Mountain View City Council on Dec. 9 reviewed a multi-year update to the city’s historic preservation ordinance and a draft register of properties staff identified as potentially eligible for local listing.

Planning manager Eric Anderson told the council the project — begun in 2022 — produced three deliverables: a historic-context statement, an intensive property survey and an ordinance rewrite. Staff presented a draft list of roughly 101 privately owned properties as eligible under proposed significance and integrity thresholds and recommended excluding religious sites from further consideration unless owners affirmatively request listing.

The update would add explicit “integrity thresholds,” change nomination and delisting procedures, and clarify what kinds of alterations are exempt from historic‑preservation review. Anderson said the approach is intended to provide clearer, more consistent rules for property owners and the city’s review processes. “The project team has conducted an intensive survey of properties as directed by the city council,” Anderson said, describing the expected ordinance and register adoption timeline.

Why it matters: the council heard repeated concern from property owners that notices were mailed without clear explanation and that a local listing could add costs, delay permits and affect the ability to sell or redevelop property. Several owners said they only recently learned their addresses were on a draft list and urged a clearer opt‑out or delisting path. City staff repeatedly stressed tonight’s meeting did not adopt final listings; it provided direction on criteria and process.

Public comment was extensive. Julie Satake Ryu, president of the Mountain View Buddhist Temple, thanked staff for recommending the temple’s removal from the draft register and warned that designating the property could “significantly, negatively impact the ability to pursue our religious mission.” Robert Cox of Livable Mountain View urged a prompt local alternative plan under SB 79 to protect downtown Castro Street’s retail character and recommended creating a formal downtown historic district.

Council questions focused on process sequencing, owner notice and the relationship between local listing and state or national eligibility. Staff and consultants from Page & Turnbull explained that properties found eligible for the national register can trigger California Register eligibility in specific state review scenarios and that eligibility — not just local listing — can affect environmental-review obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

SB 79 and timing: staff briefed council on SB 79, the state law that takes effect next July and affects density and development near transit. Anderson said cities may adopt local alternative plans to exempt listed historic properties from some SB 79 requirements, but any such local alternative must compensate for additional density elsewhere.

Council action and next steps: after deliberation the council voted to support the staff recommendations on ordinance structure, integrity thresholds and development‑review changes and requested that staff return with: (a) a clearer matrix distinguishing which draft properties are state or national eligible versus locally important; (b) focused owner outreach to collect owner sentiment and clarifying materials about incentives such as the Mills Act; and (c) several options for a district‑creation process (including safeguards for owner notice and technical-review steps). Staff said the ordinance is targeted to return in Q2 2026, with an updated recommended register to follow.

The council also directed staff to prioritize a tighter register update for the downtown/north Castro area to inform potential SB 79 local-alternative planning. No final listings or district designations were adopted tonight; the council stressed that property‑specific decisions will return with additional information and formal council action.

What’s next: staff will prepare a matrix of the draft list (state/national eligibility vs. local-designation reasons), run targeted outreach to affected property owners, and bring ordinance language and register options back to council in 2026 for formal readings and possible final action.