|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View is making strides with its plan to rezone parts of the city to create more opportunities to build more homes, including some lower-density multifamily residential areas.
The Environmental Planning Commission took the first crack at the heavily updated zoning strategy, spending more than three hours discussing the selected “change areas” and proposed densities at a study session on Feb. 19.
Ultimately, commissioners backed a plan to implement a lower-density upzoning option for these select sites within the larger R3 zoning district, an area that makes up about half of the city’s multifamily residences.
Last year, the City Council provided direction for staff to explore strategic density changes in the R3 zoning district. Since then, the city has identified 14 change areas that could reasonably accommodate more housing. It also has identified low-density properties that could be upzoned, both south of El Camino Real and near the downtown area.
The EPC supported the recommended change areas for the R3 zoning district, which takes into account a broad range of criteria like parcel size, proximity to transit and commercial areas and neighboring single-family residences.
“It seems balanced and fair,” said Commissioner Joyce Yin, referring to the selected sites.
Commissioner Bill Cranston noted that it was preferable to have consistent criteria. Otherwise, it could open the door for individuals to contest the inclusion of their properties, he said.
Commissioners also supported upzoning lower-density sites that currently fall in the R2 zoning district, and recommended that the city include more properties near the Mountain View Transit Center.
Taking it a step further, Commissioner Alex Nunez proposed that the city upzone R2 sites around Sylvan Park. The properties are close to a freeway, bus stop and park with multifamily residences abutting single-family homes too, he said.
The rest of the commissioners did not back Nunez’s suggestion. “I worry about getting too far into the weeds of picking individual pieces of property,” said Commissioner Hank Dempsey.
Dempsey also expressed concern that upzoning a lot of low-density areas could potentially lead to the displacement of residents – a scenario that the city has faced before with developers converting rent-controlled apartments into rowhomes.
“If we put a lot more of those spaces open for larger redevelopment, what’s that going to mean for the folks that live there?” Dempsey asked.
The commission received a handful of public comments generally in support of the proposed locations targeted for increased housing density. But one Palo Alto resident raised concerns about the impacts of spillover parking to his Monroe Park neighborhood.
“The request that I have is that when you guys design these properties, however you do it – and I’m for increasing density – but let’s be honest about what parking requirements are today, not what we hope they will be in 10 years or five years,” he said.
Density options for R3 zoning
The commission also weighed in on density options for the selected sites in the R3 change areas. The staff report presented two different scenarios – based on a housing typology of “subdistricts” – that could have buildings go up to four stories or six stories.
Developers likely would build more stories with state density bonuses, although this would be tempered by the projects’ feasibility, according to Principal Planner Eric Anderson, who presented the report to the commission.
“Seven stories is comfortable for a lot of developers, and a lot of them do come in at that height to take most advantage of the density at that building type,” Anderson said. Once buildings go higher, construction materials change and costs escalate, although building technology is changing too, he said.
The report also presented an option of going up to four stories that would allow higher densities through a local bonus instead of a state bonus – a scenario that the report says could present legal and operational challenges.
The commission favored the four-story sub-district option, which is expected to lead to taller, more dense development through state density bonuses.
“We know that there’s the state density bonus, we’re aware that developers will use them and so it’s very possible, likely even, that the four stories will go much higher,” Yin said.
However, the selection of the four-story base would downsize one part of the change area, Del Medio South. The commission recommended a carve out to counter this possibility, and picked the higher-density subdistrict for this specific area, with the possibility of state density bonuses.
“As for density, I think the middle way here is to provide a little bit of a mix,” Dempsey said, expressing support for a pick-and-choose approach. “I expect a lot of these sites are going to end up larger and higher because of the density bonus.”
I love how there’s a black hole of low density housing in the best possible area for high density housing: Old MV and Shoreline West
Thanks to EPC for moving this forward, but their recommendations are too timid on a few fronts. Although the “change areas” are not a bad idea in principle, they could be larger. Some of the criteria used to exclude properties from the change areas don’t make a lot of sense.
Furthermore, much of the R2 zone could be upgraded to R3, especially the big chunks in Sylvan Park (as suggested by Commissioner Nuñez) and across from downtown. The concern about displacement is really misplaced here. Most people who live in R2 can afford to find another place to live. For those few who can’t, it’s not hard to implement displacement protections like those already in place and under discussion for R3.
The area nearest to 237 is very small, a former 7-11. Interesting if that could be developed densely.
But the adjacent area is either SFH where the land cost would be $15M per acre or a mobile home park which would displace affordable housing and also probably cost about $15M per acre JUST FOR THE LAND.
The zoning rules aren’t magic. You will only see development where the location is superior for a dense project, not just barely acceptable. And the old buildings there need to be somewhat cheap and run down, not $3.5 M SFH built in 1980 or later.