Robert Cox

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