SB79 opens the door to level our historic downtowns
Between 8/18 and 9/12 the California Senate and Assembly will take their final votes on whether to pass Senate Bill 79 (SB79). This bill would permit housing in 6-14 story buildings BY RIGHT anywhere within a half mile of any Caltrain stop including neighborhoods and the many historic downtowns up and down the peninsula. There are no exceptions for historic buildings or districts. This means, for example, Mountain View’s Castro Street historic buildings which are adjacent to the Caltrain tracks in blocks 100-300 could be torn down and the Mountain View City Council would have NO ability to stop this destruction. All cities with homes and historic downtowns along the Caltrain line could face a similar fate.
Furthermore, any neighborhood within one-half mile of train, light rail, or frequent bus stops will be rezoned to permit 5-14 story buildings BY RIGHT.
Mid-Peninsula residents can call Senator Josh Becker at (916)-651-4013 and Assemblymember Marc Berman at (650)-324-0224 and say “I live in your district and oppose SB79.”
As this is a statewide bill, all California residents can help defeat SB79 by contacting their state legislators and say, “I live in your district and I oppose SB79”
Robert Cox and Louise Katz For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
SB79 opens the door to level our historic downtowns
Between 8/18 and 9/12, the California Senate and Assembly will take their final votes on whether to pass Senate Bill 79 (SB79). This bill would permit housing in 6-14 story buildings BY RIGHT anywhere within a half mile of any Caltrain stop including neighborhoods and the many historic downtowns up and down the peninsula. There are no exceptions for historic buildings or districts. This means, for example, Mountain View’s Castro Street historic buildings which are adjacent to the Caltrain tracks in blocks 100-300 could be torn down and the Mountain View City Council would have NO ability to stop this destruction. All cities with homes and historic downtowns along the Caltrain line could face a similar fate.
Not only will we lose irreplaceable historic resources, SB79 also weakens the state’s own requirements for affordable and low-income housing and will cancel out local community developed precise plans. These already include significant upzoning and increased density in our cities that provide housing far beyond that required by our state.
Furthermore, any neighborhood within one-half mile of train, light rail, or frequent bus stops will be rezoned to permit 5-14 story buildings BY RIGHT.
Mid-Peninsula residents can call Senator Josh Becker at (916)-651-4013 and Assemblymember Marc Berman at (650)-324-0224 and say “I live in your district and oppose SB79.”
As this is a statewide bill, all California residents can help defeat SB79 by contacting their state legislators and say, “I live in your district and I oppose SB79”
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, Sean O’Malley, Diane Gazzano, Lorrie Wormald, Alice DeGuzman, Chuck Muir, Julie Muir, and Roger Noel
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
To all who care about the future of Mountain View’s historic downtown:
Senate Bill 79 (SB79) threatens the existence of Mountain View’s historic downtown. If passed, it would permit the demolition and replacement of any or all of the historic buildings in the 100-300 block of Castro Street BY RIGHT (WITHOUT ANY CITY COUNCIL VOTE) just because they are within one-half mile of the Caltrain station. Other downtowns along the Caltrain line are similarly threatened.
If you care about the preservation of our Bay Area historic downtowns, please call Senator Becker and Assemblyman Berman TODAY and say “I live in your district and OPPOSE SB79”. Key votes will take place between August 18 and September 12. Please act now! Contact info is in the graphic below.
To those preparing the Draft EIR for the R3 zoning update project,
Livable Mountain View thanks Mountain View city staff for this opportunity to comment on the scoping of the Draft EIR for the R3 zoning update project. We also thank Advance Planning Manager Eric Anderson for hosting a Q & A session with our group on this subject. Mr. Anderson urged us to summarize our comments in a formal letter, so we are doing that here:
1. We ask that the those preparing the Draft EIR consider the state density bonus when determining the impacts of the R3 project. In particular, since Mountain View has a 15% inclusionary affordable housing mandate, developers will meet the 50% density bonus requirement simply by following the Mountain View mandate. This is why projects like Chase Bank redevelopment are opting for the 50% state density bonus. Furthermore, by providing another 5% of affordable housing, a 100% density bonus would be permitted. The Draft EIR should NOT ignore this by studying only the base density.
2. We ask that the Draft EIR be delayed until after September 12, 2025, so that the results of the California Assembly vote on SB79 are known. SB79 would permit BY RIGHT 5-7 story buildings (up 10-14 stories with the state density bonus) within one-half mile of train, light rail, and frequent bus stops. This would significantly alter the permitted zoning in our city. It is best to undertake the Draft EIR AFTER the SB79 vote in taken.
3. We ask that impacts on infrastructure needs, in particular water usage, the effects on climate change, and greenhouse gas emissions be adequately considered.
4. We ask that the cumulative effect of background projects, for example, the Moffett Precise Plan and frequent gatekeeper project approvals, be considered.
5. We ask that the Draft EIR make specific positive recommendations that will mitigate the effects of the R3 upzoning project. It would be greatly disappointing if this Draft EIR ends up being just a legally mandated but practically meaningless exercise.
Thank you for listening to our recommendations on this important topic.
Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Peter Spitzer, Maureen BNlando, Hala Alshahwany, Chuck Muir, Julie Muir, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Nancy Stuhr, Toni Rath, Natalie Solomon, Jerry Steach, Lorraine Wormald, and Leslie Friedman
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
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 a leader in the Bay Area in providing new housing. We are 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 members and supporters of Livable Mountain View have consistently been advocates for good development and participated in opportunities for community outreach. The result is housing and zoning decisions that have wide public support, both from renters and homeowners alike.
We oppose SB-79, which upzones properties within one-half mile of trains, light rail, and for bus lines based on frequency rather than connectivity to allow five to seven story buildings, without any further concessions from developers. SB 79 fails to provide for the needs of our local community as it lacks of protection for our irreplaceable historic resources, weakens the state’s own requirements for affordable and low-income housing offered in the state density bonus and overrides adherence to our local community developed precise plans that already include significant upzoning and increased density in all areas of our city, far beyond that required by our state approved sixth cycle Housing Element.
Because our city is fortunate enough to be 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. Furthermore, by overriding what is offered to developers by the state density bonus, it would undercut our city’s ability to meet our state mandated RHNA allocation for affordable housing. The result could be a total disruption of our state approved plans and negatively impact our city’s neighborhoods.
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, 12,5 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 for our community need to go beyond bills that can needlessly destroy historic resources and provide massive rezoning without substantial concessions for more affordable housing from the developers who build that housing.
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, Alice DeGuzman, Chuck Muir, and Julie Muir
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View, Mountain View, CA
Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and members of the Mountain View City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 8.2 “Reconsideration of Density Increases in R3 Zoning District Update Change Areas”. This matter came before council at a regularly scheduled city council meeting, Tuesday, April 22, 2025 after the opportunity for public notice and comment. Now, almost three months after the decision for the density of designated change areas was made by council, council may change its decision, without any new information or change of development conditions in our city to justify such a change.
We are asking that the council NOT change its initial decision on this question. Making a different decision now undermines the public’s trust that council decisions, once made, can be relied on by all stakeholders, including the residents and voters of Mountain View.
Livable Mountain View wrote this letter to council for the March 25, 2025 public hearing where the densities of the R3 Zoning District Change Areas were initially considered:
Our position on the density of these change areas is the same today. It mirrors the recommendation of the EPC. Here is the relevant part from that letter:
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.
Thank you for considering our views on this important item.
Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Li Zhang, Maureen Blando, Leslie Friedman, Hala Alshahwany, Jerry Steach, Toni Rath, Nancy Stuhr, Natalie Solomon, Chuck Muir and Julie Muir
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 8.1 “New Council Policy G-9, Gatekeeper Application Policy and Procedures.
The proposed new gatekeeper policy represents a major deviation from Mountain View’s established historical gatekeeper process and we urge that the council reject it. This proposal is being set forth in this hearing without significant advance public outreach. It makes about one-third of the city’s area eligible for streamlined gatekeeper projects. Our understanding from reading the staff report is that these could be approved on a single council vote. It is unclear from the staff report whether a public hearing would even be held, or if that vote would be on the consent calendar. It is also unclear how the public is expected to participate in the approval process or even how the public would become aware of what streamlined gatekeeper projects have been filed. All these questions need to be answered before considering such a major change.
Many of the included areas for streamlined gatekeeper projects are in the R3 zones that were specifically not selected in the R3 upzoning process. So, it appears that the streamlined gatekeeper process could be used to circumvent the council’s choices for the R3 high intensity areas. Note that there is no minimum lot size, and yet the streamlining criteria (B)(2) requires a provision for open space. The report provides no rationale for this (contradictory) proposal in contrast with the current protocol where, gatekeeper projects generally were of a significant enough size to produce significant housing and merit consideration of a zoning change. Note that, also unlike what was considered in the R3 zoning changes, there are no density or height limits indicated, or even suggested, for streamlined gatekeeper projects.
Finally, not only is this a major change that would be implemented without the public outreach that council has previously acknowledged to be of the utmost importance, this proposed change could even deny residents the right to know what a developer is going to build since the staff report also includes consideration of gatekeeper applications with no associated development. The purpose of a gatekeeper application has always been to consider whether a specific project proposal which is not currently zoning compliant merits special consideration. What benefit is there to the public if a developer can obtain a zoning change without revealing what they intend to build?
For all these reasons, we ask that the council adopt Alternative (2): “Do not adopt Council Policy G-9 and direct staff to open the Gatekeeper submittal window under the existing Gatekeeper Process (utilized in 2024).” Also, we request that the council conduct public outreach and a publicly noticed study session to gather input from the public before adopting a new gatekeeper process.
Thank you for considering our views on this important topic.
Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Maureen Blando, Hala Alshahwany, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, David and Carol Lewis, and Nancy Stuhr
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
We are sending you this letter in opposition to Senate Bill 79, introduced by Senator Scott Wiener.
The city of Mountain View has consistently been an advocate for good development. We are one of the few cities in the region that has earned a pro-housing designation from the legislature. Our city has accomplished this with the participation of all stakeholders when it enacts housing policy.
SB79 would allow five to seven story buildings to be built 5 feet from a single-family home or small apartment building. We have these small buildings throughout our community. This proposed legislation, SB79, would not conform to the precise plans that we already have in place, which support increased density. SB79 fails to require any affordable and low-income housing, and does not require a single concession from developers. It fails to protect any historical resource now or in the future.
According to our Rental Housing Committee, Mountain View has a 12.5 percent vacancy rate for market-rate apartments built in the last eight years. The owners of these apartments are obviously willing to let housing sit vacant to keep rents high. Allowing five to seven story buildings that deny the occupants of neighboring buildings light and privacy will not change those high vacancy rates, and will not lower rental pricing.
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 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
Recent Comments