From: Robert Cox
Date: February 14, 2022 at 12:09:39 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Livable Mountain View comment on 5.1 “Amendments to Chapter 28 (Subdivisions) and Chapter 36 (Zoning) Relating to Senate Bill 9 (SB9)”.
Chair Cranston,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on item 5.1 “Amendments to Chapter 28 (Subdivisions) and Chapter 36 (Zoning) Relating to Senate Bill 9 (SB9)”.
In general, we support the staff recommendations. In particular, we support allowing no more than four housing units on a lot zoned as R1, whether primary units, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), or junior ADUs (JADUs). This aligns with the actions of the five Bay Area cities (San Jose, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Campbell, and Saratoga) mentioned in the staff report.
We also support staff’s recommendation to generally limit changes in Chapter 28 and 36 to ones required to come into compliance with SB9. In particular, we support not changing the upper limit on FAR, as a change in FAR limits is not needed to enable the construction of 800 square foot or larger primary housing units noted in SB9.
Finally, as noted in the staff report, SB9 stipulates that no lot with a historic resource or located within a historic district be subdivided. We therefore request that staff compile a
list of addresses that would not qualify for a lot split for this reason and make that list available to the public.
Thank you for listening to our views,
Louise Katz, Robert Cox, Mary Hodder, Toni Rath, Lorraine Wormald, and Jerry Steach For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
Attachment 5
From: Serge Bonte
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 12:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: re: Agenda Item 5.1 Various Code Amendments in light of SB9 Dear Environmental Planning Commissioners:
First, I am pleased to see that Mountain View didn't follow Woodside's notorious lead in declaring itself a Cougar Town (or a Puma Town ‐since Mountain View residents are on average about 10 years younger than Woodsiders).
The proposed amendments seem reasonable, keeping with SB9's spirit and Mountain View's history of lot splits (my house was built as a result of a 4 way split of a larger parcel, the original historical house was moved to one corner to make room for 3 additional parcels/homes).
I have three comments / requests for clarification:
1. The staff report mentions this criteria for Urban Lot Split:
"No prior lot split. The lot to be subdivided shall not be a lot that was established through a prior urban lot split." Since any lot in Mountain View was subdivided at some point (my home 22+ years, my neighborhood 70+ years ago when St Francis Acres were divided), I'm assuming that this criteria applies only to subdivisions under SB9 (aka newly minted Urban Lot Split) but it would be helpful to clarify. As an example, hypothetically would this criteria prevent me from splitting my pre SB9 splitted lot?
2. The proposed Amendments to Chapter 28 still seems to indicate that tentative parcel maps (even for an urban lot split a la SB9) are still subject to city council approval (in an agendized hearing?). Since SB9 calls for ministerial approval, what would be the point of needing City Council to meet for approval? Also, more generally wouldn't it make sense to have City Council approval required only when splitting in more than 5 or 10 parcels?
3. I didn't see it referenced but if permissible under law, make sure that new homes built using SB9 are required to underground their utilities; similar to what our developer had to do 22+ years ago when our home was built after a 4 way parcel split.
Sincerely,
Serge Bonte
Attachment 5
From: Kevin Ma
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 3:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 5.1 - Question on Sales
Dear EPC and staff,
One question I have that doesn't seem to be in the staff report is why there is a new section prohibiting sales of one of the primary units in the DUO developments? (Sec. 36.13.30).
It seems a bit premature to add this kind of language, especially given the already low likelihood for people to create a condo in order to sell half-a-duplex.
Sincerely,
Kevin Ma
Attachment 5
From: Isaac Stone
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 3:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: agenda item 5.1
I understand it is important to bring the code in compliance with SB9. From my understanding of the code changes, this is what the proposal does.
I feel the EPC should take this opportunity to suggest staff to research also allowing RVs as ADUs, as Portland has done last April. This would allow the opportunity for the new state low to provide a more permanent home for the many RV residents already in MV, many of whom are employed but cannot afford other housing.
Allowing RVs as ADUs could also reduce the environmental impact, since it would preclude new construction.
Thanks for considering my suggestion,
Isaac Stone
Attachment 5
Zoning Amendments
Public Comment
Albert Jeans
Feb. 16, 2022
Attachment 5
One Possible Embodiment
Split Lot Next to a Single Family Home
Attachment 5
Existing R1 Development Standards
FAR = 0.5 – (.00001 x Lot Area)
For most R1 lots in Mountain View, development is limited to ~1600 sq ft per lot.
Attachment 5
Loss of Privacy
Despite banning of 2nd story decks, loss of privacy will be of significant concern for adjacent houses due to 4 foot setbacks of first and second stories.
Attachment 5