Item 6.2 Correspondence (Batch 1) — Mountain View City Council, April 8, 2025

From: Jian Cheng
To: City Council
Subject: Email Comments Regarding 294-296 Tyrella Avenue Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 10:00:13 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Mountain View City Council,
My wife and I have been residents living on Tyrella Ave in the Whisman area for the past 3.5 years. We've come to love and appreciate all that this unique area has to offer in terms of schools, facilities, parks, and accessibility. Living

just down the street from where these two
lots are located gives me unique insight into the possible effects of the proposed

plan. My
oppositions to the currently proposed development are as follows:

1. Number of overall stories. This would be the tallest residential unit within a 2 mile radius.

This is grossly outsized compared to any of the nearby high density residential buildings and will severely

impact the nearby buildings in terms of both noise and nearby accessibility.

2. Parking. The proposed plan does not seem to offer enough parking to the 80 proposed units.

There is already little to no available parking on the streets at this address, and adding that many units without sufficient parking will only amplify the lack of parking issues residents already experience in the area.

3. Safety at the intersection of Middlefield and Tyrella. This is a fully UNPROTECTED four way intersection with which there have been many near misses between cars and pedestrians.

Increasing the number of cars going in and out of the intersection will only increase the dangers to other drivers and pedestrians. Many of the pedestrians are children crossing the street to go to the elementary schools and Whisman park.

I plead with the city council to reject the current plan put forth and to reconsider the four story building that was originally proposed. I believe myself and many in the Whisman community share the sentiment that the original plans provide a sufficient number of high density units while also minimizing both the safety, parking, and noise impacts on the existing homes and area.
---
Jian Cheng
YIMBY Law
4/4/2025
Heather Glaser, City Clerk
Mountain View City Council
500 Castro St.

Mountain View, CA 94041
[email protected]
Via Email
Re: Agenda Item 6.2 – 294- 296 Tyrella Ave
APN 160- 32-001 and 160- 32-002
Dear Mountain View City Council,
YIMBY Law is a 501( c)3 non-proﬁt corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, the City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to
ﬁle suit to ensure that the law is enforced.

Subdivision ( d)(5) of the HAA states that if a city or county does not have a “substantially compliant” Housing Element, that jurisdiction cannot utilize its zoning or general plan standards to disapprove a housing project that reserves 20% of its units affordable to lower income households. In other words, cities that fail to pass a compliant housing element by their deadline are subject to the Builder’s Remedy, meaning they lose local control over housing development.

The City of Mountain View failed to adopt a substantially compliant Housing Element by the statutory deadline, and the preliminary application for the above housing development project was submitted while the City was out of compliance. The submittal of a preliminary application ensures that the Builder’s Remedy applies to the project throughout the entire entitlement process. The proposed project at 294- 296 Tyrella Avenue consists of an 80-unit housing 1 development, with 16 units reserved for low-income households. The project involves redevelopment of two parcels ( one of which is vacant and the other containing a single-family residence) with the construction of a new seven-story residential condominium building which 1 See HCD Letter of Technical Assistance issued to Santa Monica, dated October 5, 2023, available at
https:/ /www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/santa-monica- TA - 100522.pdf.
1 includes a three-level parking podium to accommodate a total of 83 parking stalls. The proposed dwelling unit mix consists of 20 studio units, 31 one-bedroom units, 26 two-bedroom units, and 3 three-bedroom units.

California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make ﬁndings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. As stated in the Council Report: “Where the project is inconsistent, such inconsistencies are not a basis for disapproval of the project due to applicability of the HAA. ” Therefore, we request that the City approve the project as submitted without unlawful conditions of approval. If the City fails to do so, YIMBY Law reserves the right to pursue litigation against the City to enforce state housing laws.

I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state and would be eligible to apply for residency in the proposed housing development project.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law

From: Tim Palmer
To: Blizinski, Amber
Cc: City Council
Subject: Re: FW: Geotechnical Oversight – 294-296 Tyrella Project Date: Friday, April 4, 2025 8:00:43 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear City Council Members & Amber Blizinski,
I am writing in response to Ms. Blizinski's email dated April 3, 2025, regarding my concerns about seismic safety compliance for the proposed seven-story development at 294-296 Tyrella Avenue. While I recognize that the city's own General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the California Building Codes (CBC) say differently - the statute is unambiguous that the geotechnical report must be prepared and reviewed before project approval, not afterward.

Clear Legal Requirement for Pre-Approval Geotechnical Reports California Public Resources Code §2697(a) explicitly states:
"Cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard..."
While the law does allow for a waiver, the conditions for such a waiver are specific:
"If the city or county finds that no undue hazard of this kind exists, based on information resulting from studies conducted on sites in the immediate vicinity of the project and of similar soil composition to the project site, the geotechnical report may be waived." (emphasis added)
Ms. Blizinski's response references a citywide Environmental Impact Report, which does not meet the site-specific requirements for a waiver under the statute. If the city is claiming it has waived the geotechnical report requirement based on a finding of "no undue hazard," the law explicitly states:
"After a report has been approved or a waiver granted, subsequent geotechnical reports shall not be required, provided that new geologic datum, or data, warranting further investigation is not recorded." (California Public Resources Code §2697(a), emphasis added)
The city cannot both waive the requirement and then require it at a later phase of the project.

Sincerely,
Tim Palmer
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:57 PM Blizinski, Amber <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your email which has been forwarded to me to respond to by the City Council who are blind copied on this response. Additionally, your email will also be attached to the 294-296 Tyrella Avenue staff report as a public comment for the April 8, 2025 City Council hearing.

The project site at 294-296 Tyrella is located within a seismically active region of northern California; however, no fault lines cross the property. As part of the 2030 General Plan, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that assessed the geotechnical characteristics citywide and included a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure GEO-1 ) to ensure the safety of
new construction by specifically requiring the City to apply current building codes. Properties throughout Mountain View are subject to Seismic Design Category D requirements per Chapter 18 of the 2022 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2. During environmental review of this project, staff reviewed the information available and determined there is no unique or unusual characteristics of this project site relative to other similarly situated sites in Mountain View.

Standard soil and geotechnical engineering practices are expected to be utilized to ensure the structure is built in compliance with the California Building Code to minimize potential damage from seismic shaking and liquefaction. As such, the City is not required to obtain a geotechnical study for a project prior to approval of a planning permit if it is determined there is no potential undue hazard. The City can accept and review geotechnical or soil reports in accordance with the California Building Code prior to issuing a building permit. These types of technical reports are often prepared and submitted at the election of the property owner or developer to ensure construction method and materials are appropriately calibrated to meet the needs of the specific structure proposed, ensuring the developer is not overspending on construction.

Therefore, in accordance with the City’s certified General Plan EIR, the project will include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to prepare a geotechnical report for the site to be reviewed during building plan check in accordance with the California Building Code.

Implementation of standard conditions of approval and General Plan Policies would reduce the impacts of seismically induced ground shaking and liquefaction on the project and reduce the risk of loss, injury or death.

Thank you,

From: Tim Palmer
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 8:00 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Penollar, Krisha <[email protected]> Subject: Geotechnical Oversight – 294-296 Tyrella Project CAUTION:

EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear City Council Members (& Krisha Penollar),
In addition to my prior comments, I’m writing to express concern regarding seismic safety compliance related to the proposed seven story development at 294–296 Tyrella Avenue. The GEOTECHNICAL REPORT section of the Draft Findings Report confirms the requirement for a geotechnical investigation, yet states: “The report will be submitted to the City during the building plan check…” (Draft Findings Report, p. 8) This implies that the required geotechnical report will be submitted after
project approval, rather than prior to approval, as clearly required by California law.

Under California Public Resources Code §2697(a), part of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act explicitly states: “Cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval

of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard…” “Each city and county shall submit one copy of each approved geotechnical report, including the mitigation measures, if any, that are to be taken, to the State Geologist within 30 days of its approval of the report.”
The development site is located in a
liquefaction hazard zone, as identified in the
California Geological Survey’s official mapping tool EQ Zapp, which confirms the project’s inclusion in a mapped seismic hazard area (screenshot attached).

This concern is especially pressing given the unusual height of the proposed building—a seven-story structure in a predominantly low-rise residential neighborhood. The scale and height introduce additional structural risk in a known liquefaction zone, where ground instability during an earthquake could be particularly hazardous for taller buildings.

The clear intent of the law is to protect public safety by requiring that seismic risks be thoroughly understood and mitigated prior to development approval—not as a post-approval process. Failure to require the geotechnical report prior to project approval not only raises serious safety concerns, but may also expose the City to avoidable legal and procedural risk, particularly in light of clear statutory requirements. I respectfully urge the City to carefully consider these obligations and ensure full compliance with California Public Resources Code §2697(a) before advancing the project.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Tim Palmer
From: Forrest Linebarger
To: City Council
Subject: RE: Item # 6.2 from the City Council Hearing Dated April 8, 2025 Conditions of Approval Date: Friday, April 4, 2025 2:07:02 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

RE: City Council Hearing Dated April 8, 2025
Item # 6.2 Residential Development project at 294 & 296 Tyrella Avenue (Builder’s Remedy)
The applicant has found the following conditions to be infeasible and impact the viability and affordability of this low-income housing project under Gov. Code Sec 65589(i).

From Attachment #1 Draft Project Resolution:

Conditions 1, 61, and 64
The following language is proposed and acceptable to applicant:

REPLACE PERMIT CONDITIONS 1-3 WITH THE FOLLOWING:

1. PERMIT EXPIRATION: This permit shall be valid for two and one-half years following the date of the project’s “final approval” as defined by Government Code section 65589.5(o)(2)(D)(ii).

In the event that construction is not commenced within two and one-half years following the date of the project’s “final approval,” this permit shall become null and void and the Project may be subject to ordinances, plans, and standards adopted after the preliminary application is submitted. See Government Code § 65589.5(o)(2)(D).

MODIFY THE FOLLOWING PERMIT CONDITIONS

61. BMR UNITS – CONTINUED AFFORDABILITY: To meet this requirement, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall: (1) record a deed restriction that ensures the continued availability of the BMR units at 80% AMI for 30 years; and (2) enter into a regulatory agreement with an affordable housing administrator that sets forth the affordability requirements for the BMR units and authorizes a third party administrator to complete annual compliance monitoring and submit annual reports to

City staff sufficient to ensure continued compliance with the affordability requirements of Government Code Section 65589.5.

64. BUILDING CODES: Construction plans must meet all applicable and mandatory California State codes including, without limitation, state Building, Residential, Fire, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, CALGreen, and CALEnergy codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal.

Construction plans may be required to meet applicable, objective City of Mountain View Local Amendments and the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) codes adopted and in effect on the date the preliminary application for the project was submitted. Notwithstanding, any City code requirements that are infeasible or have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of the development must be waived, including, but not limited to, the following:

MVCC sec. 8.20.9, 8.20.27, 8.20.32, 8.20.35, 8.20.38, 8.20.42, 8.20.43, 8.20.44, 8.20.46, and

8.20.47. The applicant has found the following condition to be infeasible and impact the viability and affordability of this low-income housing project under Gov. Code Sec 65589(i).

From Attachment #2 Draft Tentative Map Resolution:

Condition 17
The following language is proposed and acceptable to the applicant:

MODIFY THE FOLLOWING MAP CONDITION

17. APPROVAL EXPIRATION: If the map is not completed within 24 months from the date of this approval, this map shall expire. The map is eligible for an extension of an additional six years, provided the application for extension is filed with the Planning Division by the applicant prior to the expiration of the original map. Upon filing a timely application for extension, the map shall automatically be extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. Notwithstanding any automatic extension period authorized in the Subdivision Map Act, the City shall, upon the subdivider’s application filed before the Tentative Map expiration date, approve an extension for a period of six years.

Mountain View City CouncilApril 8, 2025

Mountain View City Council
April 8, 2025