Attachment 5
-1-
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.
SERIES 2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
AMENDING THE EL CAMINO REAL PRECISE PLAN TO INCREASE THE
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AND HEIGHT ALLOWANCES FOR RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FOR TIER 1 PROJECTS IN VILLAGE CENTER AREAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND MAKE OTHER MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, AB 3194 amended the Housing Accountability Act to remove barriers to housing production by restricting local jurisdictions from denying housing development projects that complied with objective general plan standards, such as allowed uses and densities, even if inconsistent with the established zoning designation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed El Camino Precise Plan amendments will remove the discretionary rezoning process in the Precise Plan for additional floor area ratio ( FAR) and density that is allowed by the established General Plan Land Use Designation in compliance with SB 330 and ensure consistency between zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations; and
WHEREAS, the procedures set forth in Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 11 of the Mountain View City Code, whereby the City can amend a Precise Plan, have been executed; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 36 of the City Code requires the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council each hold a duly noticed public hearing before a Precise Plan is amended; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2022 and recommended the City Council approve the El Camino Real Precise Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 24, 2023 and received and considered all evidence presented at said hearing regarding the El Camino Real Precise Plan Amendment, including the recommendation from the Environmental Planning Commission, City Council report, project materials, testimony, and written materials submitted; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Mountain View hereby makes the findings for amendment of a Precise Plan, pursuant to Section 36.50.95 of the City Code:
a. The proposed Precise Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan because the amendments reflect the allowed FAR and height allowances in the Mixed-Use Corridor Land Use Designation;
-2-
b. The property covered by the proposed Precise Plan Amendment is within the Planned Community (P) Zoning District because the amendment applies to all Village Center properties in the El Camino Real Precise Plan;
c. The proposed Precise P lan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the community because the amendment only modifies the administration of the project review and does not alter the allowed FAR and height allowances that are permitted in the Mixed-Use Corridor Land Use Designation;
d. The proposed Precise P lan Amendment promotes the development of desirable character, harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area, because the amendments eliminate the rezoning process but do not modify the existing development standards identified in the El Camino Real Precise Plan that were created to promote developments of desirable character and that are harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area;
e. The site has special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, existing development , or development opportunities that can only be addressed by approval of the proposed Precise Plan Amendment because the proposed administration amendments would further the goals of the El Camino Real Precise Plan and General Plan by eliminating a rezoning process for areas identified as Village Centers that are strategically located in parts of the City that further enhanced concentration of diverse uses like mixed-use developments; and
f. The approval of the proposed Precise Plan Amendment is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Housing Element Update and associated zoning amendments, which the EIR was considered, certified, and adopted by the City Council by separate resolution on January 24, 2023 , all in conformance with CEQA, prior to approval and adoption of this Resolution; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Mountain View that the Precise Plan Amendment, as more specifically shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved.
– – – – – – – – – – –
EY/1/RESO
810-12-07-22r-1
Exhibit: A. El Camino Real Precise Plan Amendment
El Camino Real Precise Plan
Exhibit A
EL CAMINO REAL PRECISE PLAN
(P38)
ADOPTED BY THE MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 17, 2014
RESOLUTION NO. 17913
RESOLUTION NO. SUMMARY
18248 DESIGNA TE CANNABIS BUSINESSES AS
A L AND USE
18347 AMEND CANNABIS BUSINESS L AND USES
AMENDED
OCTOBER 2, 2018
JUNE 11, 2019
ECE02 AMEND ALLOWED FAR AND HEIGHT FOR
RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
FOR TIER 1
i | City of Mountain View
Acknowledgments
CITY COUNCIL
Christopher R. Clark, Mayor
John McAlister, Vice Mayor
Margaret Abe-Koga
Ronit Bryant
John M. Inks
R. Michael Kasperzak, Jr.
Jac Siegel
PRECISE PLAN PROJECT STAFF
Eric Anderson, Project Management, Community
Development Department
Martin Alkire, Community Development Dept
Gerry Beaudin, Community Development Dept
Terry Blount, Community Development Dept
Quynh Byrer, Public Works Department
Krishan Chopra, City Attorney’s Office
Melinda Denis, Community Development Dept
Sayed Fakhry, Public Works Department
Lindsay Hagan, Community Development Dept
Diana Pancholi, Community Development Dept
Jacqueline Solomon, Public Works Department
Stephanie Williams, Community Development Dept
Nicole Wright, City Attorney’s Office
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
Robert Cox, Chair
Ellen Kamei, Vice Chair
Margaret Capriles
Todd Fernandez
Lisa Matichak
Kathy Trontell
John Scarboro
CONSULTANT TEAM
Raimi + Associates
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Strategic Economics
LSA Associates
Kimley Horn Associates
CITY MANAGEMENT
Daniel H. Rich, City Manager
Randal Tsuda, Community Development Director
Michael Fuller, Public Works Director
Jannie Quinn, City Attorney
Janet Belton
Elaine Breeze
Paul Brunmeier
Ronit Bryant
Robert Cox
John D’ambrosio
Shari Emling
Judy Fawcett
Todd Fernandez
Alex Hu
Bruce Karney
Michael Kay
Janet LaFleur
Job Lopez
Barbara Luedtke
María Marroquín
Alice McGuckin
Ray Meier
Jarrett Mullen
Jeff Oberdorfer
Peter Panfili
Khosro Rahnema
Irena Stepanova
Kathy Thibodeaux
CORRIDOR ADVISORY GROUP
This project was funded in part through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Station Area Planning Program and in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council.
El Camino Precise Plan | ii
Table of Contents
1. PLAN CONTEXT AND STRUCTURE .............................................................................1 Plan Context ...........................................................................................................................................2 General Plan Vision .................................................................................................................................3 Precise Plan Vision ...................................................................................................................................3 The Focused Strategy ..............................................................................................................................4 Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................................................6 Plan Structure and Content ....................................................................................................................7 About Standards and Guidelines ..............................................................................................................7 Purpose and Authority of the Precise Plan ................................................................................................8
2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES .......................................................9 Land Uses .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Ground Floor Commercial ..................................................................................................................... 14 Height & Floor Area Ratio ...................................................................................................................... 16 Village Centers ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Castro/Miramonte ................................................................................................................................. 22 Medium-Intensity Corridor .................................................................................................................... 24 Low-Intensity Corridor ........................................................................................................................... 26 Residential-Only Areas ........................................................................................................................... 28 Projects in Multiple Areas ...................................................................................................................... 29 Standards and Exceptions for All Areas .................................................................................................. 30 Design Guidelines .................................................................................................................................. 33 Fences and Signs ................................................................................................................................... 39 iii | City of Mountain View
3. MOBILITY AND STREETSCAPES ...............................................................................41 Typical El Camino Real Street Section .....................................................................................................42 General Plan Street Types .......................................................................................................................43 Vehicle Network ...................................................................................................................................43 Pedestrian Network ..............................................................................................................................44 Transit Network ....................................................................................................................................46 Bicycle Network ....................................................................................................................................48 Design Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................50 Caltrans Requirements and Exceptions ...................................................................................................58
4. IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................59 Project Administration ...........................................................................................................................60 Public Benefits .......................................................................................................................................66 Implementation Actions and Programs ..................................................................................................68 Capital Improvements ............................................................................................................................70 Funding Strategy ...................................................................................................................................71 APPENDIX: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..................73 Disclaimer:
The preparation of this Plan has been financed in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this Plan do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The statements and conclusions of this Plan are those of the Grantee and/or Subcontractor and not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the California Department of Conservation, or its employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department of Conservation make no warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. 16 | City of Mountain View
Height & Floor Area Ratio
Figures 4-6 show the range of allowed heights and intensities in different areas along the corridor. Maximum heights, intensities, and other standards are applied differently across the corridor depending on the location, public benefits provided, and the review process. This is the Plan’s “tiered” approach to height and intensity, which ensures a portion of the value created by larger development is used to improve El Camino Real. It also ensures City Council review of larger developments.
“Base” development, which is allowed throughout the corridor, has the lowest level of City review and does not require the contribution of public benefits. “Tier 1” allows more height and FAR in locations with larger parcels adjacent to multi-family neighborhoods, and requires the contribution of public benefits and review by the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council. “Tier 2” allows the highest FAR for commerical and office and is only allowed in Village Centers, where there is access to major transportation networks and daily goods and services. “Tier 2” involves review associated with rezoning, which could result in additional CEQA analysis, more public benefits, and other requirements resulting from legislative actions.
For more information about public benefits and project review, see Chapter 4. Development standards for each area follow the maps, starting on page 20. Table 4 provides a key to the maps.
Area Base Process Tier 1 Process Tier 2 Process
Village Centers*
1.35 FAR Residential/Hotel
0.5 F
AR Commercial/Office
3 (4) stories /45’(55’)
2.3 FAR Residential
1.85 FAR Hotel
0.5 FAR Commercial/Office
4 (5) stories 55’(65’)
2.3 FAR Hotel
1.0 FAR Commercial/Office
5 (6) stories
65’ (75’)
Castro/
Miramonte Sub-
Area 1
1.35 FAR Residential/Hotel
0.5 FAR Commercial/Office
3 stories/45’
1.85 FAR Residentia/Hotel
0.5 FAR Commercial
4 stories/55’
--
Castro/
Miramonte Sub-
Area 2
1.35 FAR Residential/Hotel
0.5 FAR Commercial/Office
3 stories/45’
No Max FAR
3 stories/45’
--
Medium Intensity
Corridor
1.35 FAR Residential/Hotel
0.5 FAR Commercial/Office
3 stories/45
’
1.85 FAR Residential/Hotel
0.5 FAR Commercial/Office
4 stories/55’
--
Low Intensity
Corridor
1.35 FAR Residential/Hotel
0.5 FAR Commercial/Office
3 stories/45’
-- --
Residential-Only
Areas See page 28 for details.
*Maximum heights in Village Centers are without (with) the provision of a public open area consistent with the Village Center Plazas guideline on page 34.
* In mixed-use projects: a) the total project FAR shall not exceed the maximum Residential FAR or Hotel FAR listed in this table, and b) the Commercial/Office FAR shall not exceed the maximum Commercial/ Office FAR listed in this table.Figure Addresses Shown
Figure 4 (pg 17) 2700 to 1953 West El Camino Real
Figure 5 (pg 18) 1952 to 200 West El Camino Real
Figure 6 (pg 19) 100 West El Camino Real to 903 East El Camino Real Table 3: Summary of Maximum Heights and Floor Area Ratios* Table 4: Height and FAR Map Key
20 | City of Mountain View
Figure 7: Village Center Tier 2 Setback Standards
Village Centers
Village Centers are key locations at major intersections where new development will be adjacent to retail, services, and transit.
The setback and intensity standards in Tables 5 and 6 apply to all Village Center projects. Applicants shall use the Base standards unless they apply for Tier 1 or Tier 2 development, as described in “Project Administration” on page 60.
Village Center standards support ground floor commercial close to the street, substantial public plazas and increased neighborhood transition requirements for upper floors.
See page 30 for additional standards and exceptions.
Projects may be further limited adjacent
to 1-2 story residential zones.
Height limit adjacent to
residential
RESIDENTIAL
5th/6th
Story
Minimum
Setbacks5th Story
6th Story
10'100' 0"
80' 0"
40' of property line
Height limited within
80'
Property Line
El Camino Real
Property Line
Property
Line
RESIDENTIAL
Property
Line
Height limit adjacent to
residential
Adjacent
residential zone
El Camino Real
precise plan
Maximum height
allowed in existing
residential zone
Additional Village Center Requirements
1. Gathering space. Development in Village Centers shall incorporate a street-facing open area or public plaza that functions as a comfortable and attractive community gathering place. Tier 1 & Tier 2 development shall provide a public plaza with active commercial frontage, of adequate size for a range of public or commercial activities, and appropriate to the context, shape and circulation features of the project site.
2. Special upper floor setbacks for Tier 2 Development 5 to 6 Story Development. The 5th story shall be located no closer than 80 feet and the 6th story shall be located no closer than 100 feet from any parcel in a residential zone or the right-of-way across from any residential zone. The 5th and 6th stories shall have an additional setback of 10 feet from the El Camino Real, side street, side and rear setback lines.
3. Height bonus for public plaza. Development in Village Center areas may be eligible for one additional story and 10 additional feet of height above Table 4. For example, Tier 1 development may be up to 5 stories and 55 feet 6 stories and 75 feet in height. Approval of this additional story is at the discretion of the reviewing body, based on providing a public plaza that meets the guideline on page 34, and determination that the additional story considers neighborhood transition, urban design and other principles and objectives of the Precise Plan. This additional story may not be combined with the rooftop amenity height exception, but it may be combined with the corner building treatment height exception.
0’ or 15’ Minimum Side Setback
10’ Minimum Setback
15’ Maximum Setback
10’ or 15’ Minimum Setback
No Maximum Setback
Residential Parcel
Typical Public Plaza
(exempt from setback
requirements)
25’ Min. Required SetbackBUILDING FOOTPRINT
(with ground /f_loor commercial
fronting El Camino Real)
Allowed Building Area
Required Build-to Area
Required Building Setback
El Camino Real
Side Street
Figure 8: Village Center Setbacks
Chapter 2: Development Standards and Guidelines
El Camino Real Precise Plan | 21
Table 5: Height, Intensity, and Coverage Standards
BASE TIER 1 TIER 2
Commercial/
Office/Other
Residential/
Hotel/Mixed-Use
Residential/
Hotel/Mixed-Use
Residential/
Mixed-Use
Commercial/
Office/Other
Residential/
Hotel/Mixed-Use
Minimum Project Lot Area None None 15,000 sf 60,000 sf
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.50 1.35 (a) 1.85 (a) 2.30 (a) 1.0 2.30 (a) Maximum Height (b) 3 stories/45 feet 3 stories/45 feet 4 stories/55 feet 5 stories/65 feet 5 stories/65 feet Maximum Pavement
Coverage No Maximum 25% 25% 25%
Minimum Open Area 15% 40% 40% 40%
Table 6: Setback Standards
Ground Floor
Commercial (d)
Other Ground
Floor Uses and
All Upper Floors
(e)
Surface
Parking (g)
Minimum El Camino Real Setback 10 ft (c)
10 ft
Structured Parking:
25 ft
25 ft
Maximum El Camino Real Setback 15 ft (c) N/A N/A
Minimum Street Setback, other
than El Camino Real 10 ft (c) 15 ft (f) 12 ft
Minimum Side & Rear Setback 0 ft 15 ft (f) 5 ft
Minimum Setback Adjacent to
Residentially-Zoned Parcel 25 ft 25 ft (f) 10 ft
(a) If Mixed-Use, uses other than residential or hotel may be no greater than the non-residential maximum FAR (0.50 in Base or Tier 1; 1.0 in Tier 2).
(b) Heights shown are maximums without exceptions for
open area, architectural features or rooftop amenities.
Projects must comply with both stories and overall height maximums.
(c) See Page 14 for additional ground floor commercial
requirements.
(d) In building areas using these standards, design should follow the Ground Floor Commercial guidelines on Page
35 and residential land uses are limited to those under “Required Ground Floor Commercial Areas” on pages 10
and 11.
(e) Includes above-grade structured parking.
(f) See Page 30 for upper floor standards in Neighborhood Transition areas. See page 20 for special upper floor
standards in Tier 2 development.
(g) Includes driveways parallel to the street.