Mayor Ramos, Vice Mayor Clark, members of the Mountain View City Council and City Planning Staff,
First, let us congratulate Mayor Ramos and Vice Mayor Clark on their election to the offices of mayor and vice-mayor last Tuesday.
As we have continued our efforts to understand the content and ramifications of SB79 this letter provides some additional information and comments. We are providing this in advance of the upcoming staff report for the council study session scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2026, during which there will be options for an SB79 local alternative plan for the council to review.
(1) Although SB79 allows a local alternative plan to designate 10% of a transit-oriented development zone as eligible for a historic exception, the area that we are asking is less than 3% of the downtown Caltrain transit-oriented development zone. This means that more than 97% of the downtown Caltrain transit-oriented development would be available for 6-9 story buildings provided by the SB79 default regulations.
(2) If we transfer the density to the East Whisman Precise Plan in the Light Rail Station transit-oriented development zones, no city upzoning of the precise plan area will be needed. This is because the East Whisman Precise Plan already contains zoning for 6-9 story buildings. As was said often in the SB79 hearings, “cities get credit for the upzoning that they have already done”. By our measurements, there is enough capacity in just the area south of Middlefield Road between North Whisman Road and SR 237 to accommodate the SB79 zoning transfer to preserve the downtown commercial retail district. This area contains no neighborhood with single-family or duplex buildings \hat would be impacted by having high-density residential built nearby.
(3) Finally, there are good reasons for councilmembers, even those who want some projects to proceed within our proposed historic district, to support an SB79 local alternative plan. With an SB79 local alternative plan in place, the COUNCIL can (a) make the decision about whether to take such projects as GATEKEEPER projects and thereby get community benefits, and (b) retain existing zoning and rules that require ground-floor retail and height transitions to historic buildings. These benefits of the existing zoning will be lost without an SB79 local alternative plan as will the ability of our elected representatives to exercise local control.
Thanks in advance for considering this additional information.
As always, if there is anything we have written that requires clarification, please reach out to us. We will be happy to answer questions before the upcoming study session.
Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Leslie Friedman, Nancy Stuhr, Maureen Blando, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Lorrie Wormald, Hala Alshahwany, Chuck Muir, Julie Muir
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
