From: Serge Bonte
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 7:10 PM
Subject: re: 05/18/22 Meeting - re: Draft Housing Element Honorable Chair Cranston and Environment Planning Commissioners:
How the State will perceive Mountain View's Housing Element is anyone's guess, but I find it very comprehensive in methodically addressing the gazillion requirements spelled out by the State.
I have a few comments I wanted to share with you:
1. The data in the "Access to Education" rubrique seems to ignore all Mountain View elementary school students attending schools in the Los Altos School District (some located in Mountain View like Springer Elementary and an upcoming school in the San Antonio Precise Plan).
The draft states that: " Most of Mountain View is served by the Mountain View Whisman School District which has approximately 4,400 students enrolled up through eighth grade". There are also over 1,000 Mountain View students enrolled through eight grade in the Los Altos School District (more if you include Mountain View students attending Bullis Charter School).
As a result of that omission some of the maps like (Figure 69: TCAC Education Domain Score, Mountain View) seem erroneous. For example, it's unlikely a Mountain View neighborhood (like mine) in the Springer Elementary (or Almond or Santa Rita or Covington) attendance area would get the lowest Education Domain Scores -as shown in figure 69-.
I feel you should revise this rubrique to get a better picture of Education opportunities in Mountain View.
For reference, here are the Los Altos School
District boundaries: https://www.lasdschools.org/files/user/1/file/Adopted_attendance_boundaries_6_ 18_07.pdf
2. I agree that the Village Centers have good potential for housing. I would like the City to emphasize the need to preserve a significant amount of local serving businesses as they play a key role as the commercial hearts of our neighborhoods (including future Village Center residents).
3. I am still surprised to not see more opportunity sites downtown Mountain View (the area of Mountain View with the most to offer in almost every aspect); especially since the Downtown Precise Plan is being revised.
4, I am not certain the speculations on a possible Mountain View Whisman ballot measure should be in the Housing Element. As far as I know, that proposal is not moving forward (at least not this Fall).
5. I'll defer to the consultants' expertise but I feel that for new developments, the projected ratio of very-low/low/moderate vs. above moderate seems optimistic.
Sincerely,
Serge Bonte
Attachment 2
May 16, 2022
Environmental Planning CommissionCity Hall500 Castro StreetMountain View, CA 94041 Re: Item 5.1 of the May 18
th
Meeting: Housing ElementUpdate - Draft
Dear Chair Cranston and Commissioners:
The League continues to support a comprehensive plan to address housing that follows State law, and we thank theStaff for their work on the Draft Housing Element. For clarity, we have divided the letter into our main concernsfollowed by an appendix of specific suggestions for modifications to sections of the housing element update below.
Regarding the proposed Housing Element Programs (pdf 23), we have the following broad concerns:● Language such as “Consider”, “Explore”, “Review” and “As Necessary” reflects a lack of commitment toconcrete actions● A lack of accountable timelines, with many set as “annually,” “continuously,” or “ongoing”● The Governmental Constraints Analysis (pdf 184, 281) seems more of a summary and lacks the input providedfrom stakeholders, with Program 1.1, for example, only requiring addressing constraints in a single zoningdistrict.
Regarding the proposed Site Analysis and Inventory (pdf 217) we have the following broad concerns:● High expectations that the Master Plan areas will produce assigned housing within the Cycle may beunjustified—in particular, the affordable units expected to be built on the sites dedicated to the City by Googlein NBS and at Middlefield Park may not be able to proceed in this Cycle due to insufficient funding.● General lack of sites in the highest opportunity areas, with many such sites deferred into the category of “backpocket”—we note very few sites south of El CaminoReal other than those that border El Camino and theBlossom Valley shopping center● Probability of development per-site was not thoroughly analyzed—in particular, if the units counted in theGoogle-dedicated sites are not included as pipeline projects, we believe the City will no longer be meeting thethreshold of less than 50% of the lower-income sites being in the pipeline or on vacant land. Under State lawthe City must then do additional analysis of existing uses on non-vacant sites (pdf 222). (Please send comments related to this letter to Donna Davies [email protected]) Karin Bricker, President of the LWV of Los Altos Mountain View cc: Ellen Yau Eric Anderson AartiShrivastava KimbraMcCarthy Heather Glaser
Appendix1.1 - Zoning Ordinance Update● We would like to see a commitment to specific development standards rather than the draft “could include.”Some ideas we propose are:o No minimum parking requirements for certain sites, such as the framework proposed in AB 2097o Preference for unbundled parkingo Clearer regulations tying the relation between TDM policies and parking reductionso Removing the 1-acre minimum in the R4 guidelineso Permitting emergency shelters by-right in more zones than industrialo A program to monitor the jobs/housing imbalance; i.e. program not to allow additional office developmentthat would exacerbate current jobs/housing ratio imbalance1.4 - Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units● Add detail to the draft’s “provide resources to homeowners” such as financial assistance to homeownersconstructing (J)ADUs, especially to those willing to rent these at lower rents for a period.● Given their similarities, add SB9 lot-splits and DUO’s to this program. Additionally, reduce fees such as theBMR in-lieu that discourage small developments1.5 - Density Bonus● Allow DB in addition to the bonus FAR provided to housing developments in the East Whisman Precise Plan1.10 - Park Land Ordinance Update● Add explicit direction to reduce the high park fees on development, perhaps mitigated by imposing fees onoffice buildings● Expand this program to address the cumulative effect of all impact fees2.4 - Reasonable Accommodation● Review townhouse/rowhouse elevator access standards so seniors can age in place in these developments2.5 - Affirmatively Further Fair Housing● Include more sites south of El Camino Real3.1 - Homelessness Prevention and Services for the Unhoused● Specify strategies to replace the VTA safe parking lot on Evelyn● Add safe parking, including for long-term RV dwellers3.2 - Displacement Prevention and Mitigation● Evaluate TOPA/COPA with a specific timeframe● Identify a specific, large number of units to preserve● Develop a Displacement Response Strategy that includes a local version of SB 330 protections for existingtenants4.1 - Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions● Compile SB35 objective standards into one document. Currently there are separate zoning ordinances, PrecisePlans, and other citywide regulations and development standards. Clarify the ability to include land usespecifications● Simplify and reduce SB 35 application materials to a minimum and streamline deadlines● Revise existing checklists● Limit staff comments to compliance with objective development and design standards for all projects (not justSB 35). Many developers stated that some of the application requirements are based uponsubjective/discretionary standards, along with a concern that planning staff often make subjective comments onsubmitted applications● Set affordable housing projects as the top priority for processing as soon as possible.● Build an intradepartmental dedicated team to handle all affordable housing applications and permitting.● Reduce building permit and plan check timelines● Incorporate specific recommendations and completion dates from the Matrix study as programs● Look for ways to reduce public meetings, leaving as much to Staff and DRC as possible4.3 - Financial support for Subsidized Housing● Adopt a Real Estate Transfer Tax similar to San Jose’s Measure E● Expand this program to include preservation of existing housing.
May 17, 2022
City of Mountain View
Planning Division
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94039
Re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Dear planning commission members,
We would like to formally request that following addresses be added to the Housing Element updates. We have an informal application before planning staff. Other than ground floor retail the remaining portions of the project on all upper floors are intended to be residential.
969 Hope Street
920 Hope Street
679 Fairmont Avenue
750 Fairmont Avenue
903 Castro Street
881 Castro Street
871 Castro Street
843 Castro Street
We feel that this primary location with a focus on residential not only benefits the vibrancy of downtown Mountain View but will allow the city to meet its residential growth needs in a timely fashion.
Thank you for your consideration
Bill Maston
Principal Architect
William Maston Architect& Associates
May 17, 2022
Chair William Cranston
Environmental Planning Commission
City Hall, 2nd Floor
Mountain View, CA 94041
[email protected]
Mario & Liz Ambra
Re: Item 5.1- Housing Element Update
Draft Sites Inventory List
Dear Chair William Cranston and Planning Commissioners, We are the owners of ne of the properties that was originally designated for residential development in the Sites Inventory for the Housing Element Update.
When the draft Sites Inventory was initially published, we were seven years into a planning process to obtain a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to develop high-density housing on our site. When our General Plan Amendment application was first received, staff had indicated that an R4 designation was appropriate for the site. We struggled, however, to meet what we felt were changing directions on design guidelines and an unwillingness to consider any height incentives or other means to achieve density bonuses if we incorporated affordable housing on-site, something that we were committed to doing.
Early this year, we reached a crossroad with staff. We were on our third round of comments, had paid significant processing and application fees, but more and more money was being asked of us for additional staff time and environmental analysis. We also felt that there was no clear direction on whether the project would receive staff support, whether it would ever be deemed complete, and at what density the site could be developed.
Accordingly, we repeatedly asked for a study session so that we could obtain guidance from City Council on its desired direction. Most recently, we asked for a study session when our site was included on the Draft Inventory List. We were never referred for study session.
Instead, in April, we faced a choice: continue processing the current application under design standards that were making it impossible to achieve the allowable density under R4 zoning or let the application lapse and try again later. Faced with an upcoming bill of more than $250,000 and significant new design recommendations from staff, we opted to let the application lapse.
We ٢ema!n !nterested !n pursu!ng aGenera! Plan Amendment and rezoning t٥high-density residential.
We also hope that the public hearing process and density determinations that are already occurring as part of the Housing Element and Sites Inventory might be aviable route for US to receive clear direction from City Council, such that we could have the con fidence to move forward with anew General Plan Amendment and rezoning application.
Asite like ours, which is being signi ficantly underutilized and which could be improved to provide 189 new homes؛with on-site affordable homes and little impact to single-family neighborhoods. Is exactly the type of urban infill projects that are needed for the City to meet its RHNA goals and begin solving the housing crisis. Specifically:
٠Adding high-density housing to this location is good for the environment, oThe site is walking distance of the Google campus and could provide much-needed housing for its workforce without generating new vehicle miles traveled ๐It is located right off the Hwy 101 off-ramp such that commuters can easily access the freeway system without sending traffic through local neighborhoods oThere is already abus stop directly in front of the site and anew bike lane is being proposed along Rengstorffsuch that residents could easily access public and alternative, green forms of transportation
٠The proposed project would add much-needed housing at all income levels oAffordable liousing will be provided on-site and will be integrated into the community to provide housing opportunities for people wtio cannot ottierwise afford to live and work in Mountain View
oNo government subsidy would be required to construct the affordable housing, saving taxpayers $750,0٥٥unit for every affordable housing unit that is built on-site, oThe project could provide 189 new housing units
٠The site is located in an area that will not signi ficantly impact our single-family neighborlioods ๐The site is located across from commercial zoning
๐It is not adjacent to asingle-family neighborliood
٠The proposed project provides additional community bene fits over and above housing:
oThe proposed project would preserve ahistoric landmark, the original Ambra Olive Oil factory
๐The project would transform an underutilized acre with two tiomes into aproperty that would bring significant tax revenue to the City
«The site does not need to go through the Gatekeeper process and we had already made significant lieadway into the planning process
As you evaluate the Sites Inventory list and advise City Council, we respectfully ask that you consider (1) recommending that we be allowed to present the development potential of our site to Council as part of the Study Session for the Housing Element Update, and (2) recommending that our site be added back into the list at its full development potential of 8 ٥dwelling units/acre before consideration of density The site is 1.57 acres and at so dwelling units/acre plus adensity bonus of 50% if the maximum number ofل affordable units are incorporated on site, the potential development for tills site is 189 units. bonuses and (3) ٢ecommend!ng that the s!te be proact!ve!y rezoned as part the Hous!ng E!ement Update.
!nc!ud!ng as!te !!ke ours !n the !nventory, wh!ch is so we!!-s!tuat6d to meet the hous!ng needs of our communاty, and which is a!ready so far a!ong !n the p!ann!ng process, wاااdo much for the City of Mounta!n ٧ew to meet !ts hous!ng goaاs in th!s upcom!ng cyc!e. 5!ncere!y,
f(ьШ i: UfM a r i o A m b r a a n d L i z A m b r a
William Cranston, Chair, [email protected]
Joyce Yin, Vice-Chair, [email protected]
Alex Nunex, [email protected]
Preeti Hehmeyer, [email protected]
Hank Dempsey, hankdempseymv@gmaiicom
Chris Clark, chrisclarl<[email protected]
Jose Gutierrez, [email protected]
cc:
From: Lenny's Sonic
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 3:58 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Chris Clark <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Housing Element - 5/18/22
Chair Cranston and members of the Environmental Planning Commission:
On the whole, the May 6, 2022 Public Review Draft is an excellent document. It provides valuable data and analysis on housing conditions – qualitative and quantitative – in Mountain View. Pages 59 through 62 provide excellent background on our jobs-housing imbalance and jobs-housing mismatch. Page 96 contains a disturbing report that in academic year 2019-2020 161 public school students in Mountain View experienced homelessness, up from 24 in 2017-2017.
The draft describes Mountain View’s generally strong programs for housing our population, with a focus on meeting state mandates. The staff report (page 6) explains that some housing programs, such as the proposed Displacement Response strategy and evaluation of Community Opportunity to Purchase/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase, are not included in the draft Housing Element because they are being addressed through other city processes.
Jobs-Housing Imbalance
While the draft accurately describes Mountain View’s jobs-housing imbalance, it suggests little to address it. Not only are there already two jobs in Mountain View for every employed resident, but offices require less land/floorspace. Furthermore, in most case workspaces are developed more quickly than housing. Unless new policies are enacted, we’ll fall further behind. In its recent adoption of Precise Plans, Mountain View has attempted to link employment-creating development to commensurate housing construction. But at best those plans will keep the situation from getting much worse.
Therefore, perhaps the most significant thing Mountain View could do to address our growing housing shortfall is to establish city-wide policies to reduce, or at least keep from increasing, the jobs-housing imbalance. For example, the Housing Element should establish a policy to identify properties that under current zoning could add substantially to our workforce, but which are suitable for residential development. Those properties should be considered for re-zoning.
For example, the new owner of Charleston Plaza – site of closed Bed Bath & Beyond, REI, and Best Buy – reportedly plans to create a biotech campus there. The city needs to embark upon re-evaluation of that property, now zoned for industrial use, before it’s too late.
The old downtown Wells Fargo site is another example. Under the current downtown plan, the Sobrato Organization is proposing a four-story office building, near City Hall, that could provide work space for 500 employees. I’ve heard that city staff are telling the Council that they must approve the project (on May 24) because it generally complies with the Downtown Precise Plan. It should have already been designated for mixed use.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The draft’s greatest weakness, when compared to state mandates, is its failure to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Not only is Mountain View experiencing city-wide declines in our Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African-American populations, but few black and brown people reside in the swath of neighborhoods along our southern boundary. See the maps on pages 116 and 118. There should be a greater push to add affordable housing to the Blossom Valley shopping center, and other south Mountain View housing sites should be identified.
Funding Affordable Housing
The draft document states, “Assembling financing for new construction is consistently challenging for affordable housing developers, though this challenge is not unique to the Mountain View context. In fact, the City of Mountain View routinely provides financing to affordable housing projects to help fill funding gaps.” Each project requires several sources of funding.
While this approach leverages, or magnifies, the City’s investments, I have learned, as a member of the County’s Housing Bond Oversight Committee, that the viability of approved projects is frequently threatened when one source is delayed. Mountain View should work with its public and private partners to develop a pooled funding strategy to overcome weak “links” that arise in the funding “chain.” Castro and El Camino
Finally, I see that the Sites Inventory Map does not highlight the proposed residential development at Castro, El Camino, Hope, and Fairmont. The developer and architect have been meeting with community members in the hope of finalizing a proposal. Shouldn’t that be noted? Perhaps the issue is that the footprint is governed by the Downtown Precise Plan, the El Camino Real Precise Plan, and R3.
Lenny Siegel
From: Salim Damerdji
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 6:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Housing Element Item
Hi Members of EPC,
I want to speak on a single issue, which is the city's projections for North Bayshore in the housing element draft's pipeline analysis. I believe we are at substantial risk of not getting a compliant housing element on time because of faulty assumptions surrounding North Bayshore.
Google and Lendlease expect Shorebird North (1118 homes) to be permitted by 2031 and, if things go smoothly, Shorebird South (1794 homes). That's a total of 2,912 homes. Only 5% (that is, 145 units) of these 2,912 units would be inclusionary, and the remaining 95% (that is, 2,767 units) constructed would be market rate. However, Google would also donate land suitable for 437 BMRs. That's a total of 145 + 437= 582 below market rate units from North Bayshore.
Here are the city's assumptions around North Bayshore:
"Within the 2023-2031 planning period, the North Bayshore Master Plan is assumed to provide approximately half of land dedications for affordable units and start construction of approximately 3,365 market rate and inclusionary units, of which approximately 695 units are affordable to lower- and moderate-income levels."
Why does the city claim half of this three decade project will be built in the next decade? There's no explanation for this assumption. North Bayshore is front-loaded with housing, but it's not that front-loaded. This error in the draft has been persistent, and MV YIMBY pointed out this faulty assumption in its February letter.
In short, the city is overclaiming North Bayshore's market rate units by 3365 - 2767 = 598 units and the city is overclaiming the below market rate units by 695 - 145 = 550 units. The city could claim an additional 437 below market rate units if it actually had a plan & commitment to develop affordable housing on the dedicated land by 2031, but even then, the city would still have a shortfall of 113 units.
State law requires cities do a ton more analysis & be subject to higher scrutiny if they accommodate more than 50% of needed low & lower income housing on nonvacant opportunity sites. Virtually every city I've seen has gone above that 50% threshold; it's aberrant not to. Because the city is inflating its estimates of BMR production from North Bayshore, the city claims they do not exceed that 50% threshold on page 222:
The long story short is that if our current pipeline estimates are off by 262 below market rate units (that is 6% of our 4370 unit target for LI + VLI), then we have to do a mountain of work on our housing element's site inventory. I believe the draft's error w/r/t North Bayshore alone implies we're off by 550 below market rate units. A similar story can be told about Middlefield's land donation, which the city also does not have a plan to convert into affordable housing by 2031.
I hope we can correct this, either by actually having a plan to turn this land into affordable housing by 2031, or by providing the level of site inventory analysis that nearly every other comparable city is conducting, or by streamlining the master plan further, or some combination of the above options. But these are all large undertakings, and I am sincerely concerned for our city. The worst case scenario - that we will lose affordable housing funds for Evelyn and Terra Bella if we do not get a compliant housing element approved on time - is becoming more likely every month that passes by. If we don't correct the ship now, it'll only be harder to make these changes in the future, when we have even less time between us and the January 2023 deadline.
Take care,
Salim
From: James Kuszmaul
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 6:54 AM
To: [email protected]; MV YIMBY; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Item 5.1 Housing Element Update - Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
To the Environmental Planning Commission:
Mountain View YIMBY has eagerly awaited the release of the draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element and we appreciate the chance to comment on it before the Environmental Planning Commission. Reading and effectively commenting on a 286 page document is always difficult (although nothing compared to the complexity of putting it together), and we appreciate the depth of information and research available in the draft Housing Element to help understand the challenges that Mountain View faces in the decade ahead. Our comments are made with the objectives of (a) producing a legally compliant Housing Element; (b) achieving the city’s stated goal of receiving a pro-housing designation from HCD; and (c) ensuring that the Housing Element is designed to best alleviate our housing crisis over the next decade.
Given these objectives, our main concerns with the Housing Element as currently drafted are:
1. A lack of clear timelines and measurable objectives in the programs laid out in Chapter 3, Table 1, including, but not limited to:
a. A lack of either metrics or timelines for AFFH obligations. b. A lack of metrics to assess the success of our homelessness prevention services.
c. A lack of metrics to measure the success of development streamlining. d. Lack of clear goals around levels of funding for subsidized housing.
2. A lack of any clear planned action on addressing Housing Constraints, beyond program 1.1(d) to “Complete a review of development standards... to address feasibility constraints.” The costs covered in Appendix D and summarized in Appendix H Exhibit 2 make clear the substantial costs imposed by various governmental constraints, but the only programs identified to curb these costs at all are to investigate (a) changes to the park fee structure and (b) reduction of parking minimums on a project-by-project basis. In particular:
a. We believe that the draft understates the impact of project delays and long permitting timelines on project feasibility. Staff capacity was cited as a constraint in stakeholder meetings with nonprofit and for-profit developers. b. We appreciate that the city is considering reducing parking minimums for subsidized, affordable housing projects. The city should also remove parking mandates for unsubsidized housing because the city’s own analysis in Appendix H justifies it. The parking cost impact cited in Appendix H is for a 0.4 space / unit adjustment. Most of the city is subject to a 2 space / unit parking mandate, which would imply that the existing parking requirements represent 9- 14% of per unit development costs, on par with existing BMR in-lieu fees. c. The city should commit to reducing park land fees until housing is economically feasible to build. Currently, infill housing is, on average, not feasible to build, per Seifel’s 2019 study of the East Whisman Master Plan office bonus FAR.
3. A failure to designate any programs to reduce spatial segregation within Mountain View as part of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The draft asserts that “Mountain View generally has low levels of segregation within City limits,” and while it is true that Mountain View may not have high levels of segregation per census designations, that does not mean there is not meaningful segregation nor that we should do nothing about it. A city in which Mariano Castro Elementary school has an 88% Hispanic/Latino population and Amy Imai Elementary has a 7.3% Hispanic/Latino population is not one that can simply ignore segregation (Figure 67). We would urge that the city adopt specific goals around improving racial and economic integration in our city and plan to adopt specific zoning and housing policy changes to encourage said integration.
4. Our concerns about the site inventory remain largely the same as in our past letters, as the site inventory itself remains largely the same - only a few percentage points of the sites have changed. Little of our feedback from February (see attached) has been addressed in the current draft. The city still fails to provide any analysis to suggest that the 100+ businesses and offices included in the inventory will be discontinued by 2031 in favor of housing. The city still includes 384 San Antonio (Bank of America) and 2633 California (China Wok) in the site inventory despite lack of interest from land owners. And the city is still taking credit for land dedications from Middlefield and North Bayshore for affordable housing without having any plan to build that affordable housing by 2031. All of these issues were identified in our February letter and remain unresolved.
Thank you for considering our input.
Best regards,
James Kuszmaul
On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY
Dear Mayor Ramirez and City Council Members,The city’s housing targets have almost quadrupled, and before you is a site inventory methodology designed to maintain the status quo. If we do not create a realistic plan to build far more housing across the income spectrum, we are doing a disservice to the working people who came to housing element meetings to ask for a real plan to address the housing crisis.The draft site inventory is too small. The city cannot accommodate a 3.8x increase in our housing target while excluding R1, R2, and R3 lots. No data or evidence is provided to show that this methodology leaves us with enough zoning capacity to realistically hit our housing targets.To predict what will happen, we should look at what is happening now. Mountain View is on track to develop around 21% of its 5th RHNA cycle site inventory. So, Mountain View YIMBY believes we should apply great scrutiny to a housing element that claims the median site has much more than a 21% chance of development by 2031.1 Of course, many sites are quite likely to develop - as in North Bayshore and East Whisman - but even these projects face risk2 and include land donations for affordable housing that lack development timelines. Other sites have near zero chance of development, as is the case with 555 Showers (Target), 384 San Antonio (Bank of America), and 2633 California (China Wok) – all of whom have landowners uninterested in housing. On whole, the site inventory contains over a hundred businesses and offices, and the city presents no case for thinking these businesses will be demolished by 2031. Such a case would be hard to make.The story is even worse for Low & Very Low Income housing. The sites in the inventory are projected for lots of BMR, whereas actual projects being built have much less.3 And so, to reach the BMR target, the city should list many more sites, donate land for all-affordable projects, or both. To make all housing more likely, we recommend eliminating parking minima and removing the requirement for council approval from higher tier densities in precise plans.Furthermore, the lack of sites south of El Camino is glaring, especially considering the racial diversity difference between the areas. Census tracts south of El Camino have no more than 11% Hispanics. However, that percentage rises to as high as 40% in census tracts north of El Camino. Furthermore, all census tracts south of El Camino are rated Highest Resource by the state Tax Credit Allocation Committee, whereas most northern tracts are Moderate Resource.1 See Table A.1. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6786z5j92 One project in East Whisman - 415 E. Middlefield - already failed due to financial feasibility. For North Bayshore, the city’s plan on how to streamline North Bayshore is still in flux and may not guarantee Shorebird South (1794 homes) by 2031. Last, MVWSD’s proposed Mello-Roos style tax, if approved, will render new housing infeasible.3 According to Table 2 on page 7 of the staff report, opportunity sites are projected to be 5,462 / 6,830 = 80% BMR units, whereas actually proposed projects in the pipeline are on track to be 1,842 / 8,236 = 22% BMR units.
To remedy this, we recommend including the Cuesta Park Annex and Blossom Valley Shopping Center, which should be proactively rezoned since the General Plan already contemplates housing there. Furthermore, the city should search for and find other opportunity sites south of El Camino.We would also like to add the following policies and programs in the housing element:Develop a local no-net-loss policy for rent controlled units by requiring a 1-for-1 replacement with right of return at current rent and temporary relocation assistance during construction for existing tenants similar to the provisions in SB330. This should be tied to a policy to greatly increase density upon redevelopment of older buildings near transit and high opportunity areas, so redevelopment is feasible. (Goals 1 & 2).Expand and solidify the Eviction Prevention Program currently managed by the rent stabilization staff. Built to mitigate COVID’s economic impacts, the city should expand the Eviction Prevention Program and fund it to assist tenants not covered by CSFRA. Since most clients of the Eviction Prevention Program were non-native English speakers, the city should provide more resources to the Multicultural Engagement Program (MEP). (Goal 2)Invest in diverse opportunities for community owned housing including Community Land Trusts and Community Development Corporations and adopt policies to enable community development and acquisition of housing properties like COPA/TOPA. (Goal 4)Create a citywide housing portal for all affordable housing in the city to make it easier for residents to find and apply for below-market-rate (BMR) units. It should also be clear that people can apply regardless of immigration status. (Goal 2)Expand safe parking and other rapid re-housing support for unhoused residents. (Goal 3)Many of these policy and program recommendations have segments in the city workplan and are among the list of example policies of AFFH under HCD guidance. We hope to see these policies added to the housing element.Kind regards,Salim Damerdji and Kevin MaOn behalf of Mountain View YIMBY
1 May 18, 2022 @9:55 am
To: City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission From: Daniel M Shane, resident
Cc: [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item #5.1 – Study Session – Housing Element Update – Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Daniel Shane Comments on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Note: Comments due by 5:00 pm on Wednesday May 18, 2022
Dear Environmental Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element for discussion during the Study Session scheduled for Wednesday March 18, 2022 at 7:00 pm.
I know the Commissioners really care about Mountain View and making improvements in the development review process. I have given this subject a great amount of thought and I have concluded that besides tweaking some processes there needs to be a revamping of the overarching policies, goals, objectives, and priorities to enable the city to grow and maintain a high quality of livability and quality of life. I have partially read the Executive Summary for the Development Review Assessment dated November 24, 2021 and prepared by Matrix Consulting Group. Matrix made 51 recommendations for improvements to the development review process.
Three major elements of urban land use planning process are the General Plan, Zoning, and Permitting.
The General Plan has seven (7) elements. They are land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. Of the seven elements, the Housing Element is the only element subject to a mandatory review by a State agency, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
A major part of the Housing Element process is to:
1) Identify sites to meet the RHNA or Regional Housing Needs Allocation which is the number of units that can be built during the 8-year cycle of the Housing Element 2) Outline action items in the form of programs to ensure that the housing needs of the city, including those identified by State law, are addressed in the next 8-years from 2023-2031.
I have recently received the Staff Report for the Draft Housing Element and I am currently reviewing the document. I was informed by a City Council member that significant policy and process changes can be made through the Housing Element review process. I will submit separate comments for the Staff Report on the Draft Housing Element. But in the meantime, I have recommended several new changes and offered several ideas on how we might improve the development review process through overarching new policy goals and objectives. Seven key ideas are:
2 (1) Engage the public early-on in the planning stages of a housing development. The policy would require the developer to engage the residents near the project site during the early planning stages (e.g., conceptual phase) and obtain feedback on the development and its impacts to the neighborhood that could be incorporated into the project design. I believe the city, the developer, and the residents could save a tremendous amount of time, money, resources, and anxiety if there was early collaboration, cooperation, coordination, and communication between the corporate developer and the neighborhood residents. This may be the single most important policy that may change an adversarial urban land use planning process into a cooperative process. This is not just a Mountain View problem.
This problem is nationwide. I believe the City’s role should be to moderate the differences between the stakeholders and help find solutions to problems. Above all, the city has a primary responsibility to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment. The city must address the resident’s concerns about public health and safety as their number one priority in any development. There is no other governmental entity to do this, except maybe the County Department of Public Health. I recommend the city initially evaluate the health and safety concerns of the project and all other project planning can originate and flow from that assessment. This may be a new perception which can be translated to a major policy change for the public agencies involved in the development review process. (2) Integrate the existing natural ecosystem (i.e., natural resources such as trees, waterways, flora, and fauna) with the development (i.e., buildings, garages, roads). Artificial landscaping cannot replace a viable natural ecosystem. This also may be a new perception that gets translated into policy. Trees are not just niceties, they are necessary. They are necessary for our survival and mental health. Trees raise our spirits and soothes our souls. Developers have created a false premise backed by disinformation and false facts. Developers and housing advocacy groups have made the issue only a choice between housing or trees. This is simply not true. We can have both at the same time by integrating our natural environment with housing developments. What we need is the proper policies and motivation to get the private developers to comply with the new policies, ordinances, and codes that will more fully engage the residents most impacted by these projects as well as ensure the protection of public health, welfare, and the environment.
(3) Preservation and enhancement of Highway Vegetation Barriers should be a priority for the protection of the public health against exposures to toxic and carcinogenic pollutants from auto and truck emissions. Tree protective highway barriers need a higher priority for protection and enhancements. A list of scientific references on the growing evidence of the importance of highway vegetation barriers to public health is attached to this letter. I have much more information and data on the need to protect and enhance highway tree barrier systems located between heavily used highways and residential areas.
(4) Implement a policy that places a higher priority on using GIS urban land use management technology and software to evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of housing developments.
Currently, housing projects are evaluated on their own individual merit, and in a vacuum. The City Council and staff need to better understand the cumulative environmental impacts of all the projects in the queue taken together and not solely on an individual basis. The natural and human ecosystems are complex, integrated, and interconnected web of life and supporting systems that need to be understood and protected. The Planning Commission should set goals and objectives for preservation of the natural ecosystem within the urban setting. In other words, evaluate the environmental impacts by using an ecosystem (quality) approach rather than using the numbers of Heritage trees (quantity) approach. 3 (5) Hire and employ qualified staff (environmental engineers, environmental scientists, environmental specialists) to effectively assist in the implementation of these major public health and environmental policy changes.
(6) Introduce new policies and code changes that broaden the list of protected tree species and revise the circumference size thresholds to expand the numbers of trees protected. The City of Palo Alto is currently working on such a policy to better prevent the loss of trees during housing development. An article in Palo Alto On-Line is attached to this letter. Note: It appears that Palo Alto protected trees are evaluated according to the diameter of the trunk while Mountain View uses the circumference of the trunk at a certain distance from ground surface level. The relationship between the tree trunk diameter and the circumference is the following equation - If the protected tree threshold size for all trees is 48 inches in circumference. The diameter would be 48.0 inches divided by 3.14 or 15.28 inches. In Mountain View, three species of trees are protected by Heritage Tree designation – redwoods, oaks, and cedars. The threshold size for Heritage Trees is 12-inch circumference measured at 54 inches above natural grade. The diameter would be 12.0 inches divided by 3.14 or 3.82 inches. Pleas verify the accuracy of this data. A new designation should be codified by the city. The designation would be all existing trees that form a “Highway Tree Barrier System”. The code would require private landowners to protect and maintain these trees and enhance their effectiveness by planting trees and vegetation that fill any gaps in the barrier that develop over time as determined by the Urban Forester. (7) Elevate the Urban Forester position in the City Hall hierarchy.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Shane, Homeowner
5/16/22, 9:12 AM Palo Alto set to strengthen tree protection rules | News | Palo Alto Online | https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/10/19/city-moves-to-expand-tree-protection-rules 1/2 Palo Alto set to strengthen tree protection rules
City Council looks to prohibit removal of more native species by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly
Uploaded: Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 12:29 am
Palo Alto famously loves its trees — as its namesake redwood, its official seal and its recently adopted Urban Forest Master Plan loudly and proudly testify.
But despite that passion, city laws that protect local trees are somewhat weak and outdated, a conclusion that residents and city staff reached more than three years ago, when they began an effort to update the city code. Planning staff struggle with the ambiguities in the city's code, particularly its failure to address situations where trees impact accessory dwelling units or neighboring properties.
Neighborhood leaders argue that the laws are too permissive when it comes to allowing developers and property owners to remove trees as part of construction projects. City commissioners observe that other cities protect a wider array of trees than Palo Alto.
Bryna Chang, a member of the city's Planning and Transportation Commission, said she was surprised to learn recently that Palo Alto's tree protection laws are weaker than in neighboring cities. "I was absolutely shocked that despite the great pride we take in our trees and the great pride we take in being a green and environmentally conscious community, we protect our trees far less than all of these neighboring cities," Chang told the City Council on Monday, as the council considered its first update of the tree protection ordinance in 20 years.
She was one of about two dozen residents, including environmental advocates, nonprofit leaders and neighborhood activists, who supported stronger protections. Some touted the environmental and health benefits of trees, particularly when it comes to sequestering carbon, supporting biodiversity and keeping neighborhoods cool. Almost all urged the council to expand the city's tree protection laws to be more aligned with surrounding jurisdictions.
"As a resident of Palo Alto, it has been disturbing and heartbreaking to see residential lots in my neighborhood stripped of all vegetation, including beautiful large trees, prior to new home construction," Julianne Frizzell, a landscape architect who lives in Palo Alto. "Aesthetically and ecologically, removal of trees has a negative impact on neighbors, neighborhoods and the community." While cities such as East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Sunnyvale list all species as "protected" once they reach a certain size, Palo Alto tree protection laws protect just three native species: the coast redwood, the coast live oak and the valley oak. According to the city's Urban Forest Master Plan, there are about 534 coast live oaks, 243 coast redwoods and 215 valley oaks in the public right of way, making these three among the most common city-owned native species in the city (that said, they are far outnumbered by imported species in the street-tree population such as the southern magnolia, which number more than 4,000 in Palo Alto; the city also has 2,832 London planes and 2,669 liquidambars).
Among the code changes that the city has been contemplating was expanding the roster of protected trees to more of the 22 native species that are listed in the master plan -- a list that includes the bigleaf maple, the California incense cedar and the California bay.
The revised approach proposed by the ad hoc committee, which includes former Mayor Karen Holman, Parks and Recreation Commission Vice Chair Jeff Greenfield, planning Commissioner Doria Summa and community activist Winter Dellenbach, calls for designating as "protected" the two oak species that are currently listed as such and adding to the list the bigleaf maple, the California incense cedar, the blue oak and the California black oak, as well as the coast redwood.
Significantly, the revision would also lower the size threshold for protected trees. Public works staff has initially proposed protecting all trees that have trunk diameters of 36 inches or greater, while keeping a lower threshold for three native tree species that currently enjoy protected status: 18 inches for the coast redwood and 11.5 inches for the other species. A change proposed by an ad hoc committee called for a diameter threshold of 11.5 inches for native tree species and 18 inches for all other trees. Holman, who now serves on the board of directors at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, urged the council on Monday to move ahead with the various revisions.
"With one action tonight, the council can positively influence more aspects of life in Palo Alto than virtually any other single action you can take," Holman said.
Various environmentalist nonprofits, including Canopy, the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society also lobbied the city to strengthen its tree protection laws. Canopy noted in a letter that neighborhoods with street trees can be up to 6 to 10 degrees cooler than those without. Trees, Canopy argued, provide "a substantial return on investment and, even in times of drought and budget tightening, are worth their water and maintenance."
"The reasons for protecting and planting trees are clear," states the letter from Holly Pearson, a board member at Canopy, and Catherine Martineau, the nonprofit's executive director. "Among many other benefits, trees sequester carbon, combat the urban heat island effect, cool buildings, prevent soil erosion and stormwater run-off, provide wildlife habitat, and promote walking and biking on city streets."
While the council stopped short of formally adopting the code changes on Monday as many had urged, it sent a clear signal that major revisions are coming soon. Over a series of votes, the council directed staff to move ahead with an ordinance update that would reflect a host of revisions that align with recommendation from the ad hoc committee ofand its Policy and Services Committee, which reviewed the proposed changes in August. And in moves that further aim to raise the profile of local trees, the council also voted to elevate the urban forester position within the department and to designate the Parks and Recreation Commission as a forum for tree-related discussions.
5/16/22, 9:12 AM Palo Alto set to strengthen tree protection rules | News | Palo Alto Online | https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/10/19/city-moves-to-expand-tree-protection-rules 2/2 In addition to broadening the list of protected species, the revision effort would introduce several other new policies. One aims to address what staff called a "loophole" in the code -- the more stringent requirements for removing trees as part of a development proposal than for cases not involving new construction. This creates an incentive for developers to remove trees in advance of an application, said Peter Gollinger, the city's acting urban forester. To address that, the add hoc group and the Policy and Services Committee proposed a 36-month moratorium on development for any property that removes a protected tree.
Another revision creates an appeal process for instances in which a protected tree is proposed for removal in the absence of a development application. With the change, the person removing the tree would have to notify all neighbors and property owners within 600 feet of the property in writing about the tree removal. Everyone within 600 feet will have the option of appealing the removal.
The revised ordinance will undergo reviews in the coming months by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Architectural Review Board before returning to the council for approval in March or April. Mayor Tom DuBois and council member Lydia Kou both supported a faster timeline but ultimately acceded to the process laid out by staff, which includes additional outreach to the broader community.
"Proposed changes like significantly expanding the categories of protected tree species could potentially impact many or even most properties in the city," Public Works Director Brad Eggleston told the council. "While we know in our outreach process we never manage to reach everyone who might be interested, we do want as much as possible to avoid people being surprised when they learn that an existing tree on their property has become protected and that impacts what they're allowed to do." Some council members supported a more deliberate approach. Council member Greg Tanaka wanted to know more about the costs of adopting and enforcing the new laws, as well as of raising the urban forester position in the City Hall hierarchy (he was the only council member who voted against elevating the position). Council member Alison Cormack also supported more outreach and analysis before deciding on expansion of the list of protected species. She and Tanaka both opposed DuBois' motion to modify the definition of "protected trees" to include any tree at least 15 inches in diameter (despite their opposition, the provision passed by a 5-2 vote). "I am absolutely open to adding species to the list and potentially reducing the size of the diameter, but I am not comfortable this evening making those decisions," Cormack said. "I don't feel we've been presented with enough information to be confident in making those decisions."
Others favored faster action on what they characterized as a critical issue. While Cormack asked her colleagues what problem the city is trying to solve with the code changes, Vice Mayor Pat Burt noted that it's "not a single problem and it's not a single benefit." "That's one of the great things about this," Burt said. "We simultaneously address noise and heat and air and water pollution and aesthetics and climate impacts and the natural habitat — even slowing of traffic." © 2022 Palo Alto Online. All rights reserved.
1 LIST OF REFERENCES FOR THE
BENEFITS OF HIGHWAY TREE
BARRIER SYSTEMS
1) Researchers Assess Roadside Vegetation Barriers with a Suite of Air, U.S. EPA May 19, 2020
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/researchers-assess-roadside-vegetation-barriers-suite-air-monitors
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=527885&Lab=NRMRL
2) Vegetation and Other Development Options for Mitigating Urban Air Pollution Impacts, Page 56, By Richard Baldauf and David Nowak, 2014
https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2014/nrs_2014_bauldauf_001.pdf
3) Living Close to Roadways: Health Concerns and Mitigation Strategies, U.S.
EPA, Science Matters, published January 10, 2017.
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/living-close-roadways-health-concerns-and-mitigation-strategies
4) Recommendations for Constructing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-Road Air Quality, U.S. EPA, Science in Action, Innovative Research for a Sustainable Future, August 2016
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
08/documents/recommendations_for_constructing_roadside_vegetation_barriers_to_improve_near- road_air_quality.pdf
EPA Contact: Rich Baldauf, Ph.D., P.E. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 919-541-4386 [email protected]
Richard W. Baldauf, Physical Scientist/Engineer in EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air and Energy Management Division Mailing Address [email protected] Area of Expertise: Development of policies and practices to mitigate transportation-related air pollution emissions and air quality impacts at local, urban, and global scales. His research has led to national emissions standards and best practices to mitigate air pollution impacts using air pollution control and urban development strategies including built and green infrastructure.
Selected Publications Yang, B., Zhang, K.M., Xu, W.D., Zhang, S., Batterman, S., Baldauf, R.W. 2018. On- Road Chemical Transformation as an Important Mechanism of NO2 Formation. Environmental Science & Technology 52(8), 4574-4582. Kimbrough, E.S., Hanley, T., Hagler, G.E., Baldauf, R.W., Snyder, M., Brantley, H. 2018. Influential factors affecting black carbon trends at four sites of differing distance from a major highway in Las Vegas. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 11 (2), 181-196 Steffens, J., Kimbrough, 2 E.S., Baldauf, R.W., Isakov, V., Brown, R., Powell, A. 2018. Near-port air quality assessment utilizing a mobile measurement approach. Atmospheric Pollution Research 8(6), 1023-1030. Baldauf, R., 2017.
Roadside vegetation design characteristics that can improve local, near-road air quality.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, pp.354-361. Abhijith, K.V., Kumar, P., Gallagher, J., McNabola, A., Baldauf, R., Pilla, F., Broderick, B., Di Sabatino, S. and Pulvirenti, B., 2017. Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environments–A review. Atmospheric Environment. Fuller, C.H., Carter, D.R., Hayat, M.J., Baldauf, R., Watts Hull, R., 2017. Phenology of a Vegetation Barrier and Resulting Impacts on Near-Highway Particle Number and Black Carbon Concentrations on a School Campus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(2), p.160. View more publications by Richard Baldauf Education: • Ph.D., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Civil & Environmental Engineering 2000 • M.S., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Environmental Science & Engineering, 1993 • B.S., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; Civil & Environmental Engineering 1991 Professional Experience • Joint affiliation with the EPA Office of Research & Development and the EPA Office of Transportation & Air Quality, leading cross-disciplinary research teams focusing on air quality measurements, air dispersion modeling, and sustainable transportation and urban development issues. • North Carolina State University, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Adjunct Professor • Texas A&M University, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Adjunct Professor Professional Registration and Societies • Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Kansas, No 15573 • Member, National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board • American Society of Civil Engineers •
Air & Waste Management Association Awards and Honors • Science and Technology Achievement Awards, 2008, 2009 • EPA Bronze Medal, Near Road Research Team (2008); PEMS Development Team (2002) • EPA-NRMRL Honor Award for Teamwork, 2007 Science Matters – Living Close to Roadways:
Health Concerns and Mitigation Strategies
From: William Lambert
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 12:12 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EPC Housing Element Study Session - Comments May-18-2022
EPC Chair Cranston and Commissioners,
I have carefully reviewed the Staff Report and certain sections of the Public Review Draft for this evening’s meeting. In less detail I have reviewed the entire Public Review Draft.
Although I planned to provide more comprehensive comments, unfortunately my time has been limited. However, please note the following:
1. There is quite a bit of information in Exhibit 3 (Evaluation of Alternative Park Land Dedication Scenarios). Although perhaps beyond the scope of this Study Session, I would like to understand where the numbers came from for the analysis and what the analysis tells us about the City’s ability to generate parkland from new development. In other words, how are we to interpret this information, what doe it tells, and what lessons are we to take going forward.
2. Beginning on page 8 of the Staff Report, the City identifies several programs that are included in the Housing Plan, including Key Program B : Park Land Ordinance Update (1.10) which is being developed within the context of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. How is this Key Program as well as the other listed Key Programs to be incorporated into the Housing Needs Assessment and Government Constraints analysis. Where can the information that is being used to inform the HNA-GC analysis be found.
3. As identified in the Staff Report, parkland requirements are viewed as a “major cost factor.” See page 5, second full paragraph. I suppose that if the focus of city planning is only on housing growth, then parkland can be considered a “major cost factor.” But looking at parkland from the perspective of community building, providing and increasing meaningful parkland is a critical community investment and opportunity to improve the quality of life in Mountain View. Reframe the perspective.
4. On page 23 of the Staff Report the timeline for approving the Final Housing Element is presented. As apparently required by the state, the Final Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2023, and the City will have until May 31, 2023 to amend and adopt the Final Housing Element. However, I note that the completion of at least a few of the Key Programs is not anticipated until well after January-May 2023. For example, as we heard during last week’s City Council meeting and as presented on page 9 of the Staff Report, the Park and Open Space Strategic Plan Update (POSPU) will not be completed until June 2024, and the process will only begin sometime this fall. The Housing Element plan will undoubtedly put constraints on land use in Mountain View for at least a decade or longer. Land is used for residences, retail, commercial, schools, city services, and parkland, among other uses. The POSPU promises to assess the need for publicly accessible parkland in Mountain View and to provide adequate parkland for all residents in Mountain View, and in particular in north Mountain View where there has historically been a deficit of parkland and where most of the major residential growth in Mountain View will be occurring. Creative land use and funding solutions will be required to address the parkland needs. Unfortunately, this Housing Element will not be informed by the POSPU. I would hope that the Housing Element be sufficiently flexible that it will inhibit or prohibit certain solutions for parkland.
5. Finally, on page 8 of the Staff Report, Key Program B, please understand that where the Report states that “most parkland dedication requirements are satisfied through the fee” which presumably means the developer in lieu fee, that this means that parkland developer fees are satisfied, and not that adequate parkland for the new residential growth is being provide (see the record) and the in lieu fees does nothing for those areas of the city that do not currently have adequate publicly accessible parkland.
Housing is just one aspect of community development and community planning.
I look forward to this evening’s discussion.
Bill
Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
c/o Aaron Grossman
GreenSpacesMV
c/o Bruce England
May 18, 2022
City of Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission City Hall, 500 Castro Street
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
Re: 5.1 Housing Element Update - Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Dear Chairperson Cranston and Environmental Planning Commissioners:
Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) and GreenSpacesMV appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Housing Element agenda item for your meeting on May 18th. We agree with points made in letters from the League of Women Voters and MV YIMBY . Accordingly, our intention here is to make points that might not have already been made in the other letters.
Through the Housing Element work, we fully support anything that can be done to provide increased housing inventory in Mountain View, in particular affordable housing for all income levels. This availability is needed in no small part to help address our serious jobs-housing imbalance.
We also support quality, low-carbon building and infrastructure-sensible landscaping (that is, native, drought tolerant, climate resilient, pollinator-friendly, and location-appropriate) and increased canopy and park space. And strong consideration for safe routes to school and school availability planning for all projects, and also for eliminating parking minimums for proposed development projects are both essential.
Finally, we would like to see consideration for fair labor standards, as well articulated by our regional trade unions and their members; this means preference for hiring local and incorporating benefits and apprenticeship programs
into project contracts. We understand that the City does not want to build fair labor into individual contracts.
Therefore, the alternative is to build this into citywide standards as appropriate, and these are steps we ask the City to take.
The following are in reference to particular sections of the Staff Report:
● On page 8, section b) regarding public space ratios: A claim is made that our ratios are too high in comparison to Sunnyvale’s or Santa Clara’s. However, it is not reasonable to only compare to places with lower land values. If we want to establish more parks and open space, we need to have fees that are in proportion to the cost of land in our city. Developers recognize the value of the land, and that value means that infrastructure will cost proportionally more as well. ● On page 8, section c) regarding parking: We agree that parking requirements should be reduced or removed, with considerations to explore increasing active transportation. Just as a bathtub is not required in every single family house to support a family with kids, not every house needs a garage to support a family with a car. With reduced parking requirements, we recommend providing bicycle infrastructure, such as bike racks and robust public throughways, such as paths for pedestrians. ● On page 19 regarding rezoning: We are excited by the opportunity provided by rezoning the village centers. Updates that make them include more housing could also be used as an opportunity to make them more walkable, bike friendly, and nature-enhanced. The public spaces within them would also be much better for the environment than the huge parking lots they currently contain.
Additionally, in the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Plan, we appreciate the outline of goals and policies that will guide City decision-makers and Staff in implementation. As natural elements in the landscaping and streetscapes can provide a multitude of benefits including beauty, increased property values, energy and water efficiency (e.g., stormwater management, urban heat island mitigation, and shade), we recommend incorporating strategies to preserve and increase trees and native biodiversity. A healthy urban forest and increased green spaces support the City’s strategic priorities in sustainability and livability. Please consider ensuring there is coordination and alignment with the City’s Community Tree Master Plan and plans to increase biodiversity and protect wildlife in Policies 1.3, 1.7, 4.2, and 4.3.
In closing, we hope you will consider all we have presented in this letter for inclusion with your recommendations to City Council for their study session on June 14th.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment!
Sincerely,
Bruce England
for the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning Silja Paymer
for GreenSpacesMV
cc:
Ellen Yau, Senior Planner
Eric Anderson, Principal Planner
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director / Assistant City Manager Wayne Chen, Assistant Community Development Director
Micaela Hellman-Tincher, Housing & Neighborhood Services Manager Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Heather Glaser, City Clerk
About Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning is a local volunteer-based organization dedicated to making Mountain View as beautiful, economically healthy, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessible, and affordable as possible. MVCSP member interest and expertise covers areas such as housing, transportation, the environment, the economy, and beyond!
For more information, see http://www.mvcsp.org.
To contact us, send email [email protected].
About GreenSpacesMV
GreenSpacesMV is a community group that has come together since the end of 2020, doing what we can to further develop a healthy community that thrives with parkland, urban tree canopy, nature, and native biodiversity.
For more information, see http://www.greenspacesmv.org.
To contact us, send email [email protected].
From: D Offen or G Nyhan
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 5/18/22 Study session on the Housing Element
Dear Planning Commission member,
As long-time homeowners, we continue to be very concerned about the jobs-housing imbalance in our city. As a general policy for the Housing Element, we urge you to support a City goal of not worsening the jobs/housing imbalance. Please do not support new development projects which create more new jobs than new housing, with a priority given to affordable housing. New high-tech jobs also require supportive lower-paying jobs, and those workers also need places to live.
Thank you for your consideration of our views,
Dave Offen & Gail Nyhan
April 21, 2022
Dear Mountain View City Council:
We are writing on behalf of YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance regarding Mountain View’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. YIMBY Law is a legal nonprofit working to make housing in California more ac‐ cessible and affordable through enforcement of state law. Greenbelt Alliance is an environmental nonprofit working to ensure that the Bay Area’s lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate.
We are writing to remind you of Mountain View's obligation to include sufficient sites in your upcoming Housing Element to accommodate your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 11,135 units.
In the Annual Progress Reports that Mountain View submitted to HCD, we observe the following trend of housing units permitted in the last three years:
Year Housing units permitted
2018 330
2019 294
2020 1,489
Average, 2018-2020 704
To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of new housing permits in Mountain View would need to in‐ crease from 704 units per year in 2018-2020 to 1,392 units per year in the next 8 years. This is a 98% increase from recent years. If the current pace were to continue, Mountain View would meet only 51% of its new hous‐ ing target.
Based on these trends, it is unlikely that Mountain View’s existing realistic zoning capacity is sufficient to meet its 6th cycle RHNA target. According to HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook , housing ele‐ ments must analyze the realistic capacity of their sites, which may include considerations of “[l]ocal or regional track records”, “past production trends”, and “the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the pre‐ vious planning period”. A housing element that does not include a significant rezoning component is therefore unlikely to be compliant with state law.
We urge Mountain View to include a major rezoning component in its Housing Element—a rezoning large enough to close the gap between recent housing production trends and the RHNA target. The rezoning should be within existing communities and should comply with the city’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. We also urge Mountain View to ease any other constraints, such as discretionary approval pro‐ cesses or impact fees, that may impede the rate of development on your city's housing sites.
Thank you,
Sid Kapur, East Bay YIMBY
Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Law
Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance
From: Salim Damerdji
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:26 PM
To: City Council FORWARD <[email protected]> Cc: MV YIMBY
Subject: Thank You
Dear Mayor Ramirez and City Council Members,
Mountain View YIMBY would like to thank city council for supporting a pro-housing, progressive site inventory methodology and a set of programs that affirmatively further fair housing. The community has submitted over three thousand individual comments as part of this housing element update, and last night city council showed that the community was heard.
We look forward to continuing to engage with you on creating a housing element that lives up to our city’s values by creating a big, inclusive city that anyone can call home.
Thank you,
Salim Damerdji
On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY
From: Leora Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:56 PM
To: City Council FORWARD <[email protected]> Subject: Item 6.1 Housing Element Update-Draft Sites Inventory and Draft Goals and Policies
Council City Council,
How many years must the housing crisis continue before the city puts together a real plan to meet the community's housing needs?
According to the staff report, the city received over 3,000 individual comments on the housing element. Those comments described the toll this housing crisis has taken on our community, and those comments also detailed what steps the city must take to ameliorate the crisis.
Instead of listening to the public, the city has put together a plan to continue with the status quo.
If you want to show the community that you are actually listening, the city should create a site inventory that will realistically hit our housing targets.
To actually build the homes we need, the city should dedicate more land for affordable housing, upzone high opportunity areas, eliminate parking minima, and remove City Council review in precise plan areas up to the highest defined density tier.
Leora Ross
From: Philip C. Cosby
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 4:57 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Yau, Ellen <[email protected]>; Sandra Esparza; Reyna Dominguez Subject: Agenda Item 5.1
Dear Commissioner-
Given the recent history in Mountain View of seeing hundreds of units of naturally-affordable housing demolished and their communities displaced only to be replaced by fewer and very expensive housing units, the members of the Cafecito are alarmed to find scant attention to anti-displacement policies included within the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. In fact, on page 8 of tonight's Staff Report for Item 5.1 the statement is made:
In order to allow time for analysis and flexibility in the consideration of options, the following programs have not been included in the Draft Housing Element:
• Displacement Response strategy, including replacement of existing units requirements for new development and first right of return—this project is a priority in the Council Work Plan; and • Community Opportunity to Purchase/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase—will be evaluated as part of the Breakthrough Grant
Both these programs are expected to be brought to Council Study Sessions in 2023.
We feel this is unacceptable and must be corrected. (these Council Study Sessions were anticipated two- years ago!)
While the threat of demolition of affordable units is currently mitigated by provisions in SB-330, we note this law sunsets during the time frame covered by the draft Housing Element. Hence it is important that the draft Housing Element include robust anti-displacement policies for the lower-income families in our City.
For the Cafecito at St. Athanasius,
--Philip C. Cosby
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Philip C. Cosby
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: Alex from the MVMHA
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 5:01 PM
To: [email protected]; Bill Cranston <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Hank Dempsey <[email protected]>; Preeti Hehmeyer <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Steering Committee <[email protected]>; Yau, Ellen <[email protected]>; Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]>; Shrivastava, Aarti <[email protected]>; Chen, Wayne <[email protected]>; Hellman-Tincher, Micaela <[email protected]>; McCarthy, Kimbra <[email protected]>; Glaser, Heather <[email protected]> Subject: MVMHA Housing Element Comments (very short)
Hey Commissioner Friends,
I'll leave most of the detailed proposal changes to MVCSP, LWV, YIMBYs, and the many other active and engaged community groups focused on housing.
Our humble request as the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance is to request that the language in the final Housing Element be broadly inclusive of all housing types. We would very much appreciate explicit inclusion of Mobile Home Communities. This is especially important in the areas of housing preservation and displacement prevention.
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Alex Brown
Official Guy Who Does Stuff Sometimes I Guess
Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance
From: Tracy Hovda
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 3:32 PM
To: Anderson, Eric B. <[email protected]> Subject: Blossom Valley
Hello Mr. Anderson,
I read in the Voice about the possibility of turning our great small shopping centers (Blossom Valley and Grant Park Plaza)over to greedy developers once again. Housing is already going up all over the place and up and down El Camino. I understand the need for more housing but, the developers aren’t giving up enough units to “affordable“ options as it is. The city of Mountain View administrators are sissies (couldn’t think of another word) when it comes to standing up to developers. These wealthy, greedy companies run all over us. Affordable housing should be AFFORDABLE. If the folks that work in our dry cleaners, grocery stores, etc, could live here, then you could use the word, “affordable.” Who does the city think they’re fooling?
Stay away from our nice, friendly, convenient grocery stores, nail salons, bagel shops, etc. We are all sick of the greed and the congestion. Enough already.
Tracy Hovda, lover of Mountain View for 25 years.
From: Mathew Reed
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 8:31 AM
To: Mathew Reed
Cc: Alison Cingolani
Subject: Declining School Enrollment and Planning for More Housing
Silicon Valley Community Leaders.
We are reaching out to you as local city council members, city staff, school district superintendents, and school board members to share recent research we have conducted on declining school enrollments in your cities and school districts. We urge all of you to include consideration of the stability of local schools as your jurisdictions plan for more housing.
As most of you know, every city in the Bay Area is currently going through a state mandated process – Housing Element Update -- of planning for a significant number of new homes, including new affordable homes. As most of you are also aware, school districts throughout the County are experiencing significant declines in enrollment, with local elementary schools being particularly hard hit. (Learn more about individual schools and districts in your communities.) These painful declines across public, private and charter schools, began before the pandemic and are forecasted to continue through the next decade unless local leaders take action.
SV@Home would like to invite you to a virtual event we will be cohosting on this topic, The Missing Piece: How New Homes Can Help Save Our Schools from Declining Enrollment, at 6pm this evening (Monday, May 23, 2022).
Our recent report in partnership with the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and Palo Alto Forward, showed that thoughtful planning for new housing development – where and how affordable- offers an opportunity to stabilize local schools by creating more affordable options for younger families with school age children, and reducing student attrition caused by housing instability and displacement. This is an area where education leaders and local officials share a common interest, and must show collective leadership.
Please see our website for additional information on declining school enrollment and planning for new homes through the Housing Element Update, or contact Alison Cingolani at SV@Home for more information on how local community leaders can be a part of this discussion.
Source: California Department of Education
Source: California Department of Finance
Learn more from the full report, about declining enrollment in individual schools and districts in your communities. Please see our website for additional information on declining school enrollment and planning for new homes through the Housing Element Update, or contact Alison Cingolani at SV@Home for more information on how local community leaders can be a part of this discussion.
Mathew Reed
Director of Policy
siliconvalleyathome.org