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).
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.
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
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
“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 modifications to 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 peri od 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 c riterion versus the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
— 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 the ir 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 n ational 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 decision - making 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 property-
specific 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 modification s 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 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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, bu t 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)
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 chan ge 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 addition al 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 q ualifying 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 ope nings 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 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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. T he 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
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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).
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
• 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 d ue 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. The se 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 Or dinance (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. T he 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 othe r 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 histor ic 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 r ecommended 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 fi ve 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 e nvironmental 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 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 require s 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 less than 50% of the default SB 79 densities as part of a local TOD alternative plan.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 exclude s 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 fo r 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
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 histo ric 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 estimate d 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 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to- play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.
EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ 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.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update
September 22, 2026
• 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