Mountain View YIMBY

March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 04:39:13 +0000

Two Major Housing Projects Advance in East Whisman

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View City Council approved two significant housing projects in the East Whisman neighborhood at its March 10th meeting, together adding over 650 new homes to an area that has long been dominated by office parks and surface parking lots.

490 East Middlefield Road: 460 Mixed-Use Units (Item 6.2)

The headline item of the evening was a proposal by Development Partners to build a 460-unit mixed-use residential building at the corner of East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street. The project would replace a two-story commercial office building on a 2.86-acre site with a contemporary, seven-story mixed-use development featuring ground-floor retail, a pool, coworking space, and over 34,000 square feet of open space.

The project is using the state density bonus to build 27.5% above base density in exchange for providing 60 affordable units at an average of 65% AMI, split between two income levels. The development agreement also includes $1.2 million for ground-floor retail tenant improvements, $1.2 million toward community benefits, and a sales tax point-of-sale designation.

Loading Zone vs. Bike Lane

The most debated topic was a proposed loading zone cutout along the East Middlefield Road frontage. The Environmental Planning Commission had recommended the cutout to accommodate deliveries and ride-hailing drop-offs, but it would encroach on a planned Class IV protected bike lane along Middlefield.

Councilmember Hicks raised concerns about the steady erosion of green space and bike infrastructure as more projects add curb cuts and loading zones. Public speakers from the Slater neighborhood, including resident Andrew Wills who bikes Middlefield daily, also weighed in on balancing delivery access with cyclist safety. Public Works Director Jennifer Ing noted that the cutout would be about 20% of the lobby frontage and would require coordination with the city’s planned Class IV bike lane project. Vice Mayor Clark, drawing on his own experience with loading zone issues on El Camino, supported the cutout as a practical necessity.

Other Notable Discussion Points

Vapor barriers: Councilmember Showalter highlighted the importance of proper vapor barrier installation given the site’s proximity to the MEW groundwater plume, urging the applicant to go beyond minimum EPA requirements. The applicant confirmed that EPA sign-off is required both before construction and before occupancy.
Unit mix: Councilmember Showalter expressed concern about the high proportion of studios, characterizing the project as essentially “really nice dormitories.” We’d note that studios are among the most affordable market-rate units a developer can build, and strong demand for them reflects the reality of Bay Area housing costs. More unit types means more people housed.
Park fees: Councilmember Kamei urged flexibility on the timeline for the park acquisition and development fee, noting that Pyramid Park is already oversubscribed, that “you cannot find a swing on a weekend,” and with this project and a nearby 600-unit development coming online, the East Whisman area urgently needs more public park space.
Library drop-off: Kamei also floated a creative idea: a library book drop-off within the project’s retail space. She’d checked with another Santa Clara County library and learned the return box is less than 10 feet. Mayor Ramos enthusiastically supported the idea, noting the need for mini city services as density grows far from downtown.

The Vote

The project was approved 6-0 (with Councilmember McAlister absent), on a motion by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Showalter.

Councilmember Hicks described her vote on 460 homes as a “coin flip” over the loading zone’s impact on a tree buffer. She ultimately voted yes, but not before lamenting that “it might be your mapping app or your Lyft or Uber that would determine the fact that we have to take out the buffer and the trees.” We’d gently suggest that ride-hailing drop-offs at a 460-unit building are not an exotic edge case.

Councilmember Ramirez praised staff’s “creativity in negotiating the development agreement,” particularly the community benefits package. He encouraged staff to bring similar flexibility to future projects navigating the “complex tapestry” of state density bonus law and precise plan requirements.

515-545 North Whisman Road: 195 Rowhouses (Item 6.3)

The second public hearing was for a 195-unit rowhouse development on a 10-acre site on North Whisman Road, replacing two vacant office buildings. The project would demolish 139 of 151 heritage trees on site (replaced at more than 2:1 ratio with 440 new trees) and create 30 three-story rowhouse buildings with individual rear-loaded garages.

The project includes 46 BMR units: 28 at 100-120% AMI and 18 at 170% AMI under an alternate mitigation targeting middle-income homeownership. The applicant noted Mountain View currently has only 14 BMR ownership units citywide. With about 4,000 people on the BMR waitlist, that number tells you less about this project’s contribution than about how little the BMR program has produced relative to actual demand. Building 195 market-rate homes that people can actually buy is itself a contribution to affordability.

“Frustrated by the Housing Typology”

Several councilmembers expressed what Councilmember Hicks called being “frustrated by the housing typology.” The concern was that three-story rowhouses represent a less efficient use of land compared to stacked flats, which could have yielded more units and more open space on the same footprint. Councilmember Showalter echoed this, saying the project was “basically good” but “isn’t the best use of land.”

We share some of this frustration. But if the city wants denser typologies like stacked flats, the answer is to make them the path of least resistance: increase base FAR so mid-rise projects pencil without density bonus concessions, offer expedited approvals, reduce setbacks, and provide other carrots that make stacked flats the obvious choice. Lamenting what developers choose to build under the rules the city itself set is backwards. Regardless, the project brings much-needed housing to an area that currently has almost none.

One bright spot: Councilmember Hicks praised the project’s “transitional architecture,” which she contrasted with the “fake craftsman” style she sees in too many townhome developments. We agree. As we’ve argued before, features like bay windows, balconies, and material variation do more for a building’s appearance than prescriptive massing break requirements, and without the cost and waterproofing headaches those mandates create. The city should keep this in mind as it updates design standards across multiple zoning districts.

BMR Unit Distribution

Councilmember Ramirez raised a concern about the BMR concession: the affordable units are concentrated on one side of the site in smaller floor plans. He worried this could become a loophole, that “anyone can now come in and say, ’this happens to be where all of the small units are.’” Housing Director Wayne Chen acknowledged the issue and said it would be addressed in the upcoming BMR ordinance update. The broader question the Council should be asking is whether adding BMR requirements to the point where developers need density bonus concessions to make projects pencil is actually producing more affordable housing, or just making all housing harder to build.

Environmental Remediation

The site is in a contaminated groundwater area. Nine conditions of approval require EPA clearance before construction and before occupancy. Griggs noted that the EPA case manager who had been working on the site, Alana Lee, unfortunately passed away, creating delays as new staff get up to speed.

Community Meetings

Several councilmembers spent significant time pressing both applicants on their decision not to hold voluntary neighborhood meetings. The rowhouse developer, Brian Griggs, was candid about the reason: “you have to balance how many rights you have implied under the state now as a developer versus being collaborative.”

State law deliberately streamlined approval timelines precisely because “community input” processes have historically been weaponized to delay and block housing. Both projects were approved 6-0. The Council should be cautious about re-creating informal process requirements that the legislature worked to remove.

The project was approved unanimously, 6-0 (with Councilmember McAlister absent).

Other Business

Closed session: The Council approved a settlement with Castro GPRV 10 LLC regarding open space credit calculations for the 881 Castro Street development, resulting in a $2 million park fee. The vote was 4-1, with Councilmember Kamei voting no, Councilmember McAlister absent, and Councilmember Hicks recused.
Zoning ordinance update (Item 4.1): The Council adopted amendments to Chapter 36 of the zoning code to align with state law, approved 6-0 on consent.
Facade grant program (Item 4.2): Councilmember Hicks successfully broadened the city’s facade improvement grant program beyond its downtown focus, changing the name to “placemaking and historic improvement” to better reflect its citywide scope. Approved 6-0.

Our Take

This was a good night for housing in East Whisman. Over 650 new homes were approved in a neighborhood that desperately needs the transition from office parks to a livable, mixed-use community. The Council spent a lot of time on process complaints about community meetings and hand-wringing over typology choices, time better spent on the retail, transit, and infrastructure that will make East Whisman a real neighborhood.

One detail worth noting: the 490 Middlefield project voluntarily built 442 parking spaces despite having zero parking requirement under city code. That’s a lot of money spent on car storage in a neighborhood half a mile from a major transit stop. If the Council wants to bring down housing costs, encouraging developers to actually take advantage of reduced parking requirements, rather than building garages anyway, would do more than another round of community meetings.

If the Council wants different outcomes, the tools are zoning and development standards, not informal pressure on individual applicants. Set the rules right and the next 650 units get built faster.

March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

March 04, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Feb. 18, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Feb. 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 08:14:53 +0000

Council Advances R3 Zoning Update, Sets Legislative Priorities

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View’s February 10th Council meeting ran nearly to midnight, but the payoff was substantial: Council gave clear direction on the long-awaited R3 zoning update, approved a 2026 legislative platform that includes several housing production reforms we’ve been pushing for, and handled a consent calendar that included the 881 Castro street vacation for the Lot 12 affordable housing project.

R3 Zoning Update (Item 7.1)

This was the main event. The R3 zoning update has been in the works since 2019, and Council finally gave staff direction to complete it this year. The goal: replace the current R3 standards with objective, form-based standards that make multifamily housing feasible and encourage stacked flats over the townhome developments that have dominated recent R3 projects.

We submitted a detailed letter on this item back in January when it was before the EPC, and a follow-up letter on SB 79 and AB 130 implementation ahead of this meeting. Both James Kuszmaul and I spoke during public comment to reiterate our key recommendations: remove density limits in favor of form-based standards like FAR and height, reduce excessive front setbacks, replace arbitrary massing break requirements with ornamentation alternatives, allow ground-floor retail everywhere, and reduce parking minimums.

What Council Approved

Councilmember Ramirez moved a detailed 12-point motion that adopted the staff recommendations with several additions. The Council voted 5-1 (McAlister opposed, Kamei recused) on the first batch of items and 5-1 (McAlister opposed) on the remaining items. Here’s what we’re most excited about:

Ornamentation alternatives to massing breaks. Council directed staff to include ornamentation options in the massing features section, specifically allowing changes in materials, ornamentation, and window patterns as alternatives to the costly structural breaks in the current draft. This is exactly what we asked for in our letter. Massing breaks are expensive, create waterproofing risks, and don’t actually make buildings look better. Bay windows, balconies, and material changes do.

Commercial uses allowed in more subdistricts. Council adopted the EPC recommendation to allow commercial uses in R3-D and R3-B, not just the originally proposed R3-D. This was another item from our letter. If a developer can make ground-floor retail pencil, the zoning shouldn’t prohibit it.

Lot consolidation “incentive” scrapped. The original proposal would have punished small lots by capping their density to “incentivize” consolidation. Council directed staff to drop this and instead explore positive incentives like fee waivers and expedited processing. We argued strongly against the original approach, and it’s good to see Council agreed that artificially demoting small parcels isn’t an incentive.

Evaluate increasing FAR in R3-B. Councilmember Ramirez noted that recent R3 projects have all been townhomes, not the stacked flats Council wants to see. He directed staff to evaluate whether higher FAR in R3-B would send a stronger signal to the development community. This aligns with our recommendation to set R3-B FAR at 1.5 or higher, based on the actual FAR of recent projects that used the state density bonus.

Eliminate stoops from building entry types. Ramirez pointed to the Crossings development near San Antonio as an example of how stoops create dead zones. We agree: stoops push activity away from the sidewalk rather than activating it.

Arcades, cantilevered second stories, and clear stories. Councilmember Hicks championed allowing these features, which let developers widen sidewalks and create covered pedestrian spaces on private property without encroaching on the public right-of-way. This is exactly the kind of creative design tool that makes walkable neighborhoods work.

McAlister’s Opposition

Councilmember McAlister voted no on both motions, delivering a lengthy speech about how densification would ruin Mountain View’s quality of life. He cited a condo project in San Jose (the Fay) that went bankrupt allegedly due to lack of parking as evidence that reducing parking minimums is dangerous. Staff noted that project had a ratio of one space per three units, far below anything proposed for R3. McAlister also raised concerns about traffic, school capacity, and water, claiming 10% vacancy in market-rate housing suggests we don’t even need more units.

The vacancy claim is worth addressing. Even if true for one segment of the market at one moment in time, it ignores Mountain View’s massive jobs-housing imbalance and the fact that RHNA obligations exist precisely because the region as a whole has underbuilt for decades. A temporary market softening doesn’t mean the problem is solved. And the solution to concerns about infrastructure, parking, and schools isn’t to block housing: it’s to plan for growth.

Public Comment

The public comment was notable for the breadth of support for the update. James and I spoke on behalf of MV YIMBY. Manuel Salazar from SV@Home explicitly echoed our comments and expressed alignment with our positions on parking minimums and massing breaks. Alex Brown, Cliff Chambers, Daniel Hols, and Kevin Ma all spoke in favor of the update with varying degrees of urgency. Kevin Ma made a particularly sharp point: the massing break requirements would undermine modular housing construction, which inherently requires uniform building envelopes.

Olga Bright spoke in opposition, arguing that densification along San Antonio would destroy quality of life and that existing residents hadn’t been adequately informed. She said she didn’t think “anybody in Monta Loma, except for a handful of people, know about these proposed changes.” This item has been in process since 2019, went through the EPC, and has been publicly noticed at every step. At some point, the expectation that the city should personally knock on every door is itself a delay tactic.

Legislative Program Study Session (Item 2.1)

The meeting opened with a study session on the city’s 2026 state and federal legislative priorities. We submitted written comments urging the Council to ensure its positions are unambiguous and to avoid giving cover to jurisdictions that abuse local control to block housing.

Three items from our letter showed up prominently in the Council discussion:

Single-stair reform. Councilmember Ramirez raised this directly, asking the state lobbyist about the status of Assemblymember Alex Lee’s single-stair reform legislation. The lobbyist wasn’t familiar with the term, which is a reminder of how much education still needs to happen in Sacramento. Mayor Ramos also voiced support. Single-stair reform would make smaller condo and apartment buildings feasible on infill lots by removing the requirement for two stairways, which is standard in most of the developed world.

Condo construction defect liability reform. Councilmember McAlister noted he’s been pushing this since 2014. Councilmember Showalter also raised it with Senator Becker during his virtual appearance. This is one of the few areas where McAlister and the pro-housing majority agree: the current liability framework makes condo construction nearly impossible in California, which is a major reason almost everything built is rental.

Pro-housing city incentives. Vice Mayor Clark gave an extended pitch for rewarding cities with Pro-Housing designations. His argument: cities like Mountain View that are building housing and absorbing the political pain should get flexibility on deadlines and process, not be treated the same as cities that obstruct. We agree. If the state keeps treating good-faith and bad-faith actors identically, there’s no incentive for cities to be proactive.

Senator Josh Becker dropped in virtually to discuss his work on energy legislation (SB 254), child care subsidies, and workforce development. He noted the Lot 12 affordable housing project’s progress and committed to keeping pressure on corporate housing commitments from companies like Google.

Council unanimously adopted seven priority themes and a list of additional items. Staff will bring back the finalized platform for adoption on February 24th.

881 Castro Street Vacation (Item 4.1): Council approved vacating a public street and easement for the Lot 12 affordable housing project. Councilmembers Kamei and Hicks voted no or recused. This is a procedural step to clear the way for a project that has been in the pipeline for years, and Senator Becker specifically mentioned his excitement about its progress during his remarks earlier in the evening.

Transit Center Access Project (Item 4.2): Council approved the simplified Castro Transit Center access project, which replaces the original $271 million grade separation plan with a $6 million safety-focused project. The project will close the at-grade rail crossing at Castro, build a plaza, add trees along Evelyn, and install Class II and Class IV bike lanes. McAlister voted no, questioning the spending on bike infrastructure.

Charter Modernization (Item 6.1)

Council held a study session on proposed charter amendments for the November 2026 ballot, covering board appointment processes, term alignment, and vacancy procedures. Not housing-related, but worth noting as part of the City’s broader modernization effort.

Our Take

This was a good night for housing in Mountain View. The R3 update has been a seven-year process, and Council’s direction was broadly aligned with what we’ve been advocating: form-based standards that focus on building shape rather than unit counts, fewer arbitrary restrictions that make projects infeasible, and more design flexibility through ornamentation rather than mandated structural breaks.

The legislative platform session was also encouraging. Single-stair reform, condo liability reform, and pro-housing city incentives are all policies that would meaningfully move the needle on housing production, and it’s good to see them getting bipartisan support on Council.

McAlister remains the lone dissenter on housing, and his arguments continue to rest on the premise that Mountain View can simply opt out of the housing crisis. We can’t. The question isn’t whether R3 neighborhoods will change, but whether that change will be guided by thoughtful local standards or by state law defaults. Council chose local standards, and we’re glad they did.

Comment on Legislative Program Priority Issues

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Mayor Ramos and Council Members,

Mountain View YIMBY appreciates the opportunity to comment on Mountain View’s Legislative Program. There is a consistent theme that Mountain View advocates for maximum local control, especially on land use and housing. We urge the Council to ensure its positions on these issues are unambiguous and to avoid assisting “bad actor” jurisdictions that abuse their powers to kill housing projects arbitrarily.

Supported Items

We appreciate the inclusion of items on increased funding opportunities and displacement protections, including defending our local rent control ordinance, and the items that generally support increased access to housing, jobs, and services (Items C.8, C.10. C.25). We do appreciate the addition of Item 32, and encourage the City to actively advocate whenever it finds inconsistencies or ambiguities in state law which create uncertainty for both the City and developers.

Requested Revisions

We would encourage revision of the following items:

C.13 (“additional time and resources to improve the Housing Element processes”): While Mountain View YIMBY agrees that the Housing Element process could do with significant improvement, we believe time was not the bottleneck.
C.19 and C.31: Both reference incentives to “local governments that show good-faith commitments to advancing housing solutions.” We would encourage making this wording stronger to specify local governments which have demonstrated advanced housing solutions; given the state of the housing crisis, we must measure governments on their outcomes, not their intent.
C.33 (“demonstrable reductions”; “development proformas”): We recognize these requests as ways to deny density bonus concessions and demand money from developers prior to project completion (CoO). As the city is off-track to meet its RHNA, we believe it is too early for the city to justify additional constraints on development.

Additional Recommendations

Additionally, we would encourage the City to consider advocating for specific changes that could meaningfully improve the quality and quantity of future housing production, such as:

Condominium Construction Defect Liability Reform
Single-Stair Reform
Credit enhancement for housing loans

Other ideas can come out of the Low- and Middle-Income Homeownership Strategy as well as other planning work.

James Kuszmaul on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

Feb. 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Feb. 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

February 4, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Comment on SB 79 and AB 130 Implementation

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Mayor Ramos and City Council,

SB 79

Mountain View YIMBY supports harmonizing local development standards with the provisions of SB 79, as much as feasible, to provide clarity for developers and the community. We believe that such standards should incorporate existing work, specifically from the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan, the Downtown Precise Plan Update, and the R3 Zoning Update, to make best use of staff resources and existing community engagement.

We caution against more extensive work given the existing demands placed on staff by legally-required permitting procedures and council priority projects like Citywide Objective Design Standards and Low/Middle-Income Homeownership. Additionally, exclusions are only allowed until 2031 and alternative plans, if done, would have to be redone for the next Housing Element by 2031, whereas the medium-effort and significant-effort options can’t be finished until at least 2027. Spending a year or more on work that would expire in 4 years or less would be an inefficient use of resources.

Regarding exclusions, we do not believe the areas identified within the East Whisman, San Antonio, and El Camino Real Precise Plans can be excluded as allowing 50% of SB 79 density. Those Plans have base FAR lower than 50% of what SB 79 allows in their respective areas; anything larger requires discretionary Bonus FAR that prevents the use of state density bonus (MVCC 36.48.80(c)) as required under SB 79 (Gov 65912.157(d)). Regarding the Downtown Precise Plan, some sites only allow housing under a discretionary Provisional Use Permit.

AB 130

We support the staff recommendation of applying ministerial approval to any AB 130-eligible project. As the memo states, laws such as the Housing Accountability Act and the CEQA exemption from AB 130 already limit the city’s discretion to disapprove projects, and the updates to the Permit Streamlining Act have made timelines shorter and violations more punishable. We believe that maintaining public hearings where no discretion exists serves no useful purpose.

Thank you for your consideration.

James Kuszmaul, on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

January 21, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

January 21, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 20:49:23 +0000

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 20:49:23 +0000

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Fri, 09 Jan 2026 19:26:38 +0000

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Fri, 09 Jan 2026 19:26:38 +0000

Jan. 7, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Comment on EPC Agenda Item 5.1 - R3 Update

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Agenda item 5.1

Dear Chair Gutierrez and Commissioners,

Mountain View YIMBY strongly supports efforts to update the R3 Zoning District. We appreciate Staff’s extensive work to transition toward objective, form-based standards. This update is a critical step in fulfilling the Housing Element’s commitment to ensuring multifamily projects are economically feasible and can achieve their allowed densities. To ensure these new standards successfully encourage diverse housing types—particularly on smaller parcels—we respectfully submit the following recommendations:

Rely on Standards Other than Density Limits

We recommend removing maximum density limits (dwelling units per acre), instead relying on use-neutral standards like FAR, height, and setbacks. The City has various Precise Plans (El Camino Real, San Antonio, etc.) using FAR rather than du/ac. This is clear precedent for this approach, and extending it to the R3 district would align with the goal of creating a form-based code, addressing the physical size of projects.

Increase FAR in R3-B

The most recent condo projects in R3 (1919-1933 Gamel, 918 Rich, 1057-1061 El Monte) all used the state density bonus to bring FAR up to ~1.5 (1.64, 1.41, 1.48 respectively). This indicates the R3-B FAR should be at least 1.5 in order to facilitate stacked flats rather than townhomes.

Replace the Lot Consolidation “Incentive”

We strongly oppose the proposal to “incentivize” lot consolidation by functionally demoting small lots in R3-D to R3-C. Small parcels already face the hardest path to financial feasibility. Artificially capping their density is not an incentive, instead adding unnecessary complexity.

Instead, the City should look to examples from Concord, Martinez, Brea, and Saratoga that facilitate consolidation through positive incentives. We recommend waiving fees and expediting the Lot Line Adjustment process, as well as qualifying projects for the draft exemptions in Section 36.10.80. This reduces the administrative burden of merging lots and provides a meaningful “carrot” rather than a punitive “stick.”

Reduce Front Setbacks

The proposed setbacks, particularly the 20-foot front setback for R3-A, are out of step with the walkable, urban neighborhoods Mountain View aims to create. Given that the new standards encourage parking to be located at the rear of the property, a deep front setback serves no functional purpose other than to push buildings away from the sidewalk and waste valuable land.

We recommend reducing front setbacks to 4-5 feet, aligning with pedestrian-friendly neighborhood design and providing greater flexibility. This should include reducing front setbacks to any required pedestrian/bicycle easements. Additionally, we support allowing upper-story architectural features like bay windows and balconies to project into these setbacks to create visual interest and break up massing naturally, rather than just exempting building entryways.

We also see an opportunity to encourage arcades to improve the pedestrian experience; they should either be exempt from setbacks or explicitly added to the “Building Entry Types” list.

Replace “Massing Breaks” with Better Design Tools

We are concerned that the prescriptive “massing break” requirements in the proposed Division 16 may result in more-expensive, less-attractive buildings. Mandating arbitrary separations often leads to convoluted floor plans, increased construction costs, and significant waterproofing risks, without necessarily improving aesthetics. This also seems to add greater work on staff to ensure compliance, at a time when review timelines are shrinking significantly.

We recommend replacing this requirement with standards that encourage ornamentation and articulation. Features such as bay windows, balconies, and porches naturally break up a building’s massing without reducing its functional floor area or creating structural complexity. It also better addresses what the community thinks of as building design.

If massing break requirements are maintained, they should be satisfiable by projections. The code should allow massing breaks to be achieved by elements that project into the setbacks rather than cutting into the building envelope, ensuring design requirements do not penalize the project’s feasibility or density.

Allow Retail Everywhere

The current draft restricts ground-floor retail to the R3-D subzone. We believe this restriction is unnecessary. Although mixed-use may not pencil out on every R3 site currently, the zoning code should not prohibit it outright.

We recognize staff’s concern that it may conflict with the goal of encouraging more housing. However, we believe that the city should be ensuring that future residents’ needs are met, which includes proximity to amenities. Otherwise, we risk perpetuating the transportation issues inherent in our current segmentation between residential and commercial areas.

Allow Height Exceptions

We believe that, given Council desires for heritage tree preservation and open space, projects are encouraged to use less of their lot. To compensate for this loss of development capacity, the exception list in Table 36.10.80.A should be updated to explicitly include height. Currently, height is excluded from the standards eligible for exceptions.

Grant Exceptions for Community Benefits

We support expanding exception applicability from just addressing physical compatibility to also cover projects that go over and beyond in providing significant community benefits, akin to Bonus FAR programs already included in various Precise Plans. This is intended not to replace the state density bonus law, as was previously framed for a past Council decision, but it is a nudge for developers who are willing to closely follow the city’s procedures and desires.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Watson on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

Dec. 16, 2025 City Council Special Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:49:12 +0000

Dec. 16, 2025 City Council Special Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:49:12 +0000

Council Approves Housing Element Rezonings, Advances Homeownership Strategy

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

In a marathon meeting that stretched into the early hours of Wednesday morning, the Mountain View City Council took significant steps to implement our Housing Element and expand homeownership opportunities. The meeting, which concluded at 12:30 AM, featured a robust public hearing on zoning changes for several sites south of El Camino Real and a study session on a new strategy for low- and middle-income homeownership.

Housing Element Rezonings Approved (Item 6.1)

The Council voted 6-1 (with Councilmember McAlister dissenting) to approve General Plan and Zoning amendments for several sites identified in the city’s Housing Element. The approved rezonings include:

1702 and 1704 Miramonte Avenue
777 Cuesta Drive
677-699 Calderon Avenue
1949 Grant Road
830, 850, 870, and 897 Leong Drive
3 and 55 Fairchild Drive

This item drew significant public comment, particularly regarding the sites at Miramonte and Cuesta, which currently host medical and dental offices. Neighbors expressed concerns about traffic safety at the intersection and the potential loss of neighborhood-serving businesses.

However, as staff and several Councilmembers noted, State laws like AB 2011 and SB 6 already allow for residential development on these commercial sites, potentially with less local oversight. By proactively rezoning these sites, the City retains greater control over design standards and ensures that any future mixed-use development aligns better with community needs.

Councilmember Ramirez accepted a friendly amendment to modify the Evandale Precise Plan to exclude three parcels (835, 859-861, and 889 Leong Drive), aiming to preserve existing small businesses where possible—a move that garnered support from the majority of the Council.

We at Mountain View YIMBY supported this item. As I stated during public comment, these are high-opportunity neighborhoods that should have diverse housing options. Housing Element compliance isn’t just about the number of units, but also about the equitable distribution of those units in high-opportunity areas. While change can be difficult, failing to rezone would not stop development but would simply abdicate local control to the state. We applaud the Council for making the tough but necessary decision to follow through on our Housing Element commitments.

Disappointingly, Councilmember McAlister attempted to use potential environmental contamination as a pretext to block housing at the Miramonte site. Citing a “triple play” of a dry cleaner, medical offices, and a gas station, he suggested the City should “be proactive” in deeming the site a “federal hazard site” to deem it impractical for building. Staff clarified that there is no evidence suggesting the site is contaminated and that standard Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments would be conducted during any development review process. We are glad the majority of the Council did not entertain this obstructionist tactic.

Advancing Low- and Middle-Income Homeownership (Item 7.1)

Following the rezoning vote, the Council held a study session on a “Low- and Middle-Income Homeownership Strategy.” This initiative aims to address the “missing middle” and help residents who earn too much to qualify for traditional affordable housing but cannot afford market-rate homes in Mountain View.

Staff presented a framework studying income ranges from 50% up to 200% AMI (Area Median Income). For context, 200% AMI is needed to afford the average condo or townhome in the city. The Council unanimously supported this scope and directed staff to proceed with several key tasks, including:

North Bayshore Pilot: Exploring a homeownership project on a City-owned site in North Bayshore.
Condo Barriers: Investigating regulations and liability laws that disincentivize condo construction.
ADU Sales: Looking into the implementation of AB 1033, which allows ADUs to be sold as separate condominiums.

During the session, Councilmember Showalter highlighted the importance of addressing construction defect liability, a major barrier to condo development. Vice Mayor Ramos and others emphasized the need to “get stuff done” rather than just “plan to plan,” urging staff to move quickly on actionable items like AB 1033.

I also spoke in support of this item, encouraging the Council to look at “single-stair” reform (similar to Santa Monica) to make smaller condo projects more feasible on infill sites.

Conclusion

It was a long night, but a productive one for housing in Mountain View. We secured necessary zoning to meet our state obligations and kicked off a promising new strategy to bring homeownership within reach for more working families.

Thank you to the City Council for staying late to do the people’s work, and to the staff for their detailed reports and responsiveness to community questions.

Agenda item 6.1 – Housing Element Rezonings

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Agenda item 6.1

Mayor Kamei & City Councilmembers,

Mountain View YIMBY writes in support of the general plan and zoning amendments necessary to implement Item 1.1(g) of the Housing Element. The staff memo notes the two major considerations for why these sites were chosen out of the extensive research they conducted: to affirmatively further fair housing by allowing more housing in more affluent neighborhoods, and to encourage developments that are in the realm of feasible. Staff have done their research and outreach over the past three years, creating a clear-cut commitment the City must fulfill now.

Regarding the Miramonte/Cuesta rezonings, we echo staff’s note that the neighboring Blossom Valley Shopping Center is already zoned for the same housing densities; a place being zoned to allow housing doesn’t imply there’s an actual housing project anytime soon. On safety, the city is actively implementing bicycle/pedestrian improvements on Miramonte, with construction from Castro to Cuesta set to begin in 2026 for a road diet and buffered bike lanes; further safety improvements can be considered in the Active Transportation Plan under development. On environmental review, we believe that the rezonings are eligible for the Housing Element implementation CEQA exception (PRC 21080.085 from SB 131), that staff have taken extra steps with an EIR conformance analysis, and that any actual project will have a separate environmental review. On business retention, we echo staff’s sentiment that land use regulation provides limited tools to address this and that the city should continue to implement its Economic Vitality Strategy for holistic, citywide improvements to make running a small business smoother.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Francois Bleibel, on behalf of MV YIMBY

Agenda item 7.1 – Homeownership Strategy

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Agenda item 7.1

Mayor Kamei & City Councilmembers,

Mountain View YIMBY supports the City in identifying barriers to condominium development and implementing Housing Element programs related to homeownership. In the past we have supported efforts to reduce city fees on SB 684/SB 1123 starter home projects and the ability for ADUs and SB 9 DUOs to be subdivided.

The City’s recent feasibility analyses, including work on the R3 zoning update and East Whisman Precise plan, provide a strong foundation. Reviewing these past efforts for efficacy would be valuable. We also look forward to how the city can better streamline under the powers of the Subdivision Map Act as well as the learnings from further analysis of the North Bayshore site.

To strengthen the scope of work, we encourage staff to look beyond just city development standards and investigate barriers imposed by other agencies. The memo notes the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements differ between ownership and rental projects. By including such external regulatory barriers in the analysis the city can get a fuller picture of what’s blocking condo development.

The scope should also investigate the building code’s effects on feasibility. While the state has limited local code amendments, the city could use the Alternate Materials and Methods Request mechanism for some flexibility, as Santa Monica has done to allow more single-stair projects. Single-stair designs enable smaller-footprint mid-rise projects that pencil out better for ownership housing—exactly the type of development this strategy aims to encourage.

Finally, many barriers to such development are imposed by other government bodies, for example, the construction defect liability laws referenced in the staff memo. As such, we would like the scope of work to include the city advocating for change at these other bodies, whether local, regional, or state.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

David Watson, on behalf of MV YIMBY

Dec. 9, 2025 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:52:09 +0000

Dec. 9, 2025 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:52:09 +0000

Council Delays Historic Register Expansion Amidst SB 79 Debate

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

At last night’s City Council meeting, Mountain View took a step back from a rushed expansion of its Historic Register, voting unanimously to pause the adoption of a new property list while staff refine the criteria and gather more input from property owners. The decision comes amidst a heated debate over how the city should respond to SB 79, Senator Scott Wiener’s new state law designed to spur housing near transit.

SB 79, which mandates streamlined approval for mid-rise housing near high-quality transit, includes a provision allowing cities to exempt “historic resources” if they adopt a “Local Alternative Plan” by July 1, 2026. This deadline has sparked a flurry of activity among preservationist groups like the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association (OMVNA) and Livable Mountain View, who have urged the Council to designate a “Historic Retail District” in downtown to effectively block SB 79’s housing requirements.

However, the reality on the ground proved far more complex than the preservationists’ narrative. During public comment, several property owners who found their buildings on the draft list spoke out against forced designation. The owners of the former Chinese restaurant at 134 Castro Street and representatives for the Mountain View Buddhist Temple and 895 Villa Street expressed frustration that historic status would freeze their properties in time, limiting their ability to renovate or adapt to future needs.

“It’s the people, not the buildings, that make Mountain View,” I told the Council during public comment. “The definition of ‘historic resource’ being proposed is too broad. Under this framework, essentially any 50-year-old building without substantial alterations can qualify. This approach doesn’t preserve unique historical treasures; it just freezes ordinary old buildings in place.”

I also warned against the strategy of using historic preservation as a loophole to evade state housing laws. “Livable Mountain View’s own materials admit this is about circumventing SB 79,” I noted. “But do not mistake current loopholes for permanent shields. Every time a city weaponizes historic status to block new homes, the state responds with stricter enforcement. You’re inviting the legislature to further override local control.”

Jennifer Michelle, a housing advocate and property manager, echoed these concerns, pointing out that “SB 79 was born out of the vision to see our people living and working in resource-rich areas.” She argued that historic preservation is often used to stop critically needed housing and that the city should ensure the ordinance is only used for “truly historic assets that are strictly approved by owners.”

The Council ultimately agreed that more work was needed. On a motion by Councilmember Lucas Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Alison Hicks, the Council voted 7-0 to:

Direct staff to refine the Historic Preservation Ordinance, including creating a “matrix” to clarify which properties are eligible for state/federal registers versus those that meet only local design criteria.
Gather more data on property owner sentiment, ensuring that owners are fully aware of the implications of listing.
Explore options for a historic district process that includes safeguards against overriding technical experts and ensures robust community engagement.
Prioritize the study of the North Castro area to see if a legitimate district exists, but without committing to a “blanket” designation purely to beat the SB 79 clock.

This is a significant, albeit temporary, win for housing advocates and property rights. By refusing to rush through a massive expansion of the historic register, the Council has avoided—for now—weaponizing our city’s history to block its future.

The discussion will return in Q2 of 2026. Between now and then, Mountain View YIMBY will continue to advocate for a balanced approach: one that honors our city’s genuine history without treating every old building as a barrier to the new homes we so desperately need.

David Watson Mountain View YIMBY

Agenda item 6.1 – Historic Preservation

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 07 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Agenda item 6.1

Mayor Kamei & City Councilmembers,

On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY, I am writing to express several concerns about the current direction of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update. Our goal is to ensure that Mountain View’s approach to historic preservation prioritizes the preservation of genuinely unique historic resources while ensuring that we respect Mountain View’s history of being a vibrant, diverse, and continually changing city that welcomes new neighbors, stays affordable for current residents, and allows architectural innovation.

As such, we appreciate that a reason for the Update is to facilitate CEQA by having a prepared list of known historic resources. We also appreciate the desire to assist people with properties on the Historic Registry to make changes that do not impact the historically notable aspects of their property. However, implementation matters immensely to effectiveness.

Our concerns center largely around the overly broad definition of a “historic resource,” with nothing to distinguish properties worthy of substantial protection from those simply old enough with no significant changes. For instance, 251 Chiquita Ave’s eligibility for the registry is based on it being “a good local example of a Craftsman bungalow built during a period of increased housing development for local employees of the Pacific Press Association.” (Page 129, ATT 5).

The report includes the photo below, with notes that most of the external-facing architectural elements would be considered “character-defining features,” including the roofing, cladding, windows, porch, eaves, and vents.

The justification for most properties on this list appears to be similar, with similar sets of things included in the “character-defining features.” Combined with staff’s recommendation for a far more onerous opt-out process, essentially any 50+ year old building in Mountain View without substantial alterations would face onerous permitting procedures for any changes (whether seismic retrofits, fire safety, or accessibility fixes). While procedures would exist for many of these things, whether via the California Historic Building Code or via city-administered exemptions, we have consistently seen that extra procedural barriers & approvals meaningfully increase the cost of making such improvements, and thus lead to lower-quality, less-accessible, and less-safe housing for residents.

With these things in mind, we would suggest the City:

Maintain clear & objective criteria that it will use when it needs to perform CEQA analysis, and endeavor to identify properties meeting those criteria in advance. This does appear to be the current direction of the project, we hope that it continues so that CEQA analysis can be performed expeditiously when needed.
Separate properties significantly critical enough to preserve from those less so
- For significantly critical properties, the city should work with the property owners to determine the long-term cost of maintaining the historically notable features and ensure that the burden for doing so falls on the city making the designation and not on the property owners, who now or later may have neither the money nor the interest to maintain. In extraordinary cases, the city may choose to take direct ownership, as is the case for the Rengstorff House and the Adobe Building.
- For less significant cases, the city should continue to allow property owners to opt-out. As seen in the public comment in Attachment 8, some property owners are excited about preserving the historic nature of their own property, but do need the Mills Act compensation to afford it. Allowing this to continue for less-significant properties is appropriate, but we should not be forcing these property owners to participate in the Historic Registry.
Not to introduce historic districts. It is not clear what the purpose of local historic districts is. At this time, there is no area in Mountain View where every property should be automatically considered worthy of government-designated preservation, unless the district were defined so narrowly to be individual buildings. If the city is to create a process for this, however, it should require a far higher threshold than 50% of property owners approving. While 50% may be appropriate for a petition to consider creating a district, the city should also require a super-majority (e.g., 75%) of property owners or residents to formally approve of the district.
Provide explicit exemptions for accessibility and safety-related improvements to designated properties.

Mountain View YIMBY does acknowledge the work of staff and the consultant in compiling the comprehensive history used in the draft survey. It is important to note that the physical preservation of building facades is not the only way to preserve and teach our history. We would love to see some of the work that has already been done preserved and collated into a more approachable form so that more people can learn about Mountain View’s history through architecture. However, if we are to truly respect Mountain View’s history, we cannot forget that it is the people, not the buildings, that make Mountain View the city that it is.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

James Kuszmaul, on behalf of MV YIMBY

Nov. 18, 2025 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 07:03:45 +0000

Nov. 18, 2025 City Council Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Nov. 5, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 05 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Oct. 28, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Oct. 28, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Oct. 28, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Oct. 21, 2025 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:37:52 +0000

Oct. 21, 2025 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:37:52 +0000

Oct. 15, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Oct. 14, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Oct. 14, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

October 1, 2025 Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Sept. 23, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:20:25 +0000

Sept. 23, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:20:25 +0000

Sept. 23, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:20:25 +0000

Sept. 23, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 05:20:25 +0000

Sept. 9, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:49:56 +0000

Sept. 9, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:49:56 +0000

August 26, 2025 Special Meeting of the Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:27:19 +0000

August 26, 2025 Special Meeting of the Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:27:19 +0000

June 24, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community, MVCIFA

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 06:54:53 +0000

June 24, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community, MVCIFA

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 06:54:53 +0000

June 10, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community, MVCIFA

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0000

June 10, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community, MVCIFA

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0000

May 27, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000

May 27, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000

May 13, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000

May 13, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000

April 22, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

April 8, 2025 Joint City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community Meeting

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Get Started

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Redirecting you to our signup page...

If you're not automatically redirected, click here to get involved.

Resources

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Housing Policy Resources

Find archived content and resources related to housing policy, advocacy efforts, and planning initiatives.

Housing Element Information

Housing Element Planning - Information about Mountain View’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process, including site planning for 11,135+ new homes and related policy development.

More resources will be added here as they become available.

MV YIMBY Endorses Pat Showalter, Chris Clark, Devon Conley, and Emily Ann Ramos for Mountain View City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Sat, 05 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0000

To the residents of Mountain View,

Mountain View YIMBY is proud to announce our endorsements for the 2024 City Council elections. We are endorsing Pat Showalter, Chris Clark, Devon Conley, and Emily Ann Ramos—four candidates who have demonstrated their commitment to increasing housing supply, advocating for affordable housing, and making Mountain View a more inclusive and sustainable place to live.

Pat Showalter

Pat Showalter has been a consistent YIMBY advocate during her multiple tenures on the Mountain View City Council. She is a strong supporter of policies that promote new housing development and remove arbitrary constraints on housing production. Pat’s technical background as a civil engineer has given her a deep understanding of how infrastructure and housing intersect, and she has used this knowledge to champion projects that will increase the housing supply in Mountain View. We are confident that Pat will continue to push for the housing solutions our city needs. Learn more at patshowalter.com.

Chris Clark

Chris Clark’s prior experience on the City Council has shown him to be a reliable advocate for expanding Mountain View’s housing supply. During his previous tenure, Chris consistently supported new housing developments and fought to reduce barriers to construction. If re-elected, he plans to continue pushing for increased housing in key areas of the city, helping to ensure that Mountain View remains an affordable and vibrant place to live. We trust that Chris will remain a steadfast ally in our efforts to create more housing opportunities for everyone in Mountain View. Learn more at electchrisclark.com.

Devon Conley

Devon Conley, a current member of the school board, has a strong record of supporting housing initiatives that benefit the community. As a school board member, she has been a vocal advocate for workforce housing to help teachers and other essential workers afford to live in Mountain View. Devon understands the housing challenges facing families and workers, and she is committed to expanding the city’s housing supply to improve affordability. Her focus on creating housing opportunities for all residents makes her an excellent candidate for City Council. Learn more at devonconley.com.

Emily Ann Ramos

We reaffirm our early endorsement of Emily Ann Ramos for Mountain View City Council. Emily has been a tireless advocate for increasing the supply of affordable and market-rate housing in Mountain View. Her extensive work in housing policy and her role in crafting the city’s housing element demonstrate her deep knowledge and commitment to addressing the housing crisis. Emily’s focus on tenant protections, anti-displacement strategies, and sustainable development makes her a crucial voice in shaping the future of housing in Mountain View. You can read more about our full endorsement of Emily here. Learn more at emilyannramos.com.

Together, these four candidates represent the leadership Mountain View needs to build more housing, protect our most vulnerable residents, and create a city that is affordable and accessible to all. MV YIMBY is excited to support their campaigns and looks forward to working alongside them to make housing in Mountain View more plentiful, affordable, and sustainable.

Regards,
David Watson and James Kuszmaul
on behalf of MV YIMBY

Agenda item 7.3 – Gatekeeper Review Process

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Agenda item 7.3 – Gatekeeper Review Process

To Mayor Hicks and the City Council:

Mountain View YIMBY wishes to address item 7.3 on the agenda for January 23.

Request: Mountain View YIMBY urges the City to:

Resume the Gatekeeper process by June 2024 under the existing rules, and
Produce a new set of revisions to the Gatekeeper process, for implementation after June 2024, that fully comply with the legal obligations of Program 1.3 of the Housing Element.

**Concerns: **Mountain View YIMBY wishes to express concern with the actions so far undertaken to revise the Gatekeeper process (Program 1.3 of the 2023 Housing Element). As a reminder, Program 1.3 includes the following commitments:

_f) Identify additional Gatekeeper exemptions for residential projects based on location, size, affordability and other policy goals _
_g) Hold at least one Gatekeeper meeting per year, which may be limited to residential or residential mixed-use projects only, creating greater opportunities for project-specific rezonings_
_[Objective 6]: Create increased opportunities for project-specific rezonings through the Gatekeeper process_

The staff report for agenda item 7.3 notably omits item (f) and objective 6.

The staff report also seems to identify the “New Gatekeeper Process” with the one endorsed by the Council in December (“Option A”). Option A differs from the current process only in the addition of an additional review step (“Qualifying Criteria”) that would allow staff to deny applications with no public hearing. In our opinion, this revision accomplishes the opposite of the streamlining intent of Program 1.3, particularly the requirements of item (f) and objective 6. Adding certainty to the process by using published evaluation criteria can be good, but only if the criteria make it easier rather than to approve a project.

We further take issue with the work process described in the December 5 staff memo. The stated “evaluating factors” are:

“Align with community vision”
“Equitable process”
“Balance staff workload”

Although these are all worthwhile goals, key portions of Program 1.3 of the Housing Element are conspicuously missing. In fact, neither of the phrases “greater opportunities” and “increase[d] opportunities” occurs in the memo at all.

Consequently, we believe the only viable recourse is for staff to provide a new set of process options, evaluated according to a set of factors consistent with the Housing Element. Although the staff work and Council review cannot be completed by the June 2024 deadline to resume Gatekeeper hearings, we believe that a delayed but improved process will be far better than a rushed but inadequate and legally flawed one.

Regards,

Ilya Gurin, on behalf of MV YIMBY

Thanks for Approving NBS Housing

MV YIMBY Leads — Sat, 17 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Members of the Mountain View City Council,

I am writing to you on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY, a community of pro-housing activists with a history deeply connected to North Bayshore. Our organization was born out of a shared passion for creating more housing in North Bayshore and, over the years, has grown to advocate for inclusive and abundant housing throughout our city. As one of the original members who was drawn to this cause because of the housing issues in North Bayshore, I personally want to express our deepest gratitude for your unanimous approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan.

We recognize and appreciate the scale and potential of this project, which is the largest in Mountain View’s history. It is inspiring to see the long-term vision of a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood in North Bayshore begin to take shape. The commitment to inclusive and abundant housing aligns with our mission at Mountain View YIMBY, and we are encouraged by the future this project will help create.

Importantly, we want to acknowledge the commitment to affordable housing within this development. The provision for 15% of the 7,000 housing units to be affordable is a significant step towards addressing the affordable housing shortage in our city. We believe this will be a vital contribution to Mountain View’s housing stock and will make our community more welcoming and inclusive.

We also commend the City Council for ensuring that the plan includes a range of community benefits. The allocation of 26 acres of public parks and open spaces, 4 acres of land for a school, new public and private streets, and improvements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure will greatly enhance the quality of life in North Bayshore.

Looking ahead, we encourage continued dialogue and collaboration between the Council, developers, and community groups to ensure the success of this and future projects. Mountain View YIMBY remains committed to supporting and assisting your efforts in increasing housing availability and affordability in our city.

Once again, thank you for your visionary leadership and dedication to building a more inclusive, abundant, and thriving Mountain View. We are excited to see the positive impacts of the North Bayshore Master Plan unfold in the years to come.

With sincere gratitude, David Watson Mountain View YIMBY

Agenda Item 6.1 - 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0000

I am pleased to write on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY that our organization strongly

**supports the March Draft **of the Housing Element with the additions in Exhibit E of the

resolution. We believe that, with those additions, the Draft fully complies with state law and

merits HCD’s prompt approval.

The March Draft is the product of two years of community outreach, extensive stakeholder engagement, and data-driven analysis. Ellen Yau, Eric Anderson, Aarti Shrivastava and other city staff should be applauded for the herculean effort and conscientious analysis that they’ve invested into this roadmap for the city’s future.

Our initial concerns for prior drafts fell into three buckets: AFFH, constraints, and the sites inventory. All three concerns have been resolved by changes in the March Draft and Exhibit E.

The March Draft is a major step forward on AFFH, with:

A more robust religious-sites program, with a clear AFFH metric, as prescribed by HCD
Additional land dedications for affordable housing in high-opportunity areas like downtown, a program suggested in HCD’s AFFH technical assistance memo
A program for increasing housing choice in R2 areas, with an emphasis on AFFH
A study to improve the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance to reduce displacement
A revamped Opportunity to Purchase Act program to preserve affordable housing
Improved access to the high-resource area south of the El Camino Real Precise Plan, via several of the above programs

The March Draft is also a large step forward for reducing constraints, as it has:

A commitment to evaluate the totality of fees on an ongoing basis, and a robust program specifically for park in-lieu fees
A program to implement recommendations from the Matrix Study
A return of the Gatekeeper process, with improvements
Reduction in known R3 constraints
A program to remove parking minima in transit-oriented precise plans
A program to streamline code-compliant projects in precise plans

Further, we believe the city has adequately planned for its RHNA by the:

Utilization of the backpocket sites
R2 program
Religious-sites program
Return of the Gatekeeper process
Land dedications for affordable housing
Commercial sites rezoning
El Camino Real rezoning

**Mountain View YIMBY believes that the March draft complies with the full spirit of housing element law and that the March Draft merits your approval, as well as HCD’s certification. **

About Us

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 01 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0000

We are Mountain View YIMBY, advocating for more housing in our city and beyond. We are pro-housing activists fighting for more inclusive housing policies and a future of abundant housing in Mountain View. We drive policy change to increase the supply of housing at all levels and bring down the cost of living in our thriving city. We support a full spectrum of new housing: supportive housing for the homeless, subsidized housing, social housing, even market rate condos!

The San Francisco Bay Area is not “full” of too many people. It is full of opportunity to create a dynamic economy and housing market that work for everyone. The housing shortage is a political problem: Zoning and other restrictions have prevented construction of enough places for people to live. We want to fix this and make our community more welcoming and inclusive. Let’s legalize housing.

Our Mission

We support the YIMBY Action “Core Four”:

Legalize housing: Upzone to allow more housing in every neighborhood
Streamline Permitting: Make housing permits fast and fair
Fund Affordable Housing: Increase funding for low-income housing
Fix Broken Incentives: Reform laws that incentivize communities to say no to new homes

What YIMBY Means

YIMBY means “Yes In My Back Yard”. The term gained its meaning in the early 2000s in the SF Bay Area due to high housing costs. More information about the general term can be found here.

Our Organization

We are a chapter of South Bay YIMBY, who work throughout Santa Clara County and YIMBY Action, a 501(c)(4) statewide nonprofit organization (EIN 81-514-0915). We’re also affiliated with the following pro-housing organizations:

Peninsula for Everyone, who handle San Mateo County and the North Peninsula portion of Santa Clara County.
California YIMBY, who are focused on Statewide legislation.

Mountain View YIMBY Endorses Emily Ramos for City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View YIMBY is thrilled to endorse Emily Ramos for the open seat on the Mountain View City Council. As a dedicated leader of our organization for many years, Emily has a deep understanding of the city’s housing crisis and a proven track record of working towards creating more affordable housing options for Mountain View residents.

As a member of the Rental Housing Commision and the current vice-chair, Emily has been instrumental in implementing a law that protects 15 thousand families from significant rent increases and evictions. She also has experience as Preservation and Protection Associate at SV@Home, where she gained deep knowledge and experience with anti-displacement policies and as a board member of the Community Services Agency, where she helped connect residents to receive assistance to prevent them from losing their homes during the pandemic. Along with her work with YIMBY, she’s also a long-time member of the League of Women Voters housing committee. Furthermore, her engagement with many different groups, including community organizations, and her understanding of the city’s government and current issues, positions her to be able to collaborate and work effectively with her fellow council members from day one.

Emily’s passion for improving the quality of life for Mountain View residents is reflected in her long-standing involvement in the community including as a board member for both the Community Services Agency and the Mountain View Historical Association. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo has also endorsed Emily, noting that she is “a dedicated housing advocate, consummate volunteer, and voice for vulnerable communities.” With her experience and dedication, Emily is well-positioned to tackle not only the housing crisis, but all issues facing the city. Mountain View YIMBY is confident that she will be an effective and dedicated council member, serving the best interest of all residents.

Housing Element Requests

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 19 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Recommended site inventory changes:

Add two additional city-owned lots downtown to the site inventory.
Add all sites from the “back pocket” into the site inventory.
Add R2 sites in high opportunity areas South of El Camino with density assumptions derived based on SB 10’s allowance for 30’ heights and ten-plexes.

Recommended programmatic changes

1.2 Eliminate Parking Minimums Standards for Affordable Housing Developments

1.3 Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential Standards

1.4: Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing

1.8 Park Land Ordinance Update

1.11 No Net Loss of Housing Element Sites

1.14 Cumulative Fees

1.15 Replacement of the Gatekeeper Process

2.6 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

4.1 Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions

1.2 Eliminate Parking MinimumsStandards for Affordable Housing Developments

Codify exemptions to parking minimumsstandards for 100% affordable housing developments.

Objectives and Metrics

Streamline review by reducing studies and uncertainty, and facilitate100% affordablehousing developments by eliminating parking standards minimums

Milestones and Timeframe

Update zoning ordinance and (if necessary) zoning or Precise Plan amendments by December 31, 2024.

1.3 Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Residential Standards

Review development standards to ensure they reflect contemporary building types, improve ease of implementation and improve consistency across districts.

Ensure development projects can meet their allowed densities and are economically feasible. Conduct a development prototype study, update definitions as necessary for consistency between plans and districts, and revise multifamily development standards in major districts (including R3) and Precise Plans to ensure projects are economically feasibleand can meet their allowed density.
Compile, evaluate and refine requirements outside the Zoning Ordinance, include Heritage tree preservation and Public Works requirements
Ensure that zoning code is updated to reflect densities and other standards as required by state law (e.g., SB 478)
Adopt a TDM Ordinance that provides clear requirements for residential trip reduction across all precise plans and zoning districts and update precise plans as needed. Through the ordinance, study the cost of TDM requirements on typical residential developments, and allow residential developers to meet TDM goals through lower-cost options. Update the zoning ordinance to allow residential parking reductions for projects that implement TDM.
Study live-work as an allowed residential use near retail areas, major corridors and other viable locations
Mitigate each constraint identified by Opticos to housing development in R3 areas, including at minimum the constraints identified in their October 13th, 2020 presentation.
Revise Bonus FAR provisions in relevant precise plans to be authorized via a ministerial pathway under objective criteria.

Objectives and Metrics

Streamline the development review process by updating definitions for standards such as height, open area, common usable open area, floor area ratio, personal storage, pavement coverage and building coverage, and ensuring definitions are consistent with contemporary building types and across the Zoning Ordinance and precise plans.
Reduce government constraints in multifamily zoning districts (R3, R4, CRA) and four Precise Plans (El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore and East Whisman) by ensuring that projects can build up to their allowed density.
Reduce government constraints by allowing reduced parking for projects that implement TDM.
Expand small business access to opportunity by creating live-work spaces in appropriate residential areas

Milestones and Timeframe

Conduct prototype study and evaluate standards outside the Zoning Ordinance by June 30, 2024 2026
Update Zoning Ordinance and precise plans to reflect reduced standards and live-work by December 31, 2024 2026
Adopt TDM ordinance by December 31, 2026

1.4: Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing

Religious and community assembly sites are typically larger sites and are located throughout the City, with several in the City’s highest opportunity neighborhoods. This program would allow affordable multifamily housing on these sites.

Objectives and Metrics

Create more affordable housing in the City’s highest opportunity neighborhoods by allowing deed-restricted affordable multifamily housing up to 3 stories on non-profit, religious and community assembly sites in the R1 and R2 districts. Typical densities are expected to be approximately 10030 to 40dwelling units per acre on the residential portions of the sites. Incentivize such development through ongoing actions, such as outreach, funding and promotional materials

Milestone and Timeframe

Complete zoning amendments by December 31, 2024 2026, including outreach to affordable housing developers, non-profit and advocacy organizations and religious and community assembly properties; development of standards and incentives; and creation of ongoing monitoring and promotional materials.

Responsibility: Planning Division

Potential Funding: Development Services Fund

AFFH Program: Access to Opportunity

1.8 Park Land Ordinance Update

Complete Phase 2 of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance update and the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Analysis that would support fee reductions could include:

Review of best-practices for parkland acquisition funding
Pursuit of grants and other funding sources
Review of the City’s population density assumptions
Opportunities for private development to provide public open space through existing zoning requirements (e.g., POPAs)
Development incentives and exceptions to standards for public open space

This responds to input received from market-rate housing developers during the outreach process (see Chapter 1: Introduction, Public Participation section).

Objectives and Metrics:

Reduce constraints on residential development by reviewing and revising the park land dedication requirements to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development.
Maintain the existing goal of providing 3 acres of park land per person.
Recalibrate the park in-lieu fee so the value of land is estimated using average citywide land costs rather than the land costs for recently completed residential projects in the respective density categories.

Milestone and Timeframe:

By December 31, 2024, including adoption of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (addressing anticipated open space needs and long-term funding strategies) and adoption of reduced fees, alternate mitigations and/or other programs to reduce costs on residential.

1.11 No Net Loss of Housing Element Sites

Monitor and update the availability of sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA in accordance with No Net Loss rules. If a shortfall is identified in any income category, identify necessary replacement sites, considering, but not limited to “Back Pocket” areas discussed during adoption of the Housing Element Update. Back Pocket areas included:

R2 sites in high opportunity areas, such as South of El Camino Real and Old Mountain View.
R3 sites without existing residential tenants.
Sites under Program 1.5
Sites under Program 4.2
Moffett Boulevard Change Area
Neighborhood shopping areas other than General Plan Village Centers (such as Bailey Park Shopping Center, Monta Loma Shopping Center, and Leong Drive), including standards to replace or preserve neighborhood commercial uses
Downtown Transit Center
Other nonresidential sites south of El Camino Real

The City will annually report on projects under review to see if they reduce any buffers below 5%. If they do, the City will initiate a No Net Loss rezoning process.

Objectives and Metrics

Ensure adequate capacity for the City’s RHNA by maintaining a list of opportunity sites that accommodates the City’s RHNA and initiating a rezoning process for new sites if the buffer falls below 5 percent, after accounting for development projects under review

Milestone and Timeframe

If the City receives an application for a new construction development project on a housing element site with fewer (or greater) units at the given income level than shown in the site inventory (including pipeline sites), those units will be provisionally removed from (or added to) the inventory. If the project is approved (building permit approval for ministerial projects), they will be officially removed from (or added to) the inventory.
Annually update and report on the provisional and official inventories.

If the moderate-income provisional inventory falls below 5 percent buffer, transfer one or more sites from the lower-income provisional inventory to the moderate income provisional inventory (prioritizing lowest-opportunity neighborhoods) until the moderate-income provisional inventory is at least 5 percent buffer.
If the moderate-income official inventory falls below 5 percent buffer, transfer the sites from the lower-income official inventory.
If the lower-income provisional inventory falls below 5 percent buffer, initiate the no net loss rezoning process.

Make necessary findings on projects that reduce the number of units on Housing Element sites
If the number of units in the official inventory falls below the RHNA, rezone additional sites within six months

1.14 Cumulative Fees

Review all imposed fees, including community benefit requirements, on housing developments to check compliance under recent changes to the Mitigation Fee Act, and set a maximum per-unit cap on the totality of the fees. Additionally, prevent new levels on fees from being a significant constraint on development, to be determined by per-fee feasibility studies. In this section, cumulative fees are understood broadly to include impact fees, in-lieu fees, community benefits payments, and TDM/TDA-related payments.

Objectives and Metrics

Ensure city imposed fees are reasonable and not a significant constraint on development by capping per-unit cumulative fees at 100% AMI for a family of two.
Comply with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Milestone and Timeframe

Finish review of existing fees, set new fees, and set maximum per-unit cumulative fees equal to 100% AMI for a family of two by December 31, 2024.
Annual review after December 31, 2024 to conduct a feasibility study that encompasses each fee as well as the cumulative effect on feasibility of all fees taken together.

1.15 Replacement of the Gatekeeper Process

Replace the Gatekeeper process with an ‘early consideration’ process, outlined as follows:

For non-exempt requests for a zoning change, Precise Plan amendment or General Plan amendment, staff will request early consideration from city council on those requests provided the requests reasonably comply with constraints imposed by state law and the general plan. This early consideration from council will be provided within 90 days of the request and will provide staff with direction on whether to pursue further processing of the application. If the project applicant requests it, more than 90 days can be allotted for council to provide early consideration on a request.
Requests will also be reviewed by council on the merits of the project taken on its own so that projects do not compete with each other.

Council will also expand the scope of requests that are automatically further processed by staff. Council will provide staff with a minimum set of requirements for housing projects that, if met, will greenlight staff to further process requests for a rezoning, precise plan amendment, or general plan amendment.

Eliminate the gatekeeper authorization process, which requires affirmative direction from the Council to submit an application, for residential or mixed-use projects with a significant residential component. The City will process applications for General Plan Amendments and rezonings with reasonable requirements and check-in points.

Objectives and Metrics

Allow the development community to propose projects that provide significant amounts of new housing. The City will annually report to HCD the size of the application queue for the ‘early consideration’ process and the number of non-exempt units approved through zoning changes, Precise Plan amendments, or General Plan amendments.

Milestone and Timeframe

Transition to an ‘early consideration’ process by December 31, 2025
Ensure all of the projects currently in the Gatekeeper process get heard by council by December 31, 2026 if the applicant requests it.

2.6 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

Continue to prepare and update the City's Assessment of Fair Housing and implement actions as necessary to remove barriers to fair housing choice, as required by HUD and State Housing Element law.

Objectives and Metrics

Remove impediments to fair housing and provide equitable access to housing and opportunity.
Plan to create housing choice in high opportunity areas to mitigate patterns of segregation. Housing choice will be measured by two metrics. First, the City will track the number of affordable units constructed South of the El Camino Precise Plan, with an objective to build at least 100 units of affordable housing there by July 31, 2027.
Create an educational equity target by 2024 as follows. The city will identify a percentage of the overall market-rate and affordable housing RHNA targets that should be built in each neighborhood or within each elementary school enrollment boundary. These percentages shall ensure that at least 33% of the RHNA is evenly allocated among these geographic boundaries (e.g., if using the 7 elementary school boundaries, at least 33% / 7 = 4.7% of the overall RHNA should get built in each school’s area).

Milestone and Timeframe

Update Assessment of Fair Housing as required by HUD with the first update completed in 2023, and subsequent updates based on HUD guidance.
Implement necessary actions continuously as needed.
If 100 units of affordable housing are not constructed South of the El Camino Precise Plan by July 31, 2027, the City will survey landowners South of the El Camino Precise Plan on regulatory barriers to housing development, forward the survey results to HCD, and request HCD’s reasonable recommendations on programs, including but not limited to streamlining and zoning reform, that would create more housing across the income spectrum South of the El Camino Real Precise Plan. The city will implement HCD’s reasonably recommended programs to the satisfaction of HCD by July 31, 2029.
By July 31, 2027, the City will identify whether at least half of the units required by the educational equity metric have been built and commit to additional programs (including SB 10 rezonings) if these targets are not met.

4.1 Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions

Implement processing procedures and technology improvements that will reduce Planning and

Building Permit review timelines to address constraints resulting from the duration of staff review.

Review and update the City's affordable Housing NOFA process to improve coordination and communication internally (e.g., coordination between Housing, Planning and other departments and internal processes in Planning and other departments) and with applicants. Encourage affordable housing developers to work with outside funding sources to leverage the City's local funds to the maximum extent possible. Initial steps in the review include additional developer roundtables, garnering consultant advice, and scanning other public agency processes for best practices. In addition, the City will continue to facilitate and support 100% affordable housing development in the review process, by allocating dedicated staff and utilizing streamlining opportunities. This responds to input received from affordable housing developers during the outreach process (see Chapter 1: Introduction, Public Participation section).
Review development and post-development processes, timelines, and approval body levels to streamline permitting processes. Adopt procedures that improve internal coordination and staff throughput. This responds to input received from market-rate housing developers during the outreach process (see Chapter 1: Introduction, Public Participation section). Implement all high-priority recommendations from the Development Review Assessment (“Matrix Study”), including the development of a new permitting software system.
Acquire tools and software that will improve development review, monitoring of housing supply, management of funding, transparency of data and approvals, and other processes involved in housing development for staff and public use.
Create a ministerial approval pathway by 2025 for approving applications for all projects that are code-compliant and meet the City's inclusionary requirements, provided an applicant has submitted all materials and requirements as stipulated under SB 330.

In addition, Program 1.3 will streamline development review by improving the consistency,

transparency and relevance of the standards that affect residential development.

Objectives and Metrics

Facilitate at least 1,100 units of 100% affordable development by streamlining the funding approval process, prioritizing staff review, utilizing State streamlining (e.g., SB35)
Reduce the number of resubmittals and time between application completeness and approval through process and approval body revisions
Bring the city fully into compliance with new transparency legislation by posting project-specific fees online.

Milestone and Timeframe

Bring City into full compliance with transparency requirements as soon as possible.
Review and update NOFA process by June 30, 2024.
Update the Zoning Ordinance process and approval bodies by December 31, 2026
Fully implement electronic review software by June 30, 2024. Acquire additional software and tools as identified.
By December 31st, 2023, complete all high-priority recommendations from the Development Review Assessment (“Matrix Study”) that do not rely on acquisition of new software. These are recommendations 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 in the Matrix Study.
By December 31st, 2024, complete all high-priority recommendations from the Development Review Assessment (“Matrix Study”) that do rely on acquisition of new software. These are recommendations 8, 17, 18, 22, and 47 in the Matrix Study.

Housing Element Draft 2 Site Capacity Adendum

MV YIMBY Leads — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Executive Summary

On July 14th, 2022, Mountain View YIMBY provided the City with a data-driven analysis of site capacity assumptions in Draft 1. The letter in front of you replicates our previous methodology to update our findings for Draft 2, which likewise fails to justify its capacity assumptions. Our main results are presented in Table 1, and the key takeaways are:

Despite HCD’s review letter¹ reminding the City that it “must demonstrate [pending] units are expected to be constructed during the planning period,” Draft 2 shares Draft 1’s unjustified assumption that 100% of pipeline projects will be built by 2031, when data shows a third of pending units fail to be built in 8 years.
Draft 2 now asserts the City’s pipeline alone exceeds Mountain View’s total unit requirement for RHNA6. This makes Mountain View an outlier across the entire state, surpassing even Alhambra.
After correcting for the City’s inflated pipeline claims, the City accommodates most low income housing on non-vacant sites, triggering AB 1397’s threshold for substantial evidence that existing uses pose no impediment to redevelopment.
The City assumes, without evidence, that development rates will triple in East Whisman and double across North Bayshore and El Camino.
To maintain its No Net Loss buffer, the City should rezone for 6,299 additional units.

The City’s pipeline claims unequivocally violate housing element law. Our prior analysis showed that the City’s pipeline claims were inflated. HCD’s review letter called out the same issue. Nevertheless, the City retains these far-fetched assertions. This is not an accident but rather an attempt by the City to “reduc[e its] responsibility… to identify, by income category, the total number of sites for residential development as required,” flouting §65583.1(a). It’s furthermore an attempt by the City to excuse itself from complying with AB 1397’s substantial evidence threshold, which would otherwise constrain the City from listing highly-trafficked big box stores in its site inventory. And it’s finally an attempt by the City to excuse itself from complying with Least Cost Zoning Law, which mandates zoning for enough “land for residential use with appropriate standards… to meet housing needs for all income categories,” per §65913.1(a). Every fake unit of pipeline capacity is exactly one unit of its RHNA that the City, by unlawful fiat, writes out of existence.

Main Results

Table 1. Site Capacity Analysis Breakdown

This table presents our main results comparing Draft 2 claims with our data-driven analysis.

		Draft 2 Claims	MV YIMBY Analysis	Difference
Approved Projects	LI Units	509	423	-86
Approved Projects	All Units	3,942	3,251	-691
Pending Projects	LI Units	1,992	1,324	-668
Pending Projects	All Units	7,476	4,969	-2,507
Developable Sites	LI Units	3,127	1,606	-1,521
Developable Sites	All Units	6,265	3,201	-3,064
ADUs	LI Units	48	30	-18
ADUs	All Units	96	59	-37
Total	LI Units	5,676	3,383	-2,293
Total	All Units	17,779	11,480	-6,299

Our methodology is explained at length in the Appendix of our July letter (see here). As a refresher, our downward adjustment for pending projects is, as HCD suggested in its September review letter, the “City’s past completion rates on pipeline projects” within eight years. Our analysis for ADUs is simply HCD’s safe harbor formula. Our analysis for developable sites is based on HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook’s recommendation of looking at “past production trends” that are “based on the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the previous planning period.”²

Appendix

Additional Notes on the Pipeline

Approved Projects

The following projects are on record as being stalled or abandoned:

1919 Gamel Way
870 E. El Camino Real
400 Logue Avenue

Accordingly, our analysis for approved projects does not credit the City for these projects.

North Bayshore Master Plan

Many of the City’s errors regarding North Bayshore have not been corrected since Draft 1:

Per Table 60 of Draft 2,³ Phase 2 BMR land dedication will occur in 2029. City staff also say BMR housing takes two years to get built - that is, 2031. Even absent delay, Phase 2 BMR housing almost surely won’t be built in RHNA6.
Delays are foreseeable. In our July 13th letter to HCD, we identified seven major potential sources of delay or derailment for the North Bayshore Master Plan, and the City has not added programs to curtail these concerns.
The City fails to adequately respond to HCD’s review letter.
1. HCD’s review letter said** the North Bayshore Master Plan parcels must be listed as sites, not pending projects,** if the estimated capacity is merely “anticipated capacity from yet to be proposed projects that will require subsequent approvals.” The City’s response on page 304 of Draft 2 was simply to call the master plan a project. This is beyond non-responsive. We remind HCD of the facts:
  1. There is no approved Development Agreement. The City’s position is that Google has pending projects under a DA that does not exist. This is nonsensical.
  2. Google is on record saying they are not designing or planning housing projects until after office is decanted and demolished.⁴
  3. There are no permit applications for the parcels in the North Bayshore Master Plan, and there is no question that future planned community permits will require “subsequent approvals,” as HCD puts it. City staff has explicitly said the Zoning Administrator’s approval for future permits will be required.
  4. **A pending land dedication is not a pending project. **There are no RFPs or plans for Phase 1 (2026) or Phase 2 (2029) land dedications. The City does not know who will build these projects, what the projects will look like, or where the funding will come from.
  5. The City’s submission for Table A cannot even allot units to parcels in the North Bayshore Master Plan - this is for the glaringly obvious reason_ _that there aren’t projects proposed for each parcel.
  For the above five reasons, the City must designate the North Bayshore Master Plan sites as opportunity sites, not as pending projects, per HCD’s review letter.
2. HCD’s review letter stated, “given the element’s reliance on pipeline projects, the element must include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects.” 6. The suggested programs have not been added, and the North Bayshore Master Plan still faces foreseeable delays. We encourage HCD to review our public comment from July, as it further explains the complexities and foreseeable delays facing the North Bayshore Master Plan that remain unanalyzed in Draft 2.

Opportunity Sites Analysis

Table 2. Historical Record vs City’s RHNA6 Assumptions, Broken Down by Precise Plan.

	Projects per Year (Historical)	Projects per Year (City Claims for RHNA6)	Increase
East Whisman	0.67	1.88	181%
El Camino	3.13	6.50	108%
North Bayshore	0.40	0.88	119%
San Antonio	0.88	1.13	29%

To create Table 2, Mountain View YIMBY analyzed all relevant annual progress reports to calculate how many projects have been built per year in each precise plan since each precise plan was implemented. We compare these to the City’s projections and note that, on average, the City assumes, without evidence, that development rates will double.

Table 3. Developable Sites, by Precise Plan.

		City Claims, Draft 2	MV YIMBY Analysis	Difference
Downtown	LI Units	0	0	0
Downtown	All Units	6	6	0
East Whisman	LI Units	997	354	-643
East Whisman	All Units	1,312	466	-846
El Camino	LI Units	1,127	542	-585
El Camino	All Units	1,905	916	-989
Grant - Phyllis	LI Units	201	201	0
Grant - Phyllis	All Units	322	322	0
North Bayshore	LI Units	463	212	-251
North Bayshore	All Units	2,137	977	-1160
San Antonio	LI Units	191	149	-42
San Antonio	All Units	310	241	-69
Not in Precise Plan	LI Units	148	148	0
Not in Precise Plan	All Units	273	273	0
Total	LI Units	3,127	1,606	-1,521
Total	All Units	6,265	3,201	-3,064

As with Table 2, Mountain View YIMBY analyzed all relevant annual progress reports to calculate how many projects have been built per year in each precise plan since each precise plan was implemented. We then adjusted the City’s estimates to account for historical development trends and report the delta in the final column. This methodology is further explained at length in the Appendix of our July letter (see here).

Additional Notes on Opportunity Sites

Opportunity sites have been selected in bad faith:

The City knowingly excludes sites with demonstrated interest in redevelopment and knowingly includes sites with demonstrated lack of interest in redevelopment.
1. Despite demonstrated interest from builders, the City excludes 901 North Rengstorff (“Ambra project”) and Castro Commons from the inventory to retain the discretion to deny housing from being built.
2. Despite demonstrated lack of interest from landowners, the City refuses to exclude 384 San Antonio, 2633 California, and 1288 El Camino Real from the inventory. This error has been identified repeatedly in prior public comments.⁵
Since the initial inventory was released, the main improvements have come from members of the public reaching out to landowners of large parcels. This led to Target, Lozano Car Wash, U-Haul, CSA, and El Camino Hospital’s properties being removed from the inventory. That unpaid volunteers are the primary reason the inventory has improved since Draft 1 is evidence that the City’s effort to ameliorate the site inventory has been inattentive and perfunctory.
The City claims 1,732 units from 1500 North Shoreline, even though no project of this size has ever been built before in Mountain View without multi-decade phasing or a DA. The City simply omits this analysis hoping that HCD will not notice.
The City lists densities around or below 40 du/acre for religious institutions. Affordable housing does not get built at this density in Mountain View. The City should zone for at least 60 du/acre, which at least has historical precedent.

Notes

https://siliconvalleyathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/SclMountainViewDraftOut092922.pdf ↩︎
Page 20 of https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf ↩︎
See page 307 of Draft 2. ↩︎
At the December 14th, 2021 city council meeting, Andrew Chapple with Google explained that their housing projects will only be proposed after office is decanted and demolished. When asked to explain the timeline to build housing in North Bayshore, Chapple explains, “The action required, of course, first of all is decanting existing Google office buildings where they have existing operations. That’s quite a process. Then, of course, after we manage to do that, we have to demolish that area and make way for housing. Then we embark on the housing process, the planning and designing process, and that can take a year plus.” See 4:35:45 of the council meeting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWg_RrVOGWQ ↩︎
See https://mvyimby.com/post/2022-07-13-site-capacity-addendum/ and page 6 of our March public comment here: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=AO&ID=115391&GUID=cfb7c739-4b47-4253-a679-c87c85bb75ce&N=SXRlbSA2LjEgQ29ycmVzcG9uZGVuY2UgQmF0Y2ggMy5wZGY%3d ↩︎

Letter to Council Regarding Housing Element Draft 2

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Item 6.1 Revised 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element

To City Council:

MV YIMBY appreciates the work of staff and Council in working to create a compliant Housing Element. However, we are concerned that the revised draft still does not meet the bar of being compliant and, more fundamentally, does not sufficiently address the housing crisis.

We believe there is still time available to make changes, even if it may lead to delays with the EIR. It is better to take time and carefully prepare than to submit a less-than-compliant document requiring future revision.

This letter contains our broad concerns of the revised draft Housing Element; for more detail, please look at our letter to HCD.

Site Inventory

The site inventory continues to be insufficient, given that the existing pace of development falls significantly short of our 5th cycle housing allocation (progress: 30% VLI, 43% LI, 3% MI). The new housing allocation is 3.8x larger, with our existing above moderate production just falling short (4658 permits issued, 4880 minimum next cycle). Meanwhile, existing projects are subject to tough economic conditions, with projects like Gamel Way already not moving forward.

In particular, there is not enough evidence provided to demonstrate that the site inventory will be built out to plan, especially sites along El Camino Real in their post-2014 Precise Plan regulatory conditions. Ron’s Farmhouse (2026 W ECR), for example, still remains unused since its closing in 2007. The lack of documented interest from property owners should raise concerns, as they can continue to hold underdeveloped parcels or develop a non-residential project.

We also believe that some of the projects listed in the pipeline section cannot be credited to the 6th cycle as they were occupied before June 30, 2022. Luna Vista (950 West El Camino Real), for example, has had occupancy since at least May, as evidenced by the public grand opening.

Meanwhile, there are at least two projects that have indicated development potential, 901 N Rengstorff (the “Ambra property”) and 843 W El Camino (“Castro Commons”), that remain missing in the site inventory with a purpose of “maintaining discretion.” This is not a positive sign for a process whose purpose is to ensure sufficient housing gets built.

Programs

We reiterate our concern that the actions and metrics provided in the programs are still too vague to indicate impact, with some of them scheduled too far into the future to make much impact within the 6th cycle. Despite some progress, many of our objections to the first draft remain valid.

Various programs are meant to align our local ordinances with state law (1.1, 1.3, 1.10). However, their timelines are not immediate; for example, SB478, a law that went into effect in January 2022, is scheduled in Program 1.3 to be implemented by EOY 2026 (cycle midpoint), although the state can already sue over noncompliance. Meanwhile, the program (1.3) to ensure developments can actually be feasibly built to their specified densities is also scheduled EOY 2026, although the R3 update has been underway since 2020. Given that large projects can easily take more than four years to reach approval (e.g., 555 W Middlefield), these programs, although welcome, will have little material impact within the 6th cycle.

HCD has asked the City to create actions to promote housing mobility to address our Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements. However, the SB 9 subdivision program that Council requested is scheduled for EOY 2026, while neighboring cities like Sunnyvale already implement similar provisions. On Program 1.4, the densities listed for religious and community assembly sites (“30 to 40 dwelling units per acre on the residential portions of the sites”) seem rather low, leading to further feasibility concerns.

Parking requirements remain a large identified constraint on development. Although Program 1.2 addresses it for 100% affordable housing developments, and the state has preempted City authority in selected areas under AB 2097, that still leaves an unaddressed constraint for all other projects. The promise of parking reductions under Program 1.3d is welcome but noncommittal.

Despite the Park Land Dedication Fee being one of the largest fees charged by the City on development projects, the wording (Program 1.8) remains relatively vague at what the metric of “reducing the financial impact” is. City’s use of a per-unit charge rather than per-area also has an adverse effect on feasibility infill development.

We continue to press the City to explicitly connect the Matrix Development Review to Program 4.1, in order to demonstrate to HCD the actions the City is already undertaking as well as to ensure the City is accountable in seeing it to completion. We believe that a robust Program 4.1 would benefit all parties, because unlike most other programs, it reduces staff workload.

The Neighborhood Engagement program (4.7) does not give evidence of its effectiveness in addressing concerns about unrepresentative community input, as identified in the Constraints Analysis. The R3 Neighborhood meetings, for example, attracted a demographic that was heavily skewed against renters and younger members of the community.

Regarding Mountain View Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element, November 2022 Draft

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0000

We continue to believe that this housing element draft is a continuation of the existing policies that have resulted in a shortage of housing.

Site Inventory

We maintain that the general points of our earlier Site Capacity Addendum still apply to this revised draft.

Pipeline Projects

**Already-completed projects: **950 West El Camino Real had its public grand opening ceremony on May 6, 2022. In a Planning Commission meeting on Nov 14, staff stated that the project was opening and occupied under a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for months. We are concerned that there could be other projects counted in under the 6th despite having long TCOs pre-June 2022.

Known infeasible projects: A staff report for the Rental Housing Committee on October 17 notes that 1919 Gamel Way has been put on hold due to economic reasons. 400 Logue Avenue has also had a change in ownership, after the previous owner who put in the application for the 408 units said financing difficulties with the proposed project led to a change in plans. Economic conditions are likely squeezing other projects in the pipeline list, given various requests for permit extensions.

Projects that exceed established zoning: Several identified pipeline projects needed spot rezonings to move forward. 555 W Middlefield underwent the (unavailable since 2019) Gatekeeper process, taking 5 years from first council meeting to authorize consideration of the rezoning to final project approval. 777 W Middlefield spent 4 years in the Gatekeeper process, with intervention from a school district to replace their teacher housing proposal that had community opposition. The history of these projects demonstrates the inadequacy of existing zoning to meet our goals.

Discount and Development Likelihood

Evidence lacking for shopping centers: The only major rezoning occurring is the harmonization of zoning with the general plan for some shopping centers. Of this, the site inventory discounts expected the unit count by 80% on parcels with multiple retail tenants. However, this 80% number does not seem grounded in any evidence or feasibility analysis, given that one of the shopping centers in the zoning designated “Grant-Phyllis Precise Plan” has been nonresidential since the 1960s. That we are rezoning a decade after the General Plan update may imply a lack of interest among the site owners to build housing at the city’s targeted densities. Although the shopping centers contribute only a few units to the city’s total, they are key to the city’s AFFH plan for the southern neighborhoods.

Evidence lacking for other sites: Staff has not demonstrated the substantial evidence required on a per-site basis to demonstrate that our mostly non-vacant site inventory is likely to become housing at the amount necessary to reach our allocation. There are no details of engagement with site owners, other than the initial mailed notice of site inventory inclusion (which got little response). Instead, sites continue to be removed at this stage of element drafting due to objection by site owners. Of the single new site where staff says the owner has demonstrated interest (1500 N Shoreline), there are no public details of how strong of a commitment they have made to building housing and (if so) at what amount and income level.

Sites excluded to maintain discretion: Meanwhile, the draft Element continues to leave out sites where the owners have expressed great interest in developing housing, 901 North Rengstorff (“Ambra project”) and Castro Commons. Responding to the council in June, staff justified the decision by wanting to maintain “some flexibility” over the projects, further indicating reluctance on the City’s part. Staff has gone as far as preventing council from discussing one of these projects, as noted by the League of Women Voters.

Housing Needs Assessment and Constraints Analysis

Inhabited vehicles: The Housing Needs Assessment is silent on the current situation of RVs mentioned in Table 21. The settlement between the RVs and the City has greatly reduced the number of locations where RVs can park, and this is compounded by the city police requiring RVs to move every 72 hours due to neighbor-triggered complaints.

BMR in-lieu restrictions: The Constraints Analysis notes that the BMR program provides an alternative if developments do not wish to provide inclusionary units within their projects. It should be noted that alternatives, including in-lieu fees, must undergo discretionary review by the council, which generally means only large projects like Google’s undertake this path. Meanwhile, we have had a project that chose to use their density bonus incentives against the entirety of the BMR framework.

On Efficiency Studios/SROs, while the El Camino Real (2014) and San Antonio Precise Plans (2019) have their densities tied to FAR rather than du/ac, there has yet to be any such project proposed anywhere in the city.

Scope too narrow: The Constraints Analysis continues to not fully examine all of the land use regulations the city imposes. For example, a recent project applied a density bonus incentive against the storage space requirement.

Programs

Legal Compliance

Program 1.1 aims to “address consistency” with state law (i.e., rectify existing violations).. But the listed laws specified took into effect years ago: Navigation Centers in mid-2019, Employee Housing in 1992, Mobile-Home Parks in 1981. It is concerning that it would take an additional two years for the City to reach consistency, given laws like AB 2011 and SB 6 are going into effect relatively soon.

Weak Addressing of Constraints

Above, we noted gaps in the constraints analysis. We also note that constraints that have been analyzed are not adequately addressed.

Schedule: Programs 1.3 and 4.1 defer finer analysis of the constraints to housing development to EOY 2026, rather than making the effort to do so now during the Housing Element Update. With this delay, the constraints will remain in place through most of the 6th cycle.

Specificity: The actions specified remain vague, with, for instance, 1.3 not committing exactly what “outside the Zoning Ordinance” is to be reformed and 4.1 not specifying what actual actions are to be taken to address entitlement and post-entitlement timelines and approvals. The TDM Ordinance in 1.3 lacks detail on how much parking requirements can be reduced by, and the live-work program is left with “Study” language. Our earlier suggestions (and context) from June are still applicable.

Parking reduction: Program 1.2 restricts parking minimum changes to 100% affordable housing projects. The suggested parking reduction in Program 1.3 is potentially broader but extremely vague. In the staff memo for the Planning Commission, staff mentions that while they recognize parking is a constraint on development, the existence of some public opposition means that they should only commit to reducing parking reductions on a few projects, and even then only “if necessary.” It should also be noted that addressing parking as a constraint requires more than changing the zoning. Projects do not always take advantage of the parking reduction, given the precarity of financing and public opinion usually pushing them to build more parking than desired, as seen with a nearby project in Los Altos.

Park fees: Program 1.8 still lacks quantified objectives on how much park fees should be reduced. Given that this is the second-largest development cost imposed on projects by the city, this should be explicit. In the last update on the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan to council in September, the wording was “Changes to the ordinance can change the way park land fees are calculated for new residential development.” The city also continues to impose the Park Land fee on non-subdivision projects without following the Mitigation Fee Act, as the Quimby Act only applies to subdivision projects.

Inclusionary zoning: Program 1.9 defers analysis of the inclusionary zoning requirement’s effect on housing production and lacks specificity on how impact is measured and what level of significance triggers changes. It also omits mention that our ordinance requires ownership developments to have BMR units that meet exactly 100% weighted AMI, as compared to the rental equivalent being the looser “less than or equal to 65% weighted AMI.” While staff may have done this to encourage moderate income developments, it defers feasibility analysis of moderate-income development and instead pushes projects to need to use a density bonus incentive (as seen with a recent project).

Other fees: While Programs 1.8 and 1.9 cover the largest city-imposed costs, there is still no program to address the other fees, as the city continues to add more despite projects already being infeasible.

AFFH

Since the city is not currently proposing any significant upzoning (other than the harmonization of the shopping centers mentioned above), the only programs to address housing mobility in the R1 areas south of El Camino Real are those on ADUs and SB 9 (1.6, 1.7, 2.2), nonconforming sites (1.5), and Religious/Community sites (1.4).

**Schedule: **A broad concern is that these programs are all quite late in the timeline. Religious/Community sites, SB 9 condo mapping, and ADU/SB 9 incentives are set to be enacted at the midpoint of the cycle, which obviously delays their effects within this cycle.

ADUs: Program 1.7 defers analysis of the constraints to ADU and SB 9 production to a date no earlier than 2025, though such analysis should have been done in the preparation of the Housing Element. Program 2.2 calls for a “financial incentives” pilot, but does not state how much funding the city is willing to provide¹ (other than the fee exemption). Further, the program calls for an assessment of the pilot in 2028, with only two years left in the cycle, and gives no quantitative objectives metrics for the assessment.

Feasibility: When asked whether the 30-40 du/ac target for Religious/Community sites in Program 1.4 is feasible, staff concedes that a project of such low density hasn’t been developed in decades², and that the most recent religious-site project would be equivalent to ~75-100 du/ac had it been all-residential rather than office-townhomes. Such low density is unlikely to encourage any organization to apply, given history of community opposition killing a school housing project and troubles in neighboring Palo Alto over allowing a church to host four car dwellers.

Non-conforming sites: Program 1.5 seeks to maintain non-conforming developments in R1/R2 districts, implying that a downzoning occurred in the past. Such sites should instead be rezoned to the zone that reflects their existing density (e.g. R3/R4) in order to better clarify to owners the land use regulations that apply and to ensure no net loss of housing on such sites occurs in the future, especially in case of teardown-and-rebuilds. Further, neighborhoods like these that were previously downzoned despite existing structures would be appropriate for upzoning beyond just the lot that is non-conforming.

School access: Given the history of redlining and zoning laws used to keep access to good schools exclusive, the city could have taken a closer look at ways to make access to Mountain View’s schools more inclusive to lower income families who would get the most benefit. Sadly, a relatively large portion of the city’s unused zoned residential capacity is in North Bayshore, a former office park that has no schools, grocery stores or other amenities. Upzoning in a ½-mile walking distance radius of any of the city’s elementary schools would further access to Mountain View’s high resource schools. Better yet, the city could consider programs that provide bonus FAR or other incentives in exchange for requiring on-site BMR units to ensure the homes near schools are accessible to those with the most need.

Omission of Existing City Actions

Permitting process reform: Program 4.1 is a veiled reference to the Development Review Study done in 2021, though lacking many of the study’s details and recommendations. As MV YIMBY has previously commented, we strongly support the implementation of the Development Review Study’s recommendations, which mostly deal with process streamlining. Without explicitly incorporating the Study, Program 4.1 is too vague in its actual implementation, given the draft actions are all “Reviews” and the only fixed metric is “Update Process by EOY 2026.”

Multifamily upzoning: Program 1.3 implicitly refers to the R3 Zoning Update, a council-initiated process to reform our largest multifamily residential district to encourage higher-density development, prompted by recent (pre-SB 330) projects that produced marginal-to-negative net new housing. Staff notes similarly in their memo to the Planning Commission, though they left to that body the decision of whether the process should be incorporated explicitly. They deferred this decision, and intend to revisit it based on HCD’s review of this second draft. The Update already analyzed R3’s constraints, with community meetings that supported the 2020 proposal of higher heights; however, staff heard opposition outside of these meetings, leading to a shift from looking at height limit changes to “scale and character,” the definitions of which were left to the audiences of the newer meetings to define.

Public Participation

Biased engagement: Program 4.7 seeks to address neighborhood engagement via sharing of community contact information to encourage more meetings. For local context, staff tried to put this into action via citywide mailers and reaching out to neighborhood associations to attract people to a series of neighborhood meetings over the R3 Update process earlier this year. However, the demographics of participants skewed far from the actual residents: renters represented 3-23% of attendees despite being a majority of most neighborhoods. This activity did not further the stated goals of “keeping the community informed” (unless “community” means homeowners) or “fostering support.”

Public requests for tenant protection slow-walked: Community comment over the first Housing Element draft brought up desires for stronger housing preservation and protection strategies, in particular an Opportunity to Purchase (COPA) system and local right-to-return. However, Program 2.1 couches COPA under “possibly including,” deferring to some unstated future date Council’s decision of whether to do it at all. Program 3.2 likewise couches anti-displacement strategies under “may include,” deferring action to 2028 (near the end of the cycle). The lack of clear commitment for these actions does a disservice to all those who have commented, many of whom are the victims of the housing shortage.

Housing Committee frozen out: Programs 1.12 and 3.2 refer to the implementation of the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act. The CSFRA (and the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance) is overseen by the Rental Housing Committee, a body independent of Council. However, in the preparation of this Housing Element, the Committee was never asked to provide input, despite being bound by the Element (though they already do tenant and landlord outreach).

Notes

The exact wording is “partially subsidize” ↩︎
While staff was not specific, it appears the last comparable project is Ginzton Terrace, built 1994 at 35 du/ac ↩︎

Village Center Zone update and SB330

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Regarding Item 5.1 of the Environmental Planning Commission December 7th 2022:

We’re writing to bring to your attention that SB330 bans any change that would reduce a site’s residential development capacity from what it was on January 1st, 2018. It seems like this may apply to the village center designation, which previously was only vaguely defined in the general plan. While it’s good to have specificity in the zoning, it appears that these new more objective plan standards may actually reduce the residential capacity of these sites. To avoid this, the new open space requirements should be paired with higher FAR and/or higher height limits for these sites.

If that’s not possible, it would be good to at least have some idea of the feasibility of residential development on these sites. Now that we’re adding more specific, objective standards, it’s possible to do a feasibility study, we need to know whether any new homes will actually be built.

David Watson

Mountain View YIMBY

Endorsement of project at 1265 Montecito

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 02 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View YIMBY is excited for the new affordable housing development at 1265 Montecito!

Mountain View needs more affordable homes!

1265 Montecito Ave will be a new ground up 100% affordable 5-story 85-homes housing development with 45 on-grade parking stalls and 85 indoor, secured bike parking spaces on the 1.04 acre lot. That’s more bike parking than car parking (For those curious that’s a density of 83.18 units an acre, which is a pretty good use of space!)

This proposal includes a diverse range of housing types and options including a mix of 24 studios, 18 1-bedrooms, 21 2-bedrooms, and 22 3-bedrooms, including the staff unit.

Why it needs your support. These homes will be deeply affordable.

Affordability levels will range from 30% - 60% AMI with the average at 40% Area Median Income (AMI). This is the most deep level of affordability, that will help our most vulnerable community members. This kind of affordability is rare!

If you’d like to write to council yourself, try our letter writing tool

Mountain View YIMBY's 2022 Council Endorsements

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View YIMBY is excited to share our full set of endorsements for this year’s City Council elections.

Ramirez

Mayor Lucas Ramirez got our early endorsement back in July. As we wrote back then, Lucas has been a strong advocate for adding more homes in Mountain View. He championed efforts to tackle the missing middle housing problem, supported a local SB 330 ordinance to prevent displacement, rent stabilization of Mountain View’s mobile home parks, and more! During his time on the council he voted for many housing projects. Check out our early endorsement post for all the details!

Hicks

We strongly endorse Alison Hicks for re-election. With a background in urban planning, Alison is passionate about reimagining public spaces to be joyful places for public life, best exemplified by Castro’s new pedestrian plaza. Alison also has heartfelt commitment to our least-resourced neighbors, being a champion for RV safe parking, COVID-19 rent relief, and the extension of rent stabilization to mobile homes.

A consistent voice for reducing the jobs-housing imbalance in Mountain View, Alison supports transit-oriented development near the Downtown Caltrain station, reducing costly parking requirements, and increasing staff capacity so the city can process housing projects faster. Most impressively, even at council meetings where there’s loud opposition to housing, Alison remains firmly pro-housing because she knows the lack of homes is the root of displacement in our community.

Kamei

We proudly endorse Ellen Kamei for re-election. Ellen has lived in Mountain View most of her life, but also brings the broader perspective that comes with having lived abroad. She also brings in extensive experience from her work in all levels of government.

Ellen supports making it easier to live in Mountain View without a car, as many residents already do. Ellen also supports state legislation that encourages cities to accept more homes, including Mountain View and our neighboring communities that are less housing-friendly.

R3 Zoning Update Process Concerns

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 05 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Concerns on the R3 Zoning Update Process

To Advanced Planning Manager Anderson:

Mountain View YIMBY strongly supports ensuring that R3 zoning is reformed to allow for more homes to be built. However, we would like to share with the Council some concerns about the ongoing process, specifically concerning two items: the structure of the recent workshops and the revised plan presented therein.

The structure of the community workshops failed to honor the city’s statutory responsibility¹ to affirmatively further fair housing. We participated in all six of the recent neighborhood workshops and noted that attendance at these workshops (see Appendix) was not representative of the city. The demographic surveys conducted in the meetings all show renters being a clear minority, despite being a majority in Mountain View. Additionally, while staff did provide Spanish and Chinese translation services, they were little used, indicating a lack of meaningful feedback from these populations. We recommend that the city rectify the deficiency of public input by conducting proactive outreach to tenant and ethnic minority groups.

A biased process has consequences. One key factor driving the R3 Update was concern about the displacement of tenants at properties such as 2310 Rock Street and 1555 W Middlefield Road. Indeed, Mountain View YIMBY believes that restrictions in the current R3 zoning encourage tenant-displacing projects such as these, and that R3 reform is needed to protect tenants. However, this concern was muted at the recent meetings. Instead, running themes of public comment have included undermining the density bonus or complaining about the prohibition of downzoning. These workshops do not seem to be forming the community understanding and consensus that the Council desired.

In the R3 neighborhood workshops, staff states that their 2022 revised plans were a result of community feedback from the 2020 set of workshops. As participants in the 2020 iteration of the update, we observed a mostly pro-housing stance from fellow attendees; council was also broadly supportive of that iteration. We have not seen the kind of feedback that would shift plans so drastically from considering a range of height extensions to merely changing the building design while keeping the three story limit. Staff has mentioned in the recent workshops that there was informal feedback that led them to consider alternatives; if this is the case, then it implies a deprioritization of the formal public comment.

The 2022 version of the R3 update ignores economic feasibility; the city will not meet the goal of “an increase in the quantity and diversity of housing” as stated on the R3 Update website if all desired forms of housing are economically infeasible. The feasibility studies from 2020 point out several limiting factors in R3, particularly height limits and open space requirements. 4-to-5 story minimums were needed for viability of projects not already made unviable by other requirements. The Open Space requirement makes small-lot development unviable, yet the recent set of workshops only obliquely touches upon this with a question on additional heights for public open space. If the end result continues to make development infeasible, none of the time and effort spent on this update will matter, while tenants will continue to be displaced by attrition.

Appendix: Workshop attendee surveys

Notes

Government Code 8899.50(b)(1): “A public agency shall administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” ↩︎

Mountain View YIMBY Endorses Lucas Ramirez for City Council

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View YIMBY is proud to endorse Lucas Ramirez for City Council! Lucas has been a strong advocate for adding more housing in Mountain View, including affordable housing.

He championed the R3 zoning update, so the city could study and solve the problem of missing middle housing not penciling out in the city.

A steadfast and studied advocate for protecting renters, Lucas has supported a local SB 330 ordinance to prevent displacement, rent stabilization of Mountain View’s mobile home parks and even pushed for rolling back the base rents to 2019. He has also supported closing the first three blocks of Castro Street into a pedestrian only zone, which has been very successful.

Lucas has supported virtually every important housing project in Mountain View, covering the full gamut of housing types from supportive housing to unsubsidized housing. Some projects of note include:

777 West Middlefield (716 new homes, 144 offered at below market rates to teachers and city employees)
400 Logue (408 new homes, 62 are affordable units)
555 E Evelyn (471 new homes)
555 West Middlefield project (323 new homes replacing surface parking, 48 are affordable units). This was a contentious project that’s been delayed for over half a decade, as nearby neighbors continuously found new reasons to oppose the project even after the developer addressed previous concerns. Lucas also defended the project by voting against a motion that was meant to delay the project multiple more years.
Two separate HomeKey projects with 148 supportive housing units to pull people out of homelessness
The Gamel Way project builds 121 new homes while keeping all the existing low-income residents housed, demonstrating that re-development without displacement is possible! Here the City’s willingness to work with the developer to find a path forward was crucial to the project’s survival. Lucas helped shape that path. It is another great example of the kind of housing development that Lucas has been supportive of.
The La Avenida affordable housing project, which is the City’s first 2016 County Measure A funded project. (100 affordable homes).
The Montecito Project by Charities Housing is a fully affordable development of 84 total homes, including 21 2-bedroom and 21 3-bedroom apartments. A third of the units will be devoted to permanent supportive housing or “rapid rehousing” for those in emergency need of a place to live.
950 El Camino Real (70 affordable homes, 11 reserved for folks with disabilities)
660 Mariposa Ave (48 naturally affordable homes refurbished and preserved, along with 226 new homes on Villa Street)
Downtown Lot 12, a City-owned parking lot that will be redeveloped with a 5-story, mixed-use building with 120 affordable rental units by Alta Housing. This is the first 2016 County Measure A funded project on City-owned property, and it is also the first SB 35 project on City-owned property! Lucas pushed for not requiring Alta Housing to provide 160 replacement public parking spaces onsite. This would have cost Alta millions of dollars and possibly jeopardized the project entirely.
1255 Pear Ave, a 635-unit project by Sobrato, is the first housing project approved in North Bayshore. While it was approved by the Council in 2018, several additional votes were necessary in 2019 to keep the project alive and moving forward, including critical changes in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance.

We believe that Lucas Ramirez is the best candidate for City Council and we wholeheartedly endorse him! Check out his website, follow him on Twitter, and donate to his campaign.

Site Capacity Addendum

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Executive Summary

The City claims it can accommodate 14,783 units, but a more realistic estimate is 9,941, and the primary drivers of this discrepancy are:

The City’s false assumption that 100% of pending projects will be built out by 2031 when historical data shows a third of pending units fail to be built in eight years.
The City assumes, without evidence, that development rates will double in the El Camino Precise Plan and triple in the East Whisman Precise Plan.

To maintain the commendable 33% No Net Loss buffer that the City Council and Planning Commission approved, the City should rezone for an additional 4,842 units.

Table 1. Site Capacity Analysis Breakdown

		MV Planning Analysis, Draft	MV YIMBY Analysis	Difference
Approved Projects	LI[^1] Units	379	379	0
Approved Projects	All Units	2,272	2,272	0
Pending Projects	LI Units	1,896	1,260	-636
Pending Projects	All Units	6,913	4,595	-2,318
Opportunity Sites[^2]	LI Units	3,240	1,711	-1,529
Opportunity Sites[^2]	All Units	5,502	3,015	-2,487
ADUs	LI Units	48	30	-18
ADUs	All Units	96	59	-37
Total	LI Units	5,563	3,380	-2,183
Total	All Units	14,783	9,941	-4,842

Appendix

Table 1 summarizes our findings for the following three sources of inventory capacity:

Pending projects
Opportunity sites
ADUs

In this appendix, we analyze each category with data and present our findings.

A: Pending Projects Capacity

Table A1. Pending Projects Capacity Analysis Breakdown

	Mountain View Planning Analysis, Draft	MV YIMBY Analysis	Difference
Low Income Units	1,896	1,260	-636
All Units	6,913	4,595	-2,318

Despite the City’s remarkable claim that approved and pending projects alone accommodate 82% of the City’s RHNA, the Draft does not attempt to demonstrate why these units will be built within the planning period. Indeed,** the City effectively assumes that 100% of pending projects will be built within eight years**.

HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook plainly states that, to count pipeline capacity towards a city’s RHNA, the city “must demonstrate” that units in pending projects “can be built within the remaining planning period.”¹ HCD has already enforced this guideline for other cities.²

It is possible that the City failed to provide this required analysis because the City changed its permit tracking system in 2017 and so was unable to easily generate a consistent dataset to analyze historical trends over an eight-year period. Mountain View YIMBY overcame this data challenge by using the Wayback Machine to access the City’s Planning Division Update for June 2014.³ This document lists in-progress development projects ranging from a 2-unit single family lot-division project to block-scale apartment complexes. In other words, it provides a snapshot of the pipeline as it existed eight years ago.

To estimate how many pre-planning-approval pipeline units will be built by 2030, Mountain View YIMBY analyzed how many pre-planning-approval pipeline units from June 2014 have been constructed as of June 2022. This provides us with the most recent data possible to analyze the eight-year throughput of the City’s pipeline. We find that 66% of such units are built within eight years. The remainder were delayed, denied, or abandoned. We also find a correlation coefficient of -0.15 between the size of the project and whether the project was built, which notably implies that large projects are somewhat less likely to be built on time, if at all. Using the historical discount factor of 34% for pending projects,⁴** the pending projects capacity is overstated by 2,318 units, of which 636 are low income units. **

Mountain View YIMBY’s methodology is generous to the City. We have not:

discounted the pipeline capacity by the probability that approved projects with planning permits will not get built within eight years.⁵
adjusted for large projects’ lower completion rate.
excluded projects asserted to be pipeline projects in the Housing Element Draft that are not listed in the City’s June 2022 Planning Division Update.⁶ We anticipate that the City will assert there are site-specific reasons to believe that history is not informative for the current pipeline. HCD should err against such assertions given that this analysis was not available prior to the comment period.

A Note on the North Bayshore Master Plan

The largest component of the pipeline, accounting for 3,365 units, is the North Bayshore Master Plan, which is woefully under-analyzed in the current draft.

In addition to ignoring HCD’s guidance that jurisdictions must justify assumptions about the extent to which pending projects like the North Bayshore Master Plan will be built within RHNA6, the City’s draft also ignores HCD’s guidance that to claim residential capacity for Specific Plans or Master Plans, the City should describe “necessary approvals or steps for entitlements for new development (e.g. design review, site plan review, etc.). Describe any development agreements, and conditions or requirements such as phasing or timing requirements, that impact development in the planning period.”⁷ Indeed, it would be difficult for the City to complete this analysis because the City has not publicly disclosed or voted on the Development Agreement (DA) for North Bayshore.

The City neglected to disclose and analyze potential roadblocks to development at North Bayshore such as:

whether and on what terms the City will approve a DA for North Bayshore.
whether the City will reject construction of a parking structure at City-owned Lot C, which is needed to serve Google’s office development. Because of the financial logistics of this master plan, blocking the office development will block the residential development, and blocking the parking structure could block the office development. This issue is especially challenging, as the City received a letter of intent from the non-profit Grapevine Development to build 100% BMR housing at Lot C, pursuant to the Surplus Land Act, which may incline the City to disapprove parking at Lot C.⁸
whether the project will exceed the City-imposed vehicle trip cap, which has been made more likely after the City canceled a contract for a reversible bus route to Shoreline. Exceeding the trip cap would halt office building permits, which would again hold up the residential component of the project.
whether the City will make the project infeasible during any discretionary check-in hearings that the City Council has asked to be added to the DA.⁹
whether the Mountain View Whisman School District, at any point in the next eight years, taxes these units into financial infeasibility, as the school district has already studied doing with a Mello-Roos style tax.¹⁰
whether broader market conditions (such as rising interest rates, the decline of the office real estate market, or inflation) reduce the financial feasibility of the project.
whether any foreseeable delays occur as the developer decants office space, including non-standard spaces like labs that require additional care to decant.

This is an extremely complicated master plan with many moving parts, from transportation infrastructure to office to housing components that could all pose a delay. The City should have disclosed and analyzed these roadblocks, and committed to additional measures to remove these obstacles from blocking development in North Bayshore.¹¹ As Table 53 indicates, North Bayshore’s land dedications will occur, absent delays, in 2026 and 2029, and construction will take up to two additional years after that. For these units to count towards RHNA6, there is zero room for delay.¹²

A Note on Land Donations

HCD has the discretion to evaluate whether future land dedications constitute pending projects. The City’s implicit view is that an affordable housing project can be pending even when no developer exists, no RFP has been issued, and the land may not be donated until 2029, as with Phase 2 of North Bayshore’s land dedication. We submit that these are not pending affordable housing projects; these are opportunity sites.¹³

B: Opportunity Sites

Table B1. Opportunity Site Capacity Analysis Breakdown

	Mountain View Planning Analysis, Draft	MV YIMBY Analysis	Difference
Low Income Units	3,240	1,711	-1,529
All Units	5,502	3,015	-2,487

Table B2. Historical Record vs City’s RHNA6 Assumptions, Broken Down by Precise Plan.

	Projects per Year (Historical)	Projects per Year (City Claims for RHNA6)	Increase
East Whisman	0.67	1.88	181%
El Camino	3.13	6.88	120%
North Bayshore	0.40	0.75	88%
San Antonio	0.88	1.13	29%

Table B3. Opportunity Sites (No Rezoning), by Precise Plan.¹⁴

		MV Planning Analysis, Draft	MV YIMBY Analysis	Difference
Downtown	LI Units	0	0	0
Downtown	All Units	6	6	0
East Whisman	LI Units	997	354	-643
East Whisman	All Units	1,312	466	-846
El Camino	LI Units	1,283	583	-700
El Camino	All Units	2,530	1150	-1,380
North Bayshore	LI Units	313	167	-146
North Bayshore	All Units	405	216	-189
San Antonio	LI Units	182	142	-40
San Antonio	All Units	325	253	-72
Not in Precise Plan	LI Units	0	0	0
Not in Precise Plan	All Units	120	120	0
Total	LI Units	2,775	1,246	-1,529
Total	All Units	4,698	2,211	-2,487

To construct Table B2, Mountain View YIMBY used HCD’s dataset on building activity sourced from APRs, dated 2018 or later.¹⁵ To include pre-2018 data, Mountain View YIMBY combined HCD’s dataset with MTC’s dataset on Mountain View permits approved from 2014 to 2017.¹⁶

While valuable, pre-2018 data will overestimate the viability of housing in these precise plans, as pre-2018 projects predate the Palmer Fix, after which Mountain View added a costly 15% inclusionary requirement for rental housing. Mountain View then extended the Palmer Fix to ownership housing. Because pre-Palmer Fix projects had much more modest fees, pre-2018 data will yield site capacity estimates that are generous to the City. Nowadays, housing is less financially viable, as the City’s own economic analysis in Appendix H indicates that inclusionary requirements are the biggest constraint to housing.

Compared to data from 2014 to 2021, we find that, in effect, the City assumes that housing accommodated across four major precise plans will, on average, double.

This is an obvious byproduct of the fact that the City does not provide substantial evidence that existing uses pose no impediment to residential development. And the site inventory is full of existing uses that undermine the City’s claim that these are underutilized sites.

The City must provide substantial evidence that existing uses pose no impediment to development of inventory sites within eight years. The City argues that AB 1397 does not require this analysis of the City because non-vacant ‘developable sites’ and non-vacant ‘rezone opportunity sites’ only accommodate 47% of the City’s lower income allocation. There are two problems with this claim.

First, the City inexplicably ignores that non-vacant pipeline sites are non-vacant sites. Because the pipeline contains few vacant sites, the City accommodates the vast majority of low-income units on non-vacant sites, whether they be non-vacant pipeline sites or non-vacant opportunity sites. This thus triggers AB 1397’s requirement that, if nonvacant sites accommodate the majority of the City’s lower income allocation, the City “shall demonstrate that the existing use” of sites do “not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element.”¹⁷

Second, we can turn to the City’s formula in Table 45 for calculating the “Total Capacity (not related to non-vacant sites).” To repeat the point in the above paragraph, we take issue with this formula because it fails to count non-vacant pipeline sites as non-vacant sites. Even still, given Mountain View YIMBY’s analysis of pending projects, this formula implies the City accommodates 61% of low income units on non-vacant sites.¹⁸ Thus, even on the City’s questionable reading of AB 1397, the City would still have to provide substantial evidence that existing uses pose no impediment to development on non-vacant sites.

Such a case would be hard to make. The inventory as of March contained over a hundred businesses and offices, and the City presents no evidence that these businesses will be discontinued by 2031.¹⁹²⁰ This task is made all the more difficult by the fact that the City continues to include sites with landowners known to be uninterested in development, including 384 San Antonio, 2633 California, and 1288 El Camino Real. In February 2022, an experienced residential developer, Mircea Voskerician, reached out to landowners of several inventory sites about their interest in residential development, and he found landowners were uninterested in housing at the aforementioned locations. In a March letter to the City Council, Mountain View YIMBY relayed this information regarding 384 San Antonio and 2633 California, only for the City to ignore the public comment.²¹

On a precise plan by precise plan basis, Mountain View YIMBY adjusted the City’s capacity claims to account for the actual development trends in these precise plans, and we find the City has overestimated how much housing these four precise plans can accommodate by 2,487 units, of which 1,529 units are low income. These findings are included in Table B3, which generates our bottom line summary presented in Table B1.

Recycled Sites

On page 215, the City notes that seven “prior Housing Element sites” have been “rezoned since the 5th cycle, which allow them to be included in the 6th cycle inventory as new sites.” The City fails to mention that these sites were rezoned concurrently with the adoption of the housing element for RHNA5, _nearly eight years ago. _None of these sites have accommodated housing in that time, and the City presents no case for projecting a different outcome during this planning period. Together, the City asserts these seven sites accommodate 530 units of housing, of which 333 are low income.

C: ADUs

Table C1. ADU Capacity Analysis Breakdown

	Mountain View Planning Analysis, Draft	MV YIMBY Analysis	Difference
Low Income Units	48	30	-18
All Units	96	59	-37

Here is the City’s own data for ADU construction in previous years:

Forward-looking calculations of the number of ADUs to be constructed must be

“based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior … planning period” and “other relevant factors.” (Gov’t Code § 65583.1(a).)

Despite this, the City bases its ADU estimates on 2020’s numbers alone. The City says this 2020 rate will continue to be achieved by “expanding policies and programs”, but it’s unclear which policy or program is being referred to. No clear evidence is given to support the claim that 2020 will be the norm going forward rather than 2019.

We believe the City should use HCD’s safe harbor estimate of taking the average of data available starting in January 2018, which implies an average of 7.3 ADUs are constructed per year.²²

Notes

LI is an acronym for ‘lower income.’

We use ‘opportunity sites’ to denote ‘Developable Sites’ and ‘Rezone Opportunity Sites’ listed in Table 40.

Page 6 of HCD’s guidebook on the site inventory: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf ↩︎
See HCD’s response letter to Culver City, dated April 21, 2022, requiring “supporting evidence” for the city’s conclusory assertion that “all [approved and pending] projects are expected to be permitted in the eight-year planning period.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/lanculvercityadoptedout042122.pdf ↩︎
https://web.archive.org/web/20140709150825/http://mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13170 ↩︎
For this analysis, we assume that approved projects are projects where planning permits are approved, and pending projects are projects where planning permits are not approved. The Draft’s statement that ‘Approved Projects are those where an application has been approved’ (page 259) does not specify whether an “application” is for a building permit or a planning permit. However, Table 47’s list of approved projects includes projects where no building permit has been issued, e.g. Lot 12. Thus, we assume approved projects are those where planning permits are approved, and all pending projects are pre-planning-approval. ↩︎
Consider, for instance, 415 E. Middlefield. This project is among the largest proposed in the East Whisman Precise Plan, but the project was made financially infeasible and so was abandoned after being permitted. ↩︎
Our assumption is that these excluded projects are, at best, being informally discussed with the City (and therefore more speculative) than projects contained in the June 2014 or June 2022 Planning Division Updates. The excluded projects are 1991 W El Camino Real and 615-749 W El Camino Real, and together they account for 353 units. See the June 2022 Planning Division Update here: https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=37910 ↩︎
See page 18 of HCD’s guidebook on the site inventory: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf ↩︎
See page 11 of: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=AO&ID=119731&GUID=dfdce090-faf2-48bc-8519-08c254ef261d&N=Q291bmNpbCBRdWVzdGlvbnM%3d ↩︎
Specifically, last December, City Council asked staff to “explore options to incorporate updates to project requirements in the Master Plan through the timeline of the Development Agreement” (page 7). The meeting minutes are available here: https://mountainview.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=817172&GUID=68CE128A-0D73-44ED-9531-6A85B7AF71F8&Options=&Search= ↩︎
See Mountain View Voice’s March 2022 article entitled, “School district considers tax measure that city fears could jeopardize housing growth.” https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/03/09/school-district-considers-tax-measure-that-city-fears-could-jeopardize-housing-growth ↩︎
The same can be said for the Middlefield Park Master Plan, which requires similar discretionary actions from City Council. If the City prefers to keep its options open on delaying, adding costs to, or blocking housing in Middlefield Park, the City should not portray Middlefield Park as a done deal to HCD. Or if it is a done deal, then discretion is moot and should be jettisoned. ↩︎
Indeed, the current schedule of actions is likely insufficient, as it is. While a sort of perfunctory schedule is sketched out in Table 53, the analysis should be more extensive given the extent to which the City relies on these projects to accommodate its RHNA. Additionally, the timelines extend quite far into RHNA6. See HCD’s April 12, 2022 letter to Bell, in which HCD encourages the City to reach out to developers within 2 years of adopting the housing element. See HCD’s September 3, 2021 letter to Chino Hills, in which HCD requires “a schedule of actions (e.g., zoning, requests for proposals, developer selection, expedited permit processing and funding).” HCD’s April 12, 2022 letter to Pomona is substantially similar. ↩︎
Again, we use ‘opportunity site’ differently from how the City uses it in the draft sent to HCD. As we use the term, and as the City itself used the term in the draft published for the public comment period, pending projects are not opportunity sites. ↩︎
Compare with Table 55 of the Draft. ↩︎
See the downloadable excel spreadsheet labeled ‘Table A2 (Annual Building Activity Report Summary – New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units)’. https://hcd.ca.gov/apr-data-dashboard-and-downloads ↩︎
See ABAG + MTC’s dataset here: http://housing.abag.ca.gov/#permits ↩︎
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1397&version=20170AB139791CHP ↩︎
We show our work in this footnote. Given the City inflates the capacity of pending projects by 636 low income units, the figure labeled “Total Capacity (not related to non-vacant sites)” should be 2,323 - 636 = 1,687. Thus, the figure “RHNA on Non-vacant Sites” should be 4,370 - 1,635 = 2,683 low income units, meaning that 61% of low income units are accommodated on non-pipeline, non-vacant sites. ↩︎
Mountain View YIMBY manually counted all existing offices and businesses because the City did not disclose the number of businesses with potentially distinct leases per parcel. Due to the tediousness of tabulating this count, we did not update this number for the July release. We encourage the City to measure this metric themselves. Some parcels in the inventory include over a dozen businesses, and this is useful information for the City to consider if the City intends to argue this poses no impediment to accommodating housing. ↩︎
Some of these parcels are seeing active refurbishment of the existing use, as with the Lozano Car Wash on 2690 W. El Camino. ↩︎
See this public comment letter from March on page 6: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=AO&ID=115391&GUID=cfb7c739-4b47-4253-a679-c87c85bb75ce&N=SXRlbSA2LjEgQ29ycmVzcG9uZGVuY2UgQmF0Y2ggMy5wZGY%3d ↩︎
See page 31 of HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf ↩︎

Regarding Mountain View Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Executive Summary

Community outreach, while performed, did not shape the writing of the draft and failed to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).
The city does not make AFFH a focal component of its site inventory. We find glaring omissions of analysis with respect to school segregation and environmental justice, and the few gestures towards AFFH in the site inventory are insufficient to overcome patterns of segregation.
The city seeks to justify rather than address governmental constraints to housing production. We estimate costs imposed by city regulations add 26.4% to the development cost of a typical 800sqft unit. Furthermore, **typical apartment projects will remain infeasible unless development costs are reduced by over two hundred thousand dollars per door. **The draft insufficiently analyzes the following contributing constraints: \
1. BMR in-lieu fees (9% of per unit cost)
2. Park in-lieu fees (6-8.5% of per unit cost)
3. Parking minima (8.4% of per unit cost)
4. Permitting delays (3-6% of per unit cost)
5. Staff Capacity
6. Development guidelines

Only some of the above constraints are acknowledged as constraints by the current draft.¹ Furthermore we have arrived at somewhat different levels of impact than the city’s analysis.

Appendix 1. Community Outreach Appendix

The core purpose of the housing element outreach is that the full community, especially those who are represented from populations that have been historically excluded and are at risk of displacement, are able to share their housing needs. Although the city has done a great job in terms of promoting the housing element outreach and making staff available, there is no connection between that outreach and to the housing needs, constraints and solutions in this draft. The city must demonstrate how the input from these stakeholder meetings and public meetings shaped the housing element draft, particularly to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). These meetings must be meaningful and frequent throughout the entire housing element process and source the housing needs and possible solutions from the targeted groups². “This process is intended to demonstrate willingness to consider and incorporate stakeholder input. The public participation process should not be used to “rubber stamp” a predetermined objective or policy.”³

The Housing Element draft does not provide a summary of public comments and explain how the comments were considered and incorporated, including comments that were not incorporated. The draft Housing Element lists only a summary of comments received at the Virtual Community Workshop held on September 23, 2021 and through the Community Feedback Form. Neither of these are sufficient to address the process requirements laid out in the law or the HCD guidance document, let alone meet the higher standard required for AFFH outreach.

Subsequently, many of the policies and programs are incomplete not only in their lack of definition, explanation and timeline, but also are missing in recommendations suggested by impacted communities. We would particularly like to refer to program 2.5: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing as an example of a program that has no clearly defined actions or deadlines to reach its stated goal.

Appendix 2. AFFH

Spatial Segregation in Mountain View

Mountain View’s current built environment still features substantial spatial segregation along racial and economic lines. The most extreme examples of this are made obvious by the racial diversity of our elementary schools, wherein Amy Imai Elementary, located in the Southeastern portion of the city, has a 7.3% Hispanic/Latino enrollment; but Mariano Castro Elementary has an 87.9% Hispanic/Latino enrollment in the central/western portion of the city (see Figure 67 in the Housing Element Draft). This is reflective of a long history of land-use choices that have led to multi-family housing—which allows for greater natural affordability than isolated single-family houses—being concentrated into particular neighborhoods and along a narrow corridor beside El Camino Real⁴. Unfortunately, the current site inventory largely perpetuates the land-use patterns that have led to our current levels of internal segregation.

Consistent with HCD guidance,⁵ the city should adopt clear metrics for tracking our progress towards improved integration and to commit to specific land-use policy changes in the upcoming Housing Element cycle to improve local integration and reduce spatial disparities associated with housing affordability. While the specific metrics would require some effort to pin down precisely, we would consider the below a reasonable starting point:

Racial disparities between local schools.
Median effective housing cost by census tract (with appropriate conversions for comparing the costs of renting vs. homeownership).
Percentage of renters vs. homeowners by census tract.
Clustering⁶ of multi-family residential zones within census tracts.
Tracking rate of site inventory development by median income of the neighborhood/census tract, to ensure that changes to land-use regulations are actually being reflected in new housing developments.

And while exact policies to address these issues can vary, we urge the city to adopt concrete proposals to encourage future developments that improve the integration of our city.

Detailed Discussion on Spatial Segregation in Mountain View

This section goes into some more detail on the points discussed in the previous section, with some extra supporting references and copies of some of the key maps and charts from the Housing Element draft.

Firstly, referencing racial disparities in local Elementary Schools, the following is the current Elementary School boundaries (note that Huff has since been renamed to Amy Imai), from Figure 66 in the Housing Element Draft:

And the below diagram provides data and the racial makeup of each school’s enrollment:

For additional reference, consider Figure 37 of the draft Housing Element showing the distribution of Hispanic/Latino population within Mountain View:

When compared to the HCD Opportunity Map (Figure 64 from the report), we can see that Mariano Castro’s catchment corresponds with the one “Moderate Resource” area in Mountain View, while Amy Imai Elementary corresponds almost entirely with “Highest Resource” areas, with Bubb (the second lowest Hispanic/Latino enrollment school with a regular geographic area—note that Stevenson is a “choice school”) consisting entirely of “Highest Resource” tracts:

If we compare this to Mountain View’s current Zoning Map, we see how large tracts of Mountain View, particularly south of El Camino Real, still forbid multi-family residential developments. Of particular note is that Mountain View High School—the only public high school in the city⁷—is in the far Southeastern corner of the city, meaning that one of the highest resource, least affordable areas of the city is also the area of the city whose children have the safest and easiest access to the High School.

The main exception to this rule is the area in the immediate vicinity of El Camino Real (which is also likely the main reason Bubb & Amy Imai do not have even more extreme enrollment disparities). This forces people looking for housing at price-points below that of a multi-million dollar single family home into living immediately adjacent to one of the busiest traffic⁸ corridors in the city, with high levels of air pollution⁹, noise pollution¹⁰, and immediately along one of our highest injury corridors in the city¹¹.

If we review the draft site inventory (Figure 87 from the draft Housing element), we see that it largely perpetuates these issues, leaving most of the southern portions of Mountain View unchanged, and outside the key pipeline projects in the North Bayshore and East Whisman areas (both of which have very little housing currently, beyond a mobile home park in North Bayshore), much of the site inventory is focused along parcels immediately along El Camino Real:

There are three main exceptions to this—the two village center sites south of El Camino, and the Cuesta Annex. While developing these would represent some movement in the right direction, focusing overly much on a couple of large sites still maintains the large neighborhoods of extremely unaffordable (and, by extension, exclusionary) housing. It should also be noted that attempts to use the Cuesta Annex site for a flood basin in the past met with intense local opposition and an attempt to build teacher housing at Cooper Park in the catchment area for Amy Imai Elementary met with such strong local opposition that the Mountain View City Council at the time chose to instead aim to build the housing as part of a larger project in a less-affluent and more diverse part of the city¹². It is likely that any planned developments in these areas will meet with local opposition, and the city will need to have a plan to deal with it. This is why we propose tracking whether sites in more-affluent areas are being developed at a lower rate than those in the rest of the city.

The other key area of Mountain View where existing land-use restrictions needlessly reduce availability of multi-family housing are some of the neighborhoods around downtown. For reference, zooming in on the zoning map from earlier:

This is arguably the highest amenity part of Mountain View, with the downtown transit center at the north end of Castro St, El Camino Real with Mountain View’s only frequent bus lines, and the entirety of the downtown area with its variety of restaurants, offices, and sundry retail. However, most of the land nearest downtown outside of the precise plan area itself (in gray), is currently zoned R1. While this is a less blatant example of spatial segregation than the neighborhoods south of El Camino Real (because the areas of R1 zoning are not quite so large), this still creates a bizarre situation where much of the densest and most affordable housing in the city (towards the top-left of that map, along California St) is actually farther from key amenities than lower-density housing, which unnecessarily increases the travel time for commutes, errands, and leisure trips for people who cannot afford a single-family home. Currently, none of the R1 areas between El Camino Real and Central Expressway in that view are planned for any additional housing as part of the site inventory.

Appendix 3. Constraints

In this section we detail the various constraints to housing production in Mountain View based on the city’s own Draft Housing Element Appendix H and the 2019 East Whisman Precise Plan housing development feasibility analysis by Seifel¹³. We provide an overview graph followed by an explanation of the impact of each constraint.

The following graph shows that the overall cost of developing a unit of housing is currently $220,000 more expensive than the Supportable Cost, the threshold for economic feasibility.

Methodology

Seifel calculated the Market Value of an average 800 sqft residential unit to be $750k and the Supportable Cost to be $574k based on an assumption of city-wide $4k monthly rent, 4.25% capitalization rate and 5.25% yield on cost.
Seifel approximated construction costs of such a unit with 1.025 parking spaces to be $400k. Assuming a $60k / parking spot construction cost, this suggests the unit itself costs $338,500 to build. This allows us to separately highlight the relative impact of city-wide parking requirements.
Seifel approximates an additional $100k of soft costs mainly related to financial payments during the permitting process.
Seifel approximates a $100k per unit land cost given the EWPP allowed densities. This will be higher in other parts of the city where the allowed density is lower and can be lower for any project with higher allowed density.
Seifel had originally approximated city fees to total $100k. We have re-calculated this amount based on the values provided in Draft Housing Element Appendix H Exhibit 2 to be $183,081. This total does not include the following rows:
- Schools - Additional annual assessments or taxes (only applied to North Bayshore Precise Plan area, and only if the School District successfully gets their Mello Roos tax passed by voters)
- Development Requirements - Increased Parking Requirements (increase of .4 spaces per unit) which we are separately calculating at a 1.2 spaces / unit rate.
- Development Requirements - Extended Development Schedule Increased development costs due to delays in City approval. We assume Seifel’s “Soft Costs” analysis already approximates and includes this impact.

Below Market Rate (BMR) in-lieu fees The On-Site Inclusionary Housing Requirements and BMR in-lieu Fee is approximately 9% of the total development cost for multifamily units (Appendix H, Draft Housing Element). This requirement and the corresponding fee is the city’s main avenue for providing Affordable Housing (AH) and meeting our BMR RHNA allocation. As such, the city should ensure that on-site Inclusionary Housing Requirements and BMR in-lieu fees are set such that they result in the maximum total Affordable Housing units built. A high fee discouraging market-rate development can lead to fewer total AH units than a lower fee. Put simply, if the BMR requirement causes zero market-rate units to be built, then the city will get zero overall BMR units as well.

The draft housing element discounted the possibility that the BMR in-lieu fee could pose a constraint on housing because the goal of producing BMR units is a worthy goal. The goal is indeed worthy, but we challenge the draft’s unfounded assumption that imposing, in the draft’s words, a ‘Major’ ‘Constraint Based on Cost Evaluation’ for market rate units actually does maximize the number of below market rate units built.¹⁴ The city should study readjusting this in-lieu fee and/or on-site inclusionary requirement so that the city can maximize the number of below market rate units built citywide.

Park in-lieu fees The Park Land Dedication (PLD) requirement is the most expensive city-imposed impact fee at about 6-8.5% of the total development cost for multifamily units (Appendix H, Draft Housing Element). The fee is based on the fair market rate for a plot of land for a similarly dense project (Municipal Code 41.41.8) rather than the fair market rate of the surrounding area or of the average parcel in the city, which sets the fee higher than what is necessary for the city to purchase land for a park. As this value is used with no other modifications, the Park Land Dedication in-lieu fees are much higher than neighboring jurisdictions (see table below). While there is an exemption tfor 100% affordable housing projects but not on density-bonus units, this per-unit fee in general drives up costs of every other project, heavily impacting the feasibility of producing housing for persons of low and moderate income under the Least Cost Zoning Law.

The program proposed to address this fee (1.10) incorporates existing council direction from 2019 to review 3 portions of the Park Land Dedication: what parks the fee can pay for, what the land dedication per 1000 residents should be, and revisiting what the categories of the fees are (2021 Staff Report on PLD changes). The first has no impact on the value of the fee, and the second is likely going to raise the cost of the fee since the city is already at the minimum 3 acres/1000 resident target to allow the Quimby Act to be used (2019 Staff Report). The third may reduce fees depending on how the new categorization and recalculation of person per unit (or per bedroom as staff proposed) goes, but it is currently unclear to what magnitude. The most recent update (May 10, 2022) of the Park and Recreation Strategic Plan that directs the PLD revisions makes no mention of the PLD’s impact on development.

For Multifamily	Per Unit Fee	Per Land Sq Ft Fee
Mountain View	$57,000-73,200 (Scenario 1: Most Projects)	$120-280 (By Density)
San Jose	$8,000-41,600	$26-136 (By Location)
Santa Clara		$110-137 (By Location)
Palo Alto	$47,892.56
Sunnyvale		$160
Los Altos	$48,800

Additionally, the city assumes the entire Park Land Dedication requirement is within the Quimby Act (City MFA Annual Report), but the Mitigation Fee Act should apply to the section imposing the requirement on single-lot projects that do not undergo subdivision.

Parking minima The parking cost impact cited in Draft Housing Element Appendix H Exhibit 2 is for a 0.4 space / unit adjustment. Most of the city is subject to a 2 space / unit parking mandate, which would imply that the existing parking requirements represent 9-14% of per unit development costs, surpassing the biggest “Major” impact constraint which are BMR in-lieu fees. The requirement for multifamily projects is closer to 1.2 spaces / unit which is still over 8% of per unit costs.
Permitting delays Some highlights from our prior letter to the city regarding Governmental Constraints to housing production:

Compared to the previous Housing Element, processing times have doubled for many types of projects¹⁵^,¹⁶. This is a particular problem for Precise Plan areas. Despite the great effort already expended in developing the Precise Plans, developments in these areas take just as long to review as equivalent developments outside of Precise Plans¹⁷.

Lack of by-right capacity in the city’s zoning means many projects need to apply for a zone change or General Plan amendment (GPA). These projects also need to do an Environmental Impact Report EIR which can take up to 24 months.¹⁸

Despite typical processing times of 12-24 months¹⁹, the city’s analysis of governmental constraints only considers “Schedule extended by 4 months” which it deduces to be an impact equivalent to 1% of total development cost²⁰. A more accurate impact assessment is an impact of 3-6% of total development costs which is “Moderate to Major” impact by the city’s own definition.

Program 4.1 c) “Acquire tools and software that will improve development review, monitoring of housing supply, management of funding, and other processes involved in housing development for staff and public use.” is the only proposed program relating to this constraint, and we believe it will not be sufficient as there’s no new software the city can adopt to reduce the 12-24 month EIR requirement for GPA projects or make the “discretionary” aspect of EWPP and NBSPP projects unnecessary. These issues need to be addressed at the zoning level.

Staff capacity Overall, lack of financially feasible by-right capacity in the city’s zoning makes the city staff capacity a bottleneck to housing production in Mountain View. This, and the “Permitting Delays” from earlier are very closely related.

Exhibit 1 Use of the city’s Bonus FAR program is a necessity by design in key Precise Plan areas due to purposely low base FAR²¹. This means a lengthy discretionary process with more staff involvement than a by-right process or one that doesn’t involve a discretionary “community benefit” criterion.

Exhibit 2 If a project requires a zone change or General Plan amendment, the City Council first considers a “gatekeeper” request which is a lengthy process. Due to Mountain View’s current zoning, very few by-right zoning compliant multifamily projects produce enough economic incentive for developers. As such, projects tend to opt for a “gatekeeper” process. Unfortunately the city is not considering any new “gatekeeper” projects due to lack of staff capacity until 2024.

The draft does not clearly call out this bottleneck as a constraint to housing development. There is no analysis of the expected number of units produced per hour of staff’s time or the overall capacity of the current staffing. That means there’s no comparison of “hours it takes to approve applications needed to satisfy the city’s RHNA allocation” versus “what the city has capacity to approve”. Program 4.1 c) “Acquire tools and software that will improve development review, monitoring of housing supply, management of funding, and other processes involved in housing development for staff and public use.” is the only proposed program relating to this constraint, and we believe it will not be sufficient.

Furthermore, as we described in our prior letter, staffing levels are exceptionally low, creating a taxing workload for staff.²² In addition to being a constraint to development, low staff levels also prevent the city from taking on programs to AFFH, as was evident in the March 8, 2022 city council study session where city staff cautioned the city council that adding programs to the housing element would cause other city priorities to be deprioritized due to staff bandwidth issues.

Development guidelines As the Draft correctly recognizes, State law requires the City to evaluate “[u]nderutilized sites that are… capable of being developed at a higher density.”²³

Accordingly in the fifth cycle, the City had a program to “[m]onitor the supply of underutilized sites … to ensure opportunities are available” for “a variety of housing types.”²⁴ This program, which the City calls “[o]ngoing” (ibid.), purportedly includes “reviewing the R3 (Multifamily Residential) zoning standards.” (Ibid.)

In 2020, the City Council commissioned an Opticos study on “constraints for producing new stacked-flat multi-family housing in the R3 Zone.” (Alkire & Shrivastava, R3 Zoning District Update, p. 2.) On October 13 of that year, Opticos presented five key findings to the Council:²⁵

Allowed Density too low
Allowed Height too low
Setbacks, Lot Coverage, and FAR Limit Development
Parking Requirements are too high
Open Space requirement too high

(Opticos, Key Findings and Observations, pp. 7-11.) These constraints “limit the feasibility of new development” (Alkire & Shrivastava, supra, at p. 7), requiring a new approach to multifamily design restrictions in Mountain View.

So far, Mountain View has ignored Opticos’s findings. The Draft claims that “[t]he City is currently updating the R3 zoning district development standards to … incentivize stacked-flat development” (Draft, p. 177), but fails to commit to any specific reform. Worse, the City may abandon its “underutilized sites” program entirely. (Compare _id. _at p. 30 with id. at pp. 14-25.) In its new programs, the most the city commits to do is “[u]pdate” zoning “as needed” and address other constraints “as necessary” by “[c]omplet[ing] a review of development standards” that “could” include “open area, parking … and other standards” that “may” constrain development. (Id. at p. 14.) As just shown, the city _has _reviewed its development standards and _knows _what constrains development. The draft should commit to removing these constraints.

G. AFFH Implications

The fees we impose on new development of multifamily residential are wildly inequitable. As we’ve already shown, vulnerable populations in Mountain View overwhelmingly live in the highest density residential units available. Mountain View’s public fees are structured to target these exact types of developments, driving up the cost of their construction, and thereby raising the rents the eventual residents will pay. These fees then go back to the city to support amenities that are enjoyed by homeowners in R1 zones who are exempt from many of these fees.

Furthermore, we will not be able to accommodate multifamily housing in high opportunity areas if it remains economically infeasible to build multifamily housing. Thus, the city’s ability to resolve the economic infeasibility of multifamily housing acts as a side-constraint to the city’s ability to undo patterns of socioeconomic segregation in the city.

Currently, the city addresses this economic feasibility gap with office-housing linkages and bonus office FAR for multifamily projects in certain precise plans. In effect, new office development subsidizes the cost of building housing in East Whisman, as was described in Mountain View Voice’s 2022 article entitled “Mountain View approves fees on housing already considered too costly to build.”²⁶ The same is true for the North Bayshore Master Plan, which the housing element draft fails to note is primarily an office development project from Google’s economic point of view. Without the office, there is no housing.

Because housing is infeasible to build without office development to subsidize it, the result of this decades-long strategy is that the city’s jobs-housing imbalance continues to grow, with additional displacement pressures for renters.²⁷ This is not just a local AFFH issue, but a regional one, as our jobs-housing imbalance creates supercommuters and displacement pressures in other Santa Clara County communities. To resolve this issue, the city should make housing feasible to build without needing to rely on office construction.

Footnotes

We appreciate the city’s willingness to acknowledge outside of the draft that these regulations are all constraints to some degree, but this language should be included in the draft. ↩︎
As required in 24 CFR § 5.158, Community Participation means a solicitation of views and recommendations from members of the community and other interested parties, a consideration of the views and recommendations received, and a process for incorporating such views and recommendations into decisions and outcomes. To address these requirements, the housing element must describe meaningful, frequent, and ongoing public participation with key stakeholders. ↩︎
Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(9), (c)(10)(A)(i), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c); see also AFFH Final Rule and Commentary (AFFH Rule), 80 Fed. Reg. 42271, 42353-42360 (esp. 42354-42356), 42363-42364 (July 16, 2015). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2016-title24-vol1/CFR-2016-title24-vol1-sec5-158 ↩︎
See, e.g. Table 28 of the draft Housing Element, showing that homeownership rates in the local Hispanic/Latino population at 20.5%, with city-wide homeownership rates at 41.6%. ↩︎
See the HCD guidance, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf ↩︎
There are multiple ways clustering could be measured. This is intended as a measure to prevent focusing multi-family developments along highways/other corridors that may experience disproportionate air/noise pollution. ↩︎
Mountain View is part of the Mountain View-Los Altos High School district. Many students in Mountain View attend Los Altos High School instead, which has similar issues with regards to its nearby land-use patterns. ↩︎
Note that some of the concerns about housing near roadways—particularly noise pollution—do also apply to the areas around the Caltrain line. However, there are in-progress efforts to electrify Caltrain (removing diesel pollution from the main rail line), as well as to grade-separate the rail crossings (reducing noise pollution from horn usage). There are no comparable efforts underway to reduce air or noise pollution from major arterials to the same degree, beyond long-term goals of increased fleet electrification (which will address some air pollution concerns, but will not fully address particulate emissions from tire degradation, brake dust, or roadway wear). ↩︎
As has been the topic of discussion at multiple recent hearings related to individual housing projects, there are significant increases in air pollution in the few hundred feet nearest major roadways. See, e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK361807/ for some discussion. ↩︎
See this convenient map of transportation-related noise pollution from the US DOT: https://maps.dot.gov/BTS/NationalTransportationNoiseMap/ ↩︎
See Figure 1, from http://mountainview.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=6ef488ce-9bfa-49dd-bd8b-ad6bda80068b.pdf for a map of Mountain View’s high-injury network. ↩︎
“Council greenlights 716 apartments, teacher housing”, Mountain View Voice, October 24, 2018 https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/10/24/council-greenlights-716-apartments-teacher-housing ↩︎
ATT 7 - Resolution - Community Benefits.pdf - Seifel Consulting Inc Memorandum ↩︎
See Exhibit 2 entitled “Summary Financial Evaluation of Governmental Constraints Based on Cost Impact Per Housing Unit Mountain View Housing Element Governmental Constraints Analysis” in the final appendix of the draft housing element. ↩︎
City of Mountain View, 2015-2023 Housing Element, Tables 6-3 and 6-4 ↩︎
Draft, Table 36 ↩︎
ibid. ↩︎
Draft, p192 ↩︎
Draft, Table 36 ↩︎
Draft, Appendix H, Exhibit 2 ↩︎
Draft, Table 35. Base residential FAR is only 1.0 in the North Bayshore and East Whisman PP areas, and 1.35 in the El Camino Real and San Antonio PP. ↩︎
https://mvyimby.com/post/2022-06-10-housing-constraints-council/ ↩︎
See page 213 of the draft housing element. ↩︎
See page 30 of the draft housing element. ↩︎
R3 Zoning District Update - Study Session Documents, ATT 2 - R3 Key Findings and Observations ↩︎
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/05/25/mountain-view-approves-fees-on-housing-already-considered-too-costly-to-build ↩︎
See page 53 of the draft housing element ↩︎

Letter to Council regarding Governmental Constraints to housing production

MV YIMBY Leads — Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0000

To Mayor Ramirez and the members of City Council:

Mountain View YIMBY respectfully proposes a set of reforms that we believe are necessary for the Housing Element to comply with state law. The RHNA target¹ requires approximately doubling our current pace of homebuilding. We believe that the city cannot meet the target without reforming its processes (“removing constraints”, in Housing Element terminology).

The draft Housing Element sidesteps this topic by calling for further study, which can neither bear fruit quickly enough to help Mountain View meet its numerical targets by 2031, nor satisfy the legal requirement to remove constraints to homebuilding². Mountain View needs more reform, now, with direct support from the City Council.

Introduction

Mountain View consistently acknowledges its responsibility to help alleviate the Bay Area’s critical shortage of homes and the need to build more homes.

Although Mountain View already leads Santa Clara County and the Peninsula in terms of homebuilding relative to current population, we need to roughly double our pace to meet the RHNA target. Remarkably, despite a supportive Planning Commission and City Council, developers uniformly perceive Mountain View as a hostile place to do business. A close look at the city’s working processes reveals many procedures that are contrary to the universally stated goal of building more homes.

To that end, the city commissioned the Development Review Assessment by Matrix Consulting (“Matrix Study”). We agree with its recommendations, believe that implementing them all would make a significant improvement, and commend staff on work they have already undertaken to this end. However, we are disappointed that the draft Housing Element barely hints at the Matrix Study recommendations³, deferring most of them to further “review.”

Our analysis is also informed by informal guidance published by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)⁴. The dependence on further review corresponds to a “key area of non-compliance”: “Put[ting] off analysis to a ‘study.’” Even more broadly, we believe that the Housing Element’s constraints analysis fails to “guide solutions”, another “common overarching issue” identified by HCD.

Earlier this year, we undertook a series of interviews with local developers and arrived at our own conclusions about what reforms the city can undertake to meet our home production goals without compromising quality. Although we also advocate for zoning changes to expand housing capacity, here we present reforms that will maximize the use of existing zoning.

We believe that the core responsibility of city staff with regard to development projects is to help the applicant produce an application that complies with zoning and all other applicable codes as quickly as possible. However, our conversations with developers have revealed that working procedures at the departments of Planning, Building, and Public Works are not designed with this goal in mind. The result is unnecessary delay and even increased building cost. The already overtaxed review process must be streamlined to reduce the burden on staff, increase throughput and enable more permits to be granted each year.

We therefore respectfully offer recommendations in the following categories:

Make requirements clear at the beginning of the process
Streamline procedures
Increase density limits
Encourage innovative and cost-saving practices
Reform the structure of development fees
Improve accountability

Our complete list of recommendations follows. A few items overlap with the Matrix Study, and we have tried to identify them below. We believe that this list provides a valuable complement to the Matrix Study.

Recommendations

1. Make requirements clear at the beginning of the process

Developers embark on the project approval process without knowing what is expected. We therefore recommend that:

All objective, technical requirements be published on the website in the form of a checklist
All subjective, architectural requirements be published as well
Samples of all documents be published on the website, for applicants to use as a guide

Furthermore, the City’s early-stage design checklists request some details that are not properly addressed until later stages of the design process. To answer these questions up front, developers must take on an undue amount of risk.

These checklist items should be clarified to request only the information that is necessary.

Public comment at various hearings can also generate _de facto _requirements. We welcome public engagement, but believe that it should occur at the proper time and place. To that end, we suggest:

Framing the cyclic Housing Element update process as the primary forum for residents to influence planning decisions, especially on common topics such as height, density, trees, open space, and vehicle accommodations;
Restricting the public’s ability to make requests of specific projects outside of codified requirements and guidelines, to ensure consistency and fairness;
To the extent that project-specific public input exists, front-loading it so that developers can incorporate it in the first design and avoid costly and time-consuming revisions;
Distilling public input from each session into a report, to allow the developer to demonstrate that the revised application is in compliance.

2. Streamline procedures

We’ve identified a series of reasons why we believe Mountain View’s city staff capacity is a major constraint to housing production. In fact, these are a burden on staff time as well as the development team, which are both valuable. Compared to the previous Housing Element, processing times have doubled for many types of projects⁵^,⁶. This is a particular problem for Precise Plan areas. Despite the great effort already expended in developing the Precise Plans, developments in these areas take just as long to review as equivalent developments outside of Precise Plans⁷.

Development applications – even small ones – typically require multiple reviews. Although we acknowledge that explicitly limiting the number of reviews is not practical, we believe that review can be expedited by the following reforms:

Clearly define the type of revisions that each department is empowered to request. If a department wants to request a revision outside its proper scope, that request should be routed through the department that is actually responsible.
Once staff have returned an application to the developer, consider all aspects of the application to be approved other than those to which staff have objected. In subsequent review cycles, staff may only object if the applicant has not properly corrected issues identified in the first review. Exceptions to this rule may be allowed with a senior planner’s signature on each exception.
Implement internal learning processes so that issues that “slip through the cracks” per item (b) above are caught immediately in the future.
Limit Development Review Committee (DRC) review meetings to a maximum of two per application (Matrix recommendation #3), and eliminate aesthetic revisions outside of those two meetings.
Create an option for expedited review for developers who agree to pay an increased application fee.
Expedite review of subsidized Affordable Housing projects with no fee.

3. Increase density limits

Use of the city’s Bonus FAR program is a necessity by design in key Precise Plan areas due to purposely low base FAR⁸. This means a lengthy discretionary process with more staff involvement than a by-right process or one that doesn’t involve a discretionary “community benefit” criterion.

Furthermore, if a project requires a zone change or General Plan amendment, the City Council first considers a “gatekeeper” request which is yet another lengthy process. Due to Mountain View’s current zoning, very few by-right zoning compliant multifamily projects produce enough economic incentive for developers. As such, projects tend to opt for a “gatekeeper” process. Unfortunately the city is not considering any new “gatekeeper” projects due to lack of staff capacity until 2024.

We therefore suggest that the city:

Remove the need for a discretionary review of the “community benefit” criterion by producing objective and predictable requirements that could be easily verified and approved by staff in order to streamline the Bonus FAR process.
Analyze the impact of current staffing levels on housing production.
Propose a program for improving employee hiring and retention with concrete milestones and success metrics. Despite best efforts, the city currently has only 8 of 18 City Planner positions filled. This suggests there may be major impediments to hiring and retention of necessary talent.
Enable by-right and zoning-compliant pathways to meet our RHNA housing capacity in order to reduce the need for the “gatekeeper” process by upzoning at the General Plan level. This will have the further advantage of reducing the complexity of the Environment Impact Report studies that “gatekeeper” projects currently have to go through. (See p. 192)

Furthermore, we are disappointed that the ongoing R3 reform process was excluded from the Housing Element. In 2020, the City Council commissioned⁹ an Opticos study on “constraints for producing new stacked-flat multi-family housing in the R3 Zone.” On October 13 of that year, Opticos presented¹⁰ five key findings to the Council:

Allowed Density too low
Allowed Height too low
Setbacks, Lot Coverage, and FAR Limit Development
Parking Requirements are too high
Open Space too high

Although the City believes that the RHNA target can be met without relying on R3 development, we nonetheless suggest that the R3 rezoning be included in the Housing Element. First of all, we believe the R3 zoning changes are common sense. Second, we have previously identified concerns with the Site Inventory, and R3 rezoning would provide extra buffer in case the Site Inventory proves to be too optimistic.

We therefore suggest that the city:

Commit to ameliorating the constraints on development in the R3 zone identified by Opticos

4. Encourage innovative and cost-saving practices

Developers do not propose more innovative projects that could be built faster and cost less because they have the perception that the City staff is not sufficiently familiar with new construction technologies and materials. To address this issue, we recommend the following:

Educate the city staff, especially in planning and building departments, about new promising materials and technologies, such as cross-laminated timber, off-site modular construction, 3D-printed homes, etc.
Proactively engage with developers already using such innovations and consider hiring them as consultants until the staff develops sufficient expertise (with appropriate restrictions to avoid conflict of interest).
Provide incentives, such as expedited reviews or reduced or waived fees, for:
1. Technological innovations such as modular housing, “tiny houses,” and 3D-printed houses; and
2. Other cost-saving practices, such as refurbishing unused office buildings for residential use or renovating/extending old buildings instead of building from scratch.
Ensure that the master list of requirements doesn’t prevent applicants from using innovative construction techniques and includes incentives for using them.

5. Reform the structure of development fees

The draft states, “Although development fees and exactions do increase the cost of producing housing, in general Mountain View’s fees do not appear to create an undue constraint on residential development in the City.”¹¹ However, no evidence is provided.

The staff memo for the Council study session¹² further states that “the City evaluates the cumulative effect of these fees on a regular basis when new fees are adopted,” but the Housing Element includes no example of such an evaluation.

In fact, the City’s own work in the East Whisman Precise Plan area encourages some entirely different conclusions. In developing the precise plan, the City commissioned a study by Seifel Consulting on “the financial feasibility of residential development” within the plan’s constraints¹³. Noting that home builders face a “complex, challenging, and expensive” infill development process in neighborhoods like East Whisman, Seifel concluded that “revenues from [new] apartments and condominiums are not likely” to cover their costs under EWPP requirements¹⁴. It also arrives at a total fee of about $95,000 per apartment unit¹⁵, considerably higher than the City’s estimate of $82,951 at the high end¹⁶, which is already nearly double what was quoted in the previous Housing Element¹⁷. Multiple developers, including Google’s real-estate division, confirmed these barriers in public comment¹⁸.

To City staff’s credit¹⁹^,²⁰, the final EWPP’s most stringent requirements were slightly relaxed from their draft form, but as the _Mountain View Voice _has reported²¹, the City voted to raise impact fees in East Whisman just last month (May 2022). This renders new housing projects “increasingly infeasible.”²² According to the City’s analysis at the time²³, some commercial projects are exempt. Moreover, those that do pay fees pay less, per square foot and as a fraction of market value, than residential projects²⁴. The City implicitly acknowledges this infeasibility by requiring office developments to be coupled with homes (“linkage”). If there were no concern about the feasibility of homes, linkage would be unnecessary.

We therefore suggest that the city:

Reconsider the analysis of fees to reflect the findings of the Seifel Consulting study;
Adjust the structure of development fees to fall more heavily on non-residential uses;
Consider other funding sources (e.g., parcel taxes) for City services now funded by developer fees.

6. Improve accountability

We believe that process reforms need support and incentives up to the highest level (City Council). We therefore recommend that the city:

Revise the Current Project List to include the original application date and the most recent application date or other milestone for each project
Create the position of Permit Navigator (Matrix recommendation #35), to oversee the development review and permitting process from a customer’s perspective, and to ensure the compliance of city practices with state law.
Ensure that contracts with consultants, such as CSG, does not create a perverse incentive for the consultants to instigate unnecessary iterations.

Conclusion

The Housing Element process is a rare opportunity for Mountain View to take a holistic look at its planning processes. Having interviewed developers working in and around Mountain View and reviewed studies recently carried out on the City’s behalf, we believe that the City urgently needs to reform both its zoning and its procedures. Between our recommendations and those already offered in the studies cited above, the City has many options to choose from. We hope that many of these reforms can be implemented as part of the Housing Element process.

Thank you for considering our input.

Ilya Gurin

Pardis Beikzadeh

Michael Abramson

Keith Diggs, YIMBY Law

Vince Rocha, SVLG

On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

Footnotes

11,135 homes between 2023 and 2031 ↩︎
Government Code § 65583(c)(3) requires a housing element to “remove governmental … constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing” where “appropriate and legally possible.” ↩︎
Draft, p. 22, Program 4.1: “(b) Review development and post development processes, timelines, and approval body levels to streamline permitting processes. (c) Acquire tools and software that will improve development review, monitoring of housing supply, management of funding, and other processes involved in housing development for staff and public use." ↩︎
“Housing Elements in the 6th Cycle: Common Shortfalls”, May 9, 2022 ↩︎
City of Mountain View, 2015-2023 Housing Element, Tables 6-3 and 6-4 ↩︎
Draft, Table 36 ↩︎
ibid. ↩︎
Draft, Table 35. Base residential FAR is only 1.0 in the North Bayshore and East Whisman PP areas, and 1.35 in the El Camino Real and San Antonio PP. ↩︎
https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8840606&GUID=C58D6531-C966-44FE-BB22-322257D81F94, p. 2 ↩︎
https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8840608&GUID=CDC929B0-67FF-479A-B214-745D6C4E8669 ↩︎
Draft, p. 187 ↩︎
https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10972829&GUID=36AB8D2D-3895-4F93-B5D5-6C448B9DA216, p. 9 ↩︎
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/reports/1653505345.pdf, p. 1 ↩︎
ibid., p. 6 ↩︎
ibid., p. 5 ↩︎
Draft, Table 34 ↩︎
City of Mountain View, 2015-2023 Housing Element, Table 6-2 ↩︎
https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7843487&GUID=E80EBB17-3017-4ED1-854B-1F4416B4710E ↩︎
https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7843490&GUID=57D4AD86-6BE6-4831-8CEE-5C0D0DFB92EA ↩︎
https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7843491&GUID=2B3F48DB-995A-4CDF-AAE6-1CC07C5BA53B ↩︎
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/05/25/mountain-view-approves-fees-on-housing-already-considered-too-costly-to-build ↩︎
ibid. ↩︎
ibid. ↩︎
City of Mountain View, figure reproduced in ibid. ↩︎

Vote by June 7th

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 05 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Don’t forget to vote in the election this week. We’re proud of our lead Pardis who voted for the first time today!

Letter to EPC regarding 555 West Middlefield Road Residential Project

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 05 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Re: Item 5.2 555 West Middlefield Road Residential Project

To the Environmental Planning Commission:

Mountain View YIMBY, a local volunteer advocacy group, expresses enthusiastic support for the proposed project at 555 West Middlefield. We like this project because:

It is a no-displacement project that adds 323 new homes in place of surface parking!
It includes 15% on-site below market rate homes!
Walking distance to downtown, Caltrain, a grocery store, and Stevens Creek trail. This site provides a great location to lead a car-free lifestyle to the residents.
New pedestrian and bike path connection from Cypress Point Drive to W Middlefield makes Stevens Creek trail more easily accessible to the neighbors living south of Cypress Point Drive. Further bike and pedestrian improvements along Moffett Boulevard to the north and west of this project would be most welcome!
The 1.34 acres of land dedicated for a new park will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, creating a space for socializing.
The developer has listened to community feedback and made an effort to line up the residential frontage facing Cypress Point Drive with existing trees or parking lots to the south of Cypress Point Drive in order to minimize the impact to privacy of neighbors to the south of that street.
The developer has made an effort to preserve as many heritage trees as possible, transplanting many and planting additional trees to make up for the ones they are requesting to remove.

We hope that you recommend a speedy approval of this project to the council!

Thank you for considering our input.

Best regards,

Raiza Singh On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

Letter to council RE North Bayshore Circulation Study

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0000

To Mayor Kamei and members of the City Council,

MV YIMBY writes in support of the staff recommendations on the North Bayshore Circulation Study.

We believe in Fixing Incentives to create the groundwork for more housing. As such, we support prioritizing transit and active transportation over cars in order to increase the number of homes in our community by addressing traffic concerns upfront for the whole project, in addition to the quality of life and environmental benefits.

We are pleased that staff recommend shifting enforcement to financial penalties rather than permit restrictions, given that the financial feasibility of housing projects is linked to the commercial properties. We concur that fines from noncompliance should be provided to the TMA to implement further SOV-reducing projects.

We also support the city working with partners to create a viable public transportation system in Mountain View. This is critical for addressing traffic concerns related to North Bayshore, and for pursuing a transit-rich designation that may provide grants and streamlining that accelerate the project.

Thank you for considering our input. Kind regards,

Kevin Ma On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

Letter to the Editor on Homekey projects

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 23 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0000

This letter was originally published in the Mercury News

I walk daily through our city of Mountain View, and daily I look into the eyes of a less fortunate human being who’s homeless.

My mind gets foggy thinking about the time I had depleted my bank account at the height of the pandemic. Not a single cent was left on the day I signed a job offer that allowed me to pay for rent and stay in Mountain View.

My mind falls into darkness thinking I could have been less lucky, and ended up in the street. Would I be mocked and ridiculed? Or would someone lend a hand?

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors lit a candle of hope by deciding to move the housing project Homekey forward.

On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY, thank you for showing that in Santa Clara County, we lend a hand.

Pablo Hernandez

Mountain View

Comment on Mountain View City Council Item 3.1 Housing Element

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 16 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Mayor Kamei and Members of the City Council,

Mountain View YIMBY would like to provide comments for Item 3.1 Housing Element.

Planning the next decade of our city’s growth is no small undertaking, and staff deserves a huge ‘thank you’ for their conscientious work. While we know the city is still early in this process, we’d like to be proactive in identifying areas of opportunity, including addressing:

Our over-reliance on the North Bayshore and East Whisman plan areas, which we do not believe will be built quickly enough to satisfy our housing targets.
1. East Whisman already had one development fail due to financial feasibility.
2. For North Bayshore, Lendlease expects Shorebird North (1118 homes) to be permitted by 2031 and, if we’re fortunate, Shorebird South (1794 homes). Other homes in that master plan will likely take longer, absent streamlining.
3. The new Mello-Roos style tax proposed by MVWSD, if approved, will likely make any new housing infeasible.
The city’s duty to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requires more work:
1. Figure 2 (pg. 13) of the staff report makes it plain that the city is clustering development, which, as staff notes on page 5, is not permitted.
2. Per HCD guidance, the city needs to take a regional lens on AFFH, and we believe this should include an analysis of our jobs-housing imbalance that exports displacement pressures to other cities. The Google projects, while great, do not ameliorate Mountain View’s severe jobs-housing imbalance. To take a regional lens on AFFH, we need to aim above our RHNA and close this gap.

For these reasons, we believe the city must greatly expand housing capacity outside the two plan areas. To quantify the need for additional upzoning, the city should use a data-driven approach in calculating the likelihood of redevelopment of non-vacant inventory sites. LA and SF are using rigorous modelling for their housing elements, but even simple statistics are useful here: Mountain View is on track to develop around 21% of its 5th RHNA cycle site inventory. So, Mountain View YIMBY believes we should apply great scrutiny to a housing element that claims the median inventory site has much more than a 21% of development by 2031. As staff notes, more upzoning is required if housing development is not sufficiently likely. Thus, to hit our housing targets, further fair housing and align with our climate goals, we believe the city should upzone high-opportunity areas within a half-mile walk of transit.

We’d also like to suggest the following:

A major constraint to affordable housing is funding. Pursuing HCD’s pro-housing designation will give our city priority access to affordable housing grants. Mountain View is one of the most pro-housing cities in California, and we should diligently strive for this designation, which we absolutely can attain.
In stakeholder meetings, affordable housing providers and market rate housing providers both agreed we should streamline permitting, reduce parking mandates, and invest in staff capacity. These items must be a major focus of our housing plan.
The city must diligently reach out to “all economic segments of the community,” per AB 686. Yet we have not targeted outreach to housing-insecure residents, whether they live in mobile homes or RVs. Their needs are pressing and must not fall by the wayside.

Our city has the privilege of being a hub of opportunity and prosperity. We have the potential not only to meet our housing targets, but to turn our city into a green, walkable urban center that shares opportunity widely. We hope that our city will embrace this opportunity.

Best regards,

Salim Damerdji

On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

Comment on Mountain View City Council Item 3.1 Castro Pedestrian Mall

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0000

To Mayor Kamei and the members of the City Council:

MV YIMBY writes in support of the proposed Castro pedestrian mall, specifically options B or C presented in the feasibility study, in accordance with staff recommendations.

The closure of Castro to vehicles that was implemented as an ad hoc response to COVID has been overwhelmingly popular, and allayed many of the concerns heard when pedestrianization was first discussed in 2019. We note that car access will remain on Bryant and Villa streets, and (one-way) Blossom and Wild Cherry lanes, whereas Castro alone will be reserved for pedestrians and bicyclists, who have always constituted the large majority of traffic on Castro during the evening peak hours. Eliminating cars on Castro will maintain the improved safety and overall visitor experience that exist now under the temporary closure.

We do not express a preference between options B and C. Making part of today’s Centennial Plaza continuous with the Castro promenade (option C) would clearly benefit Castro. However, we expect more options for improving Centennial Plaza to arise during the anticipated design of the new transit center. We are also concerned that any option should provide direct and unimpeded access from the Central underpass to the transit center. We are also concerned that the additional expense of option C may take away from other public improvements.

Considering all of the above, we support the staff recommendations.

Proceed with option B, considering option C as a potential future phase: We believe this is an expeditious and cost-effective approach.
Add the 200 and 300 blocks to the pedestrian mall: We believe the distinction between these blocks and the 100 block is artificial.
Extend the temporary closure through January 2023: We believe that ending the temporary closure before implementing it again under option B would cause needless disruption.

Thank you for considering our opinion.

Kind regards,

Ilya Gurin

On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

California Bicycle Safety Stop Delayed

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 10 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0000

California AB122 was Vetoed by the Governor. Hopefully it’ll get another shot next year, because it’s clear that the safety stop makes roads fairer and bicyclists safer.

Housing Element

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0000

By January 31, 2023, the City of Mountain View must identify sites and policies for at least 11,135 new homes to be built between 2023 and 2031. The city does not have to build these homes directly, but it must make them feasible. These sites and policies will form the Housing Element, which the City Council approves and the state certifies. Failure to create a compliant Housing Element disqualifies the city from state grants and can even go as far as suspend local land use power.

The Mountain View YIMBY Housing Element Working Group meets monthly during this process to identify sites and policies to enable those homes. This process is complicated, even for the most adept housing advocates. That’s why we’re committing to breaking down the content and making it more accessible for all. Join us at contact@mvyimby.com

Housing Element Upcoming Schedule

~~Initial Site Inventory and Policies Study Sessions~~
- ~~Environmental Planning Commission: Wednesday, February 16, 7-8pm~~
- ~~City Council: Tuesday, March 8, 5-6pm~~
Public Review Draft Housing Element Study Sessions
- ~~Environmental Planning Commission: May 18th~~
- ~~City Council: June 14th~~
HCD Review Period (Maximum 90 Days)
Housing Element [Second Draft December 2022]
HCD Submission

YIMBY’s Requests for the Housing Element

Programs

Use data-driven approaches for designing city programs targeted at meeting our housing needs allocation such that their efficacy can be objectively measured.
Commit to specific recommendations from the Development Review Study (Matrix)
Addition of the Displacement Response Strategy

Production

Drastically upzone within a half mile of our two Caltrain stations. No unit density limits.
Upzone within a half mile of our highest opportunity schools.
Policies to address production south of ECR
Increase Base FAR and height limit (allowed without Council review) in Precise Plans

Constraints

Streamline new home approval by eliminating discretionary reviews for housing.
Address Constraints found during the R3 Update (refer to Opticos presentation)
Remove Parking Minimums from (pick some combination of these asks):

Mountain View Housing Elementg Needs Allocation

In a process called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assigns minimum quotas to various regions based on projected growth, a targeted vacancy rate, existing overcrowding, expected demolitions, and historical cost-burdens. Our region, under the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), then assigned the quota to individual cities and counties based on projected growth, resource richness, proximity to jobs, and economic segregation. From this plan, Mountain View is assigned:

Very Low Income (<50% of Area Median Income): 2,773
Low Income (50-80% of AMI): 1,597
Moderate Income (80-120% of AMI): 1,885
Above Moderate Income (>120% of AMI): 4,880

Area Median Income is specified at the county level by HCD annually. For 2021, Santa Clara County’s AMI for a 4-person household is $151,300, compared to $141,600 the year before.

MV Voice op-ed regarding downtown transportation

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0000

The Mountain View Voice published our op-ed calling for more car-free transportation options into downtown.

MV Voice op-ed regarding SB9

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0000

The Mountain View Voice published our op-ed about SB9, which is now before the Assembly.

4.2 - Urgency Ordinance Extending Residential Eviction Protections

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000

To Mayor Kamei and members of the City Council

At the start of the pandemic, the Mountain View city council passed an eviction moratorium to protect its residents from COVID-19. As time went on, the state legislature passed laws to extend the moratorium and provide relief for rent debt.

As we approach the deadline of the state moratorium, we urge the council to pass an urgency ordinance to extend the residential eviction protections. Although the state and federal government have provided a generous amount of funding for rent relief, it will still take time for that money to be distributed.

The upcoming eviction cliff is more likely to affect low-income renters and could lead to a rapid displacement of families. Therefore, we ask the council to extend the moratorium to ensure that our city recovers from the pandemic without additional hardship for tenants awaiting rent relief.

Thank you for considering our input.

Kind regards,
Salim Damerdji
On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

6.1 - Charities Housing NOFA Proposal

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000

To Mayor Kamei and members of the City Council

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY. We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels from supportive housing to market rate! We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law, and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Therefore, Mountain View YIMBY expresses enthusiastic support for the new all-affordable housing development proposed by nonprofit developer Charities Housing. We applaud the proximity to another all-affordable development near downtown, the Caltrain station, and CSA.

The 84 units proposed at 1265 Montecito Avenue will also have one third targeted to those who are extremely low income. Finally, we are excited that the development will be at maximum density therefore maximizing the amount of much needed homes.

Thank you for considering our input.

Kind regards,
David Watson
On behalf of the members of Mountain View YIMBY

400 Logue Ave - Miramar

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Mayor Kamei and members of the City Council:

Mountain View YIMBY, a local volunteer advocacy group, expresses strong support for Miramar’s apartment project at 400 Logue Ave.

This strategic location, in the thick of the East Whisman planning area and steps away from Middlefield light rail, is excellent for high-density housing. The 408 proposed new homes will help mitigate the jobs-housing imbalance of the adjacent Google Middlefield Park project.

We believe that Mountain View, as the source of much employment growth in recent years, urgently needs large new residential developments like this one. The proposed project displaces no existing residents, and replaces a one-story office building that is a wasteful use of prime real estate. The 62 BMR units will help Mountain View meet its RHNA quotas.

Last month, EPC recognized this exemplary project with a unanimous vote in favor. We hope that you accept EPC’s recommendation and finalize the approval!

Thank you for considering our input.

Best regards,
Ilya Gurin
On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

MTC-led Regional Measure - Support

MV YIMBY Leads — Sat, 05 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Senator Becker,

MV YIMBY as an organization that advocates for transit-oriented development is a member of Voices for Public Transportation, a coalition of over 50 community-based organizations in the Bay Area that support a major investment in our public transportation system. We support developing a major regional transportation funding measure for the November 2024 ballot to create a more accessible and inclusive transportation system in the Bay Area. More information can be found on the website.

Attached is a letter developed by Voices for Public Transportation calling for MTC to begin a public process to develop a transformative regional funding measure. As described in the letter, in order to be ready for a 2024 ballot measure a regional process should be initiated by January 2022. The letter also describes key priorities for a regional funding measure process, including prioritizing the voices of transit dependent riders.

We invite you and other elected officials to join this sign-on letter alongside Voices for Public Transportation groups. We are seeking to submit the letter to MTC in July and would be grateful for your support.

Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions,

Sincerely,

Michael Abramson, on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

MV YIMBY supports Assembly Bill 629

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 20 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Assemblymember Chiu,

MV YIMBY as an organization that advocates for transit-oriented development would like to express our support for Assembly Bill 629, which implements key reforms and accountability measures to move toward an integrated, equitable, high ridership, and efficient public transit system in the Bay Area.

The challenges of navigating between 27 different transit operators in the Bay Area acts as a barrier for residents and visitors to adopt more sustainable forms of travel, and disproportionately burdens low income and vulnerable populations. The Bay Area’s current transit system has been inconvenient and costly; it requires riders to use systems operated independently with little coordination, to pay multiple separate fares, experience unpredictable transfers, and to navigate different wayfinding systems.

As a result, use of transit in the Bay Area has been declining — despite a 60% increase in spending on public transit statewide over the past decade. From 2001-2016, annual transit trips per person fell by 10% in the Bay Area, with average bus speeds declining by 9% and average commute times for transit users increasing by nearly 12%. Declining transit use is a major barrier to achieving California’s ambitious climate change targets, given that 40% of emissions in California come from transportation.

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed fault lines in new, urgent ways, as transit operators already decimated by the crisis face unique challenges in recovering from the pandemic. While the current decline in transit use has been necessitated by public health, it has devastated the system, and post-COVID recovery cannot simply replicate a system that was already struggling. The actions in this bill will promote increased ridership to help revive the system after the devastation caused by COVID-19.

In response to COVID-19, in 2020 the Metropolitan Transportation Commission convened a 32-member Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force (BRTF) composed of transit agency managers, advocates, and local lawmakers. The BRTF is working to prepare long-term recommendations for improving the network, with an eye to governance. In the meantime, other immediate steps are needed to improve the rider experience. AB 629 will establish accountability metrics and deadlines for transit agencies to create a long-overdue regional transit map and wayfinding system, establish a Transit Priority Network for future improvements, pilot a multi-agency fare pass to incentivize rather than penalize transfers, and use open data standards to provide real-time transit information to riders. These simple, commonsense improvements will bring near-term benefits to transit riders, while setting the Bay Area on the path to a seamlessly integrated, customer-focused transit system.

For these reasons, MV YIMBY supports AB 629.

Sincerely,
Michael Abramson, on behalf of
Mountain View YIMBY

EPC Public Hearing, May 19, Agenda Item 5.1 -- 400 Logue

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 17 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Chair Cranston and members of the EPC:

Mountain View YIMBY, a local volunteer advocacy group, expresses strong support for Miramar’s apartment project at 400 Logue Ave.

Please see the letter attached or the plain text version below.

We hope that you recommend a hasty approval of this project to the council!

Thank you for considering our input.

Best regards, Ilya Gurin On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

AB 946 Lee - Funding for First-Time Homebuyer Assistance - Support

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Assemblymember Alex Lee,

Mountain View YIMBY is proud to support AB 946, a bill that would reallocate $230 million from wasteful subsidies to purchase a second home to programs like the CalHFA MyHome Program, providing over 23,000 first-time homebuyers with down payment assistance.

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY. We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels from supportive housing to market rate. We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law, and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

According to the Franchise Tax Board, approximately 175,000 wealthy Californians deduct the interest from their second home’s mortgage on their state taxes. This tax break equates to roughly $230 million a year in tax expenditures, subsidizing people who do not need it.

Mortgage interest deductions, particularly deductions on second homes, are regressive – on a federal level, filers with six-figure incomes receive 80% of the tax subsidies. A study from the St. Louis Federal Reserve found that savings from the MID are baked into the price of the home, or capitalized, which may depress homeownership by up to 5%. Congress has passed bi-partisan measures to curb this subsidy for the wealthiest taxpayers; however, California, with the second-lowest rate of homeownership in the United States, subsidizes the luxury of owning a second home.

Today’s minority homeownership rates reflect California’s history of racist and discriminatory housing policies – only 34.5% of Black people & 41.9% of Latinos are homeowners, compared to 74% for Whites. Fortunately, California has opened the opportunity for homeownership by funding down payment assistance and publicly insured mortgages. 65-70% of CalHFA first-time home loans go to people of color.

This bill would remove the mortgage interest deduction on second homes, and reallocate that money to CalHFA’s MyHome Assistance Program and other programs that support low- and moderate-income homeownership. By increasing funding to these programs, this bill would reallocate money that currently subsidizes mostly vacant, vacation homes to help low-to-middle income Californians afford their first home.

We are therefore proud to join the diverse coalition of organizations in support of AB 946 and urge your colleagues to support this bill.

Best wishes,
Salim Damerdji, Lead
Mountain View YIMBY

Support – SCA 2 – Public housing projects

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Senator Allen,

I write on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY to support Senate Constitutional Amendment 2, which would repeal Article 34 of the California State Constitution.

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY. We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels from supportive housing to market rate. We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law, and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Article 34 requires a local government to hold an election every time a low rent building is built with 51 percent or more of government funds. Over time, the state has narrowed the scope of Article 34 through administrative policy changes and expanding other sources of funding for affordable housing that do not meet Article 34’s definition of government funds.

In 1950, Article 34 was placed in the constitution by a group of NIMBY residents in Eureka, who believed at the time that subsidized housing brought down the value of market rate homes nearby and who feared business competition from the government. The purpose of this initiative was to slow and thwart the construction of affordable housing.

Unfortunately, this intended purpose has become a reality. Cities enact sophisticated loopholes to attempt to circumvent Article 34, and developers are forced to create sophisticated funding deals to skirt around the 51 percent trigger for Article 34, but these legal hoops create high costs and are not ultimately successful everywhere.

The requirement to hold the election is not neutral to affordable housing. It allows and encourages NIMBY opposition to new affordable housing, and it ensures that affordable housing that is built is only built in California’s big cities on otherwise undesirable sites in industrial or non-residential areas, often next to highways.

To increase the rate of home construction and make it cheaper to build affordable housing in communities with access to abundant opportunities, like good schools, we should repeal Article 34. It is an unnecessary requirement on affordable housing developers to require an election to allow low income housing to be built in a community. In a time of crisis, California cannot afford to spend its scarce affordable housing dollars overcoming self-imposed barriers. Article 34 shifts the balance of power to neighbors who will say no to helping low income people. The time has come for the state to shift the balance back to neighbors who say yes.

Best wishes,
Salim Damerdji, Lead
Mountain View YIMBY

Welcome to the City of Mountain View!

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear City Clerk Heather Glaser:

The Mountain View chapter of South Bay YIMBY would like to congratulate you on your recent appointment to the City Clerk position.

We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels - from supportive housing to market rate! We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Many of our members care deeply about the decisions made by the city council. We look forward to seeing how you will continue to enable the community to advocate and be informed about our city.

Please let us know if we can be of any help to keep Mountain View an inclusive and welcoming city.

Sincerely,
Emily Ann Ramos, Salim Damerdji, Michael Abramson, Alex Brown, David Watson, Pardis Beikzadeh, Bee Hanson and Jeremy Hoffman
On behalf of the Mountain View chapter of South Bay YIMBY

R3 Zoning District Update

MV YIMBY Leads — Sat, 10 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Mayor Kamei and Members of the City Council,

Mountain View YIMBY would like to provide some comments for Item 3.1 R3 Zoning District Update.

To begin, we’d like to thank the city for hiring Opticos to carefully analyze the feasibility of multi-family development in Mountain View and applaud the city’s form-based approach. We believe that infill multi-family housing is necessary to achieve the city’s missing middle housing goals.

It is important to aim for a significant increase in new housing capacity because:

Considering the length of the process involved in modifying the R3 code, and the fact that it was last modified about 30 years ago, and in light of Mountain View’s 2031 RHNA allocation being ~11,000 households, we urge the council to think long term as the changes currently proposed won’t cover our housing needs for even the next decade. We need to prepare for two to three times that amount.
In order to avoid displacement, policies like SB 330 that require replacement of naturally affordable and rent-controlled units are crucial. We’re pleased to see that the city is working on implementing our own permanent displacement ordinance. For reasons of economic feasibility, the more density we add, the more we can require developers to replace naturally affordable units. This is why we think a major increase in density should be employed in as many R3 areas as possible.
Adding homes near the abundance of jobs in Mountain View will reduce overall regional vehicle miles travelled and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a core goal for Mountain View.
We applaud Council’s continued commitment, since 2015, to adding thousands of homes in North Bayshore and East Whisman. However, because these homes are coupled with large expansions of office space, they will not ameliorate Mountain View’s severe jobs-housing imbalance. To do that, we need thousands of homes in addition to NBS and East Whisman, particularly in existing R3 neighborhoods.

To that end:

We think the city should legalize taller buildings than currently proposed in the highest density designation (R3-D).
We would like to see R3-D applied to more areas in the city. In particular, we are disappointed to see that the R3-D designation isn’t proposed near transit or downtown. This is a big missed opportunity to permit a car-free lifestyle for the inhabitants of these future homes.
We think that more R3 areas should be designated R3-D even if they are near R1 zones. Rather than limit the amount of upzoning allowed near R1, we would like the city to consider upzoning those R1 neighborhoods to R2 as much as possible to allow for the creation of more homes while achieving a smooth transition from one designation to another.
We would like to see a transit-oriented overlay added to allow for a reduced parking requirement within a certain distance from public transit, along with the newly proposed R3 specifications.
We believe the city should strongly consider legalizing architectural arcades that will both improve the pedestrian experience and allow for some additional building capacity.
To achieve true form-based zoning, we believe the city shouldn’t add any limit on the total number of units for any of the newly proposed R3 designations.

Our city has the privilege of being a hub of opportunity and prosperity. We have the potential to turn these parts of town into environmentally friendly, walkable urban centers increasing access to jobs and high quality schools to more people. We hope that our city will embrace this opportunity.

Best Regards,
David Watson
On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

SB 10 (Wiener) Local Control for Increased Housing Density - SUPPORT

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Senator Wiener,

I write on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY to support SB 10, which allows local governments a streamlined path to zone neighborhoods for gentle, middle income density — up to ten units per parcel — if they choose.

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY. We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels from supportive housing to market rate. We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law, and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

While our organization’s main focus is the city of Mountain View, we believe that the housing crisis and climate change require action at a broader scale. That’s why we support SB 10 which we believe will help advance these causes throughout the state.

California has descended into a suffocating housing crisis, contributing to mass migration out of the state, skyrocketing eviction rates, record levels of chronic homelessness, and a growing class of lower- income commuters unable to afford or access housing within several hours of their jobs. Meanwhile, many California neighborhoods remain racially segregated, and the density that cities plan for is often concentrated in low-income communities of color, especially those with poor air quality. This leads to deep health and educational inequities, as well as increased displacement pressures in vulnerable areas. Various state and local laws make it extremely difficult to do common-sense rezoning’s quickly – even very mild efforts are often mired in expensive, decades-long legal appeals and litigation.

SB 10 is a simple bill that authorizes local governments to rezone neighborhoods for increased housing density, up to ten homes per parcel. This authorization will require that a legislative body pass a resolution to adopt the plan and exempts that zoning action from being considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. To be eligible for this local action, an area must be urban infill, consistent with the definition used in Senate Bill 35 (2017) or be near high quality public transportation or a job-rich area. When the local government passes this resolution, it can choose whether the individual projects will be ministerial/by right or subject to discretionary approval.

SB 10 creates a path to adding modest density to address California’s housing shortage, preserves significant local control for local jurisdictions, and makes it faster, less expensive, and less risky for a city to undertake a community process to increase density in our communities. SB 10 is an effective step forward in fixing what has been a historic problem throughout the entire state.

For these reasons, Mountain View YIMBY is pleased to support SB 10.

Best wishes,
David Watson
Lead
Mountain View YIMBY

SB 477 (Wiener) Housing Data Act - SUPPORT

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Senator Wiener,

I write on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY to support SB 477, which will require the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development to collect information from local governments about when state housing programs are used to support housing.

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY. We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels, from supportive housing to market rate! We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

California has adopted several laws to help the state resolve its historic 3.5-million-home shortage, including Accessory Dwelling Unit law, Density Bonus Law, and laws to streamline the process for getting housing approved. These laws are important, but advocates, researchers, and legislators struggle to quantify exactly how effective they are. For example, a report from the Controller of LA found a very small amount of housing was built under the density bonus law, and that the program “has not lived up to its potential”. In order to improve Density Bonus Law and build more affordable housing, it is important to understand whether this is the case in other cities.

Whereas our organization’s main focus is the city of Mountain View, we believe that the housing crisis and climate change require action at a broader scale. That’s why we support SB 477, which we believe will help advance these causes throughout the state. We appreciate the Legislature’s effort in passing these bills; now we look forward to taking the next step to bring them to fruition.

By passing SB 477, the Legislature will be able to tell when and where these laws are helpful. Knowing where these laws are building housing is important to understanding if these laws are advancing or reversing racial segregation in California; an important co-benefit of eliminating our housing shortage can and should be eliminating our legacy of racial segregation. But currently, we lack statewide data on if these laws are doing that.

SB 477 will resolve this data gap by requiring more information on California’s existing Annual Progress Report, which local governments send to the state every April 1st to demonstrate their progress towards meeting their Regional Housing Needs Assessments. SB 477 helps advance our progress towards ending the housing crisis by measuring the efficacy of state laws, allowing the Legislature to make informed decisions about the future of those laws, such as how to improve them.

It is for these reasons that Mountain View YIMBY is proud to support SB 477 and thanks you for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Ilya Gurin
Mountain View YIMBY

SB 478 (Wiener) Housing Standards - SUPPORT

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Senator Wiener,

I write on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY to support SB 478, which will establish limits for floor area ratio regulations and minimum lot size regulations, putting guardrails on local governments’ ability to enact hyper-restrictive regulations.

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY. We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels, from supportive housing to market rate! We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Existing housing element law requires local governments to plan and zone for housing through the RHNA process, but also allows them to set regulations on housing that can actually back-door prohibit the production of this housing. These regulations include floor area ratios and minimum lot sizes. This bill proposes to set uniform standards for local governments on these two housing regulations, closing this loophole within current law that does not allow localities to build the amount of housing they have already planned for.

We are enthusiastic about SB 478 because it relaxes the lot size and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements for “missing middle” housing. Although large apartment complexes get more public attention, we believe that buildings of 2–10 units are a very important part of the solution to the housing crisis. They are inexpensive to build and blend easily into existing single-detached neighborhoods. Thus, it is critical to rationalize zoning rules to make it easier to deliver this type of home.

The floor area ratio of a property is the total area of the floor space in a building, potentially over several floors or units, divided by the area of the entire lot. FAR restrictions control how large a building can be, based on the size of the parcel. For example, a lot with a floor area ratio of 1.0 allows a one-story building over the entire lot, a two-story building over half the lot, or a three-story building over a third of the lot. A minimum lot size requirement is a zoning code regulation that specifies the minimum square footage of a lot. This term regulates density and describes the smallest lot that can legally be created within a local jurisdiction. In some areas, lot size minimums can be as large as an acre, or about 43,000 sq. ft. If the minimum lot size is large, people must purchase more land than they need, limiting potential buyers and increasing housing costs. In some communities, the minimum land cost per home can be more than $500,000.

Recent research has found that these design rules can substantially increase the cost of housing when imposed in very restrictive ways. For example, recent research finds that large lot sizes increase the cost of housing and likely exacerbate or cause racial segregation. This confirms previous research on housing regulations, such as FAR, that concludes that extremely tight regulations reduce the supply of housing and increases the cost of housing.

This bill would allow local governments to regulate FAR and minimum lot sizes in the ways they deem most appropriate for their communities, but it adds guardrails against abuse by preventing very restrictive standards that increase housing costs and exacerbate segregation. This bill would not require local governments to allow multifamily housing where they do not already allow it. It also does not change other standards, such as height or setbacks. It just puts important guardrails on design standards so that already-planned homes are not undermined by hyper-restrictive design rules.

It is for these reasons that Mountain View YIMBY is proud to support SB 478 and thanks you for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Ilya Gurin
Mountain View YIMBY

Support – SB 9 – Subdivisions - tentative maps.

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Senator Atkins,

I write on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY to support SB 9, which will allow duplexes on lots currently zoned for single family use only in California.

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY. We are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels from supportive housing to market rate. We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law, and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

While our organization’s main focus is the city of Mountain View, we believe that the housing crisis and climate change require action at a broader scale. That’s why we support SB 9 which we believe will help advance these causes throughout the state.

As you know, California has a statewide housing shortage of nearly 3.5 million homes. Low- and middle-income households face historic rent burden in California, and the problem worsens by the day as middle-income households move into naturally affordable housing previously occupied by low-income renters – forcing these households to move further away from their jobs, and in some cases, onto the streets. Undersupply of “Missing Middle” housing, or medium density housing near jobs and transit, is one of the key factors contributing to the displacement and rent burden of Californians across the state. This sort of housing is banned in over 70 percent of the state. SB 9 adopts best practices from housing experts at the University of California Los Angles for resolving California’s housing shortage. It will also help California respond to historic job loss and a 45-percent decrease in home construction due to COVID-19.

SB 9 allows two important major changes to state law. First, it allows someone to build a second home on a parcel that a local government has determined is for single family use only, allowing more housing growth in places that need it. Second, it allows a lot to be split into two lots under specific circumstances, allowing those who meet the criteria to build even more housing on otherwise unused land. SB 9 contains important protections against displacement of existing tenants.

We appreciate the work your office has already done to make sure that SB 9 is as effective at accomplishing its goals as it can be. Because this bill will help end California’s housing crisis, Mountain View YIMBY is very pleased to support it. Thank you for bringing this important bill forward.

Best wishes,
David Watson
Lead
Mountain View YIMBY

Support for AB 1401 Residential and commercial development - parking requirements

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Chair Friedman:

On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY, I write to express our strong support for your Assembly Bill 1401 to eliminate local minimum parking requirements for both residential and commercial buildings.

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of South Bay YIMBY are a group of people who live or work in the city of Mountain View and believe in increasing equitable access to the opportunities offered by this amazing city, and combating global warming through urbanization. We do so by advocating for construction of homes at all income levels, from supportive housing to market rate! We protect Mountain View’s more vulnerable residents by defending Mountain View’s rent control law and advocating for better displacement protection policies. Last but not least, we push for more transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Whereas our organization’s main focus is the city of Mountain View, we believe that the housing crisis and climate change require action at a broader scale. That’s why we support AB 1401, which we believe will help advance these causes throughout the state.

AB 1401 will eliminate requirements that homes and commercial buildings near transit or in neighborhoods with less car use be built with more parking than is necessary. By reducing the over-building of parking, this bill would reduce traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, reduce the cost of housing to renters and homeowners, and improve the prospects of small neighborhood businesses fighting to survive during the pandemic.

On-site parking reduces the housing supply by taking up space that could otherwise be used for additional apartments. Providing on-site parking is also very expensive, costing $30,000 to $75,000 per space to build. This cost is passed on to renters and home buyers, regardless of whether they own a car. In fact, a recent study by Santa Clara University, researchers found that the cost of garage parking to renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent.

In response to the pandemic and the closure of restaurants and small shops, local governments have allowed businesses to expand into on-site and street parking spaces to allow for safe outdoor dining and shopping. These new and more productive uses of parking spaces have shown us the way forward to create more inviting and sustainable neighborhoods, and allow small businesses to survive and in some cases thrive. This bill would remove arbitrary restrictions that prevent small businesses from using their property for its most productive use.

AB 1401 will prevent the wasteful overproduction of parking spaces, and reduce car dependency and carbon emissions. It will also encourage greater transit usage and more housing and business growth near transit, helping to create revitalized and pedestrian-friendly commercial corridors and downtowns throughout California.

This bill does not prohibit property owners from building on-site parking. Rather, it gives them the flexibility to decide on their own how much on-site parking to provide, instead of requiring compliance with a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Thank you for your leadership in addressing climate change and promoting sustainable transportation, affordable housing and livable communities with this important legislation.

Sincerely,
Emily Ann Ramos, Lead
Mountain View YIMBY

Letter to Council on Strategic Plan

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 15 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Mayor Kamei and members of the council:

Mountain View YIMBY, a local volunteer advocacy group, expresses enthusiastic support for the following potential projects to achieve the strategic priorities from the workplan in the staff report:

1.1 Hold a Study Session on a displacement response strategy and net loss; develop a work plan for any desired follow up actions.
We support developing strategies and ordinances to help stem displacement in our community. There should never be incentives for a net loss development. Options should include: Replacement requirements for demolished rent controlled units, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) or Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA) ordinances and Tenant right of return options. We believe that this project should be in conjunction with project 2.1: Revise R3 Zoning standards.

2.1 Review and propose revisions to the R3 Zone standards that consider form-based zoning, incentivizing stacked flats, and updated row house guidelines and Family Design Handbook.
We commend the R3 up-zoning effort to increase housing capacity by 12,000 units over the next 40 years and the City’s commitment to implementing tools that would allow these housing units to be built. We encourage the council to broaden its approach from simply incentivizing stacked flats and rowhouses to making a broad range of apartments and missing middle housing types more feasible. We applaud the upzoning of Mountain View’s medium density residential and believe the City must allow at least 3 stories to be built through the zone. As we upzone these areas, we should be careful of displacement impacts, which is why we believe this project should be implemented in tandem with project 1.1: displacement response strategy and net loss.

2.2 Work with MVLA to explore the possibility of the District acquiring the Shenandoah property and the opportunity for shared uses and affordable housing on the site.
We support exploring opportunities to build affordable housing.

2.4 Develop strategies for middle-income persons to afford different housing types.
Like many cities around the Bay Area, it is time for Mountain View to explore eliminating exclusionary zoning and enable multi-unit housing on all properties zoned for housing. Opportunity Housing may be a solution that cost-effectively expands housing options for Mountain View residents while maximizing land and infrastructure with duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, five-plexes and more.

2.5 Develop a City mobile home ordinance modeled on the CSFRA and administered by the RHC.
Mountain View YIMBY supports the protection of our vulnerable neighbors. We urge the council to grant rent stabilization and eviction protections to all mobile home residents as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible.

2.8 Facilitate the development of affordable housing at the VTA Evelyn Site.
We support exploring opportunities to build affordable housing.

2.9 Facilitate the planning, entitlement and building permit process for Lot 12.
As we mentioned in our letter to council in October, we believe that Lot 12 is a rare opportunity to provide housing for our most vulnerable residents and are excited that it could be the first Measure A project in Mountain View. We urge the council to aggressively pursue this opportunity.

3.20 Continue the Feasibility Study of Automated Guideway Transportation System.
With the planned growth in North Bayshore, thousands more people will have to commute from/to this area. A reversible bus lane along Shoreline currently considered by the city wouldn’t address this issue, because people will need to go in both directions. Only an automated guideway system connecting NBS with Moffett Field and Downtown can provide high frequency and grade-separation needed to meet this kind of demand.

New: Create a Moffett Boulevard streetscape design strategy.
If this gives us an opportunity for more housing, we are in strong support. We would also like bike lanes included.

New: Partner with the County to explore the potential conversion of the Crestview Hotel to housing for unstably housed individuals and families.
We support exploring options to house our vulnerable neighbors.

New: Continue work on the Housing Element for the 2023-31 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) period.
The housing crisis is a regional issue and we want to ensure that Mountain View does it’s part to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. MV YIMBY wants to work with community, staff and council to be sure Mountain View has a compliant Housing Element. As we zone for more housing, we also don’t want to rely on a single source for housing. Therefore, we ask that we also look into allowing multi-unit housing in R1 zones through this project as well.

Thank you for considering our input.

Kind regards,
Emily Ann Ramos
On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

Google North Bayshore announcement

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View YIMBY welcomes the news, reported by the Mountain View Voice, that Google filed a preliminary plan for developing 120 acres of North Bayshore. This development will represent the culmination of a process that began in 2014 with the election of a pro-housing City Council, which revised the North Bayshore master plan in 2017. The 7,000 homes proposed for the Google property will fulfill most of the city’s goal of 9,850 homes in all of North Bayshore.

We eagerly anticipate the release of further plans for transportation, as part of an ongoing process led by the city. Transportation will be essential to fulfilling the goal of a high-density neighborhood without exacerbating traffic. We would prefer to see homes shifted away from 101 and its associated noise and air pollution. Offices, with their normally closed windows and superior ventilation, are more suited to the freeway location. Nevertheless, we welcome the development of as many new homes as possible both here and in the Middlefield Park area.

Letter to Council - Density Bonus Ordinance

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mayor Kamei and Members of the City Council,

Mountain View YIMBY supports staff’s recommendation on Item 6.1 Density Bonus Ordinance, though we believe staff’s recommendation would be improved by slightly modifying §36.48.80(5)(d).

City staff deserves credit for crafting such smart tweaks to the city’s density bonus law, as their tweaks would make our density bonus law clearer, simpler, and easier to administer. With these improvements, affordable homes can be built faster, and city staff will be freed up to spend more time on council’s legislative priorities. The proposed changes were well-received by the Environmental Planning Commission, and we hope you agree with them as well.

We do, however, believe that Mountain View could build more affordable housing if §36.48.80(5)(d) is modified to remove the 100% affordability requirement. In other words, the local density bonus should extend to mixed-income housing funded by the city.

Mixed-income housing has considerable merit. From a fiscal perspective, the city’s affordable housing dollars can go further with mixed-income housing since the market rate units subsidize the costs of the affordable units. Furthermore, mixed-income housing creates inclusive communities where folks of all economic backgrounds live together.

Lowering the self-imposed affordability requirement has no real downside. Because the local density bonus is administered through the NOFA process, the city always gets a say on whether the local density bonus applies. All we ask is that you keep your options open on mixed-income housing.

Best Regards,
Salim Damerdji
On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

Letter to EPC - 555 West Middlefield Road Residential Project

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:00:00 -0800

To the Environmental Planning Commission:

Mountain View YIMBY, a local volunteer advocacy group, expresses enthusiastic support for the proposed project at 555 West Middlefield. We like this project because:

It is a no-displacement project that adds 329 new homes in place of surface parking!
15% of on-site below market rate homes!
Walking distance to downtown, Caltrain, and a grocery store, and right next to Stevens Creek trail this site provides a great location to lead a car-free lifestyle to the residents.
New pedestrian and bike path connection from Cypress Point Drive to W Middlefield makes Stevens Creek trail more easily accessible to the neighbors living south of Cypress Point Drive. Further bike and pedestrian improvements along Moffett Boulevard to the north and west of this project would be most welcome!
The 1.34 acres of land dedicated for a new park will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, creating a space for socializing.
The developer has listened to community feedback and made an effort to line up the residential frontage facing Cypress Point Drive with existing trees or parking lots to the south of Cypress Point Drive in order to minimize the impact to privacy of neighbors to the south of that street.
The developer has made an effort to preserve as many heritage trees, transplanting some more and planting additional trees to make up for the ones they are requesting to remove.

We hope that you recommend a hasty approval of this project to the council!

Thank you for considering our input.

Best regards,
Pardis Beikzadeh
On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

Letter to EPC - Google Middlefield Park Master Plan

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:00:00 -0800

To the Environmental Planning Commission:

Mountain View YIMBY, a local volunteer advocacy group, expresses strong support for Google’s proposed Middlefield Park Master Plan.

The opportunity to add 1,675 to 1,900 new homes, with a target of 20% below market rate makeup in a mixed-use setting, right next to jobs is quite exciting!

This master plan has the potential to create a one-of-a-kind community that affords residents a car-free lifestyle and easy access to high paying tech jobs and their associated service jobs in Mountain View.
The 10.5 acres of public parkland dedication will provide a pleasant place for the members of this community to destress and socialize.
The $19M of community benefit package being offered in exchange for bonus FAR will be valuable to the city.

We also have some constructive feedback that we’d hope for you to take into consideration:

The project as proposed will include more jobs than employed residents. As such, we would encourage and welcome an even denser residential component, feasibility permitting.
It would be better if the 20% BMR units are built together with the rest of the residential buildings Google is proposing, as opposed to paid for with in lieu fees and a land dedication. We believe this would create a more equitable (and less socioeconomically segregated) neighborhood and ensure that these units are delivered at the same time as the rest.
We’d like to urge the city to get clarity on the proposed development agreement from Google which requests a 20-year-long timeframe for building the project. 20 years is a very long time. We hope to see this master plan turned into reality as soon as possible!

We hope that you recommend a hasty approval of this project to the council!

Thank you for considering our input.

Best regards,
Pardis Beikzadeh
On behalf of the members of MV YIMBY

Events

MV YIMBY Leads — Fri, 01 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Calendar

Below is our calendar of events up and down the Peninsula. Please join us to advocate for more housing for all!

Letter to Council - R3 Zoning Update

MV YIMBY Leads — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mayor Abe-Koga and Members of the City Council,

Mountain View YIMBY would like to share our vision for Item 8.1 R3 Zoning District Update.

Overall, we would like to see the city adopt changes to the R3 zoning that make it more flexible, feasible, and predictable in terms of both the total fees and timing of the process. We think this can be achieved via a form-based code. More specifically, we would like to see:

Density limits (limits on dwellings / acre) completely eliminated. We think this provides developers flexibility on the choice of housing product type that they can pencil out on a parcel based on other limiting factors such as the shape, and size of the building, lot coverage, or setbacks.
In service of walkability, an option for building architectural arcades could be given, requiring sheltered sidewalks to be built in return for front setbacks being removed for the area above the resulting pedestrian canopy.
Height, lot coverage, and allowable FAR significantly increased.
Parking requirements eliminated or reduced depending on proximity to transit and downtown. We share council’s dedication to a less car-centric future, and reducing parking requirements is part of that.
Side setbacks and open space requirements reduced.
Park fees reduced, and re-structured to remove unpredictability by decoupling them from Mountain View land costs.
We believe smaller urban style parks can go a long way in increasing public access to pleasant outdoor space without needing the city to purchase massive parcels of land.

We believe the city should tap other sources of income such as corporate taxes, bonds, or state funding for this and other purposes rather than putting the entirety of the burden of raising the money on new developments.

Considering the length of the process involved in modifying the R3 code, and the fact that it was last modified about 30 years ago, and in light of Mountain View’s 2031 RHNA allocation being ~11,000 households, we urge the council to think long term as the changes currently proposed won’t cover our housing needs for even the next decade. We need to prepare for two to three times that amount.

Best Regards,

David Watson

On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

Mountain View YIMBY bids farewell to Mayor Adrian Fine of Palo Alto

MV YIMBY Leads — Sat, 07 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Mountain View YIMBY sends its regards to Mayor Adrian Fine of Palo Alto, who declined to seek re-election this year. Adrian, we wish you all the best in your future endeavors, and we will miss having you as an ally.

We share the sentiments Adrian expressed in this interview with The Six Fifty in October. We appreciate the shout-out to our city of Mountain View, but we need to keep up the momentum and keep up the pressure on our neighboring cities to build more!

Letter to Council - R3 Zoning Update

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mayor Abe-Koga and Members of the City Council,

Mountain View YIMBY would like to make comments about Item 3.1 Lot 12 Remaining Development Priorities.

Since Lot 12 is owned by the city, it represents a finite and valuable resource.We think the city could make the best use of this opportunity by not limiting the number of units to 120.

Furthermore, given the financial impact of COVID on future budgets and the increased risk of homelessness, we believe that the city should utilize Measure A funding sources to close the financial gap in Lot 12 funding and create much needed Permanently Supportive Housing and Rapid Rehousing infrastructure for the city.

While perhaps environmentally friendly, instituting a work/live preference would result in less equitable and efficient outcomes for society overall by producing a less flexible support system for the most vulnerable in our society.

Lastly, as we encourage housing people rather than cars, we suggest the council lower the requirement to replace all 160 parking spaces. Downtown Mountain View is growing into a beautiful urban center providing residents with the opportunity to lead a car-free life.

Best Regards,
David Watson
On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY

November 2020 Endorsements

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:00:00 -0800

We’ve completed our endorsement process. For Mountain View City Council, we’re endorsing

Alex Nuñez	Pat Showalter	John Lashlee	Sally Lieber

Other Endorsements

No on Measure C
Yes on Prop 15

Mountain View City Council

Alex Núñez

Alex Núñez is a strong housing and anti-displacement advocate in Mountain View. He supports building affordable housing for low- and middle-income workers; exploring additional business taxes to support BMR construction; and a strong Right of Return policy coupled with No-Net-Loss development standards.

To learn more about Alex, get involved, or donate, please visit his campaign page.

Pat Showalter

Pat Showalter is a former Mountain View City Council member with experience advocating for housing. She supports streamlining the entitlement and permitting process; finding additional funding sources for affordable housing; and rent control protections for mobile home communities. Pat is active on the League of Women Voters’ Housing Committee and the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning.

To learn more about Pat, get involved, or donate, please visit her campaign page.

John Lashlee

John Lashlee is an experienced housing and tenants’ rights advocate. He believes in an “all of the above” strategy to aggressively build public and private housing; supports expanding Mountain View’s head tax to fund affordable housing; and supports renters’ access to legal representation during eviction proceedings.

To learn more about John, get involved, or donate, please visit his campaign page.

Sally Lieber

Sally Lieber is an experienced local politician and former State Assemblywoman. She supports plex-zoning citywide; increased funding for affordable housing through bonds, land banks, and public/private partnerships; and wants to see rent control expanded to protect mobile home communities.

To learn more about Sally, get involved, or donate, please visit her campaign page.

Mountain View Ballot Measures

Mountain View YIMBY is opposing measure C. Help us stop the RV Ban.

State Legislation

At Mountain View YIMBY, we’re excited to endorse Prop 15, which closes corporate property tax loopholes.

If you’re looking for information about YIMBY Positions throughout the bay area, we suggest the YIMBY Action Endorsements

Letter to Council - Displacement Response Strategy Update

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mountain View City Council:

Dear Mayor Abe-Koga and the members of council, The Mountain View chapter of South Bay YIMBY appreciates the opportunity to comment on Agenda Item 3.1. Displacement Response Strategy Update.

We’ve read the Staff report and we support its recommendations. We find especially important the emphasis on Acquisition/Preservation Program. We encourage the City Council to award the grant for developing the options for sustainable funding for this program as soon as possible and to consider a wide range of funding sources.

The Staff report indicated that “COVID-19 could lower apartment property values and/or cause landlords to sell their properties due to financial distress. This may create an opportunity for the private sector to purchase apartment buildings now and redevelop them later, when the market recovers.” Can the city also use this opportunity for the Acquisition/Preservation Program? What would it take to do so?

The report acknowledged that “the redevelopment of CSFRA units into new rentals with SB 330 replacement and relocation requirements were highly infeasible unless there were very significant increases in density and and/or reductions to other development standards (e.g., lower parking requirements).” We expect that the acknowledgment of this issue, which was always our great concern, will be followed by developing policies that will significantly increase density and/or lower parking requirements. We urge the City Council to seize the opportunity to raise the profile of this issue.

Best Regards,

Michael Abramson

Mountain View YIMBY

Letter to Council - Public Storage/Alta Housing Gatekeeper

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mountain View City Council:

I am writing to support the gatekeeper development request (item 6.1 on Tuesday’s agenda). There are many families who live or work in Mountain View who desperately need (I do not use that word lightly) the proposed 105 below-market-rate units. Public Storage’s proposed land donation is commendable, and would set a wonderful precedent of cooperation. And I’m sure that Council is already aware that the site is conveniently located near both employment centers and the future transit artery on Shoreline.

Best regards,
Ilya Gurin
Member, MV YIMBY

November 2020 Endorsements

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Mountain View City Council

We’re beginning our endorsement process, stay tuned for endorsements in the 2020 Mountain View Council Election.

If you’re a candidate interested in early endorsement, please contact us: hello@mvyimby.com

State Legislation

At Mountain View YIMBY, we’re excited to endorse Prop 15, which closes corporate property tax loopholes.

Letter to ABAG - One million new homes is the real RHNA number

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 07 Jul 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mayor Jesse Arreguin, President, Association of Bay Area Governments,

As I wrote in an Op-ed in the Mountain View Voice last year, regional coordination is the only way we can solve the Bay Area’s regional challenges of housing affordability and transit. Now, more than ever, we need ABAG to provide bold leadership to get out of the hole we’re in.

So it was with great disappointment that I read about the dubious assumptions going into our RHNA needs determination. The status quo is a disaster and we shouldn’t extrapolate from it to guide the future! The proposed figure of 440,000 homes is not enough.

Not enough to make a dent in the housing shortage that causes millions to be cost burdened or displaced.
Not enough to undo a century of de jure and de facto racial segregation.
Not enough to reduce vehicle miles traveled, traffic, pollution, and greenhouse gasses.
Not enough to stop our neighbors from cramming into overcrowded homes (all the more unhealthy in a pandemic).
Not enough to save our workers from mega-commutes from outlying areas with increased risk of wildfires.
Not enough to provide political cover for those local leaders who want to do the right thing in the face of local NIMBY pressure.

I urge ABAG to aim for at least one million more homes by 2030.

Sincerely yours,
Jeremy Hoffman
Mountain View YIMBY

Letter to Council - 1001 N Shoreline

MV YIMBY Leads — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mayor Abe-Koga and Members of the City Council:

MV YIMBY, a local volunteer advocacy group, expresses its wholehearted support of the proposed development at 1001 N Shoreline. This development will provide 303 much-needed new homes, close to major employers, with zero displacement and minimal impact on existing neighborhoods.

The site is walking distance from employers in Terra Bella and North Bayshore. For those residents who will work outside the area, it is conveniently located to Highway 101 and future transit routes to the downtown transit center. And, since the new buildings will replace a surface parking lot adjacent to an existing office building of similar height, they will only minimally affect the character of the neighborhood.

The developer has agreed to provide a compelling benefits package. First is a total of $6.8 million between a generous school fee, community benefit fee, land dedications and infrastructure. Second is a park fee of $15.8 million. The last piece is a package of below-market-rate housing with a monetary value of $35 million. The infrastructure component includes a sewer main much needed by the City to support ongoing development in North Bayshore.

Best regards, The members of MV YIMBY June 25, 2020

Letter to Council - Street usage

MV YIMBY Leads — Mon, 25 May 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mayor Abe-Koga and City Council:

The Mountain View chapter of South Bay YIMBY expresses its support for repurposing downtown street space for restaurant seating. We have long supported making Castro Street more walkable. We believe that auto traffic on the street’s downtown core is unnecessary, and that street parking there is especially detrimental to visitors’ experiences. We agree with Mayor Abe-Koga that “the social distancing requirements of COVID-19 makes this an opportune time for us to try this concept [pedestrianization]” (as quoted by Elena Kadvany in the MV Voice, May 13).

Expanding outdoor seating would help support businesses and, in all likelihood, reduce virus transmission, as the outdoors is well ventilated and exposed to UV light. Furthermore, there are other businesses such as retail that might put sidewalk or street space to good use, as well as many businesses in strip malls outside downtown. We are also aware that such a change would not be simple, for instance because VTA bus routes would need to change. However, we encourage the city to make outdoor seating and business activity a key part of its reopening plans.

Best regards,
Ilya Gurin, on behalf of MV YIMBY

Letter to Council - Agenda Item 6.1 Gatekeeper for 355-365, 401,415 East Middlefield Road

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 03 May 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear Mayor Abe Koga and the members of council:

We are excited to see the first project in the East Whisman Precise Plan area coming to council for approval!
There’s much to like about this project:

Located walking and biking distance to offices in the East Whisman neighborhood
427 much needed homes, including 157 missing middle ownership homes
Addition of a 16000 sq foot public park
Walking distance to Middlefield light rail station
$4 million community benefit contribution ($1.5 million more than is required)

We urge the council to expedite the approval of this project, ensuring it can continue forward.
David Watson
Team Lead,
Mountain View YIMBY (30+ members)

Primary 2020 Election Results

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Election Results

The results are in from the Primary election for Mountain View.

State Senate - District 13

Our endorsed candidate for State Senate race, Shelly Masur, will not continue into the General Election in the Fall. It will be a match up between Josh Becker and Alex Glew. We thank Redwood City Councilmember Shelly Masur for boldly taking pro-housing stances, including supporting SB-50, and we were proud to endorse her.

Measure D

Mountain View voters opposed Measure D, Amendment to the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act with nearly 70% of the vote. Mountain View YIMBY opposed the changes the City’s rent control law.

Democratic Central Committee

Mountain View YIMBY endorsed current member, Emily Ann Ramos for Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee. The top 6 vote-getters are elected. Emily joins Supervisor Joe Simitian, Alyson L. Abramowitz, Bill James, Peter Y. Chiu and Mariam Ghazvini.

Mountain View YIMBY did not endorse in any other races during the primary.

View full results from the Santa Clara County registrar of voters

Letter to EPC - 1001 N Shoreline

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:00:00 -0800

To the Environmental Planning Commission:

Best regards,
The members of MV YIMBY

Letter to City Manager - Welcome Back to the City of Mountain View

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Dear City Manager Kimbra McCarthy:

The Mountain View chapter of South Bay YIMBY would like to congratulate you on your recent appointment to the City Manager position.

We are a group of grassroots volunteers across the political spectrum that advocates for all types of new housing and fair housing policies. As Mountain View residents, our priority is to increase the availability and affordability of housing in walking distance to jobs, services, and mass transit.

Please let us know if we can be of any help to keep Mountain View an inclusive and welcoming community. We look forward to working with you!

Sincerely,
Pardis Beikzadeh
David Watson
Robert Benkeser
Emily Ann Ramos
Jeremy Hoffman
Brian Gawalt
Ilya Gurin
Jeff Grafton

Mountain View chapter of South Bay YIMBY

Obama is a YIMBY!

MV YIMBY Leads — Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Looks like our former president has noticed what’s going in California.

Here are a couple of articles that are worth reading -- from housing to health, these stories use data to explore challenges we face and demonstrate how policy solutions along with civic engagement can make a real difference in people’s lives.https://t.co/G6EIUwuMqV
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) February 19, 2020

March 2020 Voting Guide

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:00:00 -0800

If you’ve been following the news, you’ve certainly noticed that it’s primary voting season again. When you’re making your decision for nominee for president, don’t forget that there’s exciting races down the ballot as well!

Senate District 13: Shelly Masur

Shelly Masur has a history of supporting affordable housing production in Redwood City and is a self-identified YIMBY and a supporter of SB 50. This makes her the clear YIMBY choice for SD13.

Mountain View Measure D: No

Measure D was developed by the City of Mountain View as a compromise to make landlord interest groups happy and stop them from developing their own anti rent control measure in November, although there is nothing stopping this even if measure D passes in March. Furthermore the language used in the ballot is misleading. The advertising attempts to ignore that Mountain View already has rent control, and that Measure D exists to weaken it.

County Committee: Emily Ann Ramos

There are many housing advocate candidates running for this position, and you might check out recommendations from Peninsula for Everyone.

Endorsing Shelly Masur

MV YIMBY Leads — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 10:00:00 -0800

Senate District 13: Shelly Masur

Shelly Masur is currently Vice Mayor of Redwood City and Vice President of the Peninsula Division of California League of Cities. She believes the state should increase funding to build more affordable housing, and wants to incentivize housing built near transit and walkable areas. She has a history of supporting affordable housing production in Redwood City and is a self-identified YIMBY and a supporter of SB 50.

Get involved with Shelly’s campaign here.

Schools & Communities First

MV YIMBY Leads — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:00:00 -0800

Some of our members spoke in favor of the Schools and Communities First, which aims to fix a loophole in California’s Property Tax code.

Donate

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0000

Support Mountain View YIMBY

Your financial support helps us advocate for more housing in Mountain View and beyond. Every contribution makes a difference in our fight for housing abundance.

Membership Dues

Mountain View YIMBY is a chapter of YIMBY Action. YIMBY Action membership dues will give you access to a nation-wide online community of YIMBYs, as well as eligibility to vote on election endorsements.

Membership dues also help pay for resources and staff that enable our grassroots organization punch above our weight.

You can make a membership donation on a monthly basis or a yearly basis, and the donation amount is flexible to accommodate different financial circumstances.

Can’t afford membership dues? You can qualify for membership by doing volunteer work instead. Learn more about volunteer membership or visit our Get Involved page for other ways to help.

Membership - Monthly

Membership - Yearly

Get Involved

MV YIMBY Leads — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0000

How You Can Help

Want to help make abundant housing in California a reality? There are many ways you can help!

Join Our Mailing List: Stay informed about housing issues and upcoming events (see form below)
Join YIMBY Action: Become part of the statewide movement! You can donate for membership or apply for volunteer membership (unpaid option)
Attend Events: Check out our calendar for upcoming meetings, advocacy events, and community gatherings
Support Us Financially: Your donations help fund our advocacy work. Visit our donation page to contribute
Spread the Word: Follow us on Facebook and X @mvyimby, and share our content to help build the movement for housing abundance

Mountain View YIMBY

March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

Two Major Housing Projects Advance in East Whisman

490 East Middlefield Road: 460 Mixed-Use Units (Item 6.2)

Loading Zone vs. Bike Lane

Other Notable Discussion Points

The Vote

515-545 North Whisman Road: 195 Rowhouses (Item 6.3)

“Frustrated by the Housing Typology”

BMR Unit Distribution

Environmental Remediation

Community Meetings

Other Business

Our Take

March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

March 04, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

Feb. 18, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

Feb. 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

Council Advances R3 Zoning Update, Sets Legislative Priorities

R3 Zoning Update (Item 7.1)

What Council Approved

McAlister’s Opposition

Public Comment

Legislative Program Study Session (Item 2.1)

Consent Calendar

Charter Modernization (Item 6.1)

Our Take

Comment on Legislative Program Priority Issues

Supported Items

Requested Revisions

Additional Recommendations

Feb. 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

Feb. 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

February 4, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

Comment on SB 79 and AB 130 Implementation

SB 79

AB 130

January 21, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

January 21, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

January 13, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

Jan. 7, 2026 Environmental Planning Commission

Comment on EPC Agenda Item 5.1 - R3 Update

Rely on Standards Other than Density Limits

Increase FAR in R3-B

Replace the Lot Consolidation “Incentive”

Reduce Front Setbacks

Replace “Massing Breaks” with Better Design Tools

Allow Retail Everywhere

Allow Height Exceptions

Grant Exceptions for Community Benefits

Dec. 16, 2025 City Council Special Meeting

Dec. 16, 2025 City Council Special Meeting

Council Approves Housing Element Rezonings, Advances Homeownership Strategy

Housing Element Rezonings Approved (Item 6.1)

Advancing Low- and Middle-Income Homeownership (Item 7.1)

Conclusion

Agenda item 6.1 – Housing Element Rezonings

Agenda item 7.1 – Homeownership Strategy

Dec. 9, 2025 City Council Meeting

Dec. 9, 2025 City Council Meeting

Council Delays Historic Register Expansion Amidst SB 79 Debate

Agenda item 6.1 – Historic Preservation

Nov. 18, 2025 City Council Meeting

Nov. 18, 2025 City Council Meeting

Nov. 5, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

Oct. 28, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Oct. 28, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Oct. 28, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Oct. 21, 2025 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Oct. 21, 2025 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Oct. 15, 2025 Environmental Planning Commission

Oct. 14, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Oct. 14, 2025 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

October 1, 2025 Meeting of the Environmental Planning Commission

Sept. 23, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Sept. 23, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council