The City of Mountain View City Council just voted to remove parking minimums in ~all of the densest parts of the city. This was a Housing Element program that got added to the Housing Element specifically due to advocacy from Mountain View YIMBY

​

The City of Milpitas adopted its Housing Element Update on January 24, 2023, and HCD found the adopted Housing Element Update in substantial compliance on May 17, 2023. Therefore, the City of Milpitas has 3 years from the adoption date, January 24, 2026, to complete its rezoning.

The City plans to implement this rezoning through two projects:

1. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update: We’ve completed Phase 1 of the project, which focused on bringing the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the General Plan and rezoning sites identified in the recent Housing Element Update.
2. Housing Opportunity Districts: While Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update has already implemented most of the required rezonings, there are few sites in the City’s proposed Housing Opportunity Districts (HODs), which have yet to be rezoned. The HODs proposes to rezone and upzone the City’s aging shopping centers to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment, which is a key policy outlined in the City’s General Plan. This project is still in progress and we anticipate adoption by early 2025. However, we have run into significant community opposition along the way despite the City’s attempts to educate the public on the importance and necessity of completing this project. The community is generally concerned with the potential impacts of high-density multifamily development on their single-family residential neighborhoods nearby (privacy, property value, etc.) and the City’s services overall (traffic, utilities, etc.). Please feel free to review the change.org petition for more information on their concerns. I’ve also attached the City’s response to the petition.

We welcome YIMBY’s support for the HODs, which is critical to the City completing the required rezoning for Housing Element compliance. A community workshop is scheduled for 12/9 at the Milpitas Senior Center (40 N Milpitas Blvd, Milpitas, CA 95035). You’re welcome to attend this workshop, although the discussion will be focused on the specifics of the zoning strategy rather than the project as a whole this time around. You may also draft a letter to the City, which we can share with decision makers, or participate in any adoption hearings early next year.

​

​

There are no housing related items in the agenda

From Public Advocates: Mountain View Housing Element is bad

Staff put forward a bad housing element draft and will submit to HCD in two weeks. The draft has zero pipeline analysis (despite claiming the pipeline meets 80+% of our RHNA), basically argues there are no AFFH issues in MV, and has an, imo, inchoate constraints analysis. MV YIMBY won the narrative that this element is inadequate, but it's basically up to HCD to make this draft better.

​

A progressive pro housing majority asked staff to explore many good ideas to potentially add to the draft, but nothing they added was game-changing for upzoning or streamlining.

It was horseshit. The city thinks it can accommodate more than half of needed low income housing with the pipeline (which is false), so the city can avoid providing analysis showing the nonvacant sites are likely to discontinue their existing use. We told them why that's bogus but they don't care. We also told them that their programs need specificity (literally one program is just 'affh,' I'm not kidding) and commitments (just exploration). On and on and on, we're telling them what will get their housing element rejected, and they're ignoring us. It's maddening

Strawpolls in study session had majority support for staff to: 1) add more commercial to the inventory 2) look into El Camino Hospital South of El Camino 3)  rezoning land owned by gov'ts and religious institutions

​

And for programs, support was for 1) COPA 2) local sb 330 and right to return 3) reducing parking for affordable housing 4) an affordable housing overlay

They largely approved a shitty status quo site inventory that excluded R1, R2, and any residential lot with existing density above a triplex. It also doesn't AFFH, and anyone with eyes can see how much they're clustering development.

​

Dempsey, Cranston, Hehmeyer, Nunez, and Gutierrez supported increasing the buffer for BMRs.

EPC recommended two goals: one to address jobs-housing imbalance; second to address quality of life with construction. (There was recently a no displacement project at 555 Middlefield on people's mind bc the construction site was next to existing housing, and health risks came up.) 

EPC agreed with staff on narrowly targeted approach to non-conforming structures in R1 and R2.

Also note that EPC just is a planning commission.

Presentation by Eric Anderson:

Key Requirements & Challenges in the Housing Element:

-Increase in RHNA numbers

-Additional RHNA requirements

-No Net Loss

-Constraints to Housing (City Requirements, School District CFD)

-Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

​

1st Question to Council:  Does the City Council have any comments regarding new key HE requirements, related to the following: 

-RHNA Approach and Sites Inventory

-Constraints to Housing (City Fees, Standards Processes; School District CFD)

​

2nd Question to Council: Does the City Council support the initial list of draft HE policy topics?

​

Presentation by Ellen Yau, Senior Planner

Ellen Yau: To date, staff has conducted a considerable amount of public outreach 

-Project website

-Stakeholder Interviews (May & April 2021)

-Farmers’ Market Pop-Up (August & Sept 2021)

-“Let’s Talk Housing Santa Clara County” Virtual Community Meeting (Aug 30, 2021)

-Virtual Community Workshop (Sept. 23, 2021)

-Community Input Survey (on-going)

​

Next Steps:

EPC & CC Study Sessions: Feb-Mar 2022

Public Draft:    May-June 2022

EPC & CC Study Sessions:       June 2022

HCD Reviews Draft:    Aug-Oct 2022

HCD Review of Final:  Jan-Mar 2023

​

Public Comment Period:  Strong YIMBY turnout, but about equal NIMBY turnout heavily focused on: 1) Lack of “real” public outreach to existing residents, and 2) Supportive of staff recommendation to rely on General & Precise Plans to meet RNHA, rather than R3 rezoning

​

Select Questions from City Council Members:

CM Hicks: Re: net new housing (Table 3, page 8), We have permitted a lot of new housing in the lower income brackets, but we also demolished a lot; How many net, new lower-income units have we produced?

E. Anderson: We have approved 450 new units in low, moderate & very low income brackets; We demolished over 600 units in the last cycle – but that also includes above-moderate and market-rate.

CM Hicks:  So it’s possible we haven’t created any net new rental units?

E. Anderson:  Yes

CM Hicks: What are your thoughts for changing the Notice of Funding Availability process for affordable housing?

A. Srivastava:  Unlike other cities, MV starts the process very early in the development for affordable housing developers, even before they have a project approved; Developers like this because it provides certainty – however, it still requires time because staff has to bring the design information to Council & NOFA committee before allocating funding.  

​

CM Abe-Koga: How can we shift more of our production to affordable housing?  Someone mentioned a housing overlay?  Is that possible, in spite of the no-clustering requirement? Are we able to zone for higher than 15% inclusionary housing? I’ve pushed for higher than 20%, but have been told it’s not feasible.  What are the real possibilities to meet our affordable unit requirements?

E. Anderson:  There are a lot of funding challenges for affordable housing – where is there national, state, etc funding available?  There is also a catch-22 where if we increase the BMR requirements on a market-rate project, it makes it less feasible – and we don’t want to reduce our overall housing production. On the question of affordable housing overlay, we’d have to see how that would further the existing incentives we have for affordable housing.  For example, we recently adopted a density bonus ordinance that allows CC to set 100% affordable projects at any density.  We also have a NOFA process that allows 100% affordable projects to bypass the gatekeeper process (i.e. come in on industrial/commercial sites w/o waiting for gatekeeper).

​

Vice Mayor Ramirez: Regarding the R3 update, what is staff’s strategy to solicit community input going forward?

E. Anderson: We are planning a series of 6 community outreach meetings in early 2022, targeted to each of the CNC neighborhoods.  We’ll continue to analyses of concerns we’ve heard, such as transitions and adjacencies, before we bring forth any proposals to council.

Vice Mayor Ramirez:  Will the outreach include some education of where the R3 zoning is already is, and what the development standards currently are?

E. Anderson: Yes, absolutely.  Lots of diagrams including what’s proposed and what’s in existence.   

Vice Mayor Ramirez: We’ve seen several R3 properties redeveloped over the last decade.  To what extent does what we’ve already seen happen with R3 inform the work staff is doing with the HE moving forward?

E. Anderson: There are several projects Council has asked staff to work on related to this issue.  One of those is the Anti-Displacement Strategy, which is happening in parallel to the HE update.

Vice Mayor Ramirez: Will staff identify as a concern, that many of these naturally affordable, rent-controlled units are at the end of their useful lives?

E. Anderson: Absolutely.  We do need to have policies and programs that support rehabilitation and maintenance.  Most apts in MV are about 50 years old.  50 years old doesn’t necessarily need to mean the end of the building’s useful life, so we definitely need to look at policies that consider preservation and maintenance.

​

CM Showalter: Could you talk about how we’re going to produce more moderate income housing?

E. Anderson: There are a couple of projects in the pipeline that are adding a significant number of moderate income units (777 Middlefield).  In addition, when we updated our BMR code, we included a 2-income requirement for projects, with the express intent of providing a higher diversity of income levels.  

A. Srivastava:  We’re working on a proposal by a JPA that the city joined, to acquire existing apartment units, and deed restricting them for affordable housing.  Depending on how many units we get, we could add to the moderate income bracket inventory.

Attending:

Senior Planner Ellen Yau

Stephanie Hagar (BAE)

Eric Anderson, Principal Planner

​

EPC Members:

Margaret Capriles

William Cranston, Chair

Hank Demsey

Preeti Hehmeyer

Kammy Lo, Vice Chair

Joyce Yin

​

It was quite contentious. Unlike the public workshops, the NIMBYs were out in full force. We were outnumbered in the public comments, the majority of which seemed to say: 1) Put all the RHNA housing in E. Whisman & N. Bayshore, and 2) Forget the R3 update. Albert Jeans showed up with his slides, showing the horrors of different setback limits. One lady organized what sounded like her kids to chant "No R3 for me!"  Another commentator specifically mentioned how disappointed she was at the workshops not being representative of the community, and said that they must do better outreach. 

​

NIMBY comments:

​

Bill Lambert: speaking on behalf of Friends of MV Parks, wants adequate community investment in parks, etc. Investing in only housing is harmful. Sees nothing in staff report that adequate community investment was considered.

Toni Rath: fulfill the RHNA using only the East Whisman and North Bayshore precise plans. The R3 project is a poor candidate to meet RHNA requirements. R3 zoning will harm the neighborhood character, cause gentrification and resident displacement. R3 zoning also ignores resource constraints mentioned by Bill Lambert.

Robert Cox: Prioritize the E. Whisman & N. Bayshore precise plans.  Using R3 zoning to meet RHNA targets will only result in displacement and gentrification.

​

Louise Katz: We’re destroying naturally affordable housing to create more housing. There is a lot of confusion coming from the R3 supporters.

​

Albert Jeans: Would also like to support previous speakers who said we shouldn’t rely on R3 zoning, as that’s counting your chickens before they hatch. Shared slides.

​

Shari Emling: R3 is very unpopular to both homeowners and renters, Parking will be a disaster; Homeowners’ privacy will be under attack.

​

EPC Discussion with Staff:

​

Comm. Hehmeyer: Lots of misinformation about precise plans; Google projects are a 20-year timeline, so wouldn’t count, right?

Eric Anderson: can’t say how many units will be considered, Probably not all

Comm. Hehmeyer: Do the Precise Plans meet AFFH requirements?

Stephanie Hagar: No, to meet AFFH units must be distributed throughout city

​

Comm. Capriles: Has there been discussion with schools and hospitals about using their land?

Eric Anderson: City has limited leverage.

​

Vice Chair Lo: Why can’t North Bayshore & East Whisman all be counted towards the RHNA?

Eric Anderson: Depending on the phasing, only about half of the master plans will meet the RHNA.

​

Comm. Dempsey: I want a map of resource-rich areas in MV.  When will the EPC see the R3 topic come up again?

Eric Anderson: Spring 2022, after outreach.

​

Comm. Yin: When will the master plans for North Bayshore & East Whisman come out?  Will they come out in time?

Eric Anderson: It’s a concurrent process.  I think we’ll have enough information.

Comm. Yin:  There’s a lack of clarity about the naturally affordable units.  Low chance that tenants would leave and then come back.  Open to “looking” at R3; Wants to know more about displacement policies that have been known to work

Eric Anderson: SB 330 tries to address replacement; Providing funding for tenant relocation is the next step; There’s a lot of creativity we can apply to the problem; Staff will bring forward displacement response study sessions.

Comm Yin: Please look into community-based land trusts that we could use to offset costs.

​

Chair Cranston: There is still development potential in San Antonio, isn’t there?

Eric Anderson: It’s a question of how we make the argument to HCD of whether those are likely to be developed in 8 years.

Chair Cranston: MV has produced more units than SJ, do you have any reason to believe our review process needs to be streamlined?

Eric Anderson: That was just in the last year, certainly not the case before then; We’re working actively to improve our review process.

​

Comm Dempsey: One of the comments from developers during outreach was lack of staff – is that a well-founded point? Would additional staffing cut time to get permits out?

Eric Anderson: Highest priority are the zoning compliant projects where we’re under state law to respond in 30 days; For those we’re following state law and local ordinances; 2nd priority are those that the council wants us to work on (i.e. R3 zoning, Moffett Precise Plan).

​

Comm. Hehmeyer: AFFH is the most important to me; I am the only renter on the EPC.

​

Vice Chair Lo: Sustainability and quality of life are important; Development approach needs to be balanced

​

Comm Yin:  In agreement with Cranston and Lo. Public outreach is important. Densifying has its merit, but we can’t just look at numbers; We need to consider amenities, infrastructure and open space; Would prefer to focus on North Bayshore & E. Whisman.

​

Comm Dempsey: Worried about displacement and schools. We are not focused enough on ancillary services that have to come with housing.

​

Vice Chair Lo: Add access to green spaces to potential policy topics.

​

Senior Planner Yau: We will be back in Spring 2022 with updates on policy topics, site inventory; Get input and then develop the Housing Element.

​

Mountain View Community Open House, 9/23/2021

47 participants 

​

City of Mountain View:

Ellen Yau, Senior Planner

Eileen Li, Mandarin Community Outreach Specialist

Martin Alkire, Advanced Planning Manager

Eric Anderson, Principal Planner

Krisha Penollar, Associate Planner

Brittany Whitehill, Associate Planner

Soroush Aboutalebi, Assistant Planner

​

Consultant Team:

Stephanie Hagar, BAE

Evan Wasserman, ESA

Dave Javid, Plan to Place

Paul Kronser, Plan to Place

Rachel Sharkland, Plan to Place

​

I. How will Mountain View address its RHNA?

​

A. Mountain View will probably have enough sites to accommodate the RHNA; If so, no rezoning necessary; Analysis in-progress

i) Precise Plans: North Bayshore, East Whisman, San Antonio, El Camino

ii) R3 Zoning Update (in progress)

iii) Other sites citywide

​

B. Additional analysis needed for non-vacant sites & sites <0.5 acres or >10 acres

​

C. Consideration of fair housing implications

i) Avoid clustering of affordable units

ii) Provide equitable access to high-opportunity areas

​

D. If existing sites cannot accommodate the full RHNA, must rezone to create additional capacity.

i) Primary Requirement: Identify sites where new housing could be built

ii) Must meet criteria set by the State

-Zoned for residential use

-Access to appropriate utilities

-Able to be developed within the planning period

-Lower-income sites must be zoned for at least 30 dwelling units/acre

​

II. Small Group Discussions 

~4-5 breakout rooms

-My breakout room had 14 participants, including myself and James Kuszmaul

​

Discussion Topics (Y: YIMBY comments; N: NIMBY comments)

​

A. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Mountain View?

Y: Lack of supply, lack of density, tenant displacement

N: Boxy buildings, lack of consideration to traffic impact, Too much construction

​

B. What do you think Mountain View should do to address housing needs or goals?

Y: Eliminate minimum parking requirements, more density closer to job locations, sustainable housing that taps into reclaimed water pipeline; 

N: Put more consideration into neighborhood character and aesthetics

​

C. What characteristics do you want to see in housing over the next 10 years?

Y: Density, more housing for all income levels closer to jobs and educational opportunities

N: More homeownership opportunities, Fewer “transients”

​

D. What suggestions do you have for Mountain View to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?

- Reach out to large apartment complexes & neighborhood associations 

​

Main Discussion: 84 participants (Milpitas, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara)

-Led by Paul Peninger, Baird & Driskell

-Basic overview of Housing Element process, timeline, goals, etc.

​

Mountain View Breakout Room:

-21 participants

-Led by Ellen Yau, Senior Planner & Brandi Campbell Wood (Baird & Driskell)

​

MV 2023-2031 Housing Element Goals:

-Accommodate MV’s RHNA of ~11,000 units

-Development capacity from recent Precise Plans, ongoing R3 zoning update

-Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)

-Provide access to opportunity

-Address fair housing issues and constraints

-Coordinate with other key City housing initiatives

-Displacement strategy, R3 zoning update, federal assessment of fair housing

-Address local goals and needs

-Use data on local conditions

-Requires input from the public

​

Discussion Questions:

*What’s working in our city/town?

     -new row houses and mixed use developments       

     -Mountain View is very supportive of affordable housing 

     -The city has been getting better about funding and approving non-profit affordable housing

*What are some of our key housing needs or challenges?

     -All the recent developments have been too short and had too much parking. 

     -Restrictive Zoning and community opposition to increased density

*What ideas, policies, programs, suggestions do you have to meet our housing needs?

     -1) Follow the Los Angeles model and have data driven calculations for the likelihood of development on inventory sites. 2) Upzone Old MV to AFFH

​

Timeline:

March 2021 – March 2022: Community Outreach

March-Spring 2022: Work on Studies and Draft update

Spring 2022: Draft for Review

Fall 2022: Public Hearings with EPC and City Council

January 2023: Housing Element Adoption

​

NIMBY comments:

“Neighborhoods are being forced to accept developments on the basis of .5 mile distance to transit. But transit is really barely existent or effective. Is the East Whisman precise plan no longer in effect?”

“We are running out of open space in Mtn. View. Seeing more and more exceptions were super high condos are in planning stage. These high rise condos are invading our modest neighborhood. I'm afraid with open spaces being developed, does the city looking at using eminent domain to buy up needed land to development?”

“The city has already taken away the Hetch Hetchy trail for development. I do not see how you can create 8209 new housing units unless you build higher. Mtn View has always been a modest town. Business giants like Google have destroyed our modest town. Google transport their own employees with private buses. Our public transportation is expensive and ineffective. Addtionally, people whom live outside the area are "penalized" havinf to drive into the valley with more and more toll roads. The government tricked the voters into thinking the increased tax for infrastructure was to build and fix roads. Instead, they built more toll roads!”`

This is the "Let's Talk Housing" series that the county is doing. Including staff from Campbell, Los Gatos, and Los Altos Hills, there were 46 participants before the three breakout rooms opened. I noticed that Mike Krey from the Campbell Planning Commission and the Mayor of Campbell, Liz Gibbons, were both there. In the Q&A, someone asked a question about "Critical Race Theory", and the hosts thankfully dodged it.

​

When asked what happens if a city doesn't have enough zoned capacity, the hosts said some very handwavey things about repurposing commercial space, and danced around the idea that a city would have to make more capacity. Disappointing. It's like they don't believe that HCD will actually bring the hammer down.

​

We're also told that the county has built enough market-rate housing, but the lack of affordable housing has driven up rents. (This is not how housing works, aargh.) There is no mention of why market-rate housing isn't affordable to most people. Jobs don't pay enough to "let them compete in the housing market".

​

When asked for one word to describe our vision of the future of our city, most people wrote "affordable", "inclusive", or "diverse", but two people wrote "non-dense" and "ban on parcel splitting", and Liz Gibbons wrote "non-political", which is a pleasant aspiration. We then went into our breakout rooms, by city. (I'm in the Campbell room.)

​

The Campbell room had 11 people, of whom two were city staff (Rob Eastwood and Stephen Rose), three were city officials (myself, Mike Krey, and Liz Gibbons), and one a facilitator (Joshua Abrams), leaving five regular civilians. The City touted its updated ADU standards, the (incomplete) objective standards work, a program to educate homebuyers and getting REAP/LEAP grants. Not impressive. They point out that we should be at 75% of our RHNA 5 numbers, but we're at 4%/3%/11% for VLI/LI/MI. But 391 market-rate units is 118% of our allocation!

​

Staff points out that our allocation is larger, will require larger densities, and will make site reuse harder. Showed us some visualizations of densities from 3.5 du/ac up to 28+, which is currently illegal in Campbell. By the time they finished presenting, it was 7.

​

Things that people appreciate about housing the way it is: walkable, "family-friendly"/"safe", walkable, diverse. Gibbons: "a collection of diverse neighborhoods" with diverse housing types. Things that people don't like: expensive, hard to develop--long, arduous process to work with the city (Scott Cooley), not enough affordable housing, difficulty selling SFH homeowners on affordable housing. I actually heard someone saying that self-driving cars need less parking, so we should plan for less parking.

​

I focused on removing discretionary rules which people have to beg around, like parking. The rules that make missing middle housing illegal. When someone complained about parking shortages, I suggested residential parking permits, since we already have those in at least one neighborhood, and they're popular. People are concerned about parking, and I don't know if they think that can be solved without keeping density low.

General Meeting led by: Paul Peninger, Consultant of Baird & Driskell; 81 participants; Staff from Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Los Altos;

Los Altos Breakout Room led by: David Driskell, Baird & Driskell; 13 participants;

Guido Persicone (Planning Manager, Los Altos)

Short version: Mountain View is doing a great job. They're honest, forthright, and happy to lead on housing.

​

Long version:

- EPC asks: have we zoned we have enough already for next cycle? Staff says yes under the old version of the rules, we'd already be done. But now we have to show there's realistic capacity for our RHNA, so we may have to identify more sites.

- North Bayshore & East Whisman are areas where Google wants to build thousands of homes on vacant land. These two projects will carry Mountain View's affordable housing requirements next cycle. An hour and 15 mins in, Chair Cranston explicitly says he doesn't think MV should claim all of North Bayshore & East Whisman RHNA credit for 6th cycle because the master plans extend beyond 2031. (Follow up on this in case MV claims all of Master Plan credit for 6th cycle.)

- Staff says 99 homekey units were removed from MV's VLI count because those homes lacked kitchen facilities.

- Staff says neighboring cities are counting ADUs as moderate income housing, but that Mountain View doesn't because they're not deed-restricted.

- Staff is sending the 2020 APR to Council on 3/23; submit to HCD and OPR 4/1