Mountain View adjusts local zoning in major clean-up to comply with state laws, clarify regulations

City planning officials are doing a big cleanup of Mountain View’s zoning code, ensuring it complies with state law and is written clearly and consistently for those seeking to build in the city.

On Wednesday, the Environmental Planning Commission deliberated on a slew of zoning amendments that covered a wide breadth of changes, from small textual edits to more substantial revisions that restricted or expanded the scope of the city’s zoning regulations.

This year was particularly notable for the large number of proposed amendments. Because of the pandemic, code updates were fairly irregular, said Senior Planner Krishna Penollar, who covered about 50 different kinds of amendments in her presentation to the commission.

Organized by topic, the amendments fell into four broad categories. The first category focused on state legislation and bringing ordinances in line with these requirements. The second category focused on Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) updates while the third addressed Housing Element updates. The last category proposed clarifications to miscellaneous zoning procedures and regulations.

On the whole, the commissioners supported the proposed changes to the city code, recognizing that many of these amendments were necessary to comply with state laws. They also were careful not to move the discussion towards policy decisions. Rather, they largely focused on the details of the amendments, a point that Commissioner Hank Dempsey referred to as “code hygiene.”

Ultimately, the commissioners honed in on five amendments, proposing modifications to three, asking for clarification on one and rejecting another outright.

Two of their suggestions focused on ADU updates. They discussed providing more flexibility to the proposed height of these units, raising it from 16 feet to 18 feet, and the possibility of allowing inward-facing balconies.

Commissioner Chris Clark noted that an increased height allowance would offer more architectural flexibility. “It aesthetically moves the needle,” he said, adding that it would break up the box monotony of ADUs.

Clark also broached the topic of the inward-facing balcony, stating that most detached ADUs typically sit on long, rectangular lots and are situated at the back of a property. A balcony facing the yard or common space amenities would not be invasive to neighbors, especially if the ADU height allowance is only 18 feet, he said.

With the third modification, which focused on roof screens, Clark asked that screens be allowed to be shorter than rooftop equipment, which likely would not be visible from a street view anyway, he said.

Dempsey asked for more clarification about a new amendment relating to a county health department program known as Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEKHOs). The amendment adds MEKHOs as a home occupation, with provisions on their location and hours of operation. Dempsey raised the issue of noise impacts in a multifamily setting, as well as the potential of continuous pollutants, for instance from a massive outdoor barbeque smoker.

“I just hope that there is consideration as this is flushed out, that we’re thinking about … people that are living densely packed, so that all their kids can sleep and don’t smell smoke through a wall,” he said.

The commissioners also opposed an amendment that would limit planning applications to one at a time for the same project site. Occasionally, applicants propose multiple developments for the same site, as a way to hedge their bets, said Assistant Community Development Director Lindsay Hagan. Concurrent applications are confusing to the public, who don’t know which development project is going forward, she added.

But Commissioner Jose Gutierrez pushed back on the cap, stating that it would limit the best possible options for the city, a point that a public speaker also raised in his comments to the commission.

“The reason developers will go through the extra cost of adding an extra application is that they’re worried one of their applications will not get through, or won’t be feasible,” the speaker said, adding that a more effective solution would be to communicate better with the public, for instance by asking the developer what is their preferred plan and labeling them as such.

“This also was listed as a clarification to the zoning code. It was not a clarification. It’s a policy direction change,” he said.

The commission ultimately recommended that city staff remove the cap on multiple planning applications.