ATT 7 - Public Comment — Mountain View City Council, December 16, 2025

Attachment 7
Using the same parcel for commercial use, redeveloping the ~45,000 square foot lot as a new hotel would allow for, roughly:
 Approximately 15,750 square feet of building,
 Spanning 2 stories,
 Split amongst 300 square foot (average) hotel rooms, achieving at most 35 hotel rooms with 5000 square feet of necessary public and back of house spaces.

As you can see from this rudimentary example, the commercial zoning in the Evandale Precise Plan Area A is so highly restrictive that it will never be feasible for the property owners in this area to redevelop for commercial purposes.

The City should do its utmost to encourage development, both of residential and commercial properties. The zoning found in Evandale Precise Plan Area A, however, is so restrictive that there has been essentially no development in this area in over 20 years.

We encourage you to take this opportunity to revisit the Evandale Precise Plan’s Commercial Neighborhood zoning and improve the density and height restrictions to the Commercial/Residential-Arterial (CRA) or Mixed-Use Corridor Zoning Standards. The CRA zoning already addresses redevelopment as hotels and motels, and the Mixed-Use Corridor Zoning provides for an FAR that would further encourage housing to be built on these sites.

Thank you for your time.

Chandrakant Shah
Owner - County Inn
850 Leong Drive, Mountain View CA 94043

Bhagirath Desai
Owner – Former Denny’s Site
870 Leong Drive, Mountain View CA 94043

Maz Mogannam
Owner – L
as Adelitas Market Building
889 Leong Drive, Mountain View CA 94043

Ramesh Mistry
Owner - Ramada by Wyndham Mountain View
55 Fairchild Drive Mountain View CA 94043

From:

To: Penollar, Krisha; [email protected]
Subject: OPPOSITION to Housing Element Program 1.1.G - Rezoning of 1702 and 1704 Miramonte Avenue and 777 Cuesta Dr
Date: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:59:08 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Chair and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission, I am a resident of Varsity Park neighborhood writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning and General Plan amendments for the parcels at 1702 and 1704 Miramonte Avenue and Cuest 777, as part of Housing Element Program 1.1.G.

1. This Proposal is "Spot Zoning" and Incompatible with Neighborhood Character
The 1702 and 1704 Miramonte parcels are in the middle of a stable, established R1 neighborhood, surrounded on all sides by single-family homes. Rezoning these two specific lots to allow for high-density (30+ units/acre) multi-family development is the very definition of "spot zoning." It would create a small, disruptive island of high-density housing that is completely inconsistent with the existing land use and the neighborhood's established character.

Proper urban planning concentrates density along major transit corridors (like El Camino Real) or on underutilized commercial lands, not by inserting high-density apartment buildings into the center of a low-density residential block.

2. Severe Traffic and Safety Impacts on Local Streets
Miramonte Avenue is a local collector street, not a major thoroughfare. It is already heavily used by local residents and serves as a primary route for children biking and walking to Graham Middle School and Springer Elementary School.

A 30 DU/acre development on these combined lots could represent 40-60+ new units, adding an estimated 100-200+ new daily vehicle trips concentrated at a single new driveway. This will:

Create a new, dangerous bottleneck on a street that is already stressed during school commute hours.

Increase "cut-through" traffic as new residents try to bypass Miramonte congestion by using quiet, narrow streets like Tulane Drive, Fordham Way, and Sladky Avenue, which were never designed to handle this volume.

Endanger pedestrians and cyclists, particularly the many students who use this exact route.

3. Creation of a Severe Parking Crisis
The hearing notice explicitly states the project includes "reductions to required parking near major transit stops." This is a critical error in judgment.

This site is not a major transit stop. It is not near a Caltrain or Light Rail station.

Relying on infrequent bus service to justify a drastic reduction in parking is unrealistic and will have severe consequences.

The parking overflow is guaranteed. New residents will own cars, and they will not be able to park them on-site. This will force dozens of cars to hunt for parking on our surrounding streets, including Tulane Drive.

This will congest our neighborhood, block driveways, and—most critically— impede access for emergency vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances.

4. Flawed Environmental Review (CEQA)
The notice claims this project "falls within the scope of the Program EIR" for the Housing Element. We strongly dispute this. A Program EIR is a broad, high-level document. It could not have possibly analyzed the specific, granular, site-level impacts of:

Funneling 200+ new car trips onto this specific, non-arterial segment of Miramonte Ave.

The overflow parking impact on Tulane Drive and adjacent R1 streets.

The noise and shadow impacts of a 3-4 story apartment building on the immediate single-family home neighbors.

The strain on local utilities (sewer and water) at this specific connection point.

These are new, significant impacts that were not previously studied. Under CEQA, this requires, at minimum, a new Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to address these site-specific issues. Proceeding without this new analysis is a violation of the CEQA process.

Our Request
This is a flawed proposal that prioritizes checking a box for a state mandate over the principles of sound community planning and resident safety. It is the wrong site for this level of density.

We urge the Environmental Planning Commission to recommend DENIAL of the rezoning for 1702 and 1704 Miramonte Avenue. We ask you to direct staff to find more suitable and appropriately located sites within the city—such as on major commercial corridors or near genuine transit hubs—that can accommodate new housing without destabilizing established single-family neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Prerna Dillon
From:

To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Public Comment -Evandale Precise Plan
Date: Friday, October 31, 2025 3:37:39 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Krisha,
As homeowners next to the Evandale Precise Plan area, thank you for preserving the CN zoning. It’s important to maintain the residential character and quiet ambience of our neighborhood while still supporting thoughtful new development that complements nearby homes.

Thank you for prioritizing neighborhood quality and balance in this update. We hope to keep this family-friendly, quiet, and welcoming community for many years to come.

We also hope that Mountain View continues moving toward greater equity and equal access to
a high quality of life for all residents, learning from past planning choices and building a more inclusive future.

Residents near Evandale Precise Plan,
Alex & Mary Grace Yao

From:

To: [email protected]; Penollar, Krisha; City Council Subject: STRONG OPPOSITION & REQUEST FOR DENIAL – Housing Element Program 1.1.G; Rezoning of 1702 Miramonte, 1704 Miramonte, AND 777 Cuesta Drive
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 2:00:08 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Chair and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission, My name is Albert Colas Prunera, resident at 1666 Tulane Dr, representative of the Varsity Park Neighborhood Association. We, the residents of Varsity Park Neighborhood Association and the surrounding Miramonte-Springer neighborhood, are writing in strong opposition to the proposed zoning and General Plan amendments for the cluster of parcels at 1702 Miramonte, 1704 Miramonte, and also 777 Cuesta Drive.

We are a community of families who invested in this neighborhood for its protected R1 (Single-Family) zoning and stable, quiet character. This proposal would insert multiple high- density, multi-unit developments into the very heart of our low-density residential community.

This proposal is not just poor planning; it is a direct threat to our neighborhood's safety and stability. We urge you to recommend DENIAL for this entire cluster of sites based on the following five critical failures:

1. This is Arbitrary "Spot Zoning" and "Density Clustering" This proposal is a textbook example of "spot zoning" (1702/1704 Miramonte) and "spot intensification" (777 Cuesta) that is in direct conflict with the General Plan's goal to “protect and maintain the character and quality of single-family neighborhoods.” By targeting these three specific parcels, the city is not engaging in coherent planning. It is arbitrarily creating a high-density, multi-project "cluster" in the middle of a low-density R1 zone. This action is inconsistent with every adjacent parcel and the established land use plan, providing a special privilege to developers at the expense of the entire community.

2. A Critical Failure of CEQA: The City Has Not Studied the Cumulative Impacts
This is our most significant objection. The city claims these projects are covered by the broad Housing Element Program EIR. This is procedurally and legally incorrect.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) mandates that a lead agency analyze the cumulative impacts of projects that are "closely related." Targeting three distinct sites within the same small neighborhood block is the very definition of a cumulative impact that the Program EIR could not have possibly analyzed.

The combined traffic from all three developments funneling onto Miramonte and Cuesta.

The combined parking overflow from 100+ new units flooding every street in our neighborhood.

The combined utility load on the local sewer and water mains.

Proceeding without a new Initial Study and a focused EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that analyzes these cumulative impacts is a clear violation of CEQA.

Not a "Major Transit Stop": The bus line, with 30-60 minute headways, is a local- service route and does not meet the state's definition of "high-quality transit" or a "major transit stop."
Parking Reductions are Unjustified: Because the transit assumption is false, the entire premise for reducing parking is invalid. These will be highly car-dependent developments.

Guaranteed Parking Crisis: The parking overflow from all three sites will create a severe and unmanageable crisis, forcing hundreds of new cars onto narrow residential streets like Tulane Drive, Fordham Way, and Sladky. This is a direct threat to public safety and emergency vehicle access.

Degraded Level of Service (LOS): This new, concentrated volume will significantly degrade the Level of Service at key local intersections (Miramonte/Cuesta, Cuesta/Grant, Miramonte/Foothill).

Extreme Student Safety Hazard: This entire cluster of sites is located directly on a primary student bicycle and pedestrian route for Graham Middle School and Springer Elementary School. The city has a paramount responsibility to protect these "Safe Routes to School." Adding multiple high-volume apartment driveways in this exact location is reckless and creates an unacceptable and foreseeable risk to hundreds of children.

5. Superior, More Appropriate Alternative Sites are Available The city’s legal duty is to demonstrate adequate zoning capacity to meet its RHNA goals, not to upzone fundamentally unsuitable parcels.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies hundreds of potential sites. The city has ample opportunity to meet its housing goals by prioritizing development on:

Major Commercial Corridors: El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Moffett Boulevard.

Underutilized Commercial/Industrial Land.

True Transit-Oriented Sites: Parcels immediately adjacent to Caltrain and VTA Light Rail.

This proposal does the opposite. It targets small, constrained, and stable residential sites while ignoring these far superior and more appropriate locations.

Conclusion and Formal Request
This proposal is an arbitrary, piecemeal, and dangerous approach to planning. It sacrifices the safety, character, and stability of an established neighborhood for a negligible gain in housing units, especially when superior alternative sites are readily available.

We formally request that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend DENIAL of the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments for 1702 Miramonte, 1704 Miramonte, and 777 Cuesta Drive, and direct staff to remove this entire cluster of parcels from Program 1.1.G.

Sincerely,
VPNA - Varsity Park Neighborhood Association
From:

To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Proposed General Plan Amendment for 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 12:02:43 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Krisha,
After reviewing the proposed General Plan Amendment, I have concerns regarding the possible impact on our neighborhood. The site chosen to be CO-Mixed Use Village Ctr, 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave, is right next to our neighborhood which is a R-1 zone. We have been dealing with an overflow of cars parked on our streets for as long as I have lived here since 2004.

The current office complex does not have adequate parking provision for the employees and the visitors. Therefore, the portions of Sladky Ave and Tulane Drive are being used as the overflow parking lot for this complex. While many residents and I have expressed concerns over the years to the City of Mountain View Planning Dept., Code Enforcement Dept. and various City Council Members, there has been no tangible solution to
this issue.

Now with the proposed change of use permit for this address, I am gravely concerned about what such a development will do to our
neighborhood. The relaxing of the parking
requirement (less than required by the City of Mountain View) and the height/density of the possible projects (up to 45') will be detrimental to our neighborhood.

The increased traffic,
street congestion, the safety of many children riding bikes and the walkers(day & night time) are only some of the issues that come to mind.

I have been hearing a lot of "We can't do anything because the State mandates it" from the City of Mountain View.

The City of Mountain View chose 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave as part of this housing element requirement. Now that this site has been chosen, we ask that the City of Mtn. View safeguard our neighborhood's character and ensure the safety of its residents.

Please let our neighborhood know what the City will do to address our concerns.

Thank you,
Inhwa Wada

From:

To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Concerns about the Proposed General Plan Amendment for 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 2:35:05 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Krisha, City of Mountain View Planning Department, and City Council Members, This message is regarding the proposed development at 1702–1704 Miramonte Avenue.

We've lived on Tulane Drive near this area since 2020. Since the end of the pandemic, we've seen the impact of
increasing traffic and parking overflow stemming from the existing office use. Because of this, we are deeply concerned about the safety implications of adding more density without adequate planning.

Our Tulane neighborhood has a large circle of young children (ages 4-10) who play outdoors together almost every day and we would never want to take this away from them. Families here make a conscious effort to maintain a safe and welcoming community environment.

Many families, including ours, have purchased “Slow – Children at Play” signs because we've all noticed more non-resident cars traveling faster and more frequently than before. Due to an increase in parked vehicles along the curbs, the visibility becomes limited when children are present. Drivers unfamiliar with the neighborhood often use this street as a cut-through.

Even small increases in traffic volume raise the risk of serious accidents.

Introducing new multifamily housing without sufficient on-site parking will likely intensify existing overflow issues, pushing more vehicles further into the residential area. This is not simply an inconvenience—it directly affects whether children can safely cross the street, ride their bikes, or play outside without fear. Once an accident happens, it cannot be undone, and we want to prevent that risk before it becomes a reality.

We understand the importance of creating more housing and we support responsible planning.

However, meeting housing goals should not come at the expense of child safety and neighborhood walkability. We respectfully ask the City to ensure:

Adequate on-site parking that does not rely on surrounding residential streets, Careful consideration of traffic patterns and potential cut-through behavior, Clear safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children.

We ask the City to share how these safety issues will be evaluated and mitigated before any approvals are considered. Our goal is to work collaboratively to ensure that growth benefits the community while protecting the well-being of the families who already live here.

Thank you for your time and attention for our Varsity community which we love deely! Sincerely,

Jiaying Feng with family

From:

To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment for 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:44:24 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Krisha,
I greatly appreciate the time you took to speak with me today. I have revised my email from earlier in the day to the one below. If you would like to include the message below for the public record rather than my earlier one, I would also appreciate that.

Thanks again,
Robert
======================================================================================================= Hello Ms. Penollar,
I am writing in regard to the proposed rezoning of 1702-1704 Miramonte Avenue. I reside at , directly across from the site in question. I will try to be brief.

As I understand it, the proposal for this land would be for mixed use and therefore would need to be rezoned to Neighborhood Mixed- Use designation.

A 35-45 foot building in the neighborhood would be completely out of character, which is something the city claims it wants preserved. Where would the additional parking spaces required be situated? Underground I assume. The lot itself is quite small for a Mixed-Use Village Center. Creating a reasonable amount of parking seems impossible.

Encouraging shared parking with the available nearby commercial businesses, Blossom Valley Shopping Center I assume, as well as residential street parking is very concerning. We already have had issues with parking in the neighborhood for well over a decade with no resolution. The parking from both employees and patients of 1702-1704 Miramonte Avenue overflows daily onto both Sladky Avenue and Tulane Drive. Additional parking has been allocated at the Presbyterian Church across Miramonte Avenue, but it is rarely used, if at all. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would park at either the Presbyterian Church or Blossom Valley Shopping Center. It's simply much closer to park in front of residents' homes, which would impact us further.

The impact on parking, traffic congestion and general safety in that small area adjacent to a busy intersection would be too great in my opinion.

While I understand the need for additional housing, should it be done at the expense of residents who have invested in their neighborhoods, and that includes any neighborhood in the city? Respectfully,
Robert Mavar

From:

To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Proposed General Plan Amendment for 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:20:37 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Krisha,
After reviewing the proposed General Plan Amendment, I am horrified at the possibility of the buildings on 1702- 1704 Miramonte being replaced by taller buildings.

The effects on 817 Sladky would be disastrous for the property owners. They are just next to the proposed construction which would destroy their property
value if a building taller than the present construction was authorized. A building right next to them would overlook their property, remove privacy from their back garden, prevent the ability to place solar panels on their roof, etc.

We are a highly knit community and already suffer from illegal parking on Sladky/Tulane. A few weeks ago, as I was carefully reversing from my house at , a Dental Office employee parked across the street from me suddenly did an illegal u-turn and almost hit me.

This General Amendment to the plan should not be approved as it is proposed.

Graham Cameron
Mountain view.

From:

To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Concerns with the General Plan Amendment for 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave, 777 Cuesta Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:35:41 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Krishna,
My young family moved to Sladky Ave near the dental offices a few years ago. We purposefully moved to this neighborhood for its quiet location, plentiful space, and privacy.

I recently learned about the proposed changes to 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave and 777 Cuesta.

It deeply concerns me that the proposed changes would be highly disruptive to the neighborhood.

We already have an unfortunate overflow of parking onto Sladky from the offices, even though there is a sign directing traffic elsewhere. While it sounds minor, this traffic has caused issued such as: having no street space for our trash cans, no safe space for bikers and walkers, most of which are children commuting to and from school, and lack of parking for our own family. I deeply worry that the proposed changes will worsen these issues.

Additionally, I worry about a high rise building in a neighborhood with nothing over two stories. This would overshadow the rest of the neighborhood, look significantly out of place, and most of all, reduce the privacy we sought
out when purchasing our home in the first place.

I urge you to not approve this measure. Our neighborhood has been discussing this issue and I know I am not the only one with deep concerns. I worry that if it is approved, my family will need to find a more suitable neighborhood.

Thank you,
Jamshed Vesuna

From:

To: Penollar, Krisha
Subject: Issues with the General Plan Amendment, CO-Mixed Use Village Ctr, 1702-1704 Miramonte Ave.

Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 3:40:04 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Krisha,
My name is Ella, and I am a resident at , Mountain View.

I’m writing to share my concerns about the proposed development at 1702–1704 Miramonte Ave. My family’s home is right next to that property, and this project would have a major impact on our daily lives and our safety.

One of my biggest worries is how this project would increase noise, pollution, and overall disruption, completely changing the character of our neighborhood. Construction alone would mean months of dust, trucks, and constant noise. But even after that, more traffic, deliveries, and business activity would permanently change the peaceful atmosphere we’ve always had.

Our neighborhood is made up of small family homes, quiet streets, and older trees, making it feel like a real community. If a large mixed-use development goes up, that calm, residential feeling will fade away. It would turn our peaceful street into a busy, commercial zone. It would feel louder and more crowded.

Even now, parking and traffic are constant problems in our neighborhood. People park in front of our house all the time, sometimes blocking our road and even the fire hydrant, because there is an overcrowding of cars constantly. It’s frustrating and stressful to come home and have nowhere to park, especially when I come back from school and have to park blocks away, and then moving my car late at night, just so I can leave early in the morning. It’s hard to start my day like that, and it makes our street feel chaotic, not peaceful. If this project goes through, those problems will only get worse.

I’m asking you to think about the families who live right next to this property and how much this would change our lives.

Thank you for taking the time to listen and for considering the impact this would have on our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Ella

From:

To: epc@mou ntainview.gov; Penollar, Krisha; City Council Subject: OPPOSITION to Housing Element Program 1.1.G - Rezoning of 1702/1704 Miramonte & 777 Cuesta Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 5:56:59 PM

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

My name is Begoña Tudela, resident at , Mountain View. We, the undersigned residents of the Springer/Miramonte/Tulane neighborhood, are writing to register our formal and comprehensive opposition to the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments for 1702/1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta Drive.

We understand the state's housing mandates. This is not an objection to housing; it is an objection to a deeply flawed, unsafe, and legally questionable proposal that ignores sound planning principles and breaches the city's trust with its residents.

This proposal is a complete failure from every critical planning perspective. We urge you to recommend DENIAL based on the following interconnected failures:

1. The Entire Proposal is Based on a False Premise. The staff report justifies this high-density cluster and its

associated parking reductions by claiming the sites are "near major transit stops." This is factually incorrect. The current bus, with 30-60 minute service intervals, is not a "major transit stop" by any state or regional definition. This single false assumption invalidates the entire justification for the project's density and parking, and it is a fatal flaw in the city's analysis.

2. It is a Direct, Un-Analyzed Threat to Student Safety. These three sites are not on an anonymous street; they are on a primary "Safe Route to School" for hundreds of children attending Graham Middle School and Springer Elementary. This proposal will add three new, high-volume apartment driveways and hundreds of new vehicle trips directly onto their walking and biking paths. The city has provided zero analysis of this specific, foreseeable, and severe risk to children.

3. It Violates CEQA by Ignoring Cumulative Impacts. The city cannot legally claim these projects are covered by the general Program EIR. CEQA mandates that the cumulative impacts of closely related projects be analyzed.

Dropping three high-density developments into one small residential block is the definition of a cumulative impact.

The city has failed to study the combined, synergistic impacts of:

Traffic: The combined trip generation from all three sites.

Parking: The combined overflow from 100+ new units.

Noise: The combined construction and operational noise.

Utilities: The combined load on our residential-grade sewer and water mains. This is a clear violation of the CEQA process, and you cannot legally approve this without a new, focused environmental study.

4. It is Arbitrary "Spot Zoning" that Violates the General Plan. The General Plan is a promise to residents. It explicitly states the city will “protect and maintain the character and quality of single-family neighborhoods.” This proposal does the opposite. It is arbitrary "spot zoning" that carves up a stable R1 neighborhood to benefit developers. This is an inequitable and destructive planning practice that places the entire burden of a city-wide problem on a small group of homeowners.

5. It Has No Coherent Plan for the Inevitable Consequences. This proposal will guarantee a parking crisis by using a false transit premise to reduce parking. This crisis will spill onto our narrow streets, like Tulane Drive, making them impassable, congested, and unsafe for emergency vehicles. This proposal has no plan for the required utility upgrades, no plan for the new demand on our local parks, and no plan for the real-world impacts on the families who live here.

Conclusion: A Failure of Due Di
ligence
This proposal is flawed from its initial premise to its dangerous and un-analyzed conclusion. It is based on a factual error (transit), violates state law (CEQA), endangers children (safety), and breaks the city's own promise (General Plan).

We are not against housing. We are for responsible planning. Responsible planning concentrates density on major commercial corridors like El Camino Real, San Antonio, and Moffett Blvd—areas that are actually served by major transit and are built to handle this growth.

This proposal is the wrong housing, in the wrong place, based on the wrong analysis. We urge you to do your duty,

recognize this comprehensive failure, and recommend DENIAL for all three sites.

Sincerely,
Bengoña Tudela
Mountain View
Springer/Miramonte/Tulane neighborhood
Enviado desde mi iPhone

4. Flawed Environmental Review (CEQA)

The notice claims this project "falls within the scope of the Program EIR" for the Housing Element. We strongly dispute this. A Program EIR is a broad, high-level document. It could not have possibly analyzed the specific, granular, site -level impacts of:

Funneling 200+ new car trips onto this specific, non-arterial segment of Miramonte Ave.

The overflow parking impact on Tulane Drive and adjacent R1 streets.

The noise and shadow impacts of a 3-4 story apartment building on the immediate single-family home neighbors.

The strain on local utilities (sewer and water) at this specific connection point.

Our Request

This is a flawed proposal that prioritizes checking a box for a state mandate over the principles of sound community planning and resident safety. It is the wrong site for this level of density.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
The Concerned Residents of Springer-Miramonte, Meghana Kanakamedala

• Not a "Major Transit Stop": The VTA bus line, with 30-60 minute headways, is a local-service route and does not meet the state's definition of "high-quality transit" or a "major transit stop." • Parking Reductions are Unjustified: Because the transit assumption is false, the entire premise for reducing parking is invalid. These will be highly car-dependent developments.
• Guaranteed Parking Crisis: The parking overflow from all three sites will create a severe and unmanageable crisis, forcing hundreds of new cars onto narrow residential streets like Tulane Drive, Fordham Way, and Sladky. This is a direct threat to public safety and emergency vehicle access.

4. Severe and Un-Analyzed Traffic and Student Safety Hazards

This proposal will create a significant and un-analyzed traffic hazard. The combined trip generation from 30+ DU/acre developments at these three sites will funnel hundreds of new vehicle trips onto two local collector streets: Miramonte and Cuesta. • Degraded Level of Service (LOS): This new, concentrated volume will significantly degrade the Level of Service at key local intersections (Miramonte/Cuesta, Cuesta/Grant, Miramonte/Foothill). • Extreme Student Safety Hazard: This entire cluster of sites is located directly on a primary student bicycle and pedestrian route for Graham Middle School and Springer Elementary School. The city has a paramount responsibility to protect these "Safe Routes to School." Adding multiple high-volume apartment driveways in this exact location is reckless and creates an unacceptable and foreseeable risk to hundreds of children.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies hundreds of potential sites. The city has ample opportunity to meet its housing goals by prioritizing development on:
• Major Commercial Corridors: El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Moffett Boulevard.

• Underutilized Commercial/Industrial Land.

• True Transit-Oriented Sites: Parcels immediately adjacent to Caltrain and VTA Light Rail.

This proposal does the opposite. It targets small, constrained, and stable residential sites while ignoring these far superior and more appropriate locations.

We formally request that the Environmental Planning Commission recommend DENIAL of the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments for 1702 Miramonte and 1704 Miramonte and direct staff to remove this entire cluster of parcels from Program 1.1.G.

Sincerely,

Jiao Luo & Peng Zhang -- Mountain View, 94040
The Concerned Residents of the Miramonte & Tulane Neighborhood

within the same small neighborhood block is the very definition of a cumulative impact that the Program EIR could not have possibly analyzed.

The combined traffic from all three developments funneling onto Miramonte and Cuesta.

The combined parking overflow from 100+ new units flooding every street in our neighborhood.

The combined utility load on the local sewer and water mains.

Proceeding without a new Initial Study and a focused EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that analyzes these cumulative impacts is a clear violation of CEQA.

3. The Proposal is Based on a Factually Incorrect Transit Assumption

The justification for these rezonings and their associated parking reductions is that they are "near major transit stops." This is factually incorrect.

Not a "Major Transit Stop": The VTA bus line, with 30-60 minute headways, is a local-service route and does not meet the state's definition of "high-quality transit" or a "major transit stop."
Parking Reductions are Unjustified: Because the transit assumption is false, the entire premise for reducing parking is invalid. These will be highly car-dependent developments.

4. Severe and Un-Analyzed Traffic and Student Safety Hazards

Degraded Level of Service (LOS): This new, concentrated volume will significantly degrade the Level of Service at key local intersections (Miramonte/Cuesta, Cuesta/Grant, Miramonte/Foothill).

5. Superior, More Appropriate Alternative Sites are Available

The city’s legal duty is to demonstrate adequate zoning capacity to meet its RHNA goals, not to upzone fundamentally unsuitable parcels.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies hundreds of potential sites. The city has ample opportunity to meet its housing goals by prioritizing development on:

Major Commercial Corridors: El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Moffett Boulevard.

Underutilized Commercial/Industrial Land.

True Transit-Oriented Sites: Parcels immediately adjacent to Caltrain and VTA Light Rail.

This proposal does the opposite. It targets small, constrained, and stable residential sites while ignoring these far superior and more appropriate locations.

Conclusion and Formal Request

This proposal is an arbitrary, piecemeal, and dangerous approach to planning. It sacrifices the safety, character, and stability of an established neighborhood for a negligible gain in housing units, especially when superior alternative sites are readily available.

Sincerely,

Jiao Luo & Peng Zhang -- ., Mountain View, 94040

The Concerned Residents of the Miramonte & Tulane Neighborhood

This is our most significant objection. The city claims these projects are covered by the broad Housing Element Program EIR. This is procedurally and legally incorrect.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) mandates that a lead agency analyze the cumulative impacts of projects that are "closely related." Targeting three sites around one intersection in the same small neighborhood block is the very definition of a cumulative impact that the Program EIR could not have possibly analyzed.

The combined traffic from all three developments funneling onto Miramonte and Cuesta.

The combined parking overflow from 100+ new units flooding every street in our neighborhood.

The combined utility load on the local sewer and water system.

Proceeding without a new Initial Study and a focused EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that analyzes these cumulative impacts is a clear violation of CEQA.

In addition, the city has been planning to redo Miramonte Ave and is already running 2 years behind the original schedule. There are basic things on Miramonte that need to be fixed and should be prioritized - better bike lanes for school kids, fix the transition from the road to driveways (almost every house driveway on Miramonte ends up with the car scraping the pavement when entering or exiting the driveway).

3. The Proposal is Based on a Factually Incorrect Transit Assumption

The justification for these rezonings and their associated parking reductions is that they are "near major transit stops." This is factually incorrect.

Not a "Major Transit Stop": The VTA bus line, with 30-60 minute headways, is a local-service route and does not meet the state's definition of "high-quality transit" or a "major transit stop."

Parking Reductions are Unjustified: Because the transit assumption is false, the entire premise for reducing parking is invalid. These will be highly car-dependent developments.

4. Severe and Un-Analyzed Traffic and Student Safety Hazards

Degraded Level of Service (LOS): This new, concentrated volume will significantly degrade the Level of Service at key local intersections (Miramonte/Cuesta, Cuesta/Grant, Miramonte/Foothill).

Francis High and Mtn. View High School. The city has a paramount responsibility to protect these "Safe Routes to School." Adding multiple high- volume apartment driveways in this exact location is reckless and creates an unacceptable and foreseeable risk to hundreds of children.

5. Superior, More Appropriate Alternative Sites are Available

The city’s legal duty is to demonstrate adequate zoning capacity to meet its RHNA goals, not to upzone fundamentally unsuitable parcels.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies hundreds of potential sites. The city has ample opportunity to meet its housing goals by prioritizing development on:

Major Commercial Corridors: El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Moffett Boulevard.

Underutilized Commercial/Industrial Land.

True Transit-Oriented Sites: Parcels immediately adjacent to Caltrain and VTA Light Rail.

This proposal does the opposite. It targets small, constrained, and stable residential neighborhoods while ignoring these far superior and more appropriate locations.

Conclusion and Formal Request

We formally request that the City Council recommend DENIAL of the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments for 1702 & 1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta and direct staff to remove this entire cluster of parcels from Program 1.1.G.

Sincerely,

Srinivas Sanjay Voleti; , Mountain View, CA 94040
The Concerned Residents of the Blossom Valley neighborhood

From:

To: City Council; Penollar, Krisha; [email protected] Subject: 1702/1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta Dr - Strong Opposition and Request for Denial – Housing Element Program 1.1.G
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:28:17 AM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear City Council, Chair and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission,
My name is Natalie Skelton, a resident of Cuesta Drive in the Blossom Valley neighborhood, writing in strong opposition to the proposed zoning and General Plan amendments for the cluster of parcels at 1702 Miramonte and 1704 Miramonte as well as 777 Cuesta Dr.

We are a community of families who invested in this neighborhood for its protected R1 (Single-Family) zoning and stable, quiet character. This proposal would insert
multiple high-density, multi-unit developments into the very heart of our low-density residential community.

This proposal is a direct threat to our neighborhood's safety and stability. We urge you to recommend DENIAL for this entire cluster of sites based on the following five critical failures:

1. This is Arbitrary "Spot Zoning" and "Density Clustering" This proposal is a textbook example of "spot zoning" (1702/1704 Miramonte) and "spot intensification" (777 Cuesta) that is in direct conflict with the General Plan's goal to
“protect and maintain the character and quality of single-family neighborhoods.”
By targeting these three specific parcels, the city is not engaging in coherent planning. It is arbitrarily creating a high-density, multi-project "cluster" in the middle of a low-density R1 zone. This action is inconsistent with every adjacent parcel and the established land use plan, providing a special privilege to developers at the expense of the entire community.

The combined traffic from all three developments funneling onto Miramonte and Cuesta.

The combined parking overflow from 100+ new units flooding every street in our neighborhood.

The combined utility load on the local sewer and water system.

Proceeding without a new Initial Study and a focused EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that analyzes these cumulative impacts is a clear violation of CEQA.

Degraded Level of Service (LOS): This new, concentrated volume will significantly degrade the Level of Service at key local intersections (Miramonte/Cuesta, Cuesta/Grant, Miramonte/Foothill).

Extreme Student Safety Hazard: This entire cluster of sites is located directly on a primary student bicycle and pedestrian route for Graham Middle School, Springer Elementary, Bullis Charter South Campus, Blach Junior High, St. Francis High and Mtn. View High School. The city has a paramount responsibility to protect these "Safe Routes to School." Adding multiple high-volume apartment driveways in this exact location is reckless and creates an unacceptable and foreseeable risk to hundreds of children.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies hundreds of potential sites. The city has ample opportunity to meet its housing goals by prioritizing development on:

Major Commercial Corridors: El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Moffett Boulevard.

Underutilized Commercial/Industrial Land.

True Transit-Oriented Sites: Parcels immediately adjacent to Caltrain and VTA Light Rail.

This proposal does the opposite. It targets small, constrained, and stable residential neighborhoods while ignoring these far superior and more appropriate locations.

We formally request that the City Council
recommend DENIAL of the proposed
General Plan and Zoning amendments for 1702 & 1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta and direct staff to remove this entire cluster of parcels from Program

1.1.G.

Sincerely,
Natalie Skelton
The Concerned Residents of the Blossom Valley neighborhood From:

To: City Council; Penollar, Krisha; [email protected] Subject: 1702/1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta Dr - Strong Opposition and Request for Denial – Housing Element Program 1.1.G
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 5:05:59 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear City Council, Chair and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission, My name is Osman Guracar resident at in the Blossom Valley neighborhood, writing in strong opposition to the proposed zoning and General Plan amendments for the cluster of parcels at 1702 Miramonte and 1704 Miramonte as well as 777 Cuesta Dr.

This proposal is a direct threat to our neighborhood's safety and stability. We urge you to recommend DENIAL for this entire cluster of sites based on the following five critical failures:

1. This is Arbitrary "Spot Zoning" and "Density Clustering" This proposal is a textbook example of "spot zoning" (1702/1704 Miramonte) and "spot intensification" (777 Cuesta) that is in direct conflict with the General Plan's goal to “protect and maintain the character and quality of single-family neighborhoods.” By targeting these three specific parcels, the city is not engaging in coherent planning. It is arbitrarily creating a high-density, multi-project "cluster" in the middle of a low- density R1 zone. This action is inconsistent with every adjacent parcel and the established land use plan, providing a special privilege to developers at the expense of the entire community.

2. A Critical Failure of CEQA: The City Has Not Studied the Cumulative Impacts This is our most significant objection. The city claims these projects are covered by the broad Housing Element Program EIR. This is procedurally and legally incorrect.

The combined traffic from all three developments funneling onto Miramonte and Cuesta.

The combined parking overflow from 100+ new units flooding every street in our neighborhood.

The combined utility load on the local sewer and water system.

Proceeding without a new Initial Study and a focused EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that analyzes these cumulative impacts is a clear violation of CEQA.

Not a "Major Transit Stop": The VTA bus line, with 30-60 minute headways, is a local- service route and does not meet the state's definition of "high-quality transit" or a "major transit stop."
Parking Reductions are Unjustified: Because the transit assumption is false, the entire premise for reducing parking is invalid. These will be highly car-dependent developments.

Degraded Level of Service (LOS): This new, concentrated volume will significantly degrade the Level of Service at key local intersections (Miramonte/Cuesta, Cuesta/Grant, Miramonte/Foothill).

The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies hundreds of potential sites. The city has ample opportunity to meet its housing goals by prioritizing development on:

Major Commercial Corridors: El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Moffett Boulevard.

Underutilized Commercial/Industrial Land.

True Transit-Oriented Sites: Parcels immediately adjacent to Caltrain and VTA Light Rail.

This proposal does the opposite. It targets small, constrained, and stable residential neighborhoods while ignoring these far superior and more appropriate locations.

Sincerely, Osman Guracar Mountain View CA 94040
The Concerned Residents of the Blossom Valley neighborhood

From: Donna Margolis
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 9:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: rezoning 1702&1704 Miramonte & 777Cuesta
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

This is an inappropriate location for any large housing. It is very difficult at times to exit Sladky Ave. in order to make a left or right turn onto Miramonte or access the left turn lane to access Cuesta.The plan to reduce the lanes on Miramonte will increase this problem greatly.

Even in light traffic cycles drivers block our exit onto Miramonte by disregarding the instruction painted on the pavement ON NOT BLOCK.

Adding large housing on both corners will create a more massive problem. I've lived on Sladky Ave near Duke Dr. since 1962 and seen many changes in this area and city but this is the first time I have ever felt the need to protest a pending action.

In addition, the traffic on
Sladky would increase dramatically. Please consider how this action will impact our neighborhood. Thank you. Donna Margolis

From: Osman Guracar
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 5:05 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Penollar, Krisha <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: 1702/1704 Miramonte and 777 Cuesta Dr - Strong Opposition and Request for Denial – Housing Element Program 1.1.G
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

We are a community of families who invested in this neighborhood for its protected R1 (Single-Family) zoning and stable, quiet character. This proposal would insert multiple high-density, multi-unit developments into the very heart of our low-density residential community.

This proposal is a direct threat to our neighborhood's safety and stability. We urge you to recommend DENIAL for this entire cluster of sites based on the following five critical failures:

planning. It is arbitrarily creating a high-density, multi-project "cluster" in the middle of a low-density R1 zone. This action is inconsistent with every adjacent parcel and the established land use plan, providing a special privilege to developers at the expense of the entire community.