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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 7.2 “Council Strategic Priorities and Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 Council Work Plan Project Identification”. 

We appreciate each council member’s efforts at suggesting new policy items that could improve our city. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us to provide meaningful comment on some of these items because no complete description of what is envisioned is provided in the staff report. So, we are listing some projects that we support, and others that are worth considering, but for which we have some key questions. The answers to these questions would inform us on whether we would support these projects. We suggest that council members ask these questions to guide an informed discussion of the merits of the projects.

Projects we would support:

  #1: Complete funding agreements and begin engineering for the Stevens Creek Trail Extension
  #4: Develop a plan for ending natural gas use by 2045
  #6:  Expand access to broadband citywide
  #12: Develop a downtown vacant storefront window display and pop-up program 

Projects that could be worthy of support, but we would need to know more: 

  #2: Develop a strategy to facilitate low- and middle- income home ownership

Traditionally, the city has provided opportunities for BMR housing through its mandate for BMR housing in new developments. We have been discouraged that state laws have at times undercut the city’s ability to enforce those local mandates. We would like to know what can be done, short of raising new taxes to pay for more affordable housing or direct payments,  and how this would be communicated to the public. Does this project envision one or more study sessions, public meetings to inform proposed new policies or is there something more specific we can advocate before even beginning this project? 

  #7: Implement smart water meters

What would be the end product to residents, and who would pay for it? Are we talking about a cell phone notification when someone has a serious water leak of many gallons per minute? Or just periodic reports that someone’s home is using more water than “similar” homes? Who would pay for this program? 

 #11: Pilot an autonomous vehicle (AV) shuttle: 

Does this project proposal envision that the city pay for this or would it require some AV company provide the technology and equipment for free? 

#15: Create a framework to support volunteer organizations working with the city

It is not clear what is meant by ‘support’ and ‘working with the city’. Are volunteer organizations simply groups of residents and could any group be able to nominate itself?  Would anyone be denied such access to staff and the ‘support’ envisioned? Who would decide? Would this be limited solely to residents and would there be a limit as to how many volunteer organizations staff would support? This proposal raises numerous issues not only as to staff time but also use of city resources, funds and transparency.

#17: Remove barriers to condo development

Frequently, developers have put forward condo-mapped projects, but condo-mapping a project does not mean that condos will ever be sold to the public. In the past, we have asked developers if they intend to purchase the units themselves or through a consortium and then simply rent them out and the answer has been that they can do whatever they want with their property. We would urge council to acknowledge this issue and focus on how to assure that any concessions by the city would yield condos that would actually be available for entry level home owners.   

Thank you for considering our input to this important item. 

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

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View 

(Wednesday, February 19, 2025)

Chair Gutierrez, Vice Chair Nunez, and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission,  

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on item 5.1, R3 zoning district update: Increased densities. 

While the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View did not initially endorse the R3 zoning district project, we welcome the opportunity comment on the questions posed by staff to the EPC. We also thank staff for providing an honest assessment of how the state density bonus law is likely to be applied by those who seek to redevelop R3 parcels in our city. In particular, we appreciate the recognition that redeveloped R3 parcels are likely to take advantage of the 100% density bonus, with its corresponding allowance for zoning concessions and unlimited zoning waivers. Thus, areas zoned R3-D1 are likely to be developed at up to eight stories and those zoned at R3-D2 are likely to be zoned at up to twelve stories after the state density bonus is applied. 

Question No. 1: Do the identified areas reflect Council’s goals and criteria? Should any areas be reconsidered based on the criteria? 

We support recommending precisely the 14 areas identified by staff for high intensity areas (no more and no fewer). While it would be desirable to only have high density areas that are never immediately adjacent to existing ownership housing, and agree that the eight criteria selected by council are good criteria, we understand staff’s comment: “A strict adherence to utilization of all the above criteria would have eliminated every site in the R3 Zoning District.” In particular, the districts selected do support the aggregation of developable sites, hence development feasibility, with less impact on adjacent ownership housing.  

Question No. 2: For the Change Areas selected, what density option should the city study as the R3 Zoning District Update is carried out? 

We support Option 2 (R3-D1 Base), with the exception of the Del Medio South Area, for which we recommend Option 1 (R3-D2 Base). This would allow for up to eight stories when the state density bonus is applied in most areas. We support Option1 (R3-D2 Base) for the Del Medio South Area, as the staff report states applying R3-D1 would be a downsizing for the Del Medio South area and “pursuant to SB 330, an equivalent upzoning elsewhere may need to occur if Council selects this option”.  

As the staff report notes, “This (staff and consultant) analysis shows and ownership projects at six to seven stories (roughly 75 to 135 dwelling units per acre, depending on unit size) are economically feasible.” There is no point in upzoning to allow higher developments that are not economically feasible due to the increased construction cost for materials and construction methodologies needed for such high-density developments.  We also agree with staff that attempting to construct a local R3 zoning which will be preferable to the state density bonus is not worthwhile. The concessions and waivers imbedded in the state density bonus make it the obvious choice for developers seeking high densities. 

Question No. 3: Does the EPC support or recommend modifications to the proposed criteria and density for upzoning R2 properties?

We support modifications in the areas selected by staff provided that the upzoning is not immediately adjacent to single family homes. 

Thank you for considering our views on this important project.

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

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View 

Mountain View Whisman School Board Trustees,

It has been brought to our attention that you may be discussing budget items at your upcoming school board meeting on Thursday, February 13.

The steering committee of Livable Mountain View would like to express our full support for continuing to allocate school funds for planting trees on school grounds and in school parks, constructing outdoor classrooms, providing genuine natural green areas on school property, and constructing playgrounds with minimal or no use of plastics and other materials derived from fossil fuels.

A key purpose of passing Measure T was to ensure that the programs mentioned above would proceed. Please ensure that these programs will continue to succeed.

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

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

The City of Mountain View will hold a series of community outreach, Planning Commission, and city council meetings during the first quarter of 2025, relating to the R3 multifamily residential zoning update project.

The purpose of the R3 multifamily residential zoning update project is to provide more housing opportunities by up-zoning areas currently designated R3. The meetings this quarter will focus on selecting specific areas for specific zoning updates.

Here is a link to the city website on this project

https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/active-projects/r3-zoning-update

Here is a schedule of key meetings this quarter:

February 3, 2025, 6:30 pm – Virtual presentation and Q&A regarding the project. Join at https://mountainview.zoom.us/j/87142461255

February 19, 2025– Environmental Planning Commission Study Session to provide recommendations to the City Council on locations to increase densities and new densities. 

March 25, 2025 – City Council Study Session to discuss locations to increase densities and new densities. 

Senior Planner Aki Snelling and Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski, and other zoning administrators,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 6.1, the redevelopment proposal for Magnussen’s Middlefield LLC.

While we applaud the modifications of the original proposal which provides “retention of additional mature redwood trees along the southern perimeter of the site to address privacy issues”, we are dismayed that the same provision was not made for the heritage trees that line the east side of the development property. (See photo below). We are advocating that these heritage trees be retained.  

Heritage trees purify our air, provide residence for our birds, connect us to our past, and give us hope for our future in an era of climate change. These heritage trees are on the edge of the property being redeveloped and they can be preserved without making major changes in the development proposal. They also provide an effective shield between the property being redeveloped and the newly constructed adjacent residential development. Removing these trees will devalue the adjacent residential properties without providing any important additional benefit for the property developer.  

Any possible justification for destroying these trees that our city prioritizes and protects must be balanced against not only their benefits to the community as we battle climate change but also that they are a legacy from past to future generations and thus irreplaceable. We are aware that the city will require replacement saplings as substitutes for destroyed mature trees, but this ignores our world’s current climate issues and the immediate need for mature trees.

Thank you for listening to our views.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Maureen Blando, Hala Alshahwany, Li Zhang, and Nazanin Dashtara

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Mayor Showalter, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Members of the City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on consent calendar Item 4.1 “Amend City Council Policy K-2, Council Advisory Bodies”

Livable Mountain View believes it is imperative that the people serving on advisory commissions, boards and committees appointed by council be residents of Mountain View. Having these council and staff advisors be Mountain View residents ensures that those providing guidance have a stake in the outcome of the decisions for which they are recommending action. 

We understand that on occasion some committees have not had enough applicants to fill the vacant positions. Rather than filling them with non-Mountain View residents, we recommend reaching out to local neighborhood groups and other Mountain View service organizations to make the various commissions etc. and their purposes better known and/or reducing the number of advisory positions on committees.

If non-residents wish to inform council of their views and preferences for Mountain View, they are always welcome to write letters and speak at the council meetings.

Thank you for listening to our views on this important matter.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Maureen Blando, Peter Spitzer, Leslie Friedman, Jamsheed Agahi, Hala Alshahwany, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Mike Finley, Li Zhang, Nazanin Dashtara, Natalie Solomon, Sean O’Malley, Diane Gazzano, and Lorraine Wormald

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Mayor Showalter, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Members of the Mountain View City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 6.1 “Mixed-Use Addition at 194-198 Castro Street”.

We thank members of council for reaching out to staff to include our group in the discussion before this came back for this public hearing.  Unfortunately, that did not happen. We now regret having to bring these comments to council only a few hours before the hearing itself. We believe that contacting Livable Mountain View and similar advocacy groups to get meaningful comments before the staff report is written is the best way to incorporate public input on important projects. Lack of our early inclusion has been an ongoing issue. We hope that with a new Community Development Director, we will see a new responsiveness to our concern for each inclusion.  

1. Livable Mountain View continually advocates for ground-floor public-serving retail and restaurant uses within and in close proximity to the Downtown Precise Plan Historic Retail District H. Currently, the project area is being used as patio seating for the Agave restaurant, a public serving use. In the staff report, the first-floor use of the new building is described on page 9 as “a ground-floor retail use” but no further description is given. We would like the first-floor area to remain a public serving use, whether retail or restaurant. Is there any thought yet on what use is intended? The area might be successful as a cocktail waiting area for the Agave restaurant. Livable Mountain View is familiar with our previous unfortunate experience with the Bryant Park Plaza project at 900 Villa Street. The developer promised ground-floor retail at this location, but then did not follow through with his promise. The area is now an unused office lounge area with a patrol guard. Not exactly a vibrant, public-serving use. We don’t want it to happen again at this location.
2. Livable Mountain also consistently supports application of the Downtown Precise Plan guidelines on all new projects in that Precise Plan area. Page 5 of that Precise Plan states: “The historic retail district of Castro Street will continue to provide a continuous frontage of retail and restaurant uses at the ground level. New buildings will be sensitive to the historic storefront scale and architecture on this street. Side and rear entrances to retail and restaurant spaces will be both attractive and clean, as much a part of the image that merchants present to the community as the front of the buildings.” The window sizes proposed appear to create a break in the style between the old and new building and do not present the same image as the front of the building does. So, it appears to us the spirit of the guidelines has been ignored. We advocate for further refinements to the project to make it more closely conform to the Downtown Precise Plan Guidelines.
3. Livable Mountain advocates for the preservation of heritage trees and an increase in tree canopy. We appreciate that the one Chinese pistache that will be removed will be replaced by a 24-inch box tree. We note that there is a gap in the tree frontage along Villa Street between Castro Street and the project site and recommend that another tree be planted there to increase the tree canopy and make it consistent.
4. In the light of AB2097, Livable Mountain View looks for clarity in how parking will be provided for the customers and employees who will use this new building. We understand that AB2097 disallows the requirement to build parking on site for this project, due to the project’s proximity to transit. However, on page 11 of the staff report we read  “applicant must still provide the minimum number of electric vehicle (EV) and accessible spaces that would have otherwise applied to the development, which is a total of 11 spaces (pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2).” Will the funds for these 11 spaces be put toward new parking spaces that are EV-capable and/or accessible, or is the intent that existing spaces be retrofitted for this capability? In the latter case, we note there would be a loss of spaces for the general public. 

Thanks for listening to our concerns.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Hala Alshahwany, Maureen Blando, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Nazanin Dashtara, Leslie Friedman, and Sean O’Malley

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View