March 2025

Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and Members of the City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 6.2: R3 Zoning District Update – Increased Densities. Thank you also to each of you for taking the time to meet with some of us and a group of neighborhood association leaders over the last few weeks to discuss our recommendations in detail.

Here are our recommended responses to the questions raised by staff:

Question 1: Do the 14 identified areas reflect council’s goals and criteria? Should any areas be reconsidered based on the criteria?

We support the 14 areas identified by staff, the staff consultant Opticos, and the Environmental Planning Commission. We do NOT support areas listed in the “Alternative Approaches for Council Consideration” listed on page 13 of the staff report.

Rationale: These 14 areas were designed by staff and Opticos using objective criteria set forth by council in a previous study session. The most important criteria were to find areas that are large enough and have redevelopment potential (apartments rather than condos). These areas span the entire length of the city so that the burden of high intensity is shared equitably.

Developers have stated that the areas that are feasible for redevelopment should be no more than 7 stories and accommodate at least 100 units. Buildings of these heights can be constructed primarily of wood rather than with more expensive steel and concrete. Many areas in the “Alternate Approaches” are under an acre in size and would not support at least 100 units at 7 stories or less. Building in these alternate areas would lead to 7 story buildings randomly strewn throughout our neighborhoods close to R1 homes. The opposition by nearby residents to the Tyrella builder’s remedy project illustrates how unfavorably this type of inconsistent development is viewed.

Beyond this, we support splitting the high intensity zones around the edges that are adjacent to single-family homes to allow a transition.

Rationale: Many of the 14 high intensity areas proposed by staff and Opticos have parts of their perimeters adjacent to single-family homes. The state density bonus allows concessions and waivers against setbacks, so setbacks in the city code can be voided out when the state density bonus is used. Therefore, the only was to ensure a “sensitive” transition to single-family homes, which has long been the stated policy of development in Mountain View, is to explore creating a density transitional area along those edges.    

Question 2: For change areas selected, which density option should the city study as the R3 zoning district update is carried out?

We support the approach recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission: Option 2A (R3-D1 Base), an intensity of 4 stories base, which with the state density bonus is a maximum of 8 stories, except for the Del Medio South for which we support Option 1 (R3-D2 Base) to avoid downzoning the area.

Rationale: As stated above developers are primarily looking to build up to 7 stories. By zoning for 4 stories base and 8 stories max with the state density bonus, developers who want to build higher buildings will need to provide the affordable housing to get the higher densities. Most of the new units we are seeing approved by council now are either state density bonus or builder’s remedy, so we should expect the state density bonus to be used.

Question 3: Does the city council support or wish to modify the proposed criteria and density for upzoning R2 properties?

We support the staff proposed criteria and density for upzoning R2 properties. We also believe that the additional areas recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission are worthy of consideration.

Rationale: These staff recommended conversions will allow the city to follow the “affirmative fair housing” mandate in our Housing Element. While we believe the additional areas recommended by the EPC are worth considering, we note that bulk of these areas consist of condos and recently constructed planned developments that are not likely to be candidates for redevelopment.

Thank you for considering our views on this important topic.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Li Zhang, Maureen Blando, Leslie Friedman, Hala Alshahwany, Jerry Steach, Toni Rath, and Nancy Stuhr

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and Members of the City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on item 6.2 “Toyota Dealership/Service Center Appeal”.

While we support the right of the property owner to redevelop and conduct his business at the proposed site, we believe that many of the issues raised in the appeal are valid concerns. In particular, we recommend that the council modify the proposed project approval to address these issues raised in the appeal:  

1. Sound wall: Staff says that a seven-foot woodcrete wall would provide an effective sound barrier between the project and the residential neighborhood. The rowhouses behind the fence are up to three stories tall.  Neither the developer nor staff provide evidence that such a wall would provide an effective sound barrier.
2. Tower structure: The proposed tower is higher than any signage at the existing Magnussen Toyota site in Palo Alto. The Palo Alto site has operated effectively for decades there without such obtrusive signage. There is no need for it at the Mountain View site. We disagree with staff’s statement that consideration of the signage should be separated from this appeal. This is a key concern of the neighbors and should be dealt with by the city council.
3. Performance bond: We support the use of a performance bond to ensure compliance with agreed on landscape standards, especially between the project and the residential neighborhood. A performance bond would require the developer to set aside money that would be forfeited if the required landscaping standards are not met. Unenforceable standards are of no value. We have seen many projects where agreements on issues like parking for moving vans, etc., have never been enforced, and are of no practical consequence.
4. Heritage trees: We believe more needs to be done to retain heritage trees on the property and provide an effective barrier between the project site and the residential neighborhood. The project is not even living up to city replacement standards by allowing an in-lieu fee rather than 2-1 replacement. A 20-year canopy replacement timeframe will do little to help those who live near the project over the next 20 years.  We should ensure that existing heritage trees along the boundary between the residential property and the project remain and are cared for. Additional large trees, of an appropriate species, should be added to the barrier. Heritage trees in proposed parking areas should be retained and cared for. Many parking lots in Mountain View have preserved heritage trees.

Thank you for considering our views,

Louise Katz, Robert Cox, Jerry Steach, Maureen Blando, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Hala Alshahwany, Nancy Stuhr, and Leslie Friedman  

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View