Mountain View YIMBY

At last night’s City Council meeting, Mountain View took a step back from a rushed expansion of its Historic Register, voting unanimously to pause the adoption of a new property list while staff refine the criteria and gather more input from property owners. The decision comes amidst a heated debate over how the city should respond to SB 79, Senator Scott Wiener’s new state law designed to spur housing near transit.

SB 79, which mandates streamlined approval for mid-rise housing near high-quality transit, includes a provision allowing cities to exempt “historic resources” if they adopt a “Local Alternative Plan” by July 1, 2026. This deadline has sparked a flurry of activity among preservationist groups like the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association (OMVNA) and Livable Mountain View, who have urged the Council to designate a “Historic Retail District” in downtown to effectively block SB 79’s housing requirements.

However, the reality on the ground proved far more complex than the preservationists’ narrative. During public comment, several property owners who found their buildings on the draft list spoke out against forced designation. The owners of the former Chinese restaurant at 134 Castro Street and representatives for the Mountain View Buddhist Temple and 895 Villa Street expressed frustration that historic status would freeze their properties in time, limiting their ability to renovate or adapt to future needs.

“It’s the people, not the buildings, that make Mountain View,” I told the Council during public comment. “The definition of ‘historic resource’ being proposed is too broad. Under this framework, essentially any 50-year-old building without substantial alterations can qualify. This approach doesn’t preserve unique historical treasures; it just freezes ordinary old buildings in place.”

I also warned against the strategy of using historic preservation as a loophole to evade state housing laws. “Livable Mountain View’s own materials admit this is about circumventing SB 79,” I noted. “But do not mistake current loopholes for permanent shields. Every time a city weaponizes historic status to block new homes, the state responds with stricter enforcement. You’re inviting the legislature to further override local control.”

Jennifer Michelle, a housing advocate and property manager, echoed these concerns, pointing out that “SB 79 was born out of the vision to see our people living and working in resource-rich areas.” She argued that historic preservation is often used to stop critically needed housing and that the city should ensure the ordinance is only used for “truly historic assets that are strictly approved by owners.”

The Council ultimately agreed that more work was needed. On a motion by Councilmember Lucas Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Alison Hicks, the Council voted 7-0 to:

1. Direct staff to refine the Historic Preservation Ordinance, including creating a “matrix” to clarify which properties are eligible for state/federal registers versus those that meet only local design criteria.