1 From: Cliff Chambers
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 9:37 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Anderson, Eric B.; Chen, Wayne; Blizinski, Amber
Subject: R3 Zoning Update
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Mayor Kamei and City Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the latest options for the R3 Zoning Update. I’d first like to thank staff members Eric Anderson, Wayne Chen and Amber Blizinski for meeting with 10 housing and environmental sustainability advocates last week to answer questions on the R3 Update materials presented at the EPC meeting. Such outreach efforts are most appreciated.
I support the change area methodology and the recommended 14 change areas. These areas are generally two acres and provide the greatest potential for achieving the goals of more diverse unit types, lot consolidation and form-based code outcomes. City Council should also incorporate the 5 change areas adjacent to mobile park homes and R2 zones.
I strongly support the general adoption of Option 1-R3-D2 in the large majority of the change areas for the following three reasons:
1. Six to seven stories is generally agreed upon as financially feasible by the development community. It was also confirmed in the Prototype Analysis. It has the most potential for achieving the diversity of unit types including stacked flats. It is a win-win outcome for the City of Mountain View residents and residential developers.
2. While it is possible that some developers could utilize the State Density Bonus Law for more density than the R3-D2 would allow, it would likely be the exception and not the norm.
It is my understanding that 8-14 story developments would require the very expensive steel-based construction typically used in Type I high rise construction. The Prototype Analysis unfortunately did not model a development in the R3-D2 zone utilizing the State Density Bonus law to 2 construct 12-14 story residential building. If such an analysis had been conducted it would very likely find that 12-14 story buildings are not financially feasible. Therefore, the use of the State Density Bonus Law in R3-D2 zones would likely not pencil out. The City Council should request that staff conduct a 12-14 story prototype analysis to confirm this hypothesis.
3. It is not sound nor desirable City policy to essentially force developers to utilize the State Density Bonus Law to achieve the “win-win” outcome described above for a 7 story residential complex. If the City Council were to follow the EPC recommendation for Option 2A R3-D1 with a four story base density, it would likely result in many State Density Bonus applications, making it very difficult to control transitions to lower density areas and would likely not achieve the form-based type of development the City Council desires.
The support for a base R3-D2 density (Option 1) assumes that the City of Mountain View adopts and enacts a local SB330 requirement for replacement units after SB 330 sunsets. It would not be desirable for higher base densities without the protections of a local SB330 ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cliff Chambers
Resident of Mountain View
1 From:
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Livable Mountain View comment on Item 6.2: R3 Zoning District Update - Increased Densities
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and Members of the City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 6.2: R3 Zoning District Update – Increased Densities. Thank you also to each of you for taking the time to meet with some of us and a group of neighborhood association leaders over the last few weeks to discuss our recommendations in detail.
Here are our recommended responses to the questions raised by staff:
QuesƟon 1: Do the 14 idenƟfied areas reflect council’s goals and criteria? Should any areas be reconsidered based on the criteria?
We support the 14 areas idenƟfied by staff, the staff consultant OpƟcos, and the Environmental Planning Commission. We do NOT support areas listed in the “AlternaƟve Approaches for Council ConsideraƟon” listed on page 13 of the staff report.
Rationale: These 14 areas were designed by staff and Opticos using objective criteria set forth by council in a previous study session. The most important criteria were to find areas that are large enough and have redevelopment potential (apartments rather than condos). These areas span the entire length of the city so that the burden of high intensity is shared equitably.
Developers have stated that the areas that are feasible for redevelopment should be no more than 7 stories and accommodate at least 100 units. Buildings of these heights can be constructed primarily of wood rather than with more expensive steel and concrete. Many areas in the “Alternate Approaches” are under an acre in size and would not support at least 100 units at 7 stories or less.
Building in these alternate areas would lead to 7 story buildings randomly strewn throughout our neighborhoods close to R1 homes. The opposition by nearby residents to the Tyrella builder’s remedy project illustrates how unfavorably this type of inconsistent development is viewed.
Beyond this, we support splitting the high intensity zones around the edges that are adjacent to single-family homes to allow a transition.
Rationale: Many of the 14 high intensity areas proposed by staff and Opticos have parts of their perimeters adjacent to single-family homes. The state density bonus allows concessions and waivers against setbacks, so setbacks in the city code can be voided out when the state density bonus is used. Therefore, the only was to ensure a “sensitive” transition to single-family homes, which has long been the stated policy of development in Mountain View, is to explore creating a density transitional area along those edges.
2 Question 2: For change areas selected, which density option should the city study as the R3 zoning district update is carried out?
We support the approach recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission: Option 2A (R3-D1 Base), an intensity of 4 stories base, which with the state density bonus is a maximum of 8 stories, except for the Del Medio South for which we support Option 1 (R3-D2 Base) to avoid downzoning the area.
Rationale: As stated above developers are primarily looking to build up to 7 stories. By zoning for 4 stories base and 8 stories max with the state density bonus, developers who want to build higher buildings will need to provide the affordable housing to get the higher densities. Most of the new units we are seeing approved by council now are either state density bonus or builder’s remedy, so we should expect the state density bonus to be used.
Question 3: Does the city council support or wish to modify the proposed criteria and density for upzoning R2 properties?
We support the staff proposed criteria and density for upzoning R2 properties. We also believe that the additional areas recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission are worthy of consideration.
Rationale: These staff recommended conversions will allow the city to follow the “affirmative fair housing” mandate in our Housing Element. While we believe the additional areas recommended by the EPC are worth considering, we note that bulk of these areas consist of condos and recently constructed planned developments that are not likely to be candidates for redevelopment.
Thank you for considering our views on this important topic.
Robert Cox, Louise Katz, Peter Spitzer, Muriel Sivyer-Lee, Li Zhang, Maureen Blando, Leslie Friedman, Hala Alshahwany, Jerry Steach, and Toni Rath
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
1 From: Tootoo Thomson
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:11 AM
To: City Council
Subject: R3 rezoning project
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments. bcc: a few neighbors --feel free to tag on to this email Dear city council members.
Hope you and family are well.
Regarding the R3 rezoning project
I am writing to support the current proposal focus higher density in 14 large change areas.
Warm regards
Tootoo Thomson
Registered voter
MV resident