Robert Cox

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

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