From:
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: 555 Ellis Street
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 11:16:57 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello Elaheh –
On behalf of the owner of 555 Ellis Street, we are responding to the recent letter concerning the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
The property has been included in the draft register and we have completed the Property Owner Input Survey. The owner of the property is NOT interested in being included in the register.
Based on a review of the information in the register, 555 Ellis was selected as an example of architectural features for the Brutalist style.
Although it may appear to mimic this style, the
design behind the style of the building was functional and was not intended to be in the Brutalist style of architecture.
When 555 Ellis was designed and built, the concrete tilt up building was designed to hold solar panels so the blocky style and thick concrete walls were utilitarian, and not architectural elements.
We understand that a current drive by of the
property may lead someone to an incorrect conclusion, but the fact remains that it was not built in the Brutalist style of architecture and is not a valid example for a historic resource register.
It would be like including a Taco Bell restaurant as an example of Spanish style architecture! Please let me know if you need any further information to remove 555 Ellis from the MV Register.
Thank you,
Alice Holmes
CFO & Principal
Attachment 7
From:
To: [email protected]; Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: feedback about historic preservation ordinance Date: Friday, August 7, 2026 6:08:41 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
I got the flyer about the historic preservation ordinance meeting in a week and a half; I won't be able to attend the meeting, but I wanted to provide feedback.
After reading the FAQ, I'm nervous about the update. I want a downtown Mountain View that as many people as possible can live in, that people can easily visit, that people can dine and shop in, and that companies can be located in. We should take advantage of the vibrancy that's already there combined with the possibilities that the train station allow.
The FAQ, however, leads off with "Historic preservation of the built environment is at the heart of creating vibrant and meaningful places." And I simply don't think that that's true, especially the vibrant part.
What makes a downtown vibrant is the people there, which will happen if people live there, work there, and shop there. And historic preservation is more likely to interfere with all of those than to help with that, because buildings get trapped in inefficient uses.
For example, right now there are a bunch of store fronts on Mountain View that are empty, and my understanding is because of difficulties with redeveloping those buildings; that's the opposite of being vibrant!
(And the buildings in question aren't nearly
attractive enough to provide a historical charm that will be an active draw.) Looking at the list of nominated building at the end of the FAQ, 124-126 Castro Street in particular stood out. That's right next to the Caltrain station, so it's one of the main gateways to the city; and it's a perfectly nice little cafe, but not one that's special in any way. Why would we want to freeze that building in its current state, instead of allowing the possibility of redevelopment into a gateway location that shows off the city and downtown? Or 301 Castro Street - that's a completely architecturally undistinguished building, and while I like Bloomsgiving (I actually had a matcha latte there last Tuesday), they're a weird tenant for that space.
So that space feels like a prime location for redevelopment that rethinks the street-level space, and adds in housing and/or office space on floors above it. If our goal really is to create vibrant and meaningful spaces, then I don't think that list of buildings is a good list. --
David Carlton
Staff Notes – Telephone conversation with Eric Hertzberg, Owner, August 7, 2026
In general, he is in favor of historic preservation of buildings such as his. He supports the ordinance and favors remaining on the Register. He wants to ensure that such regulations are not too problematic for those who need to do improvements to their buildings.
Previously, he has had issues with permit requirements for improvements to his building.
For example, in one instance, he had construction delays because the relevant City staff were unaware that it was a historic building. Other improvements have been needlessly complex in order to comply with building codes.
He recommended that there be flexibility in building code permitting requirements when modifying portions of a building, so that historic parts of the structure do not need to be altered.
From:
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Objection to Inclusion of 355-365 E. Middlefield in the City’s Register of Historic Resources Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:22:55 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of Essex Property Trust, Inc. (Essex), the owners of property located at 355- 365 E. Middlefield (Property) in Mountain View, CA (City), we are writing to inform the Planning Commission of our formal request for the Property to be excluded from the City’s Register of Historic Resources.
We have completed the Input Survey and express our strong desire that this Property not be listed now in light of the fact that 1) the Property has been identified and designated for mixed-use redevelopment for years as part of the East Whisman Precise Plan and 2) Essex’s residential project of over 500 much-needed housing units is within a few months of approval by the City (Project).
Such a designation will subject the Property to burdensome restrictions in a worst-case scenario of Essex’s inability to deliver the Project because of market uncertainties or other unknowns.
We are at the finish line for a project that the City has long envisioned for the Property and this designation now only will serve to create uncertainty in the future as to any entity’s ability to redevelop the site.
Note that, for example, Essex is the
third developer to attempt to develop the Property for a residential use. Residential housing is badly needed in the City and we wish continue to support the efforts to make this a reality, not create unnecessary hurdles.
Essex supports the City’s efforts to recognize the importance of its past, but listing properties without any owner consent creates an unfair burden, especially in light of the long planning process we have gone through to get our Project finally approved.
We
would be happy to discuss with staff the possibility of honoring the Property’s Intel history with a commemorative plaque, but we again respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend that this Property be excluded from listing in the Register of Historic Resources.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lauren Krause
_________________________________________
Lauren Krause | Vice President, Development
Essex Property Trust, Inc.
Disclaimer: This message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or believe that you have received this correspondence in error, please contact the sender through the information provided above and permanently delete this message.
1 City of Mountain View City Council August 18, 2026 City Hall, 500 Castro Street
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
RE: Strengthening Mountain View’s Historic Preservation Program Dear Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, Chair, and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission,
Mountain View has long recognized that preserving its historic resources serves an important public interest. The City’s Historic Ordinance also recognizes that preservation is most successful when supported through incentives that encourage owners to maintain and protect historic properties. My wife and I share those goals.
We have intentionally invested substantial time and resources into preserving our historic home. We are lifetime members of the Mountain View Historical Association, have conducted extensive archival research on our property’s history, and have consistently maintained and improved our home in a manner that respects its historic character. We believe preservation enriches Mountain View and contributes to the character that makes our community distinctive.
For that reason, this letter is not intended to question the value of historic preservation.
Instead, it seeks to identify an important gap in the City’s preservation program and propose a practical solution that would strengthen—not weaken—Mountain View’s long- term preservation efforts.
Preservation Is a Partnership
Historic preservation succeeds because private property owners agree to become stewards of assets valued by the community. Property owners accept restrictions that do not apply to comparable non-historic properties in order to preserve architectural and historical resources of interest to the broader public.
When preservation restrictions significantly limit redevelopment opportunities, owners also relinquish economic options that remain available to comparable non-historic properties. Many owners willingly accept this responsibility because they value preservation and appreciate the City's commitment to protecting its historic resources.
The Mills Act has been an important and successful component of that partnership. The property tax relief it provides helps offset many of the higher costs associated with maintaining historic properties and creates an incentive for preservation rather than demolition.
2 However, the Mills Act was never intended to address every consequence of preserving old structures.
Furthermore, The Mills Act does not differentiate very old properties (100+ year old) from much newer structures of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s that reflect very different construction standards, technology and structural integrity.
Extraordinary Structural Failures Present a Different Challenge Historic homes that have stood for a century or more potentially face issues that newer homes seldom encounter to the same extent: Foundation deterioration. Seismic deficiencies. Structural settlement. Drainage failures affecting structural integrity.
These are not cosmetic improvements, nor are they discretionary upgrades. They are essential life-safety investments necessary to preserve the building itself.
Unlike routine maintenance, these projects potentially require expenditures measured in many tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Our own home now faces precisely this circumstance. Independent engineering evaluations have identified significant foundation, drainage, and structural deficiencies affecting the long-term seismic and structural integrity of the building. Correcting these issues will require an investment far beyond what decades of Mills Act tax savings were intended to offset.
Our situation is not unique. As Mountain View’s oldest homes continue to age, similar structural challenges will inevitably become more common.
Preservation Should Not Create an Unsustainable Financial Burden Historic preservation is, at its core, a partnership between private property owners and the community. Owners agree to preserve resources that provide benefits extending well beyond their own property. The community, in turn, provides incentives that encourage responsible stewardship.
That partnership functions well so long as the responsibilities remain proportional.
Extraordinary structural, seismic, and safety issues upset that balance.
At some point, owners of designated historic properties may face repair costs that substantially exceed both the financial assistance provided through the Mills Act and the economic flexibility available to owners of comparable non-historic properties. In those circumstances, preservation can unintentionally place homeowners in the difficult position of choosing between responsible financial stewardship and preserving a community asset.
That is not a choice that serves either preservation or the public interest. 3 Indeed, if prospective buyers conclude that ownership of a historic property carries potentially catastrophic and largely uncompensated structural liabilities, the City’s preservation objectives could ultimately become more difficult to achieve.
A preservation program should not place owners in the difficult position of choosing between preserving an irreplaceable historic resource and making prudent financial decisions for their families.
Nor should preservation policies unintentionally discourage future owners from purchasing or maintaining historic homes because of concerns about unpredictable structural liabilities.
A Historic Preservation Assistance Fund
For these reasons, we respectfully encourage the Environmental Planning Commission to recommend, and City Council to consider, directing staff to study the creation of a Historic Preservation Assistance Fund.
Rather than replacing the Mills Act, such a program would complement it by addressing circumstances that the Mills Act was never intended to solve.
The program could provide grants, matching grants, forgivable loans, or low-interest financing for extraordinary preservation projects involving:
• foundation stabilization;
• seismic retrofits;
• structural rehabilitation;
• drainage improvements necessary to preserve structural integrity; and • other major life-safety improvements essential to preserving designated historic resources.
Eligibility should be limited to independently documented structural deficiencies requiring substantial capital investment beyond ordinary maintenance obligations. This would ensure that public assistance remains carefully targeted toward exceptional preservation challenges rather than routine upkeep.
Mountain View would not be breaking new ground by expanding its preservation toolkit.
Examples may be found in Sacramento's Historic Places Grant, Fresno's Historic Preservation Mitigation Program, San Fernando's Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program, etc.
As Mountain View's own Facade Improvement Grant Program is administered for visual (aesthetic) improvements for commercial properties, it seems reasonable to consider a program for structural and seismic issues (safety and structural integrity) on residential historic properties.
4 The phrase “Historic building rehabilitation loan fund” was formally incorporated into Mountain View's Historic Preservation Ordinance Section §36.54.80(b). It specifically says the Council may, by resolution or on a case-by-case basis, provide a “Historic building rehabilitation loan fund.” However, a fund does not appear to have ever been established.
Now is a good time to revisit, strengthen, and implement City assistance for extraordinary historic property situations.
Conclusion
Historic preservation succeeds because private owners willingly become long-term stewards of resources that enrich the entire community. Most preservation costs appropriately remain the responsibility of those owners.
Extraordinary structural, seismic and safety issues, however, are different. They present infrequent but potentially overwhelming financial burdens that threaten not only individual properties, but also the long-term sustainability of the City’s preservation program itself.
A carefully designed Historic Preservation Assistance Fund would reinforce the partnership between the City and historic property owners, promote seismic safety, encourage continued investment in historic neighborhoods, and help ensure that preservation remains economically sustainable for future generations.
We respectfully ask the City Council to direct staff to evaluate the feasibility of such a program and consider it as an important enhancement to Mountain View’s historic preservation policies.
We would be happy to share details of our property (issues, costs, maintenance, tax benefits received, etc.) if it's helpful for your consideration.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for your continued commitment to preserving Mountain View’s historic heritage.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Davis
Lubab Sheet-Davis
From:
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Cc:
Subject: - Property Owner Input Survey
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 2:29:38 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Elaheh,
Please note that I just submitted the Historic Register Survey for our home at Drive. Please confirm that you received it.
Please feel free to reach out anytime as we are glad to have our property listed as a historic resource.
Thanks,
Jonathan Gentin
From:
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 10:47:01 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hi Elaheh
I live at and I received mail that you had not received my response to the Property Owner survey. I submitted it a few weeks ago and submitted it again just now.
Can you confirm that you've received my response. I opted out of the Mountain View Register.
Question for you: About 15 years ago, we found out that our house was listed on the State Register
of Historic Resources and since there was no ability to opt out. This subjected our home to CEQA compliance and as a result we decided to go ahead and enter a Mills Act Contract with the City.
Will opting out of the Mountain View Register change the status of our existing Mills Act Contract?
Thanks
Tracy Chu
From:
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: Survey response
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:16:13 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
regarding 990 California street.
the survey input is NO
Mark Li
owner
BTW, the "https://forms.office.com/g/nHA7AEUvrT" does not work on my macbook.
From:
To: City Council
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 4:54:10 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Council members,
I feel it is vitally important to officially preserve all buildings and locations in Mountain View that have historic integrity and are listed on the city's list of historic properties that . I believe that at a minimum, all the properties listed that are located on Castro Street should be included. Hopefully this will help us to preserve these buildings from "builder's remedy" projects that will damage or destroy our town's unique character and history which makes us a magnet for tourism and commerce.
Thank you,
Laurie Bonilla
37 year resident of Mountain View
From:
To: City Council
Subject: Regarding Historic Preservation Ordinance and Map Amendment Date: Saturday, September 12, 2026 12:35:28 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Mountain View City Council,
As a 9 year resident of Mountain View, I appreciate the city council's efforts in evolving the zoning ordinances over the years to adapt to modern times. Regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Map Amendment of 2026, upon reviewing the list of eligible properties myself, I wholly
oppose these amendments specifically as it aims to exclude properties from Senate Bill 79.
As you know, Mountain View is experiencing a housing crisis like much of California, and Senate Bill 79 is a crucial part of expanding the housing supply and ensuring everyone has an affordable place to live that is close to transit.
Furthermore, transit oriented development is a
critical part of reducing congestion, revitalizing downtown, and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.
We must strike a balance between historic preservation and alleviating immediate concerns of affordability and climate change. In my opinion, designating properties near Mountain View Caltrain, such as 169, 292, 301, 492 Castro St, will hinder the development of much needed housing, deprive property owners of the right to develop their property, and increase traffic by pushing development outside transit accessible areas. Unlike properties such as 157 Moffett Blvd, these properties are not especially historically significant or unique to the Bay Area and their preservation should not outweigh the need for more housing in Mountain View.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Jason Chiu
From:
To: City Council
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Sunday, September 13, 2026 1:40:31 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Council Members,
I am writing in support of the Historic Preservation Ordinance as I will not be able to attend the meeting on September 22. I am the owner of 395 Velarde St, one properties added to the historic register as part of this update. The ordinance as drafted offers an appropriate balance of protection for historic structures and flexibility for me as a property owner to modify or sell my property. I hope to see this passed.
Regards,
David Greene
(38 year Mountain View resident)
From:
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Cc:
Subject: Mountain View Register of Historic Resources - 492 Castro St. (444 Castro St.) - Do Not Add Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 9:20:29 AM
Importance: High
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello Elaheh,
Please accept this email as notification that 492 Castro is NOT interested in being listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic References.
Please confirm receipt of this email, thank you.
Elaine Dell’Aquila
Vice President | Asset Management
The Swig Company
From:
To: Kerachian, Elaheh
Subject: re: 1414 W El Camino Real
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:50:40 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Hello Elaheh,
We recently received a letter from the city asking if we would be interested to list our property referenced above on the MV Register. Sorry for the late response. We just got back over the weekend.
Please register our request as "NO", we do not want our property to be listed on the MV Register of Historic Resources.
Thank you.
Jill Lo, Trustee
September 15, 2026
From:
To: Kerachian, Elaheh; , Planning Division; [email protected] Subject: FORMAL OBJECTION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY DESIGNATION: Historic Register Nomination for 696 California Street
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:07:43 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
FORMAL OBJECTION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY DESIGNATION: Historic Register Nomination for 696 California Street — EPC Meeting August 19, 2026
Dear Environmental Planning Commission,
I am writing to file a formal, written objection to the nomination of my property located at 696 California Street on the draft City Historic Register or any inventory of potentially eligible historic resources. I explicitly do not consent to this nomination.
This objection is based on several critical factors. The factual error, still in the city’s database (see primary record) that no remodel was done and it retains all aspects of historic integrity, combined with the severe, unmitigated negative impacts this involuntary designation will impose on my finances and property rights.
The original structure on this property was destroyed by a catastrophic fire in 2011. Following that disaster, the building underwent a two-year modern reconstruction from foundation to roof, utilizing 21st-century building materials and finishes. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Register guidelines, a property must retain physical "historic integrity" to legally qualify for a designation. Because the authentic historic fabric no longer exists, this building is a modern structure less than 15 years old. It is legally ineligible for historic designation.
The city's concurrent move to eliminate a homeowner’s right to "opt off" the register strips away my fundamental property rights. My property was removed from the register years ago based on design because it was so altered it no longer qualified. Having to constantly battle a bureaucratic loop— where I am forced to repeatedly defend my rebuilt home against a generic, automated city survey is an unfair burden. I request that city planning staff pull the 2012 remodeling permit MV #2012-0914- 1 for APN# 158-23-026 immediately to verify all plans, permits, guidelines and inspections were followed and approved for the 2012 remodel.
I ask that this formal objection be entered into the official public record for the August 19, 2026 EPC meeting, and that 696 California Street be permanently removed from the eligibility list.
I ask this Commission to protect my property rights, acknowledge the factual absence of historic integrity due to the 2011 fire, and explicitly direct staff to remove my address from the final recommendation.
From:
To: [email protected]
Cc: Kerachian, Elaheh; , Planning Division; City Council; , City Clerk Subject: EPC Item 5.1 - 472/482 View Street, APN 158-23-059 - Formal Owner Opposition, Request for Exclusion or Property-Specific Deferral, and Notice of Intended Housing Development Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 7:37:11 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Re: EPC Item 5.1 — 472/482 View Street, APN 158-23-059 — Formal Owner Opposition, Request for Exclusion or Property-Specific Deferral, and Notice of Intended Housing Development --------------------
Dear Chair and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission, City Council members, and City Staff:
I am an owner of the property identified by the City as 472 View Street, with 482 View Street listed as an alternate address, APN 158-23-059.
This communication constitutes:
1. My formal opposition to inclusion of this property in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources;
2. To the extent the current Historic Preservation Ordinance applies, my express rejection of any City-initiated nomination of the property, consistent with the owner-rejection procedure described in the City’s July 7, 2026 FAQ;
3. My request that the City immediately record the owner’s position as “Does Not Support Listing” rather than “Unknown/Other”;
4. My primary request that the property be removed from the draft Register; and
5. Alternatively, my request that the property be separated from any collective or omnibus Register action and continued to a later, property-specific hearing.
1. The August 3 survey date was not a meaningful
opportunity to investigate and respond
The City’s letter was dated July 7, 2026 and requested completion of the owner survey by August 3, 2026. The letter described the survey as taking approximately five to ten minutes and stated that responses received by August 3 would be considered during the City Council’s September discussion.
I do not contend that it was physically impossible to complete a short online survey. I contend that the period provided was not a meaningful opportunity to investigate and respond to the underlying technical and regulatory proposal.
An informed response required locating and reviewing a lengthy set of online materials;
determining which of several structures and addresses was being evaluated; understanding the applicable local, state, and national criteria; investigating the property’s construction and alteration history; evaluating the report’s assertions concerning rarity and integrity; understanding the consequences of designation; and consulting an architectural historian, land-use professional, or attorney.
Significant health issues during this limited period further prevented me from conducting that investigation and retaining appropriate professional assistance.
The July 7 communication did not state that August 3 was a deadline for opposing designation, presenting evidence, requesting a continuance, preserving legal objections, or exercising any right under the current ordinance. Failure to complete the voluntary survey by August 3 must not be characterized as consent, neutrality, waiver, or absence of opposition.
2. The proposed historic resource remains inadequately
identified
The July 7 letter identified the property only as 472 View Street. The City’s List of Eligible Resources identifies 472 View Street and lists 482 View Street as an alternate address.
The Page & Turnbull DPR evaluation identifies both addresses, describes multiple buildings on the parcel, and refers to a building possibly formerly identified as 478 View Street.
Although the DPR photograph appears to depict the north/right street-facing cottage, the photograph does not resolve the legal and regulatory scope of the proposed designation.
The City has not supplied a marked parcel plan identifying:
The precise building proposed for designation;
The official address assigned to each structure;
The footprint and boundary of the proposed historic resource; Whether the rear ell is included;
Whether the land surrounding the cottage is included;
Which buildings are noncontributing or excluded; and
Whether future development elsewhere on the parcel would be restricted because of the proposed resource.
Please provide a current, marked site plan and a written description defining the precise historic-resource boundary. Please also confirm that no other cottage, rear building, improvement, or portion of the parcel is included unless separately identified, evaluated, noticed, and supported by property-specific findings.
3. The existing record does not adequately establish the required local findings
The Page & Turnbull DPR evaluation expressly concludes:
“The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under any criteria.”
The City’s List of Eligible Resources likewise identifies the property as eligible only for the Mountain View local register and only under the design criterion. The property is not claimed to be significant because of an important person, organization, event, or historical activity.
I understand that ineligibility for the National and California Registers does not, by itself, prohibit a local designation. It does, however, make it essential that the City independently establish every local requirement with substantial property-specific evidence.
Proposed City Code Section 36.55.10 requires findings that:
1. The resource embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction significant to Mountain View’s history or cultural heritage, represents the work of a designer or builder of merit, or possesses high artistic value;
2. The resource retains historic integrity;
3. The resource satisfies the applicable age requirement; and
4. Each finding is supported by substantial evidence applied to the particular resource.
Age alone is not architectural significance.
The existing DPR report states that the cottage is a “rare extant example” of Folk Victorian architecture and is “likely one of the oldest surviving residential properties” in Mountain View. The report, however, does not identify the comparative inventory or analysis supporting those assertions. It does not state:
How many Folk Victorian or National Folk residences survive in Mountain View; Which comparable properties were examined;
Why this cottage is more distinctive or more intact than those properties; What objective characteristics make it significant to Mountain View rather than merely old;
Whether the porch, trusses, piers, posts, siding, and other asserted character- defining features are original;
What physical investigation established that the siding is original and likely redwood; or
What evidence supports the conclusion that this is one of the City’s oldest surviving residences.
The DPR also acknowledges that:
All windows and doors on both street-facing buildings appear to have been replaced;
A rear ell was added;
The architect is unknown;
The builder is unknown; and
The other buildings on the parcel are not eligible.
Nevertheless, the report concludes that the cottage retains sufficient integrity without providing a factor-by-factor analysis of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
These facts do not automatically determine the outcome, but they materially undermine the report’s conclusory findings and require independent investigation. The current record does not adequately explain how replacement of all windows and doors, construction of the rear ell, and any porch or siding alterations affect integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
4. Requested action concerning the proposed Register
My primary request is that the City remove 472/482 View Street from the draft Register and decline to initiate or approve its designation.
Even if staff continues to believe that the property is technically eligible, proposed Section 36.55.15 expressly makes designation discretionary and permits the City Council to decline designation after considering owner sentiment, differing qualified professional opinions, and other relevant factors.
If the City does not immediately remove the property, I request that it:
1. Identify the property as “Owner Opposes Listing—Eligibility and Resource Boundary Contested”;
2. Separate the property from any collective or omnibus Register resolution;
3. Continue it to a separate property-specific hearing;
4. Provide corrected notice identifying the exact structure and resource boundary;
5. Provide the complete property-specific evidentiary record;
6. Provide the proposed findings and all substantial evidence intended to support each finding;
7. Allow at least 60 days after production of corrected notice and the complete supporting record for an owner and qualified professional response; and
8. Take no final designation action until the factual, architectural, procedural, and state-housing-law issues raised in this letter have been addressed.
The City’s proposed ordinance itself calls for at least 60 days’ notice before a survey- based designation hearing and permits an owner to submit written comments, factual materials, and a qualified professional response. The July 7 owner survey should not be treated as a substitute for that property-specific designation process.
5. Actual notice of intended housing development and
SB 79 implications
This letter also gives the City actual notice that I am actively evaluating substantial housing development involving the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel under common ownership located at [INSERT ADJACENT ADDRESS AND APN].
Based on the City’s SB 79 mapping, I understand the properties to be located in the TOD2 area associated with a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop. If the City disagrees with that classification, please identify the City’s classification and supporting map in writing.
My current preliminary development concept contemplates approximately 40 housing units and potentially up to approximately 70 housing units, depending on parcel consolidation, site design, applicable SB 79 standards, the State Density Bonus Law, affordability requirements, available incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and project feasibility.
These unit numbers are preliminary and do not constitute a final project application.
They do establish that redevelopment is concrete and under active consideration rather than merely hypothetical.
Government Code Section 65912.162 declares that removal of barriers to housing production and expansion of housing supply are matters of statewide concern. The City’s August 19, 2026 staff report also recognizes that:
SB 79 supersedes certain local standards for qualifying transit-oriented housing projects;
A housing project involving demolition of a structure already placed on a local historic register may lose an otherwise available AB 130 CEQA exemption; An eligible but unlisted structure may be treated differently under AB 130; and Historic resources newly designated after January 1, 2025 are not included in SB 79’s temporary historic-resource exclusion unless addressed through a compliant TOD Alternative Plan.
A new local-only designation of this property could therefore impose significant additional preservation review, demolition restrictions, CEQA exposure, processing requirements, delay, cost, uncertainty, and potential reduction in feasible housing capacity.
I am not asserting in this letter that SB 79 categorically prohibits all local historic designations in transit-oriented areas. I am asserting that the City should not impose a new, local-only, design-only designation on a Tier 1 transit-oriented housing site without first identifying and publicly analyzing its consequences for:
Applicable SB 79 density, height, floor-area-ratio, and use standards; Eligibility for streamlined or ministerial review;
The AB 130 CEQA exemption;
State Density Bonus Law concessions, incentives, and waivers; Demolition and historic-preservation review;
The feasibility and capacity of the contemplated 40-to-70-unit housing development;
Treatment of the site under any future TOD Alternative Plan; and Compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and other applicable state housing laws.
Please provide written answers to the following:
1. Does the City agree that the parcel is within the Tier 1 TOD2 area?
2. Will the parcel remain subject to the applicable SB 79 standards if it is placed on the local Register in 2026?
3. Could designation cause a future project to lose an AB 130 CEQA exemption?
4. Would designation cause an otherwise streamlined or ministerial project to become subject to discretionary historic review?
5. Could designation be used to reduce the parcel’s capacity through a future TOD Alternative Plan?
6. What number of housing units and amount of residential floor area could be rendered infeasible by designation?
7. How will the City ensure that the Historic Preservation Ordinance is not applied where preempted by state housing law?
The City should not designate the property first and defer consideration of these housing consequences until after a development application is submitted.
6. Preservation of the administrative record and
reservation of rights
Please include this letter and its attachments in the complete administrative record for:
EPC Agenda Item 5.1;
The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance;
The draft Mountain View Register;
Any City Council discussion or action concerning 472/482 View Street; Any SB 79 zoning or TOD Alternative Plan action affecting the property; and Any subsequent property-specific designation proceeding.
Nothing in this letter constitutes consent to designation, acceptance of the DPR evaluation, waiver of any procedural or substantive objection, or waiver of rights under SB 79, the Housing Accountability Act, the State Density Bonus Law, CEQA, due-process requirements, or other applicable law.
Please confirm in writing:
1. That the owner’s position has been changed to “Does Not Support Listing”;
2. That this submission will be included in the EPC and City Council records;
3. Whether the City will remove the property from the draft Register;
4. If not, that it will be segregated and continued to a separate property-specific hearing; and
5. That no final action will occur without corrected notice, production of the complete record, and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Sincerely, Sincerely,, Roman Kagarlitsky, Owner, 472–482 View Street, APN 158-23-059
1 From: Serge Bonte
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 8/17/26 EPC Meeting Historical Ordinance
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or aƩachments.
Dear Commissioners:
Honoring and preserving our history is deeply important. I am very grateful that I got to learn so much history in my hometown (Nice, France). My high school was a former Belle Epoque palace, we had school visits to preserved prehistoric settlements, Greek and Roman ruins (including an arena), a medieval castle, etc etc
I realize that Mountain View's history is not as ol
d nor rich. But I feel like the bar set in your
historical criteria is far too low.
Take the Hertz rental car office on El Camino Real (corner of El Monte). It's listed because of a motif on its facade (hinting at a postmodern architecture) and because of its historical context of automotive related services. Both are quite a stretch, that building architecture is really quite ordinary but the historical context is puzzling. Every town in America had and still has some automotive related services, Further, El Camino Real is not Route 66 and Mountain View is not Detroit. By that measure, maybe historical context should be used for the video stores or music stores of the past (Blockbuster, Videoscope, Tower Records....) :)
I understand you will not be discussing the list of additions tonight but I'd like you to review it to validate/invalidate/revise some of the criteria used for inclusion.
I also feel that honoring history is not just about preserving buildings. For example, I lived for a while in Aix en Provence on the street where Paul Cezanne was born. There was no public access to the building and the building itself was not really noteworthy (in Aix en Provence that is :) ) but there was a plaque commemorating his birth which I walked by everyday. Again Mountain View's history is not as rich, but what about putting a plaque or sign near the Mountain View house Steve Jobs grew up in for instance...
Sincerely
Serge Bonte
PS: I haven't had time to check if the single family home/former farm property on Huff in North Bayshore was listed or considered for addition. To me it's an example of history worth preserving, maybe not the building itself but at least some plaque and photographs of what this whole area looked like way before the arrival of tech.
The Honorable Emily Ann Ramos
Mayor
Mountain View City Council
Mountain View, California
September 14, 2026
Dear Mayor Ramos,
Our home at 537 Bush Street is currently on the proposed list of properties to be added to the Historic Register. We are writing you to respectfully request that it be removed from the list of eligible properties and therefore not added to the Historic Register.
Our home is, we think, a beautiful family home. We fail to see what makes it historic.
The designation criteria detailed in the City Ordinance closely mirror the requirements for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or CRHR. The Ordinance specifies that a building, structure, site or other improvement may be designated as a historic resource and placed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources if the city council finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the City of Mountain View;
2. Is the site of a significant historic event in the city's past;
3. Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the city in terms of a type, period, region or method of construction or representative of the work of a master or possession of high artistic value; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the city's prehistory or history.
Criteria 2 and 4 clearly do not apply to our property, and have never been cited in any of the professional studies the City has commissioned over the years.
With regards to criterion 1: Our home is also known as the Minton House. Earl Minton’s father purchased what became the Minton Lumber Company in 1911 as a wedding gift for young Earl. Earl and the Minton Company developed Palmita Park in the 1920’s and in the late 1920’s Earl became mayor of Mountain View. The Page & Turnbull report is factually inaccurate on two accounts: the Minton’s purchased 537 Bush Street in the mid 1940’s, not 1940, and Earl Minton never lived at 537 Bush Street. At the time of his death, Earl Minton resided at 536 Anza St. Also of notice is that 537 Bush Street was not developed by Mr.
Minton or the Minton Company, as it was built by Mr. John Ward, its first owner, in 1912. 537 Bush Street was the home for 45 years, from 1946 until 1991, for Earl’s son Owens and his wife Diane, from whom my wife and I purchased the property in 1991. Owens and Diane raised their four children in the house, and we later raised two of our own. We would agree with Owens and Diane that the house is a wonderful family home, but that does not mean it meets criterion 1. The Turnbull & Page report does ultimately agree with this assessment.
As mentioned, the home was built by Mr. John Ward for himself and his family. He was clearly a skilled carpenter, but the house was not designed by a famous architect and appears to be Mr. Ward’s personal creation. The house does not fit any specific architectural style – it is more like a hodgepodge of a few different ones. It resembles an Asymmetrical Colonial Revival style with Victorian accents, such as the shingle siding and dormers in the rear. It has elements of the Queen Anne style with its curved front entryway, but it lacks other critical Queen Anne features such as an open porch and a tower. We rebuilt the chimneys because they were irreparably damaged by the 1989 earthquake – they are now zero clearance (no bricks). We also removed the fake brick veneer skirting as termite damage and dry rot had developed underneath. We disagree with Page & Turnbull:
the house is not a good example of Queen Anne style and qualifying for the CRHR is a dubious proposition. The overall blend of styles is, in our opinion, pleasing to the eye but it is not a distinctive example of any architectural style. We do not see Mr. Ward’s work meeting the definition of criterion 3.
In summary, we do not believe our property merits being listed on the Historic Register based on the four adopted criteria. Being a beautiful house is not a defining criterion for the Historic Register.
We trust that you and the Council will accommodate our request and remove 537 Bush Street from consideration.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Krzyczkowska and Massimo Prati
Owners, 537 Bush Street