The guest opinion of Dec. 22, “Local government gone wrong,” requires a response. The mischaracterization of the city council’s motivations in the Satake Nursery site rezoning as a continuing “pro-developer stance” needs a reality check.
There were several arguments that I personally found persuasive in support of the modified R1 zoning recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission. And, although now accused of not listening to the “neighborhood,” I did listen, and did review the materials provided by the obviously diligent and earnest Unity advocates.
However, listening should not convey an expectation of acquiescence to what has been heard. The various positions or “arguments” have to be weighed in context of impacts on both the immediate neighborhood and the broader community as a whole.
The city is constantly challenged to provide more housing so that some of it becomes more affordable. If the city doesn’t make reasonable efforts to offset the state’s concerns of a jobs-to-housing imbalance, the state is poised to remove local controls by legislating its override of certain restrictions on housing development — for example, local parking requirements.
Those that accuse the council of kowtowing to developers should first take a look at the Housing Element of the General Plan, because that is the real motivator. In this backdrop, the council adopted a major change to higher-housing density near the existing Monta Loma neighborhood, primarily because of proximity to rapid transit (so-called “smart growth”). Many of those residents felt they weren’t listened to, but numerous mitigations were applied because of their input.
Nevertheless, the council had to consider this development in light of the few opportunities available to significantly increase housing stock through a smart growth application, which is in the broader community interest.
With the Satake site development, the EPC recommended that R1 zoning, together with the major mitigation of carving Marilyn Drive into two cul-de-sacs, represents a significant preservation of the immediate neighborhood while allowing four more houses than R1-7 zoning would. While certainly not adding a great deal to the broader community need for housing, it at least gives that some consideration.
Here are some cogent reasons for supporting R1 zoning which actually came from residents of the immediate neighborhood:
1) We believe that the additional four units gained with R1 zoning are needed by the community. The city needs more ownership housing for families. All areas of Mountain View should try to optimize housing opportunities for others, which answers a social need.
2) Also, we believe that increasing the lot size and size of the houses will increase the price of the housing by 10 to 15 percent, which will make the housing out of reach to most of the population. This type of infill opportunity is unique with such a large parcel of land. Reducing the number of units will decrease the project’s economies of scale and increase costs.
3) We do not consider that an R1 zoning will hurt the “rural” character or integrity of the neighborhood. The lot sizes in this area vary from 4,500 to 13,000-plus square feet. The subdivision lot lines never had a grid-like design: It reflects the crossing of a creek, the existing nursery and subsequent lot splits. From the street, one cannot tell a 13,000-square-foot lot from a 5,000-square-foot lot, as most houses have the same frontage in this neighborhood. Further, the companion unit ordinance makes the lot size per unit around 6,000 square feet.
4) Changing the lot size from R1 to R7 does not change the setback requirements, thus R1 provides the same level of privacy.
This constitutes my response as an individual member of the council, and, while it is not my intention to undo the Marilyn Drive mitigation, I believe the neighborhood should recognize the value in this definite tilting of the balance between immediate neighborhood and broader community interests in the favor of the immediate neighborhood.
Nick Galiotto is mayor of Mountain View.
