April 2025

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

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 4.9: Approve a Support position for Senate Bill 457 (Becker): Housing Element Compliance / Housing Accountability Act

Livable Mountain View encourages the City Council to support legislation which, as stated in the staff report, ”prevents the misuse of the builder’s remedy while continuing to provide strong incentives for cities to develop and adopt compliant Housing Elements on a timely basis.” We agree with staff that the purpose of the builder’s remedy should be to “encourage compliance with housing law, not circumvent local planning.” SB 457 helps to do this by setting a Housing Element compliance date not hindered by the time taken by the state to review what will be deemed a compliant Housing Element proposal and by requiring all builder’s remedy applications be complete upon initial submission.

The reaction of the residents at the Tyrella builder’s remedy project public hearing on April 8 illustrates the outrage the public can feel when the builder’s remedy policy goes wrong. We do wish to recognize that the Council wisely insisted in following the staff recommendation to set a limit on the time the developer has to break ground on his project. A key intent of the builder’s remedy is to provide urgently needed housing in a timely fashion. By supporting SB457, the Council can take further steps to prevent the negative, unintended consequence of the builder’s remedy.

Thank you in advance for taking into account our views on this important matter.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Diane Gazzano, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Lorraine Wormald, Leslie Friedman, Natalie Solomon, Li Zhang, Hala Alshahwany, Jerry Steach, 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 3.1: Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Land Use Alternatives and Streetscape Priorities.

We recommend Land Use Alternative A and while supportive of providing wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities, caution that retaining and attracting new businesses to Moffett Boulevard will require adequate parking to ensure those businesses thrive, based on the following: 

In the workshops conducted by the city, residents have affirmed that  “retaining existing small businesses” should be a key priority for the new precise plan.

Of the three land use alternatives, two require ground floor retail in areas where greater building heights are allowed. The staff report suggests with greater building heights, ground floor retail in new residential buildings will be more financially feasible.  

The staff report asks council to choose between four-to-five and five-to-seven story buildings but omits any reference to the state density bonus that provides up to 100% increase in height in exchange for 20% affordable housing. And AB2097 requires the city impose no parking standards for new development close to transit. 

The combined result of these two state laws could yield 14 story buildings that would tower over the adjacent residential neighborhood, result in a critical parking problem for residents, and negatively impact the viability of businesses in an area where the parking situation is already problematic. For this reason, we recommend Land Use Alternative A, which allows the city to meet its Housing Element requirement with the least undesirable impact on the Moffett area.  

We also ask council to question the idea that the highest possible buildings would in fact result in viable businesses on the ground floor. Many ground-floor retail spaces in the Landsby and Dean apartment complexes, which are situated in the San Antonio Precise Plan area, have never been leased. 

We believe that a complete and functional Moffett Precise Plan must include a plan which provides adequate parking for the businesses in the Moffett area. If street parking is to be removed as part of the streetscape changes, a plan to provide alternate parking spaces in the vicinity of the businesses must be included in the precise plan. Even if nearby residents can use Caltrain or buses at the transit center to go to work, it is unrealistic to presume they will also not also own cars. And if and when car owners use public transit, they will be exacerbating the situation by leaving their cars on Moffett and/or neighborhood streets.  One possibility would be a parking structure funded by assessments of the area businesses, as was provided in the Downtown Precise Plan.

Thank you for considering our views on this important topic. 

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Peter Spitzer, and Nancy Stuhr

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View

Senators and Representatives of the California Legislature:

 We are sending you this letter in opposition to Senate Bill 79, introduced by Senator Scott Wiener.

Our city of Mountain View’s highest objective is to be a Community for All and Livable Mountain View has consistently been an advocate for good development. Our city has been a leader in the Bay Area in providing new housing and is one of the few cities in the region that has earned a pro-housing designation from the legislature. Our city council has always encouraged participation of all stakeholders when it enacts housing policy. The result is housing and zoning decisions that have wide public support, both from renters and homeowners alike.

The proposed legislation upzones properties within one-half mile of trains, light rail, and frequent bus lines to allow five to seven story buildings, without any further concessions from developers. It fails to provide for the needs of the community as it omits any requirement for affordable and low-income housing and adherence to community developed precise plans that already include upzoning and increased density in all areas of our city.

Because our city is fortunate enough to be well-served by all three of these modes of transit, about half of our city would be rezoned for high density if this legislation is enacted. The result could be a total disruption of our cities’ neighborhoods. Furthermore, omitting any requirement for affordable housing in exchange for the density increase would undermine our city’s ability to meet our state mandated RHNA allocation for affordable housing.

The housing crisis in our area is one of AFFORDABLE housing, not market-rate housing. According to the latest report of our Rental Housing Committee, 15 percent of the housing built in our city the last eight years lies vacant because apartment owners will not rent it out at lower rents. Solutions to provide housing in our community need to go beyond bills that provide massive rezoning without concessions from the developers who build it.

Thank you for considering our views.

Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Nazanin Dashtara, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Toni Rath, Peter Spitzer, Maureen Blando, Jerry Steach, David Lewis, Carol Lewis, Hala Alshahwany, Carole Griggs, Leslie Friedman, Nancy Stuhr, Natalie Solomon, Sean O’Malley, Diane Gazzano, Lorrie Wormald, and Alice DeGuzman

For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View, California