From:
To: Administrative Zoning Hearing; Penollar, Krisha
Cc: , Planning Division
Subject: Parking Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 266-272 Tyrella Ave.
Date: Sunday, August 3, 2025 3:08:40 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Zoning Administrator, Planning Department,
I’m writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 266-272 Tyrella Avenue (APNs 160-32-006 & 160-32-007).
While I support thoughtful development and am not opposed to increasing housing availability in our city, I am deeply concerned that the proposed parking provisions are severely inadequate. In practice, most households in this area have at least one car per adult, and often multiple vehicles per unit, in addition to the need for guest parking. The current proposal does not reflect this reality and would inevitably place a significant burden on surrounding streets and neighbors.
Unless the number of parking spaces—both resident and guest—is increased substantially, I must oppose this development in its current form. I urge the city to revisit the parking requirements to ensure they align more closely with actual neighborhood usage patterns.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ahmad Rahmati
Attachment 7
From:
To: , Planning Division; Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Project at 266–272 Tyrella Avenue Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 7:45:10 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Committee Members and Ms. Penollar,
I am writing to oppose the proposed 47-unit, four-story development at 266–272 Tyrella Avenue in its current form. While I support increased housing density and affordable housing in Mountain View and believe this site could accommodate increased density, this proposal exceeds reasonable limits through oversized massing, inadequate transitions to neighboring properties and unverified transit findings.
1. Questionable “major transit stop” exemption requires verification The applicant and the city claim the project qualifies for parking reductions because it is within 0.5 miles of a “major transit stop.” PRC § 21064.3 defines a major transit stop as rail, bus rapid transit, a ferry terminal, or the intersection of two or more bus routes with a less than twenty minute service interval during peak commute times.
VTA Route 21, the most frequent bus route serving this area, operates every thirty minutes during peak hours exceeding the 20 minute threshold.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Priority Area GIS map confirms the site is outside designated 0.5-mile transit priority areas (https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?
id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5) (see also A0.08).
The Committee should require independent verification and confirmation of major transit stop status before approving any parking reductions. If no qualifying transit stop exists, parking must meet city standards.
2. Excessive waiver not necessary to accommodate bonus units. While the applicant seeks State Density Bonus benefits for providing affordable housing the actual contribution is minimal:
Zero net new affordable units. The five “affordable” units are replacements for existing units on site, as required by Gov. Code § 65915(c)(3)(B) due to demolition of existing affordable housing.
Disproportionate waivers: For 11 additional market-rate units (31% increase) applicant seeks:
i.
47.5% increase in Floor Area Ratio
ii.
34.3% increase in site coverage
iii.
Complete elimination of upper-floor setbacks: 19’9” (2nd floor), 30’ (3rd floor) and 44’ (4th floor).
iv.
23% height increase
The applicant has not shown that smaller average unit sizes or more efficient layouts could not yield 47 units within base height and setback limits. Without this showing, these waivers are not “necessary” and can be denied under Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1)
3. Design conflicts with the 2030 General Plan which requires preservation of neighborhood character and appropriate transitions to lower-intensity residential areas.
The proposal fails by:
Placing a 4-story wall directly adjacent to a single-story home and two- story apartments (see A0.09);
Providing no meaningful step-downs in height
Locating emergency and trash access along the property line shared with a single-family home causing year-round nuisance impacts.
4. CEQA Categorical Exemption Barred by Cumulative Impacts. Analysis insufficient for cumulative impacts - recent area changes not considered. The city recently approved a 7-story, 80-unit project at 294-296 Tyrella Avenue.
Combined impacts require analysis:
127 total new units on a small street not designed for this density These combined projects will increase traffic, parking demand and utility loads and remove mature trees.
Traffic study required to determine if peak-hour impacts necessitate traffic controls
The Committee should require updated transportation analysis considering both projects together instead of relying on a 2024 Transportation Demand Management Plan that predates both.
Request: Given these issues, I urge the Committee to require:
Transit verification before approving parking reductions Deny unnecessary waivers where 47 units could fit with smaller units or alternate layouts.
Require design changes to step down massing and mitigate impacts to adjacent homes.
Conduct cumulative impact analysis for the Tyrella Avenue corridor This current proposal pushes regulatory flexibility beyond reasonable limits.
Respectfully,
Tim Palmer
From:
To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Project at 266–272 Tyrella Avenue Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 10:25:04 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Project at 266–272 Tyrella Avenue Dear Committee Members and Ms. Penollar,
I am writing to oppose the proposed 47-unit, four-story development at 266–272 Tyrella Avenue in its current form. While I support increased housing density and affordable housing in Mountain View and believe this site could accommodate increased density, this proposal exceeds reasonable limits through oversized massing, inadequate transitions to neighboring properties and unverified transit findings.
1. Questionable “major transit stop” exemption requires verification The applicant and the city claim the project qualifies for parking reductions because it is within 0.5 miles of a “major transit stop.”
PRC § 21064.3 defines a major transit stop as rail, bus rapid transit, a ferry terminal, or the intersection of two or more bus routes with a less than twenty minute service interval during peak commute times.
VTA Route 21, the most frequent bus route serving this area, operates every thirty minutes during peak hours exceeding the 20 minute threshold.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Priority Area GIS map confirms the site is outside designated 0.5-mile transit priority areas (https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?
id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5) (see also A0.08).
The Committee should require independent verification and confirmation of major transit stop status before approving any parking reductions. If no qualifying transit stop exists, parking must meet city standards.
2. Excessive waiver not necessary to accommodate bonus units. While the applicant seeks State Density Bonus benefits for providing affordable housing the actual contribution is minimal:
Zero net new affordable units. The five “affordable” units are replacements for existing units on site, as required by Gov. Code § 65915(c)(3)(B) due to demolition of existing affordable housing.
Disproportionate waivers: For 11 additional market-rate units (31% increase) applicant seeks:
i. 47.5% increase in Floor Area Ratio
ii. 34.3% increase in site coverage
iii. Complete elimination of upper-floor setbacks: 19’9” (2nd floor), 30’ (3rd floor) and 44’ (4th floor).
iv. 23% height increase
The applicant has not shown that smaller average unit sizes or more efficient layouts could not yield 47 units within base height and setback limits. Without this showing, these waivers are not “necessary” and can be denied under Gov.
Code § 65915(e)(1)
3. Design conflicts with the 2030 General Plan which requires preservation of neighborhood character and appropriate transitions to lower-intensity residential areas.
The proposal fails by:
Placing a 4-story wall directly adjacent to a single-story home and two-story apartments (see A0.09);
Providing no meaningful step-downs in height
Locating emergency and trash access along the property line shared with a single-family home causing year-round nuisance impacts.
4. CEQA Categorical Exemption Barred by Cumulative Impacts. Analysis insufficient for cumulative impacts - recent area changes not considered. The city recently approved a 7-story, 80-unit project at 294-296 Tyrella Avenue. Combined impacts require analysis:
127 total new units on a small street not designed for this density These combined projects will increase traffic, parking demand and utility loads and remove mature trees.
Traffic study required to determine if peak-hour impacts necessitate traffic controls
The Committee should require updated transportation analysis considering both projects together instead of relying on a 2024 Transportation Demand Management Plan that predates both.
Request:
Given these issues, I urge the Committee to require:
Transit verification before approving parking reductions Deny unnecessary waivers where 47 units could fit with smaller units or alternate layouts.
Require design changes to step down massing and mitigate impacts to adjacent homes.
Conduct cumulative impact analysis for the Tyrella Avenue corridor This current proposal pushes regulatory flexibility beyond reasonable limits.
Respectfully submitted,
Roger Noel
Aug 12, 2025 City of Mountain View 500 Castro St. Mountain View, CA 94041 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 266-272 Tyrella Avenue To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dear Mountain View Zoning Administrator, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
47-unit
housing
development
project
at
266-272
Tyrella
Avenue,
which
includes
5 very
low
income
units.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
AB
130
and
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subds.
(d),
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
render
the
project
infeasible
(
id
.
at
subd.
(d))
or
reduce
the
project’s
density
(
id
.
at
subd.
(j))
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3)).
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
Furthermore,
if
the
City
rejects
the
project
or
impairs
its
feasibility,
it
must
conduct
“a
thorough
analysis
of
the
economic,
social,
and
environmental
effects
of
the
action.”
(
Id.
at
subd.
(b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections.
The
City
must
respect
these
protections.
In
addition
to
granting
the
increase
in
residential
units
allowed
by
the
DBL,
the
City
must
not
deny
the
project
the
proposed
waivers
and
concessions
with
respect
to
maximum
height;
front,
side,
and
rear
setbacks;
maximum
floor
area
ratio;
and
maximum
site
coverage.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
waivers,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(e)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
waivers
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
upon
health
or
safety,
and
for
which
there
is
no
feasible
method
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific
adverse
impact.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
concessions,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(d)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
concessions
would
not
result
in
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions,
that
the
concessions
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
safety,
or
that
the
concessions
are
contrary
to
state
or
federal
law.
The
City,
if
it
makes
any
such
findings,
bears
the
burden
of
proof.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915,
subd.
(d)(4).)
Additionally,
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
has
ruled
that
when
an
applicant
has
requested
one
or
more
waivers
and/or
concessions
pursuant
to
the
DBL,
the
City
“may
not
apply
any
development
standard
that
would
physically
preclude
construction
of
that
project
as
designed,
even
if
the
building
includes
‘amenities’
beyond
the
bare
minimum
of
building
components.”
(
Bankers
Hill
150
v.
City
of
San
Diego
(2022)
74 Cal.App.5th
755,
775.)
Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA
categorical
exemption
(In-Fill
Development
Projects)
pursuant
to
section
15332
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines,
as
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
applicable
general
plan
designation
and
all
applicable
general
plan
policies
as
well
as
the
applicable
zoning
designation
and
regulations;
the
proposed
development
occurs
within
city
limits
on
a
project
site
of
no
more
than
five
acres
substantially
surrounded
by
urban
uses;
the
project
site
has
no
value
as
habitat
for
endangered,
rare,
or
threatened
species;
approval
of
the
project
would
not
result
in
any
significant
effects
relating
to
traffic,
noise,
air
quality,
or
water
quality;
and
the
site
can
be
adequately
served
by
all
required
utilities
and
public
services.
[if
under
85ft
and
20 acres
add]
Furthermore,
the
project
is
eligible
for
a
statutory
exemption
from
CEQA
pursuant
to
AB
130
(Pub.
Res.
Code,
§
21080.66),
which
was
signed
into
law
on
June
30,
2025
and
effective
immediately
(Assembly
Bill
No.
130,
2025-2026
Regular
Session,
Sec.
74,
available here) Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined
CEQA
review
to
which
it
is
entitled.
(
Hilltop
Group,
Inc.
v.
County
of
San
Dieg
o
(2024)
99 Cal.App.5th
890,
911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.
New
housing
such
as
this
is
a
public
benefit:
by
providing
affordable
housing,
it
will
mitigate
the
state’s
homelessness
crisis;
it
will
increase
the
city’s
tax
base;
it
will
bring
new
customers
to
local
businesses;
and
it
will
reduce
displacement
of
existing
residents
by
reducing
competition
for
existing
housing.
It
will
also
help
cut
down
on
2 of 3
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban
areas,
as
opposed
to
farther-flung
regions
in
the
state
(and
out
of
state).
While
no
one
project
will
solve
the
statewide
housing
crisis,
the
proposed
development
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
CalHDF
urges
the
City
to
approve
it,
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 2:58 PM
To: Administrative Zoning Hearing <[email protected]> Subject: PL-7343 (formerly PL-2023-130 and PL-2023-131) CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Dear Sirs,
As with the other proposed high-density housing forced onto this neighborhood, this complex is out of place and too large for the lot and the area. On a street with single-family homes and small apartment complexes, this level of density will overwhelm the neighborhood, degrading it for the current residents and creating an island of disconnected residents, almost like transients, existing outside of the current residents and community.
While I understand the need for more housing, destroying neighborhoods and the value of the current residents' homes is not the way to do it. The city should be outraged on behalf of the current residents at this misuse of the builders' remedy scam that allows developers to steal value from current residents and avoid sensible building codes. Clearly, the city council has decided that our area and the residents are of no value, and it is not worth the effort to protect us. None of them live here so they have made it obvious at previous city meetings that they don't care. That should not matter - the residents of this area deserve the same consideration that you would give to wealthier areas of the city.
Some nonsense ideas from other council meetings that I would like to refute:
Parking: Insufficient parking at the unit will not mean that people use public transport. Here is why:
Public transport takes far longer to get you where you are going. Until you solve that issue, few people will utilize it.
Women will not take it because there is no safe way to get back and forth from this proposed development to downtown. I live here and I do not take the paths to downtown unless it is daylight. There are too many dangerous men lurking on those paths. In the winter, even during the day, I avoid that area because there is not enough foot traffic for
safety. I would never take those paths after dark without being in a group of three or more.
Most of the year, women will be commuting after dark.
If you are a woman with children you will not take it because there is no reasonable way to get home from work, pick up your kids at a random daycare location, and get dinner using public transit. Sure, if you had three or four extra hours a day, it would be exhausting but you could do it. No one will, however. They will all have multiple cars per household. That means the already full streets will be insufficient and the parking blight will extend into every neighboring street.
Also, let me include traffic here as well. It will be horrible and will require more traffic lights and other changes for safety. I call BS on your traffic engineer's assessment. She is giving a ridiculous answer to meet the needs of the city council members to justify their lack of concern.
Out of Character: This is a lovely area of small homes and apartments. While some increase in density is expected, these new proposals are ludicrous. If this happened next door to any of the council members, they would be justifiably outraged. The value of their property would be severely impacted. No one would want to live next to these monstrousities. The council members should be helping their constituents to push back, while looking for more appropriate areas for this high- density housing.
The developers will skim the profits off the top and leave the current residents holding the bag for degraded conditions, including noise, traffic, parking, loss of open space and light, as well as generally diminished community. Why am I funding the profits of these money-grubbers? If the city thinks they deserve welfare, let them pay it. The residents should not.
I know neither you nor the council give a darn but you should. You are not representing your constituents and none of this housing will help anyone who actually needs housing. It will all go to rich people who could buy anywhere. Why don't you look for an opportunity to create real "affordable" housing instead of these fake, feel-good (for the council) projects which do not solve the issue.
Thank you.
Andrea Johnson