A developer in Mountain View is threatening litigation if the city does not drop its conditions of approval and allow a builder’s remedy project to proceed.
Tower Investment’s Forrest Linebarger plans to create a seven-story, 85-unit condominium structure on a half-acre property at 294 and 296 Tyrella Ave., replacing an existing family home and an empty lot.
The proposed development exceeds local zoning standards but can get around these rules under the builder’s remedy. The project was submitted while Mountain View did not have a compliant housing element, and it complies with state housing rules by designating 20% of the apartments as affordable to low-income families.
The project has been contentious from the start, with the developer and pro-housing groups charging that the city of Mountain View attempted to “execute an end run around” the builder’s remedy by adding illegal conditions of permission. Locals have also criticised the project for being too tall for the low-density area.
A public meeting last month brought the fear of legal action to a head, forcing city officials to postpone a recommendation to bring the application forward for consideration by the City Council.
According to Senior Planner Krisha Penollar, Linebarger’s attorney sent the planning division a letter on Nov. 13 asking more than 30 substantive amendments to the city’s conditions of approval, as well as other claims relating to the project’s processing.
The letter was received on the same day as the public hearing, so staff did not have enough time to thoroughly study and react to it. Penollar requested that the hearing be rescheduled until a later date to allow the planning division more time.
Letters threatening litigation
Earlier this year, Mountain View received letters from YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund threatening litigation if it attempted to impose unlawful conditions of approval on the Tyrella project.
Similar issues are raised in Linebarger’s attorney’s letter dated November 13. It adds that the city has offered over 200 conditions of approval, and while Linebarger was willing to comply with the majority of them, some would make the project unfeasible.
The letter cites Mountain View’s park site dedication and transportation impact fees as violations of state housing law, similar to another builder’s remedy project that resulted in a settlement agreement between the city and developer.
The letter also claims that the city neglected to properly publicise the public hearing and did not allow Linebarger enough time to consider all of the conditions of approval.
Linebarger brought up these issues during the hearing, claiming that he had been requesting the conditions of permission for more than a month and had not received them prior to the hearing. He also stated that he was not aware of the meeting until he received a phone call from the city the day before, on November 12.
“I really do think the city should spend a little time and try to coordinate this so that they do not put City Council in the unfortunate situation of having to approve the project with infeasible conditions, or alternately go down the road of a potential lawsuit,” Linebarger told reporters.
The municipality claims that it “complied with the legal requirements to notice the public hearing, which included a mailed notice to the owner’s address.”
Public reactions
Despite the fact that a final recommendation was postponed, the public was still able to comment on the Tyrella project at the Nov. 13 hearing.
Several neighbourhood residents opposed the proposals, claiming fears that the seven-story skyscraper would tower over single-family homes and cause more traffic and parking problems on the street.
“It’s time for the city of Mountain View to stop listening to outside interests and put the needs of the people who live here first,” said Roger Noel, who has lived on Tyrella Avenue for 42 years.
“I think you should do everything you can to push back on this project, even if it means going to court and demonstrating to the residents who live here and pay taxes here that you’re on their side,” he told me.
Tim Palmer, another Tyrella Avenue resident, expressed concerns about the cumulative impact of traffic, citing a proposed four-story multifamily complex on the same block.
Nicky Sherwood, who represents the Waggon Wheel Neighbourhood Association, found the developer’s lack of transparency particularly worrisome. At the time of the hearing, the project blueprints were not accessible online. “My issue is that we don’t have as much visibility into this project as we usually have. “There is no full data set or anything,” she explained.
The public will have more opportunity to comment on the proposal, including a joint administrative zoning and subdivision committee hearing, though the date has yet to be announced, according to city documents.