: Sears at San Antonio Center circa 1960s.

Source: Pinterest.

Figure 111: San Antonio Center in 1983, after its
conversion to an open-air pedestrian shopping mall.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Blossom Valley Plaza, which opened in 1957 at Miramonte Avenue and Cuesta Drive, served the new suburban neighborhoods south of El Camino Real. The shopping center was designed with a Jshaped plan and in a Ranch style that adopted the architectural vernacular of the suburban homes being constructed during the same period (Figure 112). Blossom Valley Plaza was remodeled and expanded in 1991. Next to open was the Mayfield Mall in 1966 at San Antonio Road and Alma Street, named after the former town of Mayfield that was incorporated into Palo Alto as the College Terrace neighborhood. Mayfield Mall opened to great fanfare as “America’s first venture into a fully 149 Claudia Cruz, “Groundbreaking Kicks Off Development of The Village at San Antonio Center,” Mountain View Patch, August 24, 2011, accessed online March 13, 2023,
https://web.archive.org/web/20130313180318/http://mountainview.patch.com/articles/groundbreaking-kicks-offdevelopment-of-the-village-at-san-antonio-center. 150 Kevin Forestieri, “LASD finalizes $155M land deal for new Mountain View school,” Mountain View Voice, December 24, 20219, accessed online March 13, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/12/24/lasd-finalizes-155m-land-deal-for-newmountain-view-school. 207
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 130 August 10, 2026
carpeted, air-conditioned shopping center” (Figure 113). 151 It was developed by Hare, Brewer &
Kelley of Palo Alto and designed by architect Albert A. Hoover. JCPenney closed its stores on Castro Street and University Avenue to move into Mayfield Mall as the anchor tenant—part of a national trend of department stores abandoning downtown locations for new malls.152 Although initially successful, the mall struggled to compete with other nearby malls and closed in 1984. By 1987, the building had been converted to Hewlett-Packard’s Worldwide Customer Support Operations (Figure 114).
153 In 2016, Google purchased the complex, which it called San Antonio Station and had been leasing since 2013.154 HP and Google have both remodeled the interior and exteriors of the former mall.

Figure 112: Blossom Valley Plaza, 1957. Source:

Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 113: Interior of Mayfield Mall, 1986. Source:

Mountain View Public Library.
151 Indoor shopping malls, including climate-controlled malls, appeared elsewhere prior to 1966, but the claim speaks to the excitement and hype around the mall’s opening, and the still relatively new phenomenon of indoor shopping malls. Mayfield Mall Brochure, Mountain View Public Library History Center, cited in Ignoffo, Milestones, 140. 152 “New Mayfield shopping center will include roof over central mall,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, August 25, 1966, 6. 153 Nick Perry, “Mayfield Mall once a hot item,” Mountain View Voice, October 15, 2004, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/morgue/2004/2004_10_15.history.shtml. 154 Bryce Druzin, “Google buys former mall site in Mountain View,” Silicon Valley Business Times, September 26, 2016, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/09/26/google-buys-former-mall-site-in-mountainview.html. 208
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 131 August 10, 2026
Figure 114: Mayfield Mall after it was converted to
Hewlett-Packard’s Worldwide Customer Support
Operations (100 Mayfield Avenue) by 1987. Source:

Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 115: Emporium department store (701 E. El
Camino Real), c.1970. Source: Mountain View Public
Library.

In 1970, the Emporium, a San Francisco-based department store, opened at 701East El Camino Real, but closed in 1995 when the entire retail chain went under (Figure 115). 155 Beginning in 2005, the
site was redeveloped as a new medical facility.156 The Old Mill Specialty Center (also known as the Old Mill Shopping Center) opened in 1976 just south of the Monta Loma neighborhood, and was intended to have the atmosphere and interior character of a festival marketplace like San Francisco’s Ghirardelli Square—with boutique stores and restaurants surrounding a waterfall, creek, and working mill at the center—although, in distinction, it was built new from the ground up in the suburbs (Figure 116 and Figure 117).
157 After just a decade, the center was gutted and reopened as Old Mill Public Market in 1987, but closed soon after in 1989. The site was redeveloped as The Crossings, a mixed residential community, in the mid-1990s. 155 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 34. 156 “Demolition of Emporium Building Makes Way for Mountain View Medical Landmark,” DPR Construction, February 17, 2005, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.dpr.com/media/press-releases/emporium-demolition-makes-way-formountain-view-medical-landmark. 157 “Old Mill,” California Revealed, Mountain View Public Library, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://californiarevealed.org/islandora/object/cavpp%3A29988. 209
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 132 August 10, 2026
Figure 116: Old Mill Specialty Center interior, 1987.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 117: The namesake of the Old Mill Specialty
Center, 1978. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

In addition to shopping malls, smaller shopping centers, like Palm Plaza, and supermarkets also were constructed during the postwar period, built around ample surface parking lots.

Theme: Agricultural & Industrial Development (1945-1979) The post-World War II period is primarily characterized by decline in the agricultural sector.

Industrial businesses associated with agriculture, including packing, canning, and distribution, likewise declined and closed or moved out of Mountain View during this period. John Gemello cut down his vineyard, the last winery in Mountain View, in 1956 and built a bowling alley on the site; Camino Bowl was later demolished in the late 1990s.158 In general, agriculture and related industries in the Santa Clara County declined during the postwar era, as they faced lower customer demand but higher production costs.159 The Japanese and other communities, including the Portuguese and Latino communities, who had historically been active in the local agriculture industry, were affected by the transition of the local economy to one based around technology and computing. Many of the industrial sites along the railroad closed and were redeveloped or were soon redeveloped in the 1980s to early 2000s, and former orchards, fields, and greenhouses were quickly gobbled up by sprawling suburbanization.
158 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 33. 159 Carey & Co., Citywide Historic Properties Survey, City of Mountain View, 24. 210
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 133 August 10, 2026
A notable exception was the 1951 construction of the Ferry-Morse Seed Company’s western headquarters on a triangular property between Highway 237, Whisman Road, and Evelyn Avenue (Figure 118 and Figure 119). C. C. Morse & Co., a seed catalog company established in 1877 in Santa Clara by Charles Copeland Morse, had recently merged with Dexter M. Ferry’s seed company, D.M Ferry & Co., which was founded in 1856 in Detroit. The company relocated to Modesto in 1985, and the property was redeveloped into a high-tech office park shortly thereafter.

Figure 118: Ferry-Morse Seed Company's western headquarters on a triangular parcel bounded by Highway 237, Whisman Road, and Evelyn Avenue, c. 1950s. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 119: View of the Ferry-Morse
Seed Company's primary façade, 1961.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Theme: Transportation & Infrastructure (1945-1979)
During the post-World War II period, Americans, including rapidly suburbanizing Californians, became ever more reliant on personal automobiles for transportation. Automobiles were more affordable than ever and new housing subdivisions and retail environments such as shopping malls were constructed with personal vehicles in mind. Federal legislation, including the Federal-Aid Highway Acts of 1944 and 1956, provided funding mechanisms for a national system of highways.

Land was set aside for freeway development in the 1950s in Mountain View, with most infrastructure being constructed in the 1960s. However, by the 1970s, California Governor Jerry Brown encouraged a shift from highway building to mass transit, the fruits of which were seen in the ensuing decades with Caltrain and light rail service coming to Mountain View in the 1980s and 1990s.

In the 1950s, Bayshore Highway was upgraded to US Route 101 with related improvements in the 1960s such as cloverleaf interchanges at Rengstorff Avenue, Shoreline Boulevard, Moffett Boulevard, and CA-237 (Figure 120 and Figure 121).
211
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 134 August 10, 2026
State Route 82 (SR-82), which follows the path of El Camino Real through Mountain View, was improved with a cloverleaf interchange at the intersection with State Route 85 (SR-85) in the early 1960s. SR- 85, also known as the West Valley Freeway, runs parallel to the Santa Cruz Mountains between San José and Mountain View, then cuts north through Mountain View to connect with US101. It was built in two phases with the first phase comprising the northern section (approximately six miles) between Stevens Creek Boulevard and US-101 in Mountain View, which was completed in1964.160
State Route 237 (SR-237), or Southbay Freeway, runs in a northeast-southwest direction between Mountain View and Milpitas. Constructed in the early 1960s, SR-237 generally follows the old alignment of Mountain View Road, which connected to the historic Grant Road that leads into the Santa Cruz Mountains; this road is considered part of the De Anza National Historic Trail. As previously noted, in 1969, Bailey Avenue (now Shoreline Boulevard) was widened for the construction of its interchange with Central Expressway (formerly Railroad Avenue, then Alma Avenue). This infrastructure displaced a predominantly Mexican American neighborhood along Washington and Jackson streets, north of the railroad.

The City of Mountain View is currently served by the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which is owned and operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. While construction of the reservoir was completed in 1934, the Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 were completed in 1952 and 1973.161 These pipes are underground aqueducts that run under the cities of San José, Mountain View, and Palo Alto to the Crystal Springs Reservoir, marked by the Pulgas Water Temple. Although underground, some indications of the location of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct are discernible—as in the narrow Rex Manor Park and greenway that connects between Silverwood Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard—because buildings cannot be constructed over the aqueduct right-of-way.162
Another notable postwar infrastructure project occurred in coordination between the City of San Francisco, which was facing a crisis about where to dump its trash in 1969, and the City of Mountain View, which wanted to infill some of the marshy baylands to build a new park. The City of San Francisco paid the City of Mountain View to deposit its trash along the shore of San Francisco Bay, 160 “Today marks 50th Anniversary of Highway 85 to Mountain View,” San José Mercury News, December 7, 2015. 161 “Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 Seismic Upgrade: Fact Sheet,” San Francisco Water Power Sewer, accessed online March 7, 2023,
https://infrastructure.sfwater.org/fds/fds.aspx?lib=SFPUC&doc=712303&ver=1&data=274236655#:~:text=Completed%20in%2 01952%20and%201973,and%20throughout%20the%20Bay%20Area; and “Water System,” San Francisco Water Power Sewer, accessed online March 7, 2023, https://sfpuc.org/about-us/our-systems/water-system. 162 Daniel DeBolt, “Hetch Hetchy housing standoff,” Mountain View Voice, April 18, 2008, accessed online March 7, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2008/04/18/hetch-hetchy-housing-standoff. 212
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 135 August 10, 2026
and in 1982, the landfill was capped, and Shoreline Park was built on top. Methane gas from the garbage continued to leak for several years, causing several small fires.163 Figure 120: Mountain View in 1963 with Stevens Creek towards the right and Moffett Airfield in the upper right corner. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight CAS-SCL, Frame 2-153, July 3, 1963, UCSB FrameFinder. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
163 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 93-4.

The picture can't be displayed.
213
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 136 August 10, 2026
Figure 121: Mountain View in 1980 with El Camino Real (SR-82) running across the middle (indicated by yellow line), SR-85 running along Stevens Creek, and Moffett Airfield in the upper right corner. Source: Western Aerial Photos, Flight GS-VEZR, Frame 1-148, October 28, 1980, UCSB FrameFinder. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

The picture can't be displayed.
214
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 137 August 10, 2026
Theme: Technology & Innovation-Birth of Silicon Valley (1945-1979) In the immediate postwar period, Moffett Field and Ames Research Center remained major economic drivers and employers for Mountain View. However, soon many other technology and computing companies joined the field, helping to complete Mountain View’s transition from the “Valley of Heart’s Delight” to “Silicon Valley.” The new name was bequeathed by journalist Don C.

Hoefler in a 1971 Electronic News article titled “Silicon Valley U.S.A.” about the history of the semiconductor industry, pointing directly to Shockley Transistor Corp. in Mountain View.164 The invention of the vacuum tube in 1909 and first television transmission in 1927, both at Stanford University, and the founding of the Hewlett-Packard electronics firm in a nearby Palo Alto garage in 1938, all set the stage for further innovation, the speed of which increased exponentially when the United States became involved in World War II. The existing aeronautic and defense industries and burgeoning electronics industry in Santa Clara County blossomed with new government contracts, and were also fostered by people like Frederick Therman, the dean of engineering at Stanford University, whose idea to lease university land to new high-tech industries led to the opening of Stanford Industrial Park in 1946. After the transistor, the inventions of silicon semiconductors, integrated circuit “chips,” and microprocessors changed the course of Santa Clara County and the world by feeding into the development of the defense industry, personal computers, and other electronic innovations in the following decades.165
William Shockley co-invented the transistor while working at Bell Labs in New Jersey, which helped to spark the revolution in computer technology. After World War II, Shockley returned to the Peninsula, where he was raised. In a former apricot storage warehouse at 391 San Antonio Road, he established the first silicon-device research and manufacturing laboratory in 1955 (Figure 122). 166
Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, later known as Shockley Transistor Corporation, was a pioneering semiconductor company and the first high-tech silicon-based company that gave the area its new name. The company also spun off a number of other influential high-tech companies.

The Shockley building—considered the birthplace of Silicon Valley by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)—has since been demolished and a commemorative plaque is located on the site.167 Though Shockley won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1956 with his two transistor coinventors and his importance to the history of Silicon Valley and the computing industry is 164 Don C. Hoefler, “Silicon Valley U.S.A.,” Electronic News, January 11, 1971; and David Laws, “Silicon Valley Turns Fifty,” Medium, January 11, 2021, accessed March 8, 2023, https://medium.com/chmcore/silicon-valley-turns-fifty-27738a1bf2b0. 165 Carey & Co., Citywide Historic Properties Survey, City of Mountain View, 24-6. 166 Malcom Penn, “The Roots of Silicon Valley, Part 1: Founders, Legend, Legacy,” EE Times, July 1, 2022, accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.eetimes.com/the-roots-of-silicon-valley-part-1-founders-legend-legacy/. 167 “IEEE Milestone: the Birthplace of Silicon Valley,” IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section, accessed online March 8, 2023, https://ieeescv.org/2019/06/06/ieee-milestone-the-birthplace-of-silicon-valley/. 215
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 138 August 10, 2026
indisputable, he was also a vocal and ardent eugenicist with extremist white supremacist ideologies throughout his life.168
Figure 122: Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, 391 San Antonio Road (since demolished).

Source: Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation.

Shockley became paranoid after developing a new four-layer diode and directed his team, which had originally been brought onboard to develop commercially viable semiconductors, to focus on his new invention.
169 Combined with his poor management and interpersonal skills, this led to the defection of eight of the highly skilled physicists in the lab—Julius Blank, Victor Grinich, Jean Hoerni, Eugene Kleiner, Jay Last, Gordon Moore, Robert Noyce, and Sheldon Roberts (Figure 123). Shockley dubbed this group the “traitorous eight” and bet incorrectly that they would not amount to much. In 1957, the group founded Fairchild Semiconductor, as a division of the East Coast company Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation. Fairchild initially had offices in Palo Alto, where Noyce developed the first commercially practicable integrated circuit in 1959. However, the company expanded to include a 56-acre campus in Mountain View on Whisman Road. 170 The Mountain View
campus included a corporate headquarters building designed by architects Simpson, Strata in 1968 (Figure 124). This building, affectionately named the “Rusty Bucket” for its exterior steel structure, 168 “Extremist Files: William Shockley,” Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/william-shockley. 169 Penn, “The Roots of Silicon Valley, Part 1: Founders, Legend, Legacy.” 170 “Fairchild Semiconductor,” Report to the Computer History Museum on the Information Technology Corporate Histories Project: Semiconductor Sector, Computer History Museum, 2006, accessed online March 8, 2023, http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2012/10/102746515-05-01-acc.pdf. 216
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 139 August 10, 2026
was given an architectural award of excellence by Modern Steel Construction. 171 The building was
demolished in 1993, along with many of the other buildings on the campus.172 Figure 123: “Traitorous Eight” founders of Fairchild
Semiconductor, below their logo. From left: Gordon
Moore, Sheldon Roberts, Eugene Kleiner, Robert Noyce,
Victor Grinich, Julius Blank, Jean Hoerni and Jay Last.

Source: Computer History Museum.

Figure 124: Fairchild Semiconductor at 464 Ellis
Street after 1968 completion, known as the “Rusty
Bucket” for its exterior steel frame. Demolished in
1993. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

The Fairchild founders all went on to leave the company and spin off their own new companies, embodying the great tradition of Silicon Valley innovation. In the subsequent two decades, some 65 companies were started by first- and second-generation teams that could be traced back to Shockley. In 2014, Tech Crunch reported that it traced 2,000 companies back to the eight Fairchild founders, including 70 percent of the 130 Bay Area firms that were publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ at the time.173
One such new firm was Intel, founded by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore in 1968, which was first located at 365 East Middlefield Road (extant) in Mountain View (Figure 125). Intel remained in this location until 1981 and is now a multinational company and the world’s largest semiconductor chip manufacturer.174 The Intel building was a simple tilt-up concrete box with decorative concrete breeze blocks, previously occupied by Union Carbide Corporation. 171 “1968 Architectural Awards of Excellence,” Modern Steel Construction (Third Quarter 1968), 14. 172 A large manufacturing plant (1958) by William J. Moran Co. and a plating facility designed by architects Simpson, Stratta & Associates, among other buildings, were also demolished. 173 Rhett Morris, “The First Trillion-Dollar Startup,” Tech Crunch, July 26, 2014, accessed online March 8, 2023, https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/26/the-first-trillion-dollar-startup/. 174 Hamza Shaban, “Of Microchips and Men: A Conversation About Intel,” The New Yorker, July 24, 2014, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/microchips-men-conversation-intel. 217
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 140 August 10, 2026
While the environment was competitive in the 1960s and 1970s, there was also was a spirit of camaraderie, curiosity, and innovation that was cultivated outside corporate offices in places like Walker’s Wagon Wheel bar and restaurant (282 East Middlefield Road; demolished), not far from Fairchild, Intel, and other high-tech companies (Figure 126).

Figure 125: The first hundred Intel
employees outside the Mountain View
headquarters at 555 E. Middlefield Road,
1969. Source: Intel Corp./AP.

Figure 126: Walker’s Wagon Wheel at 282 E. Middlefield Road, c. 1969. The establishment was a well-known and beloved watering hole for employees of Fairchild and its spin-off companies, and was owned by Art Walker who also developed the nearby homes in the Wagon Wheel neighborhood. Demolished in 2003. Source:

Courtesy of the Department of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries.

To accommodate the numerous new high-tech, aeronautical, and defense companies that were opening offices, research and development (R&D) laboratories, and manufacturing facilities, developers began building out office parks in the former agricultural, now industrial-zoned areas of north Mountain View. They used Stanford Research Park as a model, albeit without the prestige of the Stanford University name. The office parks generally featured one- to two-story rectangular buildings, often built quickly and economically using tilt-up concrete construction methods. The first office park in Mountain View was approved by the City in 1956 and was located north of Bayshore Boulevard (now US-101) and west of Stierlin Road (now Shoreline Boulevard), at what is today 218
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 141 August 10, 2026
Google’s Charleston campus.175 Another early office park known as the Mountain View Industrial Park in the 1950s was located in the area bounded by what is now US-101, HWY-237, East Middlefield Road, and North Whisman Road (Figure 127). Like Intel, it was typical for new startup companies to occupy these unadorned office park buildings before building their own, larger facilities if and when they grew into larger companies.

Figure 127: Proliferation of office parks for the technology sector in Mountain View, 1980. The aerial view shows the Fairchild Semiconductor facilities and Mountain View Industrial Park. Source: Western Aerial Photos, Flight GS-VEZR, Frame 1-148, UC Santa Barbara FrameFinder.
175 “Map for first MV industrial park approved,” Daily Palo Alto Times, December 11, 1956, 6.

The picture can't be displayed.
219
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 142 August 10, 2026
While Fairchild Semiconductor was developing its own facilities, the surrounding area of the Mountain View Industrial Park became home to companies such as Rheem Semiconductors (a spinoff from Fairchild that was later purchased by Raytheon, then Fairchild), Hewlett-Packard’s Mountain View Division (690 East Middlefield Road, built in 1967, demolished c. 2013), and Lockheed Martin’s applied research and development Advanced Technology Laboratories (369 N. Whisman Road, built in 1961, demolished) (Figure 128).
176 The Mountain View Industrial Park Inc. developed
another 56-acre office park around what is now N. Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue in the early 1960s.
177 This office park was home to, among others, Spectra-Physics, the first commercial laser company founded in 1961 (1250 West Middlefield Road, built in 1969; extant) and DataMemory Inc., a magnet disc recording system manufacturer (Figure 129). 178
Figure 128: Built in 1967, Hewlett-Packard’s Mountain
View Division at 690 East Middlefield Road
photographed c. 1970, later demolished. Source:

Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 129: Spectra-Physics at 1250 W. Middlefield
Road (built 1969), photographed in 1980. Building is
now a Korean Baptist church. Source: Mountain View
Public Library.

While most of the earliest influential corporate office parks and corporate estates were located in the Midwest and on the East Coast with companies such as Bell Labs and General Motors, numerous suburban corporate workplaces were constructed in Silicon Valley beginning in the late 1960s with increasing pervasiveness in the 1970s and onward. An essay on the history of the corporate campus in Silicon Valley for The Urbanist, the publication of non-profit urban and regional planning policy organization SPUR, observes:
176 Rheem building at 350 Ellis St since demolished. “Companies,” Computer History Museum, accessed online March 8, 2023, https://www.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/companies/. 177 “Large Acreage Deal Announced,” Redwood City Tribune, May 31, 1961, 29. 178 “New company formed here,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, September 22, 1961, 15; and “Data Memory building program starts,” Palo Alto Times, June 9, 1969, 11.
220
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 143 August 10, 2026
[…] these facilities were located near major research universities to capture a highly educated workforce for companies that would commercialize academic innovation, develop new technologies and conduct government and defense research. It was a winning formula, as academics and technology entrepreneurs formed formidable clusters of companies, opportunities and ideas. In various ways, research parks replicated the suburban planning and design controls pioneered in the city of Menlo Park in 1948, deliberately presenting an alternative to industrial factories, where most research and development functions had traditionally been housed. [By the 1970s] It became increasingly important for national technology firms to establish a presence in Silicon Valley. The Peninsula was primed for its explosive growth as the global center of technological innovation — all in a postwar suburban environment that was socially homogeneous, spatially dispersed and utterly dependent on the private automobile.179
In addition to the high-tech companies related to computing, the influence of Moffett Field and Ames Research Center was felt in the postwar expansion of the aeronautics and defense industries—it was the Cold War after all. One such company was Sylvania which established a campus in Mountain View in 1953 at Whisman Road and Central Expressway, and then became a subsidiary of General Telephone and Electronics (GTE) in 1958.180 Telephone and electronics technology had been vital to the success of the Allied Forces in World War II, and these technologies continued to be developed within the context of the defense industry. GTE Sylvania was one of the largest employers in the area, producing defense systems. 181 The GTE Sylvania campus featured a
number of Modernist buildings, but perhaps the most iconic structure was the “Bubble” building (Figure 130 to Figure 132).
182 The 60-foot-high Bubble was built in 1963, supported by air pressure from large blowers, and used for the fabrication, development, and testing of antennas. Eventually occupying 55 acres, GTE Sylvania sold its property holdings in the mid-1990s for the development of housing, now known as the Whisman Station neighborhood. 179 Benjamin Grant, “The Corporate Campus: A Local History,” The Urbanist 553 (September 2016), accessed online February 9, 2021, https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2016-09-21/corporate-campus-local-history. 180 “Work near compltio [sic.] at Sylvania plant,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, December 18, 1952, 29. 181 “The administrative offices of Sylvania,” California Revealed, Mountain View Public Library, accessed online March 9, 2023, https://californiarevealed.org/islandora/object/cavpp%3A29928. 182 The first buildings at the Sylvania campus appear to have been built by John J. Moore, a building firm based in Piedmont. A later 1957 microwave lab was designed by notable San Francisco architect John Savage Bolles. “Sylvania plant job is underway in MV,” Palo Alto Times, August 12, 1952, 1; and “Sylvania Starts A New Tube Lab,” The Times, January 2, 1957, 13. 221
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 144 August 10, 2026
Figure 130: Sylvania Defense Laboratory, c.1950s.

Source: CardCow.com.

Figure 131: Sylvania's "Bubble" circa 1963. Source:

Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 132: The main Sylvania GTE administration building in the foreground fronts N. Whisman Road, 1965. At the lower right corner is Central Expressway, and at the upper right is the HWY-237 overpass. Southern Pacific tracks are visible. Source: Road Runners International.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the postwar development of Silicon Valley on subsequent world history, as the advances in semiconductors eventually made personal computing and then the 222
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 145 August 10, 2026
internet possible. However, there were also some negative consequences of the rapid progression of technology and manufacturing during this period. In the wake of the wave of semiconductor manufacturing facilities, Mountain View was left with environmental pollution as chemicals leaked into the ground, polluting water and soil. By the 1970s, much of the manufacturing associated with Silicon Valley industries was being “off-shored” to Asian and Mexico to take advantage of lower labor costs. After the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund program began in the 1980s, many of these former manufacturing sites were identified for environmental remediation.183 Theme: Civic, Cultural, and Institutional Development (1945-1979) Civic & Municipal Institutions
Mountain View grew rapidly, both in population and geographic area, during the post-World War II period, which spurred related development of civic infrastructure, as well as new or growing social, religious, and cultural institutions. Mountain View’s first city plan was completed in 1946, and as city planning became increasingly professionalized in the postwar period, additional planning projects were taken on. These included projects like the revitalization and modernization of Castro Street.

Seeing the rapid pace of change in the city and the demolition of some of its oldest buildings, the Mountain View Historical Association was founded in 1954 to preserve and share local history (Figure 133).
184 Emblematic of this change was the opening of the new Mountain View Community Center in 1964 on the former site of the pioneering Castro family home, Villa Francesca, at 201 S.

Rengstorff Avenue (extant, recently renovated). The new El Camino Hospital was built in 1962 on a former orchard along Grant Road (extant, since expanded). In 1966, a new civic center, housing City Hall and the public library, was developed, along with the new Pioneer Memorial Park on the site of the old Mountain View Cemetery; the civic center was replaced later in the 1990s with the current complex designed by William Turnbull.185 Soon after, in 1968, the city adopted a new General Plan, which outlined the zoning for the growing city.

In order to serve the new neighborhoods, a number of new elementary and middle schools were built. In accordance with the trends in postwar school design in California, these schools were generally composed of a complex of one-story buildings, often with exterior or covered outdoor 183 Susanne Rust, Mat Drange, and US Guardian Interactive Team, “Cleanup of Silicon Valley Superfund site takes environmental toll,” Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting, March 17, 2014, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://revealnews.org/article/cleanup-of-silicon-valley-superfund-site-takes-environmental-toll-2/; and “Cleanups in My Community Map,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, last updated February 16, 2023, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://cimc.epa.gov/ords/cimc/f?p=cimc:map::::71. 184 “MVHA’s History,” Mountain View Historical Association, accessed online March 6, 2023, https://www.mountainviewhistorical.org/our-history/. 185 Not all of the remains buried in the Mountain View Cemetery were disinterred when the cemetery closed. Twenty-nine graves were discovered during the construction of the new library parking garage in the 1990s, and the remains reburied along the Church Street frontage of the park. Refer to: Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 41. 223
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 146 August 10, 2026
walkways. An early example was the Escuela Avenue School in 1948 (later renamed Mariano Castro Elementary School in 1957), designed by prominent Palo Alto architect Birge Clark with a series of rectangular buildings with single-pitch roofs and clerestory windows (Figure 134). 186 This, and many
of the other postwar schools, have since been further altered and expanded. Other postwar public schools that opened included the Crittenden School (1959); Powell school (1953); Theuerkauf School (1953); Kenneth N. Slater Elementary School (1956); Edith Landels School (1959); O.J. Cooper School (1963); and Victorine Klein School (1966), while the Highway Elementary School closed in 1955. St.

Joseph Catholic Church opened a primary school in 1952 and two private Catholic high schools also opened in 1956—Saint Francis High School for boys and Holy Cross for girls.187 This Catholic establishment played a prominent role in Mountain View’s Mexican and Filipino communities.

Figure 133: Mountain View Historical Association
places its first historical marker at the old Mountain
View Cemetery in 1957. The old cemetery was
replaced with Pioneer Memorial Park. Source:

Mountain View Historical Association.

Figure 134: Escuela Avenue School (505 Escuela
Avenue) built in 1948 by Birge Clark. Source:

Mountain View Historical Association.

Other public amenities built by the city in the postwar period included bond-financed recreational facilities such as parks, often adjacent to schools. Robert Royston, one of the preeminent Modernist landscape architects working in postwar California, worked on dozens of projects in Mountain View, including for various schools, civic buildings, commercial buildings, and parks. Most notably, Royston designed Cuesta Park (1967) at Cuesta Drive and Grant Road, near the hospital, which included a series of meandering paths through sloped lawns and redwoods, a play area with Modernist wood and concrete play features, and a bandstand with a wood pergola; the play features have since been removed (Figure 135 and Figure 136). The aforementioned Mountain View Community Center next 186 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 18; and “Guide to the Birge M. Clark Architectural Records and Personal Papers,” Stanford University, University Archives, accessed via Online Archive of California, March 6, 2023, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt796nf454/. 187 Carey & Co., Citywide Historic Properties Survey, City of Mountain View, 26. 224
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 147 August 10, 2026
to Rengstorff Park also includes a public pool, opened in 1959, with a Midcentury Modern pool house capped by a barrel vault roof (Figure 137).
188
Figure 135: Playground at Cuesta Park designed by Robert Royston, photographed in 1970. Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 136: Bandstand and wood pergola in Cuesta
Park, designed by Robert Royston.

Figure 137: Mountain View Community Center pool,
1959.
188 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 15.
225
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 148 August 10, 2026
In addition to building a number of fire stations throughout the city, Mountain View built a new central police headquarters and fire station at 1000 Villa Street in 1979 at the former site of the Mountain View Supply Co. pickle and catsup factories and warehouses. The new station’s design was a response to the energy crisis and inflation in the 1970s; it adopted new strategies in passive solar heating, cooling, and lighting, a departure from the postwar Modernist approach of more sealed climate-controlled offices (Figure 138).189 The Late Modern building drew on architectural references from the Spanish Colonial and Pueblo Revival traditions, while incorporating some of the massing and shed roof forms that had become popular in the “Third Bay Tradition” of regional Modernism following the success of The Sea Ranch on the Sonoma County coast. The building was designed by architect Goodwin Steinberg, FAIA, who established his practice in Silicon Valley in 1953. He was prolific and well-regarded regionally, and his firm went on to become Steinberg Hart, a firm still practicing internationally today.190

Figure 138: New Police Services & Fire Administration Building, 1978. Source: Mountain View Public Library. 189 Ellen Norman, “New police-fire building gets boost from council,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, June 1, 1977, 2; and Evelyn Richards, “New police-fire building gets final OK in Mtn. View,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, July 20, 1978, 2. 190 “Celebrated architect Goodwin Steinberg, 89, dies after illness,” Palo Alto Online, obituary, December 16, 2010, accessed online March 6, 2023, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/12/16/celebrated-architect-goodwin-steinberg-89-diesafter-illness; and Katherine Keane, “Steinberg Rebrands as Steinberg Hart,” Architect, January 9, 2018, accessed online March 6, 2023, https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/steinberg-rebrands-as-steinberg-hart_o. 226
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 149 August 10, 2026
Social & Cultural Institutions
During the post-World War II period, Mountain View actively celebrated its multiculturalism, including in city-wide events such as the Harvest Festivals in 1949-51 (Figure 139). The Portuguese community, represented by the IFES and SFV societies, continued their traditional annual Holy Ghost festival and parade, which had begun in 1926 (Figure 140). New clubs also formed in the postwar period, like Club Estrella, which was a Latina community aid organization founded in 1948 by Father McDonnell of Saint Joseph Catholic Church. The group organized dances, fiestas, and parades from the Frog Town barrio to downtown that celebrated Mexican and Spanish culture (Figure 141). As mainstream banking institutions had discriminatory lending practices, McDonnell recognized a need within Mountain View’s Latino community and help establish the Guadalupe Federal Credit Union, a hyperlocal financial lending institution with Luciano Garcia, a Mexican immigrant, in 1968.191 The credit union, which operated out of a cottage behind the Garcia family home at 1941 Colony St until the credit union was purchased by National 1st Credit Union in 2011; the home was subsequently demolished c. 2015.192
Figure 139: Photographs from the Harvest Festival, which was hosted in 1949, 1950, and 1951, and celebrated Mountain View’s multiculturalism. Source: Michael Kahan, “The City of Good Neighbors? The History of Housing in Mountain View,” July 26, 2022.
191 Perry, “Boulevard through the Barrio,” 8. 192 Eli Segall, “Backyard deal lands National 1st a credit union,” Silicon Valley Business Journal, March 11, 2011, accessed online March 14, 2023, https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2011/03/11/backyard-deal-lands-1st-credit-union.html. 227
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 150 August 10, 2026
Figure 140: Portuguese IFES Holy Ghost
Parade, 1994. Bank at 501 Castro Street is
visible in the background right.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 141: Mountain View Club Estrella in a parade, c. 1950. Source: Mountain View Historical Association.

Social and civic organizations like the American Legion, Masonic Lodge, International Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF), and the Kiwanis Club continued to be active during the postwar period.193 The IOOF, established in 1876 in Mountain View, purchased the former First National Trust Building (206 Castro Street, built 1913) in 1970.194 The Kiwanis Club met in a variety of locations over the years and don’t appear to have had their own permanent location, but helped fund the construction of a building for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts center at Leksich Avenue near Escuela Avenue in the 1950s.195 New organizations included the Mountain View Art and Wine Festival, which was first held in 1971 and continues to be held annually today. The Community School of Music and Arts, a nonprofit founded in 1968 in an old house at 449 Bailey Avenue (demolished), which moved to a purpose-built facility at 230 San Antonio Circle in the early 2000s.196 The Mountain View Register, which started in 1888 (operating under several names over the years, including the Mountain View 193 The Masonic Lodge had previously moved into the former American Legion Memorial Building at 890 Church Street and continues to occupy that building.
194 “Mountain View Odd Fellows,” Mountain View Odd Fellows, accessed online March 14, 2023, https://mountainviewoddfellows.org/. 195 Dave Fuller, “Kiwanis Club hails 50 years of perfect attendance,” Palo Alto Times, March 19, 1976, 6. 196 Paul Emerson, “Spotlight: Recital to aid Mt. View school,” Palo Alto Times, November 13, 1969, 23. 228
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 151 August 10, 2026
Register-Leader by 1903) was absorbed by the Sunnyvale Standard in 1959 and published out of Sunnyvale.197
Religious Institutions
During the postwar period, previously established social, fraternal, and religious organizations continued to play a role in the community. Some long-time religious congregations in Mountain View remodeled or expanded into new facilities, while other new congregations were established. Often these religious congregations embraced Midcentury Modernism to signal their continued relevance in contemporary society, whether consciously or unconsciously. Extant examples in Mountain View include the First Presbyterian Church of Mountain View (1667 Miramonte Avenue, built c.1957-59), Trinity United Methodist Church (748 Mercy Street, built in 1964), and many of the new Seventh-day Adventist churches (Figure 142).

The Seventh-day Adventists have had a long-standing presence in Mountain View, extending back to 1904 when the Pacific Press publishing facility moved to town from Oakland. The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church, an Adventist Protestant Christian denomination, has a long history of missionary work, is currently practiced worldwide, and has congregations in Mountain View that reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds in the community. In addition to the main Silicon Valley SDA Church at 1425 Springer Road (built c.1960-8), there are also SDA churches serving the local Korean community (815 Maude Avenue, built c.1960-8), Japanese community (195 N. Rengstorff Avenue, built c.1960-8), Latino community (342 Sierra Avenue, built c.1980-2), and Chinese community (1904 Silverwood Avenue, built c.1990s) (Figure 143). During the postwar period, SDA also demolished their old church at Dana and Bailey (now Shoreline) streets, and built a new building for the Mountain View Union Academy high school (360 S. Shoreline Boulevard) in 1967.198 The new school, which is a Midcentury Modern building with influences from Japanese architecture, was designed by notable local architects Kal Porter-Don Jensen and Associates, based in Santa Clara County (Figure 144).
199 In 1969, Mayor’s Awards were given to the Mountain View Union Academy for “strength and beauty” of architectural design and First Presbyterian Church for “superior blending of buildings and open space.”200
197 “Mountain View Historical Newspapers Online,” City of Mountain View, accessed online March 7, 2023, https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/library/services/mvhistory/mvhistoricalnewspaper.asp; and Jean French Wheeler “Historical Directory of Santa Clara County Newspapers, 1850-1972 (San Jose: Sourisseau Academy for California State and Local History, 1973), 14, accessed online March 14, 2023, https://www.sourisseauacademy.org/Publications/historicaldirectory.pdf. 198 “New Teachers and New Facilities at Mountain View Academy,” Pacific Union Recorder, October 16, 1967, 7; and “New look at school in Mtn. View,” Palo Alto Times, August 15, 1967, 52. 199 PAST Consultants, San José Modernism Historic Context Statement (prepared for Preservation Action Council of San José, 2009), 142. 200 “Socio-Cultural Contributions: Mayor Fetes Fifteen,” San Jose News, October 16, 1969, 105. 229
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 152 August 10, 2026

Figure 142: First Presbyterian Church of Mountain
View, 1667 Miramonte Avenue, built c.1957-9.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 143: Mountain View Japanese Seventh-day
Adventist Church, 195 N. Rengstorff Ave, built c.1960-

8. Figure 144: Mountain View Union Academy, a Seventh-day Adventist high school (360 S. Shoreline Boulevard), built in 1967 and designed by Kal Porter-Don Jensen and Associates.

Like the Chinese community, the Japanese community has had a long history in Mountain View.

However, after most Japanese residents were interned in concentration camps by the United States government during World War II, the community had to fight to reestablish its roots and heal from a collective trauma. Not able to return to the Mockbee Building after World War II, the Buddhist community in Mountain View used the Japanese language school building for various activities, but 230
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 153 August 10, 2026
foresaw the need for a larger, permanent space for religious as well as social and cultural activities.201
In 1954, the same year the group incorporated as the Mountain View Buddhist Association (renamed the Mountain View Buddhist Temple in 1970), they had raised enough money to purchase a oneand-a-half-acre property on Stierlin Road (now addressed 575 N. Shoreline Boulevard) in 1954.

Berkeley-based architect Seiichi Kami was hired to design the first temple and social hall, completed in 1957 (Figure 145). The butsudan (Buddhist shrine or alter), which had originally been donated to the group by Tomokichi Furuichi of Los Altos, was installed in the new temple. The Buddhist community continued to grow, and was able to purchase an additional 6.9-acres adjoining the site in 1963 and develop a site master plan in 1966. The campus complex grew through the 1960s and into the 1980s. When a new temple was completed in 1979, the old temple was renamed Young Buddhist Association (YBA) Hall (Figure 146 and Figure 147).202 While the first buildings constructed in the 1960s are Midcentury Modern in style, the 1970s buildings have Modernist elements but with a distinct Japanese architectural aesthetic.

Figure 145: Reverend Sensho Sasaki in front of the
first temple, completed in 1957.

Source: Mountain View Buddhist Temple.

Figure 146: The new temple building at the Mountain
View Buddhist Temple complex, completed in 1979.
201 “Our History,” Mountain View Buddhist Temple, accessed online March 6, 2023, https://mvbuddhisttemple.org/aboutmvbt/our-history/. 202 “Our History,” Mountain View Buddhist Temple, accessed online March 6, 2023, https://mvbuddhisttemple.org/aboutmvbt/our-history/. 231
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 154 August 10, 2026
Figure 147: Bird’s-eye view of the Mountain View Buddhist Temple complex at 575 N. Shoreline Road, 1987.

Source: Mountain View Buddhist Temple
232
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 155 August 10, 2026
Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1945-1979) Note about properties less than 50 years old: While it is possible for properties to reach significance and qualify for listing prior to reaching 50 years old, scholarship and historic perspective are required to assess the relative significance, impact, and influence of a company or innovation on local, state, or national history. Refer to “Age-Eligibility & The 50-Year Rule” in Section III. Guidelines for Evaluation for further discussion.

Residential Properties (1945-1979)
Postwar single-family and multi-family residences are collectively the most common type of property in Mountain View. The vast majority of postwar single-family housing consists of wood-frame, onestory Ranch houses, set back behind lawns with attached garages or carports. Ranch-style homes can range from Traditional Ranch, drawing on vernacular precursors, to Colonial Revival Ranch to Midcentury Modern or Contemporary Ranch, such as those in Monta Loma. Ranch-style homes were typically built in tracts of a dozen to hundreds of homes and arranged in neighborhoods designed with postwar planning principles that included long blocks, curvilinear streets, lack of four-way intersections, and cul-de-sacs. These neighborhoods tend to be south of El Camino Real or north of Central Expressway; however, some small tracts and infill housing also filled out the older neighborhoods of Old Mountain View and Shoreline West. Additionally, six mobile home parks were built in the 1960s and 1970s.

A substantial number of multi-family apartment buildings were also built in the postwar period, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. These apartment buildings are concentrated between El Camino Real and Central Expressway, with a high density along and around California Street. Examples are also found through the north portion of Mountain View. These apartment buildings tend to be twoto three-story wood-frame buildings with surface parking or carports, and in some cases, tuck-under parking. Along California Street, O- and U-shape buildings are predominant, but elsewhere the complexes take a number of different shapes. The buildings or complexes are often organized around a central landscaped courtyard and/or outdoor swimming pool. Architectural styles range from Midcentury Modern to Late Modern to various late twentieth century revivals and eclecticism.

No postwar residences in Mountain View are currently listed in the National Register, California Register, or Mountain View Register. Given the prevalence of suburban tract development, it is likely 233
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 156 August 10, 2026
that most postwar residential properties will not be individually eligible for designation. In some cases, residences may contribute to potential historic districts.203 Extant residential properties from the period may include single-family residences, multi-family residences (duplexes, townhouses, apartment buildings, condominium complexes, etc.), or mobile homes. Ancillary buildings and designed landscape or planning features may also contribute to identified eligible historic districts.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Residential properties may be significant for their association with the postwar development of Mountain View, including innovations in suburban tract development and planning, multi-family housing development and planning, and/or association with the advocacy and advancement of fair housing practices. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event. Groups of residences may be better able to convey these patterns than individual buildings. Evaluators should consider the presence of historic districts that illustrate this criterion, though some properties may also qualify individually for their architectural merits or associations with prominent individuals under other criteria.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Properties may be significant for their association persons significant to the history of Mountain View, or regional, state or national history more broadly. However, private residences are only eligible for association with significant persons if the residence has a direct association with the person’s reason for significance (such as, they worked out of a home office or studio, or held meetings/gatherings related to their significance in their home).

A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance. Birthplaces and early childhood residences are rarely eligible for their association with significant persons.204
203 Further context and discussion of typical tract housing styles is in California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation (Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, 2011), accessed online March 7, 2023, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/ser/tract-housing-in-ca-1945-1973-a11y.pdf. 204 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 14-6, 32-3. 234
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 157 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Residential properties may be eligible as distinctive examples of an architectural style or type from the postwar period, or as an example of an innovation in design or building technology. Properties should be an exceptional example of its style and era, embodying the characteristics that make the style significant with distinctive quality or design, engineering, or workmanship; a typical example of an architectural style of the period is not sufficient for eligibility. Residential properties may also be eligible as representative works of a notable architect, builder, or other designer, and/or for possessing high artistic value. Unique, custom-designed residences are more likely to be individually eligible historic resources than Ranch houses in suburban tracts based on typical or repeating designs.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. Given the prevalence of extant postwar residential properties, eligible individual resources or historic districts should have a high degree of historic integrity. • A property may be eligible if it has some degree of in-kind replacement of exterior materials. • A property may still be eligible if some exterior materials have been removed or replaced, however, replacement cladding, windows, and other exterior features have the potential to substantially alter the historic character and original style of postwar residences. • If doors, garage doors, and windows are replaced in their original openings and the original pattern of fenestration remains, the property may still retain eligibility. • For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. Retention only of overall form, massing, and basic features is not sufficient to retain eligibility. Materials and features that convey the original style and design, including the fenestration pattern, visual texture, spatial relationships, ornamentation (even if minimal for Modernist styles), and proportion should be retained.
• For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, changes to overall form and massing (such as second-story additions to one-story homes) are likely to result in a lack of integrity for individual eligibility and/or as a district contributor/primary contributors. • Properties that are significant as the work of a significant architect, designer, or builder should also have a high degree of historic integrity, and integrity of materials, workmanship, and design are essential, in addition to integrity of feeling, and association. 235
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 158 August 10, 2026
• Properties eligible under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 may still be eligible if they retain integrity of location, setting, design, feeling, and association, even if integrity of materials or workmanship has been lost.
• Residential properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rarer, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design, but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.

Residential Historic Districts
Postwar suburban tract developments or clusters of multi-family residences may be eligible as historic districts if they meet one or more historic significance eligibility criteria. In order to retain sufficient integrity for eligibility for designation, a majority (generally 60 percent or more) of the properties or components within the district boundary should contribute to the district’s significance.

An eligible district should retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance, and contributors/primary contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. In-kind replacement of features and materials are acceptable within historic districts, as well as reversible additions or alterations. Substantial alterations to a building’s massing, form, roofline, and fenestration pattern, especially if such alterations render the original design intent or storefront configuration unrecognizable, the building may be considered a non-contributor/limited contributors to the district. Second-story additions to originally one-story homes are likely to render a property as a non-contributor/limited contributors, but in some cases, if a second story is sensitively designed (substantially set back and deferential in scale and design), the property may still contribute to a historic district. In residential historic districts, site, landscape, and planning features may also contribute to the character and significance of the historic district, including street trees, front yards and pattern of setbacks, street pattern (cul-de-sacs, long blocks, lack of four-way intersections), and/or ancillary buildings.

Given the prevalence of post-World War II suburban residential development in Mountain View and nationally, most residential neighborhoods of this era are not likely to rise to the level of significance 236
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 159 August 10, 2026
for listing in any register as historic districts. Intact tracts of homes that are exceptionally distinctive examples of Midcentury Modern or Ranch style design may be eligible as historic districts. Except in rare cases where mobile home parks reflect an exceptional cultural history or excellent quality of design that reflects a particular historic development period, they are unlikely to meet local, state, or national historic resource designation criteria.

Commercial Properties (1945-1979)
During the post-World War II period, Castro Street and downtown went through an initial period of revitalization and modernization before having to compete with new suburban shopping malls in the 1960s and 1970s. Automobile-oriented businesses and new roadside typologies, often utilizing Modernist architectural styles, popped up along El Camino Real, which became a second “main” street for Mountain View. While a number of commercial properties from this period remain extant in Mountain View, many of the uniquely postwar typologies have been nearly or fully demolished.

For example, no bowling alleys or drive-in theaters remain, and all known extant shopping malls and motels have been significantly altered. Many of the roadside restaurants and drive-ins from the era have also been demolished. Auto-oriented properties built in the postwar period such as gas and service stations and car washes are also increasingly rare. Most of the postwar commercial buildings along Castro Street are one- to three-stories tall, and include a mix of wood, steel, poured concrete, and concrete block construction. A rare exception is the IED Building (now, Mountain Bay Plaza), which, at 11 stories, is the only post-war high-rise office building in Mountain View and still the tallest building in the city.

Extant commercial properties from the period may include, but are not limited to, retail stores, mixed-use commercial buildings, shopping malls or centers, motels, restaurants (including downtown, roadside stands, and drive-in type restaurants), automobile-oriented business (such as car washes, service stations, or gas stations), banks, mortuaries, and signs. While downtown office buildings are addressed in the registration requirements for commercial properties, corporate and technology offices and campuses outside of the downtown core are discussed in the following registration requirement section: Corporate & Technology Campuses/Offices (1945-1979).

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Properties may be significant if they had a particularly influential role in postwar suburban retail and shopping center development, roadside and/or drive-through aspects associated with the car-centric retailing trends of the period, or association with particular cultural groups. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event. 237
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 160 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
B/2/2 (Persons)
Properties may be significant for their association persons significant to postwar commercial development, such as business owner or developer. If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Commercial properties may be eligible as distinctive or rare remaining examples of an architectural style or type from the postwar period in Mountain View, or as an example of an innovation in design or building technology. Such properties may include rare remaining postwar automobile-oriented businesses with distinctive architecture or building typologies. A property should be a fine example of its style and era, embodying the characteristics that make the style significant; a typical example of an architectural style of the period is not sufficient for eligibility. Commercial properties may also be eligible as representative works of a notable architect, builder, or other designer, and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • National/California Register Eligibility: Standard integrity thresholds should apply when evaluating commercial buildings and structures from this period for National Register and/or California Register eligibility. For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3, it should retain the distinctive character-defining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Mountain View Register Eligibility: Discretion may be warranted when considering integrity for local eligibility, particularly for those commercial buildings located within the first three blocks (100, 200, and 300 blocks) of Castro Street. Commercial properties from this era that retain their essential form and some physical characteristics of their period of construction may be eligible for local listing if they contribute to the overall character of the downtown streetscape. Commercial properties that have been restored, even if lacking integrity of materials and workmanship, may be eligible for local listing only. o In some cases, older commercial buildings may have been remodeled with modernized façades during the postwar period. A commercial building that has been fully remodeled may still be eligible under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 if the remodel took place during or before the period of significance. In rare cases, a remodel that 238
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 161 August 10, 2026
results in a full and distinctive expression of a Modern Movement style may be eligible under Criterion C/3/3.
o A property may be eligible if it has some degree of in-kind replacement of exterior materials or reversible alterations or additions.
o A property may still be eligible if some exterior materials have been removed or replaced; however, the replacement of exterior cladding, alteration of storefronts or entry sequences, or alteration of other exterior features has the potential to substantially diminish the historic character and original style of postwar commercial properties.
• For roadside and automobile-oriented properties to be eligible for listing, the orientation to the street and vehicular traffic is an important aspect of the integrity of setting and should remain legible.
• For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. Retention only of overall form, massing, and basic features is not sufficient to retain eligibility. Materials and features that convey the original style and design, including the fenestration pattern, visual texture, spatial relationships, ornamentation (even if minimal for Modernist styles), and proportion should be retained.
• Properties that are significant as the work of a significant architect, designer, or builder should also have a high degree of historic integrity, and integrity of materials, workmanship, and design are essential, in addition to integrity of feeling and association. • Properties eligible under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 may still be eligible if they retain integrity of location, setting, design, feeling, and association, even if integrity of materials or workmanship has been lost.
• Commercial properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group (either owned by and/or primarily serving a specific ethnic or cultural group) under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rare, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design, but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance. 239
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 162 August 10, 2026
Commercial Historic Districts
It is unlikely that there is a geographically contiguous grouping of extant commercial properties built exclusively in the postwar period would be eligible as a historic district. However, a commercial historic district with a longer period of significance (beginning before 1945 and extending into the postwar period) may be identified. In order to retain sufficient integrity for eligibility for designation, a majority (60 percent or more) of the properties or components within the district boundary should contribute to the district’s significance. An eligible district should retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance, and contributors/primary contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. In-kind replacement of features and materials are acceptable within historic districts, as well as reversible additions or alterations. Substantial alterations to a building’s massing, form, roofline, and fenestration pattern, especially if such alterations render the original design intent or storefront configuration unrecognizable, the building may be considered a noncontributor/limited contributors to the district.

Corporate & Technology Campuses/Offices (1945-1979)
Suburban corporate campuses arose in the 1940s, and in the San Francisco Bay Area became increasingly popular in the decades following World War II as large corporations, particularly those with large research and development functions, looked for space to expand their facilities. With the rise in automobile ownership and commuter transit systems, as well as the perceived ills of urban life—pollution, congestion, crime, and so on—white collar workers were increasingly buying homes in the suburbs. Corporations also saw advantages of relocating to the suburbs, including large swaths of cheaper available land and proximity to the suburban workforce. Unlike large industrial facilities, these corporate campuses were largely dedicated to office headquarters, laboratories, and research and development activities, so-called “smokeless” industries, which were seen as compatible with the surrounding middle class residential areas.205 In addition to extensive parking for employees, these corporate campuses were set in designed landscapes to create a parklike or pastoral atmosphere.

In her book Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes, Louise A. Mozingo, landscape architect and professor at University of California, Berkeley, has identified three typologies of suburban corporate workplaces:
• Corporate Campus: The corporate campus, which first appeared in the 1940s, was purposebuilt and designed in the manner of a university campus with buildings organized around a 205 While semiconductor production may have been considered a “smokeless” industry at the time, their manufacturing had major environmental repercussions as chemicals ended up leaching into the soil and groundwater. 240
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 163 August 10, 2026
landscaped quad and “provided facilities for a singular division of middle management:
corporate research. The corporate campus initiated the shift of white-collar work into pastoral suburban settings.”206 One influential example is the 1956 General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Michigan, designed by architect Eero Saarinen and landscape architect Thomas Church. In Mountain View, twentieth century corporate campuses included the GTE Sylvania campus and Silicon Graphics International campus. • Corporate Estate: The corporate estate, which arose in the early 1950s, “consisted of an imposing building complex arrived at by a coursing entry drive through a scenically designed landscape of 200 acres or more.”207 Like corporate campuses, corporate estates were purpose-built for a specific company. An example is the 1971 Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters outside of Tacoma, Washington designed by architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and landscape architect Peter Walker of Sasaki, Walker and Associates. No corporate estates have been constructed in Mountain View.
• Office Park: The office park, developed in the 1950s, provided a “lower-cost, flexible alterative to the corporate campus and estate. The office park scheme provided lots for office buildings, each encircled by a pool of parking, a matrix of landscape edges, medians, and verges that provided suburban consistency.”208 Developers could sell, lease, or build to provide offices to a number of different companies. An example is the Stanford Industrial Park (first opened in 1951), now known as the Stanford Research Park, in Palo Alto, which includes buildings for a variety of companies all designed by different architects. In Mountain View, the developer Mountain View Industrial Park, Inc. built out industrial parks northeast of N. Whisman and E. Middlefield roads and at N. Shoreline Blvd. and Terra Bella Ave. in the 1950s and 1960s.

In Mountain View, some of the earliest technology companies like Shockley Semiconductors operated out of smaller, modest industrial buildings; in many cases, these buildings had been built for other uses or as generic speculative office or industrial buildings for lease. As the technology sector grew and companies gained more employees and prestige, they began building larger purpose-built offices and campuses. Since many high-tech companies began as small start-up companies, they were often initially located in a smaller office or in a leased building in an office park, and then later went on to occupy their own headquarters. As companies grew, spun off new companies, and closed, some office buildings and campuses were reused by other companies— notably the SGI campus which is now home to Google. In many cases, technology and corporate offices and campuses built in the postwar period have already been demolished and redeveloped— 206 Louise A. Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2011),

12. 207 Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism, 12. 208 Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism, 13. 241
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 164 August 10, 2026
illustrating the speed at which the Silicon Valley tech sector has developed in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The Mountain View offices and associated lab and manufacturing facilities of Shockley Semiconductor Labs, GTE Sylvania, Fairchild, Raytheon, and Hewlett-Packard Mountain View Division have all been demolished.

In addition to corporate campuses and office parks, Mountain View also has many one-off corporate offices, warehouses, and research and development (R&D) facilities. These properties are often near corporate campuses or office parks, but are generally a single parcel with one building and associated surface parking and perhaps a small, landscaped area at the entrance. These buildings are often very plain, rectangular, one- to two-story, tilt-up concrete buildings with limited architectural detailing.

Extant corporate and technology properties from the period may include offices, laboratory or research and development facilities, high tech manufacturing facilities, corporate campuses, and office parks. Corporate campuses in particular are likely to feature designed landscape features.

Individual office buildings associated with the technology sector and office parks may also have some limited landscape features. It is characteristic of these properties that they are located outside the downtown core, in more suburban areas.
242
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 165 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Properties may be significant for their association with the postwar development of the technology sector in Mountain View, and the broader development of Silicon Valley.

However, innumerable companies and innovations have contributed to the local economy of Mountain View and to the broad pattern of growth and influence of Silicon Valley. As such, for a property to be eligible under Criterion A/1/1, it should have a demonstratable significance within this broad pattern of Silicon Valley development that is tied to specific advancements or innovations. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

If a property is identified as associated with a significant company, that property should be compared with other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that company’s achievements or reason(s) for significance. A company may have had multiple facilities (including in Mountain View or in other jurisdictions), and it is important to connect specific discoveries, innovations, or events to their specific sites. In some cases, the earliest or founding location of a company may have significance under Criterion A/1/1, while in other cases, a later facility (especially if purpose-built for that company) may be more representative of that company’s reason for significance if it is associated with specific advancements or innovations made by the company after its founding.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Properties may be significant for their association with persons significant to technology and innovation in postwar Silicon Valley. Due to the nature of high-tech innovation and company structure, it is likely that many people were involved with various advancements or particular companies. As such, company founders or principal research staff are the most likely to achieve historical significance for eligibility under Criterion B/2/2. Significance should be documented with objective scholarly sources that have identified specific achievements and the importance or influence of these achievements and significance.

If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.
243
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 166 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Corporate and technology offices/campuses may be eligible as distinctive of an architectural style or type from the postwar period in Mountain View, or as an example of an innovation in design or building technology. Properties should be fine examples of their style and era, embodying the characteristics that make the style significant; a typical example of an architectural style of the period is not sufficient for eligibility. Corporate and technology offices/campuses may also be eligible as representative works of a notable architect, builder, or other designer, and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • While numerous corporate and technology office/campuses were developed during the postwar period, many of the properties that were associated with the earliest innovative companies in Mountain View (such as Shockley Semiconductors, Fairchild Semiconductors, and GTE Sylvania) and the best exemplified the corporate campus typology and/or Midcentury Modern style have already been redeveloped. As such, extra consideration should be given and flexible integrity thresholds applied to those extant properties that are associated with the earliest periods of high-tech innovation in Mountain View in the immediate postwar period, and/or that represent the Midcentury Modern corporate office/campus typology.
• A property may be eligible if it has some degree of in-kind replacement of exterior materials or reversible alterations or additions.
• A property may still be eligible if some exterior materials have been removed or replaced; however, the replacement of exterior cladding, alteration of windows or entry sequences, or alteration of other exterior features has the potential to substantially diminish the historic character and original style of postwar corporate and technology office/campus properties. • For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. Retention only of overall form, massing, and basic features is not sufficient to retain eligibility. Materials and features that convey the original style and design, including the fenestration pattern, visual texture, spatial relationships, ornamentation (even if minimal for Modernist styles), and proportion should be retained. If a designed landscape was a component of the site or campus design, the associated landscape features should be considered character-defining and considered when evaluating for historic integrity under Criterion C/3/3. 244
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 167 August 10, 2026
• Properties that are significant as the work of a significant architect, designer, or builder should also have a high degree of historic integrity, and integrity of materials, workmanship, and design are essential, in addition to integrity of feeling and association. • Properties eligible under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 may still be eligible if they retain integrity of location, setting, design, feeling, and association, even if integrity of materials or workmanship has been lost.

Corporate & Technology Campus/Office Historic Districts A corporate campus may be eligible as a historic district or a designed cultural landscape with component contributing buildings, structure, and landscape features; in more rare cases, an office park may be an eligible historic district. A corporate campus may be eligible as a historic district under Criteria A/1/1, B/2/2, and/or C/3/3.

Given the nature of the design typology, an office park is unlikely to be eligible as a historic district under Criterion C/3/3, as the component buildings are often more modest buildings (such as tilt-up concrete warehouses or simple office buildings) and built at different times by different designers and for different tenants. An office park is also unlikely to be eligible under Criterion B/2/2, as it is more likely that a specific building would be more closely and appropriately associated with the significance of an important individual. An office park may be eligible as a historic district under Criterion A/1/1 if there is a collective significance to the buildings and their tenants that significantly shaped the history of Mountain View or Silicon Valley innovation. For an office park to be eligible as a historic district, the historic significance of the office park as a cohesive grouping must be greater than the constituent significance of each individual building, which is to say there must be a cohesive reason for significance that ties the buildings together beyond physical proximity.

In order to retain sufficient integrity for eligibility for designation, a majority (60 percent or more) of the properties or components within the district boundary should contribute to the district’s significance. An eligible district should retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance, and contributors/primary contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association. In-kind replacement of features and materials are acceptable within historic districts, as well as reversible additions or alterations. Substantial alterations to a building’s massing, form, roofline, and fenestration pattern, especially if such alterations render the original design intent or building use unrecognizable, the building may be considered a non-contributor/limited contributors to the district.
245
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 168 August 10, 2026
Agricultural & Industrial Properties (1945-1979)
The period of 1945-1979 was generally characterized by the decline in the agricultural industry in Mountain View, with many of the city’s orchards and other agricultural properties being redeveloped for housing or office parks. Associated industrial properties involved in canning, packing, and distribution of fruit and other agricultural products also declined, and many businesses closed or moved out of Mountain View during this period. Thus, it appears that very few new agricultural and industrial properties were developed during this period. A notable exception, the Ferry-Morse Seed Company western headquarters (Evelyn Avenue and Whisman Road) opened in 1951 but was later closed in 1985 and subsequently demolished.

Few extant agricultural or industrial properties developed during this period are thought to remain extant. In some cases, properties built during earlier periods may have a period of significance that extends into the post-World War II period.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Properties may be significant for their association with postwar patterns of agricultural or industrial development, or as the site of a significant historic event. Few new agricultural properties were developed during the post-World War II period, but their continued operation into the post-World War II period may contribute to a longer period of significance. The development of new headquarters or larger facilities may be significant as a reflection of a growing industrial or agricultural operation, especially as smaller operations (including family businesses) were consolidated in the post-World War II period.

B/2/2 (Persons)
Properties may be significant for their association with persons significant to the early agricultural and industrial development of Mountain View, such as a prominent landowner, entrepreneur, or labor organizer. If a property is identified as associated with a significant person, that property should be compared to other associated properties to identify which extant property(s) best represent that person’s achievements or reasons for significance. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
In rare cases, industrial and agricultural properties from this period may be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style, as representative works of a notable architect, builder, or other designer, and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Properties may have significance as a distinctive example of an increasingly rare building typology or method of construction.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980). 246
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 169 August 10, 2026
Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. To be eligible for designation under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2, agricultural properties should retain integrity of setting and their agricultural character through extant site and landscape features such as fields, greenhouses, orchards, and/or agricultural outbuildings. • To be eligible for designation under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2, other industrial properties should retain essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to convey their association and industrial use.
• Agricultural or industrial properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rare, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage.

Transportation & Infrastructure Properties (1945-1979)
During the postwar period, the construction of new highways, which included widening of existing roads and construction of new cloverleaf interchanges, was the most substantial investment in transportation infrastructure in Mountain View.

Extant properties from the postwar period may include overpasses, bridges, cloverleaf interchanges, roadways, culverts, or buildings associated with municipal infrastructure and utilities (electricity, municipal water, power, telephone, etc.).
247
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
A property may be eligible for association with postwar patterns of transportation and infrastructure during this period of growth in Mountain View, such as the development of new highways and associated interchanges or the expansion of utilities (water, power, telephone, etc.) and services to the growing boundaries and population of Mountain View. However, given the prevalence of highway construction and other infrastructure improvement projects during this period, both regionally and nationally, a property would need to demonstrate exceptional significance and importance to local history.

B/2/2 (Persons)
It is highly unlikely that transportation or infrastructure properties from the postwar period of 1945-1979 would be associated with a single, significant individual to be eligible under Criterion B/2/2.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
In rare cases, transportation or infrastructure properties from this period may be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style or innovative method of construction or engineering, as representative works of a notable architect, builder, or other designer, and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • At a minimum, a transportation or infrastructure property should retain its integrity of location, setting, design, feeling, and association.
• If a transportation or infrastructure property is eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive character-defining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Replacement of materials or features in-kind is not likely to result in a loss of integrity.

Transportation & Infrastructure Historic Districts
There are no known geographically contiguous groupings of transportation or infrastructure properties from the postwar period in Mountain View that might rise to the level of significance that they would be eligible for designation as a historic district.

Civic, Cultural & Institutional Properties (1945-1979)
As the City of Mountain View experienced a period of significant growth in the postwar period, numerous civic, cultural, and institutional buildings were constructed to meet the needs of the community. These included civic and municipal buildings concentrated around downtown, public and private schools throughout the city, as well as cultural and religious buildings that are located in 248
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 171 August 10, 2026
the neighborhoods. A number of recreational facilities, parks and designed landscapes were also built during this period. As the predominant style of the era, Midcentury Modernism was typical of civic and institutional buildings in the 1940s through early 1960s, after which various Late Modernist styles arose. In the later postwar period, it became more common to infuse the contemporary style with historic or cultural architectural references in buildings that were designed for a specific ethnic community—such as the Mountain View Buddhist Temple, which drew from traditional Japanese architecture while still having a distinctly contemporary appearance and construction method. While many of Mountain View’s schools and other civic buildings were substantially expanded or replaced with larger buildings as the city continued to grow, many postwar cultural and institutional properties appear to remain extant.

Extant civic, cultural, and institutional properties from the period may include municipal buildings, such as police and fires stations, schools, libraries, etc.; schools; religious buildings; community centers; social halls and club/organization buildings; preforming arts buildings; medical facilities; public art; recreational properties; and designed landscapes, such as parks and plazas.

Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
A/1/1 (Events)
Civic, cultural, and/or institutional properties from the postwar era may be significant for association with the establishment of new social, religious, and cultural organizations in Mountain View, many of which are still active today, or with Mountain View’s civic growth.

A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

A property may also be significant for its association with a particular cultural or ethnic community in Mountain View. A property may be associated with migration or community formation in Mountain View, a community-serving or religious organizations, intangible cultural heritage, or civil rights activism. 249
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 172 August 10, 2026
Significance
Criteria
(NR/CR/MVRHR)
Significance Discussion
B/2/2 (Persons)
A civic, cultural, and/or institutional building from this period may be significant for its association with a person important to Mountain View’s history or to the cultural history of a community. If this is the case, however, the building should be the best or only remaining property capable of representing that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant. A property should have a direct association with the significant person’s productive period of contribution, during the time that they reached significance.

C/3/3
(Architecture &
Design)
Civic, cultural, and/or institutional buildings from this period may be eligible as distinctive or rare examples of an architectural style or type from the postwar period, or as an example of an innovation in design or building technology. A property should be a fine example of its style and era, embodying the characteristics that make the style significant; a typical example of an architectural style of the period is not sufficient for eligibility. Civic, cultural, and/or institutional properties may also be eligible as representative works of a notable architect, builder, or other designer, and/or for possessing high artistic value.

Refer also to IV. Historic Contexts-G. Architecture & Design (1850s-1980).

Integrity Considerations
• At a minimum, a property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to adequately convey its association with its reason for significance. • A lower and/or more flexible threshold of integrity can be applied for local listing if a civic, cultural, or institutional property is of particular significance to the community and/or exemplifies a rare property type in Mountain View.
• A property may be eligible if it has some degree of in-kind replacement of exterior materials or reversible alterations or additions.
• A property may still be eligible if some exterior materials have been removed or replaced; however, the replacement of exterior cladding, alteration of storefronts or entry sequences, alteration of other exterior features, and/or substantial additions that change the building form and massing, has the potential to substantially diminish the architectural character and original style of postwar institutional properties.
• Properties eligible under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 may still be eligible if they retain integrity of location, design, feeling, and association, even if integrity of materials or workmanship has been lost.
• Institutional properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group under Criterion A/1/1 or B/2/2 should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties may be rarer and that these properties may have been altered over time 250
Historic Contexts: Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & City of Mountain View, CA Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979) Historic Context Statement [21308] Final Draft
PAGE & TURNBULL 173 August 10, 2026
to meet the changing needs of the community and are likely associated also with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design, but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.
• An institutional property may have been constructed by an associated ethnic, cultural, or religious group, or have been used by that group after its construction by another entity. As such, the period of significance may be a date or range that is later than the property’s original construction; furthermore, the period of significance may extend through multiple eras of Mountain View’s development.
• For a property to be eligible under Criterion C/3/3, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. Retention only of overall form, massing, and basic features is not sufficient to retain eligibility. Materials and features that convey the original style and design, including the fenestration pattern, visual texture, spatial relationships, ornamentation (even if minimal for Modernist styles), and proportion should be retained.
• Properties that are significant as the work of a significant architect, designer, or builder should also have a high degree of historic integrity, and integrity of materials, workmanship, and design are essential, in addition to integrity of feeling and association.

Mountain View since 1980 has been characterized by further development of the Silicon Valley technology sector, which has driven the founding of new companies, job creation, and an overall increase in the city’s population. In 1980, the city’s population was 58,655 people and increased by 40 percent to 82,376 people by 2020.
209 The boundaries of the city, compared to the earlier postWorld War II period, changed comparatively little, with most annexations focused on infill areas already surrounded by previously annexed territory and areas along the bay shore.210 With the rise in the technology sector also came the “dot-com” bubble of the 1990s, increasing housing prices, and the redevelopment of many older properties for new offices, technology campuses, multi-family housing, mixed-use developments, and larger single-family homes. While housing costs have skyrocketed in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area generally, and Mountain View is no exception, the relatively high proportion of multi-family housing in Mountain View has helped to retain a more racially and socioeconomically diverse community in the city by providing a greater range of housing affordability—the majority of residents in Mountain View live in multifamily housing rather than single-family homes.
211 Based on research conducted from 2018-2020 by the “Othering & Belonging Institute” at UC Berkeley, Mountain View is one of the most racially integrated cities in the San Francisco Bay Area.212
Continuing a trend that began in the post-World War II period, nearly all remaining vestiges of Mountain View’s agrarian past were erased by new technology campuses north of Middlefield Road and mixed-use and housing developments along Central Expressway (and immediately adjacent parallel roads and Caltrain line), near downtown. As of the early 2000s, the Francia Apricot Orchard at 253 North Whisman Road was the last remaining productive orchard in Mountain View; while extant, it appears to longer be operational.213 The Minton Lumber yard near downtown closed in 209 Bay Area Census, “City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County.” 210 “Mountain View Annexation History 2.0,” City of Mountain View, ArcGIS Online map (2016, rev. 2018). 211 In 2010, 55% of the city’s housing units were multi-family, 41% single family and 4% mobile homes, according to 2010 US Census Data presented in the 2030 General Plan; refer also to, Katherine Simpson, “MV housing history tells parallel stories of inclusion, exclusion,” Los Altos Town Crier, August 2, 2022, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/mv-housing-history-tells-parallel-stories-of-inclusion-exclusion/article_e73293bc-12bc11ed-a174-a702de85d343.html. 212 Stephen Menendian, Sami Gambhir, and Arthur Gailes, “The Most Segregated (and Integrated) Cities in the SF Bay Area,” Othering & Belonging institute, UC Berkeley, November 18, 2020, accessed March 3, 2023, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-and-integrated-cities-sf-bay-area. 213 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 103. 252
Historic Contexts: Recent Past (1980-2024) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 175 August 10, 2026
1996 and was redeveloped as housing. Another era that came to a close in Mountain View was that of the Seventh-Day Adventist Pacific Press publishing business, which moved to Idaho in 1983.

In addition to the demolition of a number of notable older buildings in Mountain View during this period, including the Mountain View Union High School, there have also been a number of significant preservation efforts—including the rehabilitation of the Mountain View Adobe (built in 1934, reopened in 2001 after rehabilitation), the relocation and restoration of the Rengstorff House (built c. 1867 by German immigrants, purchased by the City of Mountain View in 1979, and relocated and restored in 1991 at Shoreline Park) and the Immigrant House (built pre-1888, relocated in 2016 to Heritage Park), the reconstruction of the Mountain View train depot (built in 1888 for Southern Pacific Railroad, demolished in 1959, and reconstructed in 2002), and the rehabilitation of a number of commercial properties along Castro Street (Figure 148 and Figure 149). Other major civic improvements included the new Civic Center, Castro Street improvements, Shoreline Amphitheatre, and Shoreline Park recreational facilities and trails.

Figure 148: Mountain View Adobe, after
restoration in 2001 to its original 1934 design.

Figure 149: Immigrant House built pre-1888 and
relocated in 2016 to Heritage Park at 771 Rengstorff
Avenue.

While many businesses had deserted downtown Mountain View for shopping malls and shopping centers during the 1970s, new Chinese and Taiwanese retail stores and restaurants moved into vacated Castro Street storefronts, keeping the commercial corridor viable. In 1987, Caltrain reopened rail service along the former Southern Pacific alignment, now serving commuter passengers. In 1990, the City of Mountain View initiated its own $12 million redevelopment of the Castro Street corridor, featuring wider sidewalks, flexible zones for parking or sidewalk cafés based on need, streetscape improvements, and Postmodern style arched metal pergolas at alley mid-block access to surface parking behind stores. An additional $44.5 million Civic Center, which included City 253
Historic Contexts: Recent Past (1980-2024) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 176 August 10, 2026
Hall and the Preforming Arts Center, designed by notable Bay Area architect William Turnbull Associates, opened in 1991 (Figure 150).
214
In 1999, Santa Clara County Valley Transit Authority light rail service was extended to a new Downtown Mountain View station, with stops throughout northeast Mountain View. By the 2000s, many of Mountain View’s suburban shopping malls and centers were demolished or redeveloped for new uses, such as technology offices, as the retail environment shifted again—now a large market share moving to online retail. Meanwhile, many of the auto-oriented businesses along El Camino Real, including gas stations, auto service businesses, roadside restaurants, and motels, have been demolished and the sites redeveloped with denser uses including multi-family residential, mixed use, big-box stores and chain retail, and office buildings.

In 1981, Mountain View Union High School (1924) on Castro Street was decommissioned and eventually demolished in 1987. The city retained the schoolgrounds’ athletic fields only, now Eagle Park, while the remainder of the site was sold to Prometheus Development Company for the construction of the $150-million Park Place mixed-use complex, which went on to receive national recognition in 1989 as an innovative example of the ‘New Urbanism’ approach to urban design and housing.
215 Other notable examples of New Urbanism in Mountain View included the “Two Worlds” mixed-use development by architect Donald MacDonald at 100 West El Camino Real in 1982 and “The Crossings” (between Showers Drive, California Street, and Pacchetti Way) built in 1994, designed by Peter Calthorpe, a founding member of the Congress for New Urbanism (Figure 151). 216
214 Bruce Barton, “Mountain View’s changing, growing downtown,” Los Altos Town Crier, July 24, 1996, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.losaltosonline.com/archives/mountain-views-changing-growing-downtown/article_b5fa62b8-f704-52df8f5b-0b5e3d6f1deb.html. 215 Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 82. 216 The Two Worlds development included complexes in Mountain View and Pleasant Hill. MacDonald went on to become best known as a bridge architect, designing the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge (2013), among many others. “Two Worlds:

Mountain View and Pleasant Hill, California,” Donald MacDonald Architects, accessed March 3, 2023, http://donaldmacdonaldarchitects.com/projects/mixed-use/two_worlds.php. 254
Historic Contexts: Recent Past (1980-2024) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 177 August 10, 2026
Figure 150: Mountain View Civic Center by William
Turnbull Architects, completed in 1991. Source:

Daedalus Structural Engineering.

Figure 151: “Two Worlds” complex by Donald
MacDonald in Mountain View, opened in 1982,
exemplifying the New Urbanism approach. Source:

Donald MacDonald Architects.

Along the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, Mountain View had, for two decades, been operating a landfill for trash from the City of San Francisco. However, looking to develop an entertainment hub for its growing population, the City sealed the landfill and opened the 750-acre Shoreline Park in 1983, with a manmade lake, golf course, other recreational amenities, and wildlife refuge areas; a connection to the Stevens Creek Trail opened in 1991. The City also leased a large portion of the land to legendary San Francisco concert promoter, Bill Graham, to develop the 6,500-seat Shoreline Amphitheatre, which opened in 1986 (Figure 152 and Figure 153). The amphitheatre structure, designed by Horst Berger structural engineers, is an example of the late twentieth-century experimentation in tensile structures, and was one of the largest, if not the largest of its kind in the world at the time.217 The complex is said to have been designed to resemble the Grateful Dead’s “steal your face” logo from above.218
217 “Shoreline Amphitheatre,” Tensinet, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.tensinet.com/index.php/component/tensinet/?view=project&id=3790; and Perry, Images of America: Mountain View, 94. 218 “Shoreline Amphitheatre Information,” Shoreline Amphitheatre Tickets, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.mountainviewamphitheater.com/shoreline-amphitheatre/. 255
Historic Contexts: Recent Past (1980-2024) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 178 August 10, 2026
Figure 152: Shoreline Amphitheatre under
construction in 1987. Source: Mountain View Public
Library.

Figure 153: Shoreline Amphitheatre under
construction c. 1980s. Source: Robert Weaver.

Silicon Graphics Computer Systems (also known as Silicon Graphics, Inc. or simply SGI) was founded in 1982 by Dr. James Clark in Mountain View. SGI manufactured high-performance computing technology and was also known for its 3D visualization workstations and its design of graphics software. The company was headquartered at 630 Clyde Ct. (extant) from 1982 until the early 1990s (Figure 154). Already by the mid-1980s, SGI was leasing space in the Shoreline Technology Park, and in 1995, SGI moved to a larger headquarters building at 1401 North Shoreline Boulevard (Figure 155).
219 The corporate headquarters soon moved to a new campus complex at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, in 1997; the award-wining project by Studios Architecture and SWA landscape architects pushed the envelope of corporate campus design with the indoor and outdoor amenity-filled space, including the adjacent public Charleston Park (Figure 156). 220
Another notable technology office constructed in Mountain View was the ASK Computer Systems (later, ASK Group, then acquired by Computer Associates in 1994) headquarters at 2440 West El Camino Real, a dramatic ziggurat form, built in 1987 (Figure 157). The minicomputer software company was notably founded by Sandra Kurtzig in 1972, a pioneer woman in the male-dominated computer industry and the first woman to take a technology company public.221 219 “SGI Buildings,” Higher Intellect: Vintage Computing Wiki, July 20, 2019, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://wiki.preterhuman.net/SGI_Buildings; and “Selected South Bay Transactions: Leases,” San Jose Mercury News, April 25, 1985.
220 “Googleplex,” Studios Architecture, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://studios.com/googleplex.html; and “Google Headquarters,” SWA, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.swagroup.com/projects/google-headquarters/. 221 Heidi Hackford, “Making Trouble: Leslie Berlin Explores The People Who Built Silicon Valley,” Computer History Museum, January 5, 2018, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://computerhistory.org/blog/making-trouble-leslie-berlin-explores-thepeople-who-built-silicon-valley/. 256
Historic Contexts: Recent Past (1980-2024) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 179 August 10, 2026
Figure 154: Silicon Graphics Computer Systems’ first
office at 630 Clyde Ct.

Figure 155: SGI’s campus at headquarters 1401 N.

Shoreline Boulevard, 1995. Later, the building
became home to the Computer History Museum.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

Figure 156: SGI Headquarters at 1600 Amphitheatre
Parkway, built 1997 and then, in 2003, became the
Googleplex. Source: Studios Architecture.

Figure 157: ASK Computer Systems headquarters,
built 1987 at 2440 W. El Camino Real.

Source: Mountain View Public Library.

In 2002, the former SGI building at 1401 Shoreline Boulevard was converted to house the Computer History Museum, paying homage to tech- and computer-industry trailblazers and the history of Silicon Valley.222 Use of the H-1B visa in the 1990s attracted people from Asian countries with specialized knowledge in technology fields, contributing to an ever more diverse workforce in Mountain View. In particular, the number of residents from India, Korea, and Myanmar increased.

In the twenty-first century, the technology sector has continued to be a major driving force in the development and job creation in Mountain View—shifting from the hardware and silicon semiconductors of Silicon Valley’s namesake to increasingly focus on internet companies (cloud222 “Computer History Museum’s Major New Exhibition Opens,” Computer History Museum, January 12, 2011, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://computerhistory.org/press-releases/revolution-opening/. 257
Historic Contexts: Recent Past (1980-2024) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 180 August 10, 2026
based, retail, advertising, and social networks), virtual reality, and artificial intelligence. In 1998, Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Stanford University and was based in Palo Alto until outgrowing its original offices. In 2003, Google leased the former SGI headquarters at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway for its new headquarters, which became known as the “Googleplex.”223 Google, which started out as an internet search engine, is now a subsidiary of Alphabet, a multinational technology conglomerate holding company headquartered in Mountain View, and is referred to as one of the “Big Five” American tech companies (with Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft). As Google morphed and grew over the subsequent decades, the company began leasing and purchasing as many as 60 buildings in the Googleplex vicinity and has some 7,000 Mountain View-based employees.224 In 2022, Google opened it’s new “Bay View” buildings, which along with the “Charleston East” buildings (under construction), will be the first campus buildings designed and conceived specifically for Google in Mountain View; the buildings were designed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) and Heatherwick Studio with interiors by Studios Architecture.225 Google is also remodeling the nearby Moffett Field Hangars, and NASA continues to operate out of Ames Research Center.226
Numerous other technology companies and startups have been founded and/or had their first offices in Mountain View, including Symantec (1982, now Gen Digital), General Magic (1990), Yahoo (1994), Netscape (1995), Keyhole (late 1990s), Udacity (2011), and Coursera (2012). At present, 170 technology companies are headquartered in Mountain View, and numerous others have corporate offices in Mountain View, such as Microsoft, Intuit, Y Combinator, 23andMe, and LinkedIn.

The past 40 years have seen a series of significant technology booms and busts, as well as major world events—including the dot-com bubble of the 1990s and subsequent crash, the ‘Great Recession’ beginning in 2007, a subsequent technology boom driven both by large companies like Google and many smaller ‘start up’ companies, and the COVID-19 pandemic—all of which are continuing to shape the community and built environment of Mountain View. 223 Stephanie Olsen, "Google's movin' on up,” CNET, July 11, 2003, archived from the original on November 2, 2012, retrieved March 2, 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20121102053103/http://news.cnet.com/Googles-movin-on-up/2110-1032_3- 1025111.html. 224 “Tech Companies and Startups Headquartered in Mountain View,” Employbl, December 11, 2022, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.employbl.com/blog/tech-companies-and-startups-headquartered-in-mountain-view. 225 Trevor Mogg, “Check out Google’s stunning new Mountain View campus,” Digital Trends, May 18, 2022, accessed online March 3, 2023, https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/google-new-mountain-view-campus/. 226 Andrew Nelson, “Google Stars Renovation For Hangar One in Moffett Field, Mountain View,” SF YIMBY, May 12, 2022, accessed online March 14, 2023, https://sfyimby.com/2022/05/google-starts-renovation-for-hangar-one-in-moffett-fieldmountain-view.html. 258
Historic Contexts: Recent Past (1980-2024) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 181 August 10, 2026
Associated Property Types & Registration Requirements (1980-2024) Property types associated with the 1980-2024 era of development may include:
• Residential Properties
• Commercial Properties
• Transportation & Infrastructure Properties
• Corporate & Technology Campuses/Offices
• Civic, Cultural & Institutional Properties
Properties built after 1980 may be subject to additional considerations for eligibility in the National Register and California Register if they are less than 50 years old at the time of evaluation. Refer to Section III. Guidelines for Evaluation: Age-Eligibility & The 50 Year Rule for a further discussion about age-eligibility thresholds and considerations relevant to the National Register and California Register. As such, registration requirements for this period of development have not been established and properties should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for consideration regarding whether they meet the relevant threshold of “significant importance” for listing in the National Register or sufficient scholarship and “historical perspective” for listing in the California Register.227 Properties less than 50 years old may be eligible for listing in the Mountain View Register if they meet one or more of the Mountain View eligibility criteria (refer to Section III. Guidelines for Evaluation: Mountain View Register of Historic Resources), and are significantly associated with the history, development, community, or culture of Mountain View.

In Mountain View, properties that are most likely to attain historic significance prior to reaching 50 years old include exceptional examples of an architectural style or suburban corporate and technology campuses or offices. While many technology companies have been founded or based in Mountain View, sufficient time and scholarship are required to adequately assess the historic significance of such technology companies. Furthermore, while a company such as Google, for example, may have a demonstrable significance in national and global history, not every building associated with Google is necessarily eligible as a historical resource for this association; refer to the Associated Property & Registration Requirements (1945-1979) for further discussion of corporate campuses and offices.
227 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 41. 259
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 182 August 10, 2026
G. ARCHITECTURE STYLES & DESIGN (1850s-1980)
The development of Mountain View is represented by a number of different architectural styles and building typologies, which help to create the community’s unique character. While the city is not generally known for having a significant proportion of high-style, architect-designed homes, Mountain View has a number of architecturally distinctive buildings, including early commercial buildings and some postwar properties by notable local architects and designers. The majority of architect-designed buildings in Mountain View appear to be institutional buildings, commercial buildings, postwar corporate and technology buildings, as well as some housing tracts such as the Eichler and Mackay tracts in Monta Loma. Furthermore, buildings need not be high-style or architect-designed to contribute to the overall character or sense of place in Mountain View, or be associated with the historical development of the city. More modest expressions of an architectural style or buildings with vernacular designs, especially those that date to Mountain View’s early development history and are more rare remaining examples, may be significant as examples of their respective typologies or as contributors/primary contributors to historic districts. While properties may be significant as the representative work of a notable architect, builder, or designer, a property need not be designed by a known architect, builder, or designer to be a significant example of its architectural style, typology, or construction method.

The following section includes a discussion of common architectural styles identified in Mountain View, including styles that are found in commercial, residential, and institutional property types.

Significant examples of architectural styles and building typologies beyond the most common ones listed below may be found in Mountain View. Each style is discussed briefly, including its period of significance, which property types it is most closely associated with in Mountain View, and its typical character-defining features. Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles and can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials.

Note: Buildings in the photographs in this section were included as representative examples of particular architectural styles, with many of the style’s character-defining features intact. However, inclusion of a particular building in this Historic Context Statement does not necessarily indicate that the building meets the historic significance and integrity requirements for eligibility in the local, state and/or federal registers.
260
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 183 August 10, 2026

QUEEN ANNE
One of the most quintessential Victorian-era architectural styles in the Bay Area, the Queen Anne style was extremely popular across the United States in the late nineteenth century. Homes built according to this style are often characterized by highly ornate features and sprawling, irregular footprints with trademark turrets or towers. While the Queen Anne style was regionally used for many high-style mansions, in Mountain View, the most common expression of the Queen Anne style is in more modest single-family residences and cottages.

Period of Significance: 1850s-1910s

Associated property types: Single-family residences, including those that may have since been converted to multiple residential units or commercial uses.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Queen Anne style:
• One-and-one-half or two stories tall
• Irregular floor plans and massing, with corner towers and/or angled bay windows • Complex, intersecting roof forms with steep pitches
• Gable or hipped roofs, often with a prominent front-facing gable • Wood clapboard siding with areas of fishscale shingles • Ground-level partial-width or wrap-around porches with spindlework balusters and carved brackets
• Decorative wood detailing located within gables
• Angled bay windows
• Wood-sash windows
• Palladian windows and wood columns.
261
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 184 August 10, 2026

ITALIANATE
The Italianate style was one of several Victorian era styles popular in the eastern United States that was imported to the San Francisco Bay area in the 1860s through 1880s. The style draws on precedents from the Italian country villas, Classical detailing, and some of the romanticism of the Gothic Revival. Expressions of the style range from more elaborate single-family homes to more modest residences to Flat-Front Italianate commercial buildings.

Period of Significance: 1860s-1880s

Associated property types: Single-family residences and commercial properties.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Italianate style:
• One to two stories tall
• Wood construction and horizontal wood cladding
• Parapet with flat cornice in front of a gable, flat, or hipped roof • Projecting cornice with brackets, modillions, or dentils • Tall, narrow wood windows and bay windows are common in residences • Wide wood door and window molding
• Transom windows and wood paneling are common in commercial buildings • Ornamental features may include wood water tables, wood quoining, wood hoods/pediments over door or window openings.
262
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 185 August 10, 2026

FOLK VICTORIAN/NATIONAL FOLK
Many of the early residences in Mountain View 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 houses, often farmhouses, 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.

Period of Significance: 1850s -1910s

Associated property types: Single-family residences, farmsteads, ancillary buildings associated with residences and agricultural properties.
263
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 186 August 10, 2026
Common Character-Defining Features of the Folk Victorian/National Folk:
• One to two-and-a-half stories
• Wood construction with wood siding
• Front gable roofs (most common) or hipped roofs
• Wood shingles, wood brackets, or other modest ornamental detailing may be found in the gable ends
• Front porch (full, partial, or wrap-around) or portico entrance • Wood hung or casement windows
• Interior or exterior chimneys.

COLONIAL REVIVAL
Colonial Revival residences reflect the renewed fascination with the formal Georgian architecture of the United States’ colonial era. A craze for the Colonial Revival followed the Centennial International Exposition of 1876, held in Philadelphia to celebrate one hundred years of American independence from Great Britain. A number of the Colonial Revival’s distinctive characteristics were also employed in First Bay Tradition (Shingle) homes. The influence of Dutch Colonial architecture is also seen in Colonial Revival architecture, most often expressed through gambrel roofs.

Period of Significance: 1900s-1930s

Associated property types: Single-family residences and commercial properties.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Colonial Revival style:
• One to two stories tall
264
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 187 August 10, 2026
• Symmetrical arrangements of bays (often numbering five), with main entrances located at center (Dutch Colonial Revival residences may be asymmetrical) • Side-gabled roofs (gambrel roofs indicate Dutch Colonial influence) • Front porticoes at the main entrances, supported by columns • Wood-sash windows
• Sidelites and fanlites surrounding front doors
• Molded cornice element with dentil courses
• Shutters flanking windows.

MISSION REVIVAL
California is the birthplace of the Mission Revival style. It is rooted in local interpretations of traditional Spanish, Native American, and Mexican design and construction techniques, which were indigenous to the area, and it emerged as the result of a search for an idealized regional style. By the 1920s, the Mission Revival in California was joined by the more elaborate Mediterranean and Spanish Colonial Revival variants, but began to fade from favor after World War I. In Mountain View, some of the most prominent commercial buildings are in the Mission Revival Style. The Mission Revival style is rare in residential properties, with Spanish Colonial Revival being much more common.
265
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 188 August 10, 2026
Period of Significance: 1890s-1930s

Associated property types: Commercial properties, institutional properties, single-family residences.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Mission Revival style:
• Stucco cladding in smooth or textured finish
• Shaped parapets or dormers
• Red, barrel tile roofs or ornamentation at roofline
• Recessed entries, multiple doorways
• Low-pitched or flat roofs
• Porches with square wood supports
• Arcades and/or arched openings
• Multi-lite wood or steel windows
• Limited decorative detailing may include patterned tile, carved stonework, belfries, or terra cotta or plaster ornamentation.

SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
Historically rooted in the building traditions of early Spanish and Mexican settlers of California and other Spanish colonies, this revival style was popular in California and the rest of the Southwest from the early 1900s, with variations on the style remaining popular today. Earlier Hispanic Revival styles were rooted in regional interpretations of traditional Spanish, Native American, and Mexican design and construction techniques, which were indigenous to California.

By the 1920s, the Mission Revival in California was joined by the more elaborate Mediterranean and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. Making use of terracotta tile gabled roofs, thick masonry walls, 266
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 189 August 10, 2026
plaster finishes, wrought iron grilles, balconies, and smaller fenestration openings, the Spanish Colonial Revival style was popular for commercial buildings, institutions, and houses. In California, the Spanish Colonial Revival came into prominence after the Panama-California Exposition in San Diego in 1915 and was very popular through the 1930s.

In Mountain View, sub-types of the Spanish Colonial Revival style include Mediterranean Revival and Spanish Eclectic.

Period of Significance: 1910s - early 1940s

Associated property types: Commercial properties, institutional properties, and single-family residences.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Spanish Colonial Revival:
• One or two stories tall
• Asymmetrical arrangements of features (although the Mediterranean Revival sub-type may have more symmetrical facades)
• Stucco cladding, typically smooth
• Gabled roofs with clay tile roof tiles
• Arched window and door openings and/or arcades
• Entrance often recessed or in portico
267
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 190 August 10, 2026
• Wood or steel windows, casement windows are most common • Wrought iron balconette railings
• Decorative features may include decorative chimney caps, tile vents in gable ends, and/or plaster cartouches.

CRAFTSMAN
The Craftsmen style evolved from the English Arts and Crafts Movement and later, the work of innovative American architects working in the Midwest in the Prairie style and in California, in particular architects Greene & Greene. The Craftsman style was utilized predominantly in residential properties and was dominant from the 1900s to the 1930s. The Craftsman magazine, published in America from 1901 to 1917, helped to disseminate the ideas associated with the style in North America, such as anti-industrialism and emphasis on handcrafted products. While the Craftsman style was utilized in some grander and architect-designed homes, more modest Craftsman cottages and bungalows were the most common small housing typology in California in the early twentieth century. The most common Craftsman cottage typology in Mountain View has a front or side gable roof with a projecting central or offset gabled front porch or portico. Another common typology is the hipped roof cottage, which frequently has a central hipped dormer. Less common in Mountain View, but another subtype of the Craftsman and Arts & Craft styles, was the American Foursquare (sometimes called a Classic Box or Prairie Box). The American Foursquare typically has a boxy design with a square footprint and is two stories (or two stories with an attic) with a hipped roof, central dormers, and a projecting front porch. The Craftsman style was popular through the mid-1920s, but fell out of favor by the early 1930s.

Side-gable Craftsman cottages.
268
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 191 August 10, 2026
Front-gable Craftsman cottages.

Hipped roof transitional Craftsman cottage. Craftsman with eclectic Shingle and Colonial style influences.

Period of Significance: 1900s-early 1930s

Associated property types: Single-family residences.

Common Character-Defining Features of the Craftsman Style:
• One or one-and-one-half stories tall typically (American Foursquare is typically two or twoand-a-half stories) • Low-pitched gabled roofs, or clipped gable (jerkinhead) or hipped roof • Wood construction with wood siding (bevel, drop, or shingle) • Decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails underneath overhanging eaves 269
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 192 August 10, 2026
• Porches (full or partial width) or entrance portico supported by square or tapered columns (columns may be wood, stone, or brick)
• Prominent dormers (gable, shed, or hipped roof) over front roof slopes • Wood-sash windows
• In some cases, wood transom windows, or leaded or stained glass windows • Exterior or interior wood or stone chimney.

VERNACULAR BUNGALOWS
The Craftsman style was one of the most common architectural styles for smaller homes in the earlier twentieth century. More modest bungalows and cottages, which included limited stylistic references to the Craftsman and Prairie styles, as well as more vernacular building traditions, were also very common in California. Bungalows were built throughout the United States by buildercontractors between the 1890s and 1920s and were often constructed according to plans provided in plan books or mail order catalogs and monthly journals such as those published by Sears, Roebuck & Co. or Aladdin Homes. The popularity of simple bungalows during the early twentieth century was evident as it became the first type to be built in quantity by builder-contractors, and remained common through the 1920s, but fell out of favor by the early 1930s. 270
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 193 August 10, 2026
Period of Significance: 1890s-early 1930s

Associated property types: Single-family residences and duplexes (less common).

Common Character-Defining Features of Vernacular Bungalows:
• One to one-and-a-half stories
• Wood construction with horizontal wood siding
• Rectangular footprint
• Gabled or clipped gable (jerkinhead) roofs, generally low- to medium-pitched • Entrance portico or small porch
• Wood windows, typically hung windows
• Exterior or interior chimney.

TUDOR REVIVAL/ENGLISH COTTAGE
The Tudor Revival style first appeared in the United States in the 1880s, but it did not come into vogue until the twentieth century. The style initially developed as an expression of patriotism, elitism, and practicality. It served as a link with the colonial past of the United States. For consumers who wanted to flaunt American roots and wealth in large homes with modern amenities, the Tudor Revival style was a compelling choice. In addition to larger single-family residences, the architectural style found its way to more modest homes in the form of both Tudor Revival and English Cottage styles, as well as commercial properties during the early twentieth century. In Mountain View, the Tudor Revival and English Cottage styles were primarily used for single-family residences. There do not appear to be any extant examples of Tudor Revival style commercial buildings. 271
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 194 August 10, 2026

Period of Significance: 1910s-1920s

Associated property types: Single-family residences and commercial properties (less common).

Common Character-Defining Features of the Tudor Revival/English Cottage style:
• One to two stories
• Wood construction with stucco cladding
• Non-structural pattern of timbering filled by areas of stucco cladding • Asymmetrical massing and arrangements of features
• Medium to steep gable roof, shallow or eaveless
• Roof cladding may be slate, wood shingle, or asphalt shingle • Hung or casement wood or steel casement window are most common • Often, prominent exterior brick or stuccoed chimneys
272
Historic Contexts: Architectural Styles & Design (1850s-1980) City of Mountain View, CA [21308] Final Draft Historic Context Statement
PAGE & TURNBULL 195 August 10, 2026
• In some cases, curved eaves emulate the shape of a thatched roof, or a portion of the gabled roof will flare out
• Ornamental details may include leaded glass windows, oriel windows, square bay windows with wood brackets below, rusticated masonry accents, arched entries, and/or dormers.

Mountain View City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Mountain View City Council
September 22, 2026