Uncategorized

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

The Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View is pleased to announce our endorsed candidates in the 2022 Mountain View City Council Election.

…

We have also chosen to endorse incumbents Alison Hicks and Ellen Kamei. Alison has been a consistent advocate for the preservation of our city’s historic core. As the city updates its Downtown Precise Plan, we will be looking for Alison’s continued support in making our downtown a vibrant and engaging place. Read her long form answers here: PDF.

Alison’s website is https://www.alisonhicks4mv.com/.

Ellen respects our city’s general and precise plans and takes them seriously when evaluating development decisions. The city faces some important development choices in the near future, and we will be looking for Ellen’s support in supporting project proposals that enhance our city and respectfully transition to the surrounding neighborhoods. Ellen’s website is https://www.ellenkamei.com/.

On the other hand, Alison and Ellen have been less forthcoming than Li on how they will vote on other key issues that will come up in the next council session, particularly the R3 upzoning proposal. We urge the voters to stay engaged with them on this and other issues. Read the long form answers here: PDF.

…

We have chosen not to endorse Lucas Ramirez, as he is the council’s leading advocate for R3 upzoning. Lucas has also stated that after a brief pilot program, the residents must bear the full cost of residential parking permits if and when they are needed. With the legislature passing Assembly Bill 2097, which ends Mountain View’s ability to require parking in new residential developments in our city, parking permits may be in higher demand. We at Livable Mountain do not believe that the residents should bear the full cost of parking permits which may be required due to policies imposed upon them. Having said this, we do look forward to working with Lucas on issues of common concern, including providing wider and more understandable outreach to the community when new developments are proposed. Lucas’s website is https://www.ramirezforcouncil.com/. Read his long form answers here: PDF.

We are also not endorsing Justin Cohen, who declined to participate in our endorsement process.

For those interested in more information on the candidate’s positions, we have included the candidates’ questionnaires. You may also refer to the diagram below where we have rated candidates’ responses on a scale from Least Livable (Red) to Most Livable (Dark Green).

For now.. the developers may be back! (watch this space for updates..)

Livable Mountain View is pleased to announce the eligibility of Mountain View’s Weilheimer House (939 Villa, currently Chez TJ) and the Air Base Laundry (954 Villa, currently Tied House) for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. 

These historical buildings link Mountain View’s history from the Gold Rush to today’s Silicon Valley.  

How did this come about?  The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC), a nine-member state board which identifies, registers and preserves California’s cultural heritage, reviewed our nominations which included written documentation of the historical and architectural significance of these two buildings. The owners (who opposed historical designation) presented their chosen documents. A public hearing was held in Sacramento on February 2, 2019. Both sides were allotted time for oral and visual presentations.  Public discussion and deliberation followed.

What does this mean?  As stated in the attached qualifying letters, historic status does not restrict the owner from normal use of the property but any project that would cause “substantial adverse changes in the significance of a registered property may require compliances with local ordinances or the California Environmental Quality Act.”

Why these buildings?  Weilheimer House was built in 1894 by Julius Weilheimer, son of Seligman Weilheimer, a German-Jewish immigrant who, with his brother, settled in the hamlet of Mountain View in 1853.  The town was located at the stage coach stop near Grant Road and El Camino. The Seligman’s general store was followed by many other family businesses including a hotel, livery, and additional general stores.

In 1865 the “new” Mountain View was laid out along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Known as “Villa Lands” this is the Mountain View we know today. It included Castro, Hope, Villa, Dana, Franklin and Oak Streets. Julius Weilheimer, born in Mountain View in 1860, eventually ran many of the family businesses which by then were located on and around Castro Street. He served as trustee, mayor (holding city council meetings in Weilheimer House), vice-president of the local bank (now Red Rock Coffee) and led the effort to rebuild the downtown after much of it was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. The Weilheimer’s Farmers’ Store built in 1874 (now the site of Oren’s Hummus)  is believed to be the oldest building in Mountain View and possibly the Peninsula.  (See more on the history of Castro Street here.)

Weilheimer House is also significant as it is an excellent, well preserved example of the Queen Anne style of architecture. This includes a street façade and many original windows which retain their historic integrity. Reused as a restaurant since 1982, the interior has many original features and materials.

Although Julius Weilheimer moved in 1910, the historic significance of his house did not end because the next occupants, Arthur Free and his family, moved in. Arthur Free, a Stanford graduate, was the only Congressional Representative from Mountain View. He served five terms representing Santa Clara County.

What is significant about Arthur Free and Weilheimer House? In the midst of the Great Depression cities across the state competed to be the site of a new airfield to house the massive dirigibles being developed to protect the west coast. Through the efforts of Free and local leaders, Santa Clara County was awarded the airbase in 1930.  Congressman Free introduced the “Free Bill” to establish the base and authorize $5 million for construction of what we now know as Moffett Field/Ames Research. President Hoover (who had attended Stanford and knew the area) signed the Free Bill on Feb. 20, 1931 giving control of the site to the Navy who named it after Admiral William Moffett. Thirty Spanish Revival style buildings, a power plant and a laundry were recorded as being built in 1931-1932.

As dirigibles became obsolete, the base was transferred to the Army in 1935 where it became a training facility for the Army Air Corps (U.S. Air Force).  In 1939 Congress allotted $10 million for aeronautical research (Ames Research).  Pilot training continued at Moffett during World War II. Trainees, including actor Jimmy Steward (It’s a Wonderful Life), frequented Castro Street.  We will never know if he was a customer of the Air Base Laundry as well.  

Thus, Weilheimer House directly links Gold Rush pioneers to the research and development of technology which is Silicon Valley.  

Why Preserve Air Base Laundry/Tied House?  Built in 1931, at the same time as the Air Base, this building served the Base and was clearly built to match the thirty beautiful Spanish Revival Buildings  which are on the National Register of Historic Places. It retains its stucco finish, red roof, original upper story windows and corbels below the roof line.  Although updated since 1931, the materials and scale of the doors and windows are consistent with that of the original building. 

Thus, by history, function and design the Air Base Laundry is our link to the earliest air and space technology and the events which brought us today’s technological world.

Susan Kirsch, Founder of Livable California sends this message to take action around SB50.

Note that Livable Mountain View was formed before the other Livable orgs, and while we have different views on issues facing California, and want to promote building housing with planning for schools, parks, transit and infrastructure like sewers and water systems to support this new housing.

Mountain View put in 18% of housing built in Santa Clara County last year, and yet we are less than 1% of the land mass. We cannot ask people to live in density without parks, or provide schools for kids etc. So we must plan it locally, and the state bills that will remove local zoning are “one sized fits all”. But Mountain View isn’t like Modesto or even Fremont. We are different, and are managing getting a lot of housing in quickly without the State of California handcuffing our city and ruining our historic downtown.

Therefore we oppose these bills and suggest the state find other ways to encourage communities not putting in dense housing to do so, because MV is building in excess of the State standards for adding new housing.

Hi All –

We’ve had inquiries about advocacy, priorities and action during the next few weeks.  Here’s a guide.   

You’re not expected to do everything; only that you do one or two things–the ones that you’re good at! 

Resource for all bills: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

ADVOCACY.  Livable CA, working closely with Coalition to Preserve LA, is focusing on legislative advocacy, especially opposing SB 50, SB 330, and AB 1487.

SB-50 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: incentives.

Schedule, Actions, Contacts 

Now –  Make calls, send email to Senate Governance & Finance Committee, recruit others to call and send emails

4/17 –  Deadline to email comments to Anton.Favorini-Csorba@sen.ca.gov.  Subject line: OPPOSE SB 50.

4/17 –  Deadline to email letters to the full committee: https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/

4/23 –  Livable CA, Coalition to Preserve LA Lobby Day.  Contact Rick Hall: Rick@LivableCA.

4/24 –  Governance & Finance Committee Hearing, Sacramento.  9:00 am, Room 112.  Get a sticker.

Resource: Please Share this Stop SB50 Link – Click Here

SENATE Governance & Finance Committee

Mike McGuire, Chair   (916) 651-4002           senator.mcguire@senate.ca.gov 

John Moorlach, VC      (916) 651-4037           https://moorlach.cssrc.us/content/my-offices

Jim Beall                      (916) 651-4015            https://sd15.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail

Robert Hertzberg        (916) 651-4018           https://sd18.senate.ca.gov/contact/email

Melissa Hurtado         (916) 651-4014           https://sd14.senate.ca.gov/contact

Jim Nielsen                  (916) 651-4004           https://nielsen.cssrc.us/content/email-me

Scott Wiener               (916) 651-4011           https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/contact

SB-330 (Skinner) Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

Schedule, Actions, Contacts 

Now –  Make calls, send email to Senate Housing Committee, recruit others to call and send emails.  

Noon: Deadline to email comments to   Subject line: OPPOSE SB 330.  Sample:  Livable California letter attached

4/17 –  Deadline to email letters to the full committee: https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/

4/22 –  Housing Committee Hearing, 3:00 pm, Room 112. 

Issues with SB 330:  1) Restricts a local jurisdiction or ballot measure or initiative from downsizing or imposing building moratoria on land where housing is an allowable use; 2) Prohibits a city or county from conducting more than three hearings on an application for a housing development project; and 3) Prevails as a ten-year emergency statute.

Script:  I’m calling re: SB 330.  Me and my voting neighbors and friends OPPOSE this bill and urge Senator ___ to vote “No.”

  
SENATE Housing Committee

Scott Wiener, Chair     (916) 651-4011

Mike Morrell, VC          (916) 651-4023

Anna Caballero            (916) 651-4012

Maria Durazo               (916) 651-4024

Shannon Grove            (916) 651-4016

Mike McGuire            (916) 651-4002

John Moorlach             (916) 651-4037

Richard Roth                (916) 651-4031

Nancy Skinner             (916) 651-4009

Thomas Umberg          (916) 651-4034

Bob Wieckowski          (916) 651-4010

AB-1487 (Chiu) San Francisco Bay area: housing development: financing.

Schedule, Actions, Contacts 

Now –  Make calls, send email to Assembly Committee on Local Government, recruit others to call and send emails. 

4/18 – Letters due by 5 pm: https://alcl.assembly.ca.gov/   Go to “Submit Position Letter.”  Sample:  Livable California letter attached

4/24 –  Local Government Committee Hearing at 1:30, Room 127

Issues with AB 1487 (comes out of the flawed CASA Compact):  1) Establishes the Housing Alliance for the Bay Area (HABA), a new regional entity serving the 9-county Bay Area to fund affordable housing, preservation and tenant protection programs; 2) Authority to place unspecified revenue measures on the ballot, issue bonds, allocate funds, etc.;  3) Governed by a Board composed of members of MTC (9) and ABAG (9) and staffed by MTC; 4) A trial Trojan Horse rolled out in the Bay Area, and with success is likely to be rolled out around the state.

Script:  “I’m calling re: AB 1487.  Me and my voting neighbors and friends OPPOSE this bill and urge Assembly member ___ to vote “No.”

  
ASSEMBLY Committee on Local Government  

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair       (916) 319-2004

Tom Lackey, VC                        (916) 319-2036

Richard Bloom                           (916) 319-2050

Tasha Boerner Horvath          (916) 319-2076

James Ramos                           (916) 319-2040

Luz Rivas                                  (916) 319-2039

Robert Rivas                             (916) 319-2030

Randy Voepel                           (916) 319-2071

Don’t give up!!   This is a long-haul effort to stop SB 50 and the other bills that threaten communities. Sen. Wiener and his colleagues have had over a year to build momentum, relying on MTC, CASA, Bay Area Council network, Silicon Valley Leadership power, etc.  We are the David in this battle with Goliath.  Here’s what happens next.  

1. April 11-April 21 -Legislators are on Spring Recess. They’re likely home.  Make an appointment for you and 1-2 others to meet with your local representatives. If you can’t get a face-to-face meeting, convey your concerns by phone.
   
2. May 31 – Last day for bills to pass on their floor of origin (Senate Bills on the Senate Floor; Assembly Bills on the Assembly Floor.  We’ll continue to lobby between 4/24 and 5/31 with a goal to defeat the bills.
3. July 12 –  If SB 50 and SB 330 are still alive, they will be heard in Assembly Committee before 7/12.  We’ll lobby to defeat and are told our chances might be better in the Assembly
   
4. August 6 – Last day for Assembly to make amendments on the floor.
5. September 13 – Last day or any bill to be passed to go to the Governor
6. October 13 – Last day for governor to sign or veto SB 50 and all other bills

What does your imagination and creativity nudge you to do?  

THANKS for all your efforts! Sometimes success comes from the most unlikely source, strategy, person or idea.  

Hold the vision: SB 50, SB 330, AB 1487 and others – go down to defeat!  We change the narrative.  

Best wishes, 

Susan

Susan Kirsch, Founder

Livable California

www.LivableCalifornia.org

Congratulations to both of LIVABLE MOUNTAIN VIEW’s

ENDORSEMENTS for Council: ALISON HICKS & ELLEN KAMEI.

(see our endorsements for 2018!)

The Daily Post reports that Backers of initiative to limit office space growth collect more than enough signatures to make ballot. (PDF)

UPDATE: PALO ALTO HAS CAPPED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, WHY NOT MV?, July 30 2018.

While the city council in Palo Alto just voted to limit development, if the referendum passes it would mean,

 “The stricter cap would also be permanent: any increase would have to be approved by voters, not City Council. Council has already decided to revisit its 50,000-square-foot annual limit within two to four years. Office cap opponents say it allows commercial landlords to raise rents, scaring away businesses that would bring tax revenue to the city.”

Why are cities considering this?

“The initiative seeks to curb the housing, traffic and parking impacts of new employees.”

Yes! I performed a mental fist pump just reading the title, People Focused Design: Making Mountain View a Great Place to Live. Thank you, Bruce Liedstrand for bringing up the concept. I applaud the notion that design ought to center on people. It should be a given starting point in any design project, especially one that deals with the public realm.

The public realm is what unifies a city, gives it character and diversity. The design of the public realm is the physical manifestation of how a city prioritizes the shared needs of their community. It includes buildings that house public functions, like schools, libraries, and City Hall, as well as open spaces and parks. Often overlooked as components of the public realm, but having an enormous impact in our experience of a place are the streets, the sidewalks, and to a large degree, the buildings that front those streets. Regardless of whether a building is private or public, regardless of the building’s use, the height and massing of a building, its architecture, the relationship of the ground-floor to a public sidewalk or street, etc.- they all act in tandem to create the experience of our public spaces.

Think about any great city. Though there are iconic structures, I’d bet that your experience walking the boulevards, residential streets, plazas, and parks, and your exposure to the people are a significant, if not the primary reason, that makes that city great in your mind. It is the shared spaces, the public realm, that provide the greatest sense of place.

The same holds true for our city. The public realm is what we collectively know as Mountain View. How these spaces interact with each other and how we interact with those spaces should be the starting point for any project. Perhaps we should consider the design of the city in terms of a weaving of public spaces.

Someone recently posed to me what I thought were excellent questions:

Where do you take your out-of-town family and friends when you want to show them Mountain View? Why there?

In 2009, my husband and I chose to live in Mountain View over other neighboring cities after seeing the downtown, but it was the potential for the downtown to become even better that excited me. I recently learned a bit about the history of Mountain View, and fully appreciate the effort in the late 1980’s to redesign Castro Street, laying the foundation for a wonderful public space.

There’s a lot to be proud of in our city, but lately I have been less excited by the direction of our downtown. I am not alone. I hear grumblings of frustration from neighbors and friends. I’m told several downtown businesses are suffering, the landscaping and sidewalk upkeep too. Many are dismayed that historic buildings have been, and are, slated for removal. A couple of the newest downtown buildings are designed to subtly push the public rather away rather than invite them in. Parking is a grievance. Is this the experience the community wants?

Typically, a city evolves slowly over time. Even a single development project can take time. If it has a not-so-great outcome, it usually doesn’t impact the city for a couple years, and even then, not to a great extent. However, we are living at a moment when an enormous push for development is occurring in an incredibly compressed amount of time, stemming from many small and large, and even powerful companies. Collectively, the developments in the pipeline for Mountain View as a whole (maybe 70 or more?) will greatly impact our city for the foreseeable future. These developments can change the entirety of our city, make or break our sense of what Mountain View is. It is imperative that we make incredibly smart and educated decisions.

I do not envy the Council members. The weight of their responsibility is great. I believe they have the best intentions for the city, and have moved the city in a positive way on many fronts. However, we must aim higher.

I know Council is always open to hearing our voices, but there seems to be a disconnect between what the community seeks and values for our shared spaces and what we are getting in terms of new development. If people-focused design starts with understanding what the community wants, it begs the question,“ How we can improve the dialogue?”

When we dig deep into the questions of how to design our public realm with people at the focus, we inevitably get tangled in issues such as parking, retail, infrastructure, safety, transportation, schools, etc. Just as our lives intersect and overlap as citizens of Mountain View, so do all the issues that relate to our daily living. Each is a challenging topic in its own right and requires specific input by experts in each field, but they cannot be addressed in isolation. Similarly, we cannot address each development in isolation without first having a comprehensive plan for the overall design of our city. These all need to be examined in whole in order to provide a framework so we can better address the parts.

We rely on Council to be to be the voice and hand of the community, to ensure that decisions made today are part of a well-planned strategy for the future of our shared city, a future that considers its people at the core. A lot of change is coming fast. We need to do better and we need to do it quickly, even if it means taking a step back to reassess our approach to designing our city.

It is too much to expect the council members to be experts in every field in which they govern. It is my hope that they are humble enough to seek expertise in order to examine what hasn’t worked as well, and then enlist professionals versed in people-focused design to help face the wave of development that seems to be upon us. Designing for the whole is a problem-solving process that requires all our available experts and resources to come together. Mountain View is planted in an area that prides itself as a center for innovation and creative thought. I imagine that if we pool experience, common sense, and creativity, between the will of the city and its people, we could sow some pretty ingenious ways to address these mundane issues.

Joyce Yin,
Concerned Citizen, Architect, and Urban Designer