Council Questions
March 10, 2026 - City Council Meeting
1 ITEM 4.2 Updates to the Facade Grant Program
1. Can staff clarify how much funding remains for this program?
The façade grant program launched with an initial allocation of $200,000. Following the reappropriation of funds for Fiscal Year 2025-26, the program’s current available balance is $138,000.
ITEM 4.3 Interim Pedestrian Mall Improvements (Castro Intersections), Project 23-49-Design Concept
2. Know that humps slow cars down, but they also seem to focus the driver's attention on going the correct speed to get over the hump smoothly, thus distracting the driver's attention from other things, such as pedestrians. Given the many pedestrians in this location, is this a good balance?
Speed humps are not currently proposed along the side-street approaches to Villa and Dana Streets.
However, as recommended by the BPAC at their June 25, 2025, meeting, staff will evaluate if speed limit reduction devices , such as speed humps, are warranted after the intersection improvements are completed.
ITEM 6.2 Mixed-Use Residential Development at 490 E. Middlefield Road
3. Can staff provide more information about how the Development Agreement was proposed and negotiated?
The concept for a development agreement for this project began with the applicant’s interest in exploring an innovative approach to providing additional affordable housing through a City block lease of units . After further discussions, the staff and the applicant identified other mutual interests that would be advanced by negotiating a development agreement. Although the development agreement did not ultimately include a block lease of units by the City, staff used policy priorities in the East Whisman Precise Plan as the primary basis for determining appropriate public benef its as part of the negotiations.
4. Can we require vapor barriers due to the proximity of the groundwater plume? The standards for various chemicals change over time as new information becomes available, as we have seen at Whisman Station.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project and recommended additional investigation and coordination with the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies. As a result, conditions of approval have been included requiring additi onal environmental testing, preparation of a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA), and implementation of any recommended mitigation measures identified in the assessment and approved by the applicable oversight agency.
2 Potential mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, installing a vapor barrier or other vapor intrusion controls, if determined necessary based on-site conditions and the regulatory standards in effect at the time of review. The specifications and design of any required mitigation system would be subject to review and approval by the appropriate environmental regulatory agency (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency or other designated oversight agency).
5. The unit mix proposed is troubling. Although current economics may support it, what happens if the economics change over time? Can we control this as part of the DA?
The applicant has proposed a unit mix of 230 studio units, 201 one-bedroom units, and 29 two-bedroom units. The a pplicant and staff discussed potential alternatives regarding the unit mix during early discussions, among many other topics, and the unit mix was not a focus of development agreement negotiations. Ultimately, the proposal reflects the applicant's assessm ent of market demand and financial modeling for the project.
6. Are some of these studios likely to become offices?
The proposed studio units are residential units and are not designed or approved for office use. The project includes separate ground -floor commercial space, while the upper floors are dedicated to residential units and residential amenities. The project also includes a communal workspace and lounge areas intended to support residents who work from home. Any change in use from residential to office or other non-residential use would require additional City review and approval.
7. Please explain Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation as a feature of DA, page 13.
The development agreement includes a provision regarding the “sales tax point of sale designation, ” intended to help ensure that the local portion of sales and use tax generated from construction materials used in the project is allocated directly to the City of Mountain View rather than distributed through the countywide tax pool.
Under this provision, the developer must make good -faith efforts, to the extent allowed by law, to require contractors and subcontractors supplying major construction materials, such as lumber, concrete, structural steel, and prefabricated building compone nts, to designate the project site as the place of use for those materials. When this designation is made through mechanisms such as using tax direct payment permits or subcontractor permits, the local portion of the sales or use tax is allocated directly to the City.
The developer is also required to instruct contractors to cooperate with the City in this process and to provide an annual list of qualifying subcontractors so the City can verify and facilitate proper tax allocation. This provision applies to construction -related materials but not to tenant improvements carried out by future tenants.
Depending on the value of construction materials used for the project, this designation can result in additional one-time sales and tax revenue to the City during the construction period.
3 8. Do all studios have complete kitchens?
Yes, all residential units, including studios, are proposed with full, independent kitchen facilities.
9. The staff report says, "In response to the EPC recommendation for a loading area along the project frontage, the applicant is willing to work with staff during the building permit process to evaluate the feasibility and design options for an on-street loading duckout on East Middlefield Road as part of the development’s frontage improvements. Staff recommends a duckout be located close to the applicant’s proposed driveway on Middlefield Road in order to have the least number of conflicts for the City’s upcoming capital project that will install Class IV bike lanes (Middlefield Road Complete Streets project). To accommodate a duckout within the limited right-of-way, modifications to the proposed street frontage improvements will be required, including the elimination of the landscape park strip, required by the EWPP, and street tree(s), as well as narrowing the Middlefield Road sidewalk along the duckout." Can you estimate and illustrate how extensive this change might be? City staff and the developer are currently working to locate the loading duckout along the project frontage between the front entrance and the westerly driveway along Middlefield Road. Items under consideration include the least impact on street trees and the width of the sidewalk, future bicycle lane conflicts, convenience for the project, and safety interactions with the adjacent through vehicular lane.
As the location is not yet determined, an illustration is not available. A description of the loading duckout is provided below.
Staff will work with the applicant during the building permit process to design the duckout loading area and evaluate its feasibility within the public right -of-way. Accommodating two vehicles parked parallel to the travel lane would require a loading area approximately 40’-50’ in length, with additional taper transitions of about 10’. The width of the loading duckout could range from approximately 8’ to 13’, depending on accessibility requirements.
Based on the preliminary concept, the duckout configuration would likely require removing the landscape strip between the sidewalk and curb in the loading area. The applicant may also need to dedicate a public access easement to maintain a consistent 8’ wide sidewalk along the project frontage, as the loading area would utilize most of the available right -of-way. Depending on the final placement and design, the proposed 8-foot sidewalk may need to be narrowed due to site constraints.
The removal of the landscape strip will affect approximately three proposed street trees, which may need to be relocated or eliminated. Additional design considerations, including ADA requirements and roadway design standards, will also need to be evaluate d. As a result, the final dimensions and configurations of the duckout may vary.
4 10. What improvements are needed/foreseen for Pyramid Park, or would this be at neighborhood/community discretion?
Should the funds ultimately be directed toward Pyramid Park, future enhancements would likely be lifecycle replacements, such as improvements to the playground, maintenance of the basketball courts, or other park elements. These suggested improvements are based on the park's age, the timing of funding availability, and the neighborhood use patterns of specific elements. Funds could also be used to maintain or enhance the trail that provides access to the park.
11. Do we have estimates of how much our required bike parking has been used in other similar developments?
The City has not conducted studies evaluating utilization rates for required bicycle parking at residential developments, and does not have any available estimates.
12. Can you tell us more about the minimum ground floor height requirement, such as what it is and the reason behind it?
The East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP) requires a minimum ground-floor wall plate height of 15 feet for nonresidential spaces along primary street frontages (EWPP Section 3.3.1.7). The intent of this standard is to support active, pedestrian-oriented ground-floor spaces and to ensure that street -facing facades are visually distinct from upper residential floors.
A taller ground floor allows greater flexibility for commercial tenants and accommodates features such as higher ceilings, storefront glazing, enhanced entrances, and architectural articulation. These elements help create a more engaging streetscape and support the EWPP’s urban design goals outlined in Section
4.2.1 (Setback and Ground Floor Guidelines).
13. The staff report says that "The EWPP identifies specific streetscape design standards for the project’s on-site street and adjacent public street frontages. The street typology standards require an 8’ wide detached sidewalk with a 6’ wide planter strip along East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street... The project complies with the applicable streetscape standards." What building heights or number of stories were foreseen for the 8’ wide sidewalks? Might those heights and stories be superseded by bonus density or other recent legislation?
The project site is located within the Mixed -Use Character Area (High -Intensity) of the EWPP, which anticipates buildings up to 95 feet in height with a maximum average street wall height of 75 feet. The proposed project is consistent with these standards, with a maximum height of 85 feet and average street wall heights of approximately 51 feet along East Middlefie ld Road and 36 feet along Ellis Street.
The EWPP streetscape standards, including the 8 -foot detached sidewalk and 6-foot planter strip along East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street, were developed as part of the Precise Plan’s overall design framework for this level of mixed-use development.
5 14. When one looks at the plans, they see a 12-foot sidewalk along Middlefield and a 19-foot measurement from the building wall to the curb/street. Is that accurate? Yes. The plans show an approximately 13-foot-wide detached sidewalk along East Middlefield Road. The total distance from the building wall to the curb is approximately 19 feet, which includes the sidewalk and the adjacent 6-foot-wide planter strip. This information is shown on Plan Sheet # A1.1 (Site plan).
ITEM 6.3 Rowhouse Development Project at 515-545 North Whisman Road
15. Is the “Street A” land dedication that is being waived under the State Density Bonus Law a CEQA traffic mitigation identified in the East Whisman Precise Plan EIR? If it is not a CEQA mitigation, how was the City intending to require this land to be dedicated? (Community benefit, etc.?) No, the “Street A” land dedication is not a CEQA traffic mitigation. At the time the EWPP EIR was prepared, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) had replaced Level of Service (LOS) as the CEQA significance threshold. While the EIR included a VMT analysis consisten t with the CEQA requirements, a transportation study that also evaluated LOS conditions was conducted for informational purposes.
Because the planned internal streets in the EWPP , including “Street A”, were not expected to divert substantial amounts of tra ffic from nearby intersections, they were not included in the transportation study. Therefore, the absence of these streets would not affect the conclusions of the transportation study.
At the time the EWPP was adopted, the language in the Precise Plan was considered sufficient to require the dedication of the land necessary to implement those streets through the development review process. The applicant requested a waiver of the “Street A” land dedication under SDBL, stating that the dedication would not be feasible and would reduce the total number of housing units. The staff’s analysis of this request under applicable legal standards supports a recommendation to grant it . Bicycle and pedestrian access would still be provided via the existing 18 -foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian path easement.
16. Can staff provide comparable sales information for rowhomes? What would be the price of BMR rowhomes at each of the AMIs proposed for the project?
The table below provides the maximum allowable sales prices for the below-market rate (BMR) units across unit sizes and AMI levels that are proposed for this project based on 2025 State income limits:
*Utilizes California Health and Safety Code maximum pricing (110% AMI level consistent with State Density Bonus Law requirements, but allowable buyer income up to 120% AMI
AMI Level 3 bedroom 4 bedroom Pricing Assumptions
100% AMI $522,086 $569,718 30% housing cost & 5%
downpayment
120% AMI* $714,983 $778,035 35% housing cost & 5%
downpayment
160% AMI $1,287,487 $1,397,546 35% housing cost & 20%
downpayment 180% AMI $1,471,494 $1,794,511
6 17. Could the City require that land be dedicated for a park instead of collecting the in-lieu fee? It looks like Section 41.3(d) may allow the City to require land dedication “in certain residential developments in excess of fifty (50) units?”
Per City Code, the City can require park land dedication for residential developments with more than 50 units, and the East Whisman Precise Plan identifies a mini-park, approximately 0.3 to 1 acre in size, in this area. However, the project is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law. Under State law, a City must waive or reduce development standards if those standards would physically preclude the construction of a project at the density permitted through the density bonus. In this case, requiring the mini pa rk would reduce the site's developable area to the extent that the project could not be built at the density allowed under the Density Bonus Law. As a result, the applicant will pay the required park land dedication in lieu fee to address the project’s proportional impact on the City’s parks, resulting from the addition of the new residents.
In addition to the parkland dedication requirement, the applicant is proposing a 0.24 -acre area in the southeast corner of the property to be publicly accessible through the dedication of a public access easement. While this area will not operate as a City-owned park, it will provide an accessible open space amenity for both project residents and the public.
18. Can staff explain the parkland dedication in-lieu fee math? If the project requires the dedication of 1.00 acres of land, and the “fee is based on a land value of $9,500,000 per acre,” why is the in-lieu fee equivalent to the value of only roughly one-half of an acre of land?
In response to the Sheetz v. County of Eldorado Supreme Court ruling, the methodology for calculating park land in -lieu fees has been updated to ensure they directly align with a development’s specific impacts, resulting in lower charges. Fees must now meet stricter essential nexus and rough proportionality standards. In other words, the fees must be roughly proportional to the specific impacts that the additional residents generated by this development will place on the City’s parks and recreational facilities. These fees are based on a complex mathematical calculation that involves factors such as the park planning area in which the project is located, current availability of park land within the park planning area, number of net new residential units provided by the project, exemptions for BMR units required by City Code, project’s proportional share of the population within the park planning area, and the per acre land value.
The City is conducting a nexus study to ensure the City is compliant with state law and to better align the fees with state law requirements. The nexus study is anticipated to be complete within the next few months.
19. Are BMR units above 120% AMI exempt from park fees? No, the 18 units provided above 120 % AMI do not qualify as "affordable units," pursuant to Section 41.2 (Definitions for Park Land Dedication or Fees in Lieu Thereof) of the City Code. Only the 28 units at 120% AMI or below are exempt from park fees.
7 20. The Landscaped Open Area waiver and the Common Open Space seem at odds with each other (page 8). Please explain.
The landscaped open space standard (35 percent of the site) is intended to provide for landscaping in general. Common open space (100 square feet per unit), included in the landscape open space calculation, is intended to create areas useful for passive or active recreation, including large paseos, barbecue areas, grassy areas, play areas, etc., and must have a minimum dimension of 25 feet. The project is required to comply with both standards, but the applicant has requested a waiver of the landscaped open space requirement and is providing only 28% of the site.
21. How many waivers are standard? 20 seems like an excessive number.
Twenty waiver requests are higher than those in other recent projects the City has reviewed; however, there is no limit to the number of waivers an applicant can request under the State Density Bonus Law if a project is eligible.
22. From Attachment 7, Exhibit A. Minimum Private Open Space. What can such small spaces be used for?
The minimum private open space requirement applies to balconies, decks, and small front -entry enclosures or yards intended only for the residents of a particular unit. Such spaces may be used for outdoor dining, seating, gardening, and other activities.
23. From Attachment 7, Exhibit A. Residential Paseo Minimum Dimensions. Are the alleys supposed to serve as pedestrian walkways as well as for cars and trash pickup? Are the gaps between buildings wide enough to function as pedestrian pass-throughs?
The alleys are not designed for pedestrians, though there is very limited vehicle traffic, and they will inevitably be used by pedestrians and bicyclists from time to time. The gaps between buildings are also not designed for pedestrians and primarily serve “back of house” functions, such as backflow prevention and electrical/mechanical equipment.
24. What led to the driveway/road-intensive layout of this development? Is there or was there a way to make streets within the development into more shared streets or woonerfs that don't trap people inside their houses so much?
The applicant designed the project to maximize unit count while maintaining unit garage access, compliance with land use and development regulations, fire code and fire truck turnaround requirements, and solid waste pickup access. This layout is typical fo r rowhouse projects, as the Rowhouse Guidelines encourage, to the extent possible, the separation of vehicle circulation via alleys from pedestrian circulation via paseos. Shared streets or woonerfs are inconsistent with the Rowhouse Guidelines. During the development review process, staff encouraged the applicant to evaluate options to improve pedestrian circulation by increasing paseo areas and providing more direct access from units to amenities. However, the City must review the project as proposed and is limited in its discretion by the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law.
8 25. Will there be a path to Pyramid Park so that residents won't have to walk so far along major auto- oriented streets to get there?
While the East Wisman Precise Plan prescribes a comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle paths through the area, they will not be implemented until additional properties are redeveloped. Therefore, there is currently no path from the site with access to Pyramid Park. Until additional paths are built through existing properties, residents would use the existing sidewalk on North Whisman Road, to Middlefield Road, to the public trail along the light rail tracks between Middlefield and Pyramid Park. In the meantime, the nearest Neighborhood Park to the site is Whisman Park, which can be accessed by traveling approximately 500 feet south on Whisman Road to the Hetch -Hetchy trail, providing direct access to Whisman Park and the Stevens Creek Trail.
26. Can an arrangement be made with the golf course, perhaps the putting green or an accessible green space we could create near the course?
The project does not include a putting green or golf -related amenity. The closest golf course to this project is the Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course. An arrangement of this type may not be feasible, as the City lacks authority or jurisdiction to provide access.
27. Can we make improvements to the Hetch Hetchy path, for example, wildflowers or public art, so that it's a more pleasant path to Whisman Park and the Stevens Creek Trail? Improvements such as wildflower plantings and habitat plantings could make the Hetch Hetchy path a more pleasant connection to Whisman Park and the Stevens Creek Trail. However, the corridor includes a mix of ownership, including the City, private property owners, and SFPUC, so improvements would require coordination and approval from multiple parties. Such improvements are beyond the scope of the project review.
28. Can we use better siding than stone veneers?
The City Council may request that the applicant make design changes at the hearing. However, there is no objective standard that allows the City to require the applicant to modify the project material selection.