Attachment 4
From: Chuck Muir
To:
Cc: Julie Muir
Subject: City of Mountain View"s R3 rezoning standards.
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 4:43:56 PM
Attachments: Emily & Wake Forest Dr.pdf
Conceptual side view single story vs 6 story MFD.pdf
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Environmental Planning Commission,
I would like to voice my concern regarding the City's plans to allow for taller multi-family dwellings (apartments) to be built near historically single family residential homes. My family, my neighbors and my friends live along Emily Drive and Wake Forest Drive in Mountain View, CA. Some of us have lived here since 1998 and some decades longer. We have enjoyed living in this neighborhood because it is quiet, safe and we have made many friends here. There is very little crime, occasional speeding cars and electric scooters. The neighborhood is a mixture of new families, middle-life families and older families.
At least eleven single family homes back up to an existing older two-story apartment complex located at 520 Walker Drive known as Park Lane Apartments.
The apartments were built back in the 1980's.
If the City does not put in any protections, standards or changes the zoning requirements for such areas to limit the height of future multi-family developments, the property currently called at 520 Walker Dr., could be redeveloped and turned into a mammoth 6-story (79' - 84') tall multi-family complex.
Such a
complex as this would severely impact the quality of life for the families that live along Emily and Wake Forest Drives.
If the City does not put in any R3 restrictions such as changing the zoning for this property families will lose their privacy - with people being able to see down into our backyards; loss of sunlight - a tall apartment complex would block out the easterly sunlight; and, major presence of such a large structure. I request that the Environmental Planning Commission consider changing the zoning to an R1 or R2 standard.
I recommend you add in provisions to protect existing single-story neighborhoods for having not higher than 3-story apartments built adjacent to them.
Please find some attached some drawings of our neighborhood and the existing Park Lane Apartments as well as photos of the neighborhood. As you can see 520 Walker Dr. butts right up against the single- family homes.
One conceptual drawing shows you how tall a 6 story apartment building would be and it impacts would be on the families living in the single family homes. The City does not have the ability to change the State's requirements such as allowing waivers and bonuses so please consider rezoning the apartments to a low height requirement.
Sincerely,
Chuck Muir
Resident; North Whisman Neighborhood Association President
1 STORY(14' TALL)
6 STORYNEW APARTMENT(79' - 84' TALL)
Only a 10'Setback isrequired.
Typical home heightalong Emily Dr. &Wake Forest Dr.
Possible newapartment heightwith new Cityproposed R3standards plus stateheight bonuses.
WALKER DR. EMILY & WAKE FOREST DR.
679729
Existing Park Lane Apartments 520 Walker Dr.
1 STORY(14' TALL)
2 STORYw 5' drop down(28' TALL)1 STORY(14' TALL)
CAR PORT(12' TALL)
2 STORY(28' TALL)2 STORY(28' TALL)
1 STORY(14' TALL)2 STORY(28' TALL)
Most of the roofs are flat
Emily & Wake Forest Drive, Mountain View
From: Wilson, Tamara
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Anderson, Eric B.
Subject: COMMUNITY COMMENT: R3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT UPDATE Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 10:35:53 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Chair Dempsey, Vice Chair Gutierrez, and Members of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 5.1 “R3 Zoning District Update - Goals, Phasing, Sub-Districts, and Location Criteria”.
I wanted to thank you for your time and attention to my comments on this important issue. I appreciate the history of the proposed R3 zoning district update and summary of the public outreach to date, as well as the long list of goals and issues that arise out of this public outreach. Myself and my community strongly believe in providing pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and a focus on building and property frontages is essential, however careful, project-specific consideration is needed to ensure respectful transitions and buffers between new development and lower density neighborhoods. I am also pleased to see that tree canopy retention is valued, as ours is a climate friendly, green city focused on reducing our carbon emissions. My concern is that a single R3 zoning district update across the entire city will over-ride these stated goals an only serves to streamline the permitting process at the expense of existing residential neighbor’s quality of life. I am also concerned at what this approach will mean for other infrastructure services outside of the City’s purview, including access to schools. Higher density housing often translates into many more students.
I believe that the focus of the current R3 project should be to bring the city into compliance with the Housing Element and other new state laws, which will already have dramatic impacts on new city developments. My community will face impacts from the required upzoning, the decrease in park fees collected, and the removal of parking requirements required by these state mandates. Our city should take time to adjust to these impacts rather than immediately moving into a “one size fits all” upzoning of our city’s R3 areas. I’m not clear how many members of the EPC live in communities likely impacted by these decisions. If you don’t, imagine that you did live here. I remember being publicly chided for proposing teacher housing in a residential neighborhood on school owned property (i.e. Cooper Park). This was housing for teachers and that was deemed wholly unacceptable – with 3-story rowhomes within a single-family residential neighborhood. However, I have a neighbor who has lived for decades in a single-family home in the Wagon Wheel neighborhood who had to stomach a potential 5-story building abutting his backyard fence, but we are on a “different” side of town. Yes, this new building met the street level property frontage requirements, but created a “less than respectful” transition to existing properties and neighbors.
What if this was in your neighborhood or your single-family home? How would you feel about the issue then? A one size solution certainly streamlines permitting and approvals, but is not representative of what is best for Mountain View’s current residents and electorate in all parts of our city, and goes above and beyond what is currently required by the state.
I therefore cannot support project goal #5 “Create opportunities for increased densities in targeted areas” at this time. New R3 designations should be restricted to the proposed R3-A, R3-B, and R3-C sub-districts. The proposed R3-D1 and R3-D2 are essentially new R4 designations and should be beyond the scope of the R3 project. Density increases should be discussed in the context of precise plan updates and the general plan updates – this would also give communities and associated school districts ample time to plan for future changes. These changes have cascading impacts on potential new school site purchases, construction, and bond measures which would be needed to fund expansion of existing sites or development of new sites. They also give residents the opportunity to weigh in and ensure their elected officials represent their interests and, if not, elect those that do. Precise plan and general plan updates will enable Mountain View residents to determine how each area best fits into an overall plan to achieve goals like pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, respectful transitions between old and new development, providing local public serving retail and ensuring the availability of walkable schools with capacity to serve new students.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Tamara Wilson, long- term resident of the Wagon Wheel Neighborhood, former elected school board member of the Mountain View Whisman School District, and board member of the Mountain View Education Foundation Tamara Wilson
Policy Analyst (detail)
(she/her)
Office of Policy Analysis, Nature-based Solutions and Climate Change U.S. Department of the Interior
Deputy Director, USGS National Innovation Center
Research Geographer, USGS
Office: 650.439.2347
|
Professional Page
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7399-7532
Without consistent goals, theR3updatewill further complicateanalreadycomplicatedprocess.Webelievethemaingoal of thisupdateshouldbetoenablenewhousing. However, inthestaffreport thisgoal islistedlast, andisuniqueinthat it istheonlygoal qualifiedbythestatement “ifdirectedtodoso”. Strangebecausegoals1and3arelikelyimpossiblewithout allowingmoredensity.
Asstaff pointsout onpage5, thecityhascommittedtousingthisR3updatetoincreasefeasibilityof projectsthroughreductioninstandards. But thisgoal isonlyvaguelyalludedtointhedraft goals. Anddraft goal #2isantithetical tothispromise. Insteadthereisadiscussionofcreatingadditional requirements–neighborhoodfit, unit sizemix, openspace, transitions, etc–without substantiallyincreasingalloweddensities. Increasingdensityispresentedasoptional.
Wealsosupport includinganti-displacement provisions. Finally, withregardtoQuestionNo. 2:Project Phasing, wesupport acombined(single-phase) approach.
Height andDensity
If wewant somethingother thanrowhousesinR3, wewill needtoallowmorefloors.
Inthecomparisoncitieschart onpage7-8, nocityhasamaximumfloor height of lessthan7stories. Nooptionthat staff proposedherewouldallow7storiesanywhere. InCampbell, theprojectslessthan7storiesareall 3-storytownhomes. Asstaff pointsout, R3alreadyyieldsplentyof 3-storytownhomes.
AsidefromRichAve, all other projectsinR3currentlyapprovedor under constructionarerowhousedevelopments. Becausetheseprojectsall demolishexistingunitsat similar densities,thesesixprojectswill together onlyaddanet of 28units, lessthantheRichAveproject.
Wecanconcludethat:#1: Under 45units/acweonlyseerowhousedevelopment.#2: R3-Distheonlyproposedoptionthat islikelytoyielddevelopmentsother thanrowhouses.
Capacity
Thecapacitypresentedintheattachedmapisonlytheoretical. Littleof thiscapacityisdevelopable. Recent projectsinMountainView, other thantownhomes, haverequiredthedensitytoincreasebymanymultiplestobefeasible. (For example, theGamel Wayprojectturnedout tobeinfeasibledespitequadruplingthenumber of units.) Largelotsaretheeasiest toredevelop, andall thelargelotsinR3arealreadyat or overalloweddensity. Theonlylikelyredevelopment hereismoretownhomes, further reducingthecity’saffordablehousingstockwithanegligibleincreaseinthenumber of units.
Around⅙of R3lotsareunder 15,000squarefeet. Under current codes, theselotscouldnothavemorethan4units. Thereisnomeaningful capacityhere, either.
Thestaff report takescomfort intheanti-displacement provisionsof SB330, concludingthat“theR3project doesnot needtoresult ineconomicallyfeasibleredevelopment of CSFRApropertiesat thistime.” However, sincemost developablepropertiesinR3arerent-controlled,thisistantamount tosayingthat theR3project neednot result inanysignificant amount ofredevelopment at all.
Evenapart fromthegoal of enablingmoregrowth, whichmanypubliccommenterssupported,thelackof feasiblydevelopablecapacityjeopardizesother goals(“better designthat reflectsthecommunity’svision”, “opportunitiesfor neighborhood-servinguses”). Achievingthesegoalsrequiresprojectstobebuilt.
Displacement Prevention
Wesupport theinclusionof anti-displacement provisionsintheR3process. Council hasalreadygivendirectiononwhat replacement requirementsthey’dliketoenact incaseof SB330’sexpiry, if theconcernagainst takingreplacement requirementsintoaccount isduetopotentialchangesinthestate’sguidance.
DensityBonus
Thestaff report bemoansthelackof control on918Rich. But thisproject yieldsanet gainof 32housingunits, morethanall theother rowhousedevelopmentscombined. Theonlyother projectinR3that hasahigher net gainis266Tyrella–whichalsousesthestatedensitybonustoexceedthreefloors. Without thedensitybonus, theseprojectswouldnot befeasible.
Noneof theR3rowhouseprojectsmeaningfullyaddtothecity’shousingstock. Thecityhascurrently6rowhouseprojectsapprovedor under constructioninR3, withhundredsof units. Butthenet total increaseinhousingfromtheseprojectsisjust 28homes.
Thedensitybonusandthebuilder’sremedyaretheonlyreasontherearedevelopmentsotherthanrowhomesinR3. Weshouldnot fear thedensitybonus.
Process
AsHousingElement stakeholders, wedowant thecitytobeabletomeet itsprogrammaticdeadlines. That said, wethinkit istooearlytopredict that thecitywouldmissthedeadlinesifusingthecombinedapproach, whichcanprovideamorecohesive, holisticoutput withlessredundanciesandrevisions.
Conclusion
ThecityhascommittedtoHCDto“increasefeasibilityof projectsthroughreductioninstandards”. Weencouragestaff andtheCommitteetoseeksimplicity.
Thisplanshouldprioritizeenablingsignificant newhousinggrowthbyincreasingalloweddensitiesandselectingdevelopment standardscompatiblewiththosedensities. Standardsshouldeliminatediscretionwherever possible. Reduceor removesetbacks, height limits, FAR,anddu/acrestrictionssuchthat morediversehousingcanbebuilt.
IsaacStone, onbehalf of MVYIMBYMar 12, 2024
From: Cox, Robert
To:
Subject: Livable Mountain View Comment on Item 5.1 "R3 Zoning District Update - Goals, Phasing, Sub-Districts, and Location Criteria"
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 10:57:49 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Chair Dempsey, Vice Chair Gutierrez, and Member of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 5.1 “R3 Zoning District Update - Goals, Phasing, Sub-Districts, and Location Criteria”.
First, we appreciate staff’s summary of the history of the proposed R3 zoning district update and summary of the public outreach to date, as well as the long list of goals and issues that arise out of this public outreach. We agree with staff that providing pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with a focus on building and property frontages is essential.
We also concur that respectful transitions and buffers between new development and lower density neighborhoods and the retention of tree canopy is key to retaining neighborhood character. We encourage the development of local public serving retail. But we question that all of this can be best done under the framework of a single R3 zoning district update across the entire city.
Therefore, we believe that the focus of the current R3 project should be to bring the city into compliance with the Housing Element and other new state laws. The Housing Element and the new state laws will have major affects on the our new city developments. Our community will face impacts from the required upzoning, the decrease in park fees collected, and the removal of parking requirements required by these state mandates. Our city should take time to adjust to these impacts rather than immediately moving into a “one size fits all” upzoning of our city’s R3 areas.
We therefore do not support project goal #5 “Create opportunities for increased densities in targeted areas” at this time. New R3 designations should be restricted to the proposed R3-A, R3-B, and R3-C sub-districts. The proposed R3-D1 and R3-D2 are essentially new R4 designations and should be beyond the scope of the R3 project. Density increases should be discussed in
the context of precise plan updates and the general plan update. Doing this will enable us to determine how each area best fits into an overall plan to achieve goals like pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, respectful transitions between old and new development, and providing local public serving retail.
Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Toni Rath, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Hala Alshahwany, Jerry Steach, Maureen Blando, Leslie Friedman, Nazanin Dashtara, and Sean O’Malley
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
Toni Rath, resident of Cuesta Park
From: Jessica Gandhi
To:
Cc: Soosh Gandhi; Jessica Gandhi; Muir Chuck
Subject: R3 Zoning concerns
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 1:32:35 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Chair Dempsey, Vice Chair Gutierrez, and Members of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission,
I'm writing to you in regard to the agenda items related to the R3 zoning initiative. I am a member of the North Whisman Neighborhood Association and have been involved with educating my neighbors on the proposals for the R3 Zoning changes over the past few years, as well as meeting with city officials to share our neighborhood's concerns and desires for the future as related to these changes.
I read through the overview of the Zoning process to date and was pleased to see that it covered the history pretty thoroughly. However, I also saw that the city is deciding to go back to using the originally proposed R3 zoning options from 2020 rather than the revised versions offered up in 2022 post community feedback. This does not sit well with me nor members of my neighborhood as we felt those revised versions were more in line with what the public was suggesting. So my first request is that we don't jump to approve any blanket decisions that will set these standards in stone going forward. Additionally, I would like to see the city instead take a more holistic view of each project by taking into consideration surrounding structures (single-family homes, businesses, parks) and ensuring that community members have an opportunity to be involved in decisions related to the specific structural proposals that will affect their homes and neighborhoods as they arise.
Next, I would like to request that the EPC not focus efforts on upzoning, but rather stick to bringing our city into compliance with the Housing Element and new state laws that are already going to affect our city in many ways. Adding another push to increase density through the R3 zoning is too much too soon.
Finally, I just want to reiterate to the council, commission and staff members that it is imperative we protect the neighborhoods, residents and parks that make our city so special by being very careful in where and how we build increased density structures.
There is a reason so many people and businesses have come to settle in this area we call home and if we are not careful in how we grow, we will change the face and nature of this city into something that barely resembles the Mountain View we know and love. Please don't make rushed decisions and don't let the voices of the long-time residents be quashed by those pushing to turn us into another faceless metropolis.
Thank you for your time,
Jessica Gandhi
28 year resident of Mountain View
24 year member of the North Whisman Neighborhood Association , Mountain View, CA 94043
From:
To: [email protected]
Subject: Protect single family neighborhoods along R3 properies from having 6 story building right next to them Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:52:29 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear EPC of Mountain View,
I am writing to continue expressing my great concern regarding the City's plans to allow for taller multi-family dwellings (apartments) to be built near single family residential neighborhood homes. I have lived on Emily Drive in Mountain View for over 25 years as part of the North Whisman Neighborhood. My neighbors along this end of Emily Drive and Wake Forest back up to an existing older two-story apartment complex located at 520 Walker Drive known as Park Lane Apartments.
The
apartments were built back in the 1980's. This property is zoned as R3. If the proposed regulations are approved, we could have a 6-story building right next to our homes which would ruin our neighborhood.
I have been trying to follow this complicated process and attend as many meetings as I can for the last four years.
If the City does not put in any protections, standards or changes in the zoning requirements for such areas to limit the height of future multi- family developments, the property at 520 Walker Dr., could be redeveloped and turned into a mammoth 6-story (79' - 84') tall multi-family complex.
Such a complex
as this would severely impact the quality of life for the families that live along Emily and Wake Forest Drives.
If the City does not put in any R3 restrictions such as changing the zoning for this property:
1) families will lose their privacy - with people in a 6-story tall building being able to see down into our backyards and into our homes.
2) we will lose sunlight - a tall apartment complex would block out the easterly sunlight not allowing us to produce food in our gardens. 3) the major presence of such a large structure would ruin the neighborhood and decrease its value for long-time residents of Mountain View.
There is a place for dense housing in Mountain View as seen all over the city, but it is not appropriate alongside single-family home neighborhoods. I request that the
Environmental Planning Commission consider changing the zoning to an R1 or R2 standard.
I recommend you add in provisions to protect existing single-story neighborhoods for having not higher than 3-story apartments with setback requirements built adjacent to them. The City does not have the ability to change the State's requirements such as allowing waivers and bonuses so please consider rezoning the apartments to a low height requirement.
Sincerely,
Julie Muir
Homeowner at , Mountain View