Attachment 6
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND REGISTER UPDATE PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
City Council Meeting—April 12, 2022
At the April 12, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed and approved the project scope of work and consultant contract with Page & Turnbull, Inc., to update the Zoning Ordinance standards and procedures for the designation and preservation of historic resources ( Mountain View City Code Section 36.54.45 through Section 36.54.97) and MV Register of historic resources.
The City Council also directed staff to review up to eight buildings in downtown to analyze whether they would be eligible to be nominated to the National Register and to determine if Area H could be considered a historic district.
Community Workshop—September 6, 2022
Staff held a virtual community workshop and introduced the project tasks, and sought input on history, significant places, and topics or themes that are important and unique to the history of Mountain View.
Community Workshop—October 30, 2023
Staff held a hybrid community workshop on October 30, 2023. Eleven (11) community members attended in person, and approximately 30 community members attended the meeting virtually.
Community members asked questions about the process and requirements. Some concerns were raised by property owners regarding requests for clarity about who is affected by this project, fear of excessive property owner obligations, and information on what s tructure modifications are possible on historic properties.
City Council Study Session—December 12, 2023
A City Council meeting was held on December 12, 2023, to receive additional direction on the goals and scope of the project. The following goals were identified:
• Reflect the community’s preservation priorities. Updating the MV Register to create a comprehensive list of historic resources that the community wishes to preserve.
• Provide clarity about historic status and requirements. Create a comprehensive list of historic properties so that property owners are aware of their historic status and process requirements before they develop plans to modify them. Additionally, this will also allow the community to be aware of the historic properties and requirements to avoid confusion.
• Streamline the process of determination and review. A Citywide survey will reduce the need for individual applicants to conduct their own analysis and additional time for a peer review by the City.
• Provide incentives that support preservation, maintenance, and integrity improvement.
If property owners are not given adequate incentives, they may let their historic property degrade over time. Listing all historic properties on the MV Register will provide clarity and make properties eligible for incentives.
• Create local district criteria for a Downtown Preservation District. Since downtown Mountain View does not meet the criteria for the California or National Registers, local district criteria could be created to adopt a Downtown Preservation District.
In addition, Council directed staff to evaluate and conduct an intensive survey for the following properties:
• All properties currently listed on the Mountain View, California, or National Registers and all properties located within Area H of the Downtown Precise Plan (100-300 blocks of Castro Street).
• Single-family properties that were previously identified as eligible for the California or National Registers or those located in Precise Plan areas.
• Commercial, institutional, civic, and multi-family properties that were previously identified as eligible for the Mountain View, California, or National Registers or identified as potentially eligible during the reconnaissance survey.
Community Workshop—August 13, 2024
Staff held an in-person community workshop regarding the Historic Context Statement.
Virtual Question and Answer Session—August 25, 2025
In early August, letters were sent by the City to the property owners whose properties were identified as potentially eligible for the MV Register as well as those whose properties may be delisted. On August 25, 2025, the project team held a virtual presentation and question- and- answer session. The meeting was attended by 27 community members. Key questions concerned CEQA and other state laws, details regarding the listed properties, historic districts, incentives, and upcoming project activities and events.
Community Workshop—September 3, 2025
On September 3, 2025, the City held an in-person workshop to discuss the potential next steps for the Ordinance, which was attended by approximately 20 community members. The following is a summary of the comments from this workshop, organized by topic in this report:
• Criteria and Draft Register. Community members expressed concerns that being on the MV Register could reduce property value, limit development flexibility, and create a barrier for construction or modification. Participants emphasized the importance of ensuring that historic property designation supports, rather than hinders, the vitality of buildings and districts. Concerns were raised that commercial properties can become underutilized once listed and that the fear of designation has grown due to perceived barriers to construction faced by current historic property owners. Feedback also underscored that historic resources should be established at both the building and district levels.
• Nomination, Listing, and Delisting Process. Attendees expressed support for the historic preservation self -nomination process and opportunities for district nominations, noting that this could help capture the broader context of neighborhoods and historic figures and not just individual buildings. I t was also recommended that properties that are added to the National Register also be added to the MV Register. Concerns were raised regarding the financial impacts of designation, and participants emphasized the need for additional resources to help property owners better understand these implications.
• Development Review Process. There was support for updating the review process to base the review level on the scope of work for the project (i.e., small modification projects would be reviewed by staff or at an Administrative Zoning hearing instead of by Council).
Participants requested clarification regarding CEQA, particularly as some property owners who have opted off the MV Register may not be aware that they remain subject to CEQA requirements. Comments also highlighted the importance of transparency and access ible information for property owners and the community. Suggestions included making hard copies of the Historic Context Statement available at the Planning Counter and Mountain View Public Library, preparing a “how -to” guide outlining permitting and design ation procedures, and providing clear timelines, checklists, and expectations for applicants.
• Other topics. Participants suggested consideration of a heritage zoning overlay for the downtown area. Participants value the Mills Act as an important incentive for maintenance and preservation and suggested additional measures, such as plaques, markers, and signage, to promote community awareness and pride in historic resources. Requests were also made for greater transparency and accessibility of materials, including timelines, checklists, guidance documents, and the Historic Context Statement. Participants also requested more information on tax rebates and the Mills Act program along with practical support for property owners through access to qualified consultants, engineers, and maintenance professionals.
New Business Items--October 1, 2025 (EPC) and December 9, 2025 (City Council)
These public meetings focused on key topics for the Ordinance. The EPC provided recommendations to inform the City Council's direction on October 1, 2025. City Council direction included the following:
• Do not seek listing of religious properties unless the property owner requests it.
• Continue to utilize the City’s significance criteria with minor changes (such as order and terminology) to improve consistency with state and national historic preservation best practices.
• Adopt integrity thresholds consistent with state and national historic preservation best practices, defined as “the authenticity of a historic resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” with a focus on location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
• Return at adoption with additional information regarding the eligible sites, including State and/or National Register eligibility, the significance criteria for each site (with a focus on which sites meet only the design criterion vs. the design criterion and other criteria), and more information about property owner sentiment.
• For properties already listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources that do not meet the draft integrity thresholds, allow property owners up to four years to submit a restoration plan. Those who do should have an additional three years to complete it.
• Carry forward the following process updates related to nominations, listing, and delisting of historic resources, with additional analysis and options related to the district nomination and approval process (specifically the City Council/technical role and how to ensure ample noticing and participation):
o Remove the unilateral owner opt -off provision and the required owner approval within the Council nomination process.
o Create a process for neighborhoods or districts to nominate themselves, subject to Council approval. At least 50% of owners should be included as signatories on the application. The review process should include a mailed ballot to all contributing properti es to notify the property owners of the potential district nomination and allow for comments on the matter.
o List properties on the MV Register if an official determination of eligibility is made by the California Office of Historic Preservation or the National Parks Service.
o Provide delisting procedures that consider findings, including reassessment of eligibility through further analysis, if a listed property becomes a safety hazard, is
damaged by a natural disaster, or an owner faces an economic hardship related to a property’s listing. Also, provide a delisting procedure, consistent with CEQA, whereby the City Council can delist a property from the MV Register, such as due to demolition, if there is an overriding consideration (for example, if the value of the resource is outweighed by public benefits like open space or affordable housing).
• Carry forward the following updates to the development review process for historic resources, with additional consideration of streamlining, such as rear additions and other improvements that don't alter the front façade, and ADUs.
o Clarify and adopt a comprehensive list of exempt alterations.
o Define “minor alterations” (e.g., in -kind replacement of doors and windows, alterations not visible from the public right -of-way, such as rear additions, and changes to non -character-defining features) and provide a staff -level review process.
o Define “major alterations” (e.g., relocation, new openings, visible additions, and alterations that would alter, remove, or obscure character -defining features) for review through an Administrative Zoning public hearing.
o Create a process for delisting a property from the MV Register, such as when demolition of a structure is required.
o Incorporate enforcement measures for property neglect, unauthorized alterations, or demolition without permits.
o Align permit review procedures with environmental review requirements under CEQA.
o Require contributing properties in a historic district to adhere to the review processes for individually listed resources.