Public responses to the register<\/p>\n
While councilmembers did not finalize the historic register, they still directed staff to remove specific properties from the list. That list was drawn from a citywide survey of historic properties conducted by a consulting firm.<\/p>\n
Prior to the Sept. 22 meeting, the city\u00a0identified 99 eligible properties<\/a>, including 41 sites already listed on the existing register and 58 proposed for addition. The city had also reached out to property owners, inquiring if they wanted to be on the register.<\/p>\n While many did not respond to the city, about two dozen property owners expressed a preference of \u201cdo not list.\u201d Several of those respondents attended the public hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cThis ordinance will strip away property rights from their owners and cause serious financial harm by devaluing our biggest financial asset,\u201d Mountain View resident Massimo Prati, who had previously opted off the register in the early 2000s, said.<\/p>\n Prati noted that a historic designation on downtown buildings would severely restrict their redevelopment potential \u2014 especially in light of Senate Bill 79<\/a>, a state law that\u00a0allows for dense housing<\/a> near major transit stops, including the downtown Caltrain station. Prati was also skeptical that the financial incentives tied to the policy would fairly compensate owners for the upkeep of their properties.<\/p>\n Others questioned the historical integrity of their properties, describing them as radically altered from their original form and function.<\/p>\n \u201cThe building itself doesn\u2019t really look anything like what it used to look like,\u201d said Marina Keith, owner of the Monte Carlo Niteclub and Restaurant at 228 Castro St. The site used to house the Mountain View Theater, originally built in 1926.<\/p>\n A Mountain View Realtor, speaking on behalf of a 96-year-old property owner on Castro Street, compared the register to a form of \u201ceminent domain\u201d that would take away development rights from his client without his knowledge or consent.<\/p>\n Other public commenters pushed back on some of those characterizations, arguing the city had been planning to update the policy for years and the public had been informed. They also described the importance of protecting historically significant properties for future generations and touted the economic benefits, especially in the downtown area.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have a big goose downtown laying beautiful eggs that are drawing people from near and far,\u201d said Jerry Steach, a Mountain View resident and member of Livable Mountain View, a historic preservation advocacy group. \u201cThe atmosphere is due in no small part to the historic buildings downtown that we really, really, really need to take care of and preserve.\u201d<\/p>\n Officials weigh in<\/p>\n Councilmembers expressed strong support for the historic policy updates, noting that it had not been substantially revised since its adoption more than two decades ago.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s important that we acknowledge that our criteria and our inventory were out of date relative to how our community and our building stock has changed,\u201d Councilmember Ellen Kamei said.<\/p>\n The council also largely aligned on decisions of which properties to keep and which to remove from the local register, ahead of the final adoption in December.<\/p>\n If a property was not on or eligible for state or federal historic registers, and not currently on the local register, then the council recommended that it be removed from the list \u2014 provided the owner did not want it on the register. Properties on state or federal registers are already required to adhere to certain regulations and permitting processes, as mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<\/p>\n The council also took off properties on the city\u2019s housing element inventory, including 624 W. El Camino Real (Joe Musso Motor Service) and 1901 W. El Camino Real (Walt\u2019s Texaco Service).<\/p>\n Councilmembers noted it was important to be transparent and align the local register with what is already documented on state and federal registers, so that property owners are not blindsided if seeking to make changes to their properties.<\/p>\n \u201cOne of the things that we\u2019re trying to do as part of this process is make sure that there isn\u2019t a mismatch,\u201d Councilmember Chris Clark said. \u201cIt would be kind of silly for us to just stick our heads in the sand and say we\u2019re just going to pretend that you\u2019re not on the state or national register.\u201d<\/p>\n Prior to the public hearing, city staff also removed religious sites from inclusion on the register, as it could impinge on rights to religious assembly by limiting future growth, unless a property owner indicated a desire to be on the list. The city plans to remove one property currently on the register that has a religious affiliation \u2014 Villa Siena, a senior care facility at 1855 Miramonte Ave.<\/p>\n