If the city does not remove its conditions of approval and permit a builder’s remedial project to move forward, a developer in Mountain View is threatening to file a lawsuit.
Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investment intends to replace an existing family home and an empty lot on a half-acre plot of land at 294 and 296 Tyrella Ave. with a seven-story, 85-unit condominium complex.
The builder’s solution allows the proposed development to circumvent local zoning regulations, even when it exceeds them. By designating 20% of the apartments as affordable to low-income families, the project complies with state housing regulations, even though Mountain View did not have a compliant housing element when it was submitted.
The developer and pro-housing organizations have claimed that the city of Mountain View tried to circumvent the builder’s remedy by imposing unlawful conditions of authorization, making the project controversial from the beginning. The project’s excessive height for the low-density area has also drawn criticism from the locals.
City officials were forced to postpone a decision to send the application for consideration by the City Council after a public hearing last month heightened the fear of legal action.
Senior Planner Krisha Penollar states that on November 13, Linebarger’s lawyer wrote to the planning division requesting more than thirty significant changes to the city’s conditions of approval, along with other issues pertaining to the project’s progress.
Staff did not have enough time to carefully review and respond to the letter because it was received on the same day as the public hearing. In order to give the planning division more time, Penollar asked that the hearing be postponed.
Letters threatening legal action
YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund threatened to sue Mountain View earlier this year if it tried to put illegal conditions of permission on the Tyrella project.
The November 13 letter from Linebarger’s lawyer raises similar concerns. It further states that although Linebarger was willing to abide by the bulk of the more than 200 conditions of permission that the city had set, some would render the project impracticable.
Like previous builder’s remedy project that led to a settlement agreement between the city and developer, the letter points to Mountain View’s transportation impact fees and park site dedication as violations of state housing law.
Additionally, according to the letter, the city failed to adequately publicize the public hearing and did not give Linebarger enough time to weigh all of the requirements for approval.
During the hearing, Linebarger raised these concerns, stating that he had been asking for the permission conditions for over a month and had not received them before the hearing. He added that he didn’t know about the meeting until the day before, on November 12, when he got a call from the city.
In order to avoid placing City Council in the regrettable position of having to approve the project with impractical conditions or, alternatively, facing the possibility of a lawsuit, I firmly believe that the city should take some time to attempt to coordinate this, Linebarger told reporters.
The municipality asserts that it sent a notification to the owner’s address in accordance with the law in order to notify the public hearing.
Responses from the public
The meeting on Nov. 13 let the public to comment on the Tyrella project, even though a final conclusion was delayed.
Due to concerns that the seven-story skyscraper would loom above single-family houses and increase traffic and parking issues on the street, a number of neighborhood residents protested the plans.
Roger Noel, a 42-year Tyrella Avenue resident, stated that it is time for the city of Mountain View to put the demands of its residents ahead of those of outside interests.
He told me, “I think you should do everything you can to push back on this project, even if it means showing the people who live here and pay taxes here that you’re on their side by going to court.”
Tyrella Avenue neighbor Tim Palmer, who mentioned a planned four-story multifamily project on the same block, had concerns about the cumulative effect of traffic.
The Waggon Wheel Neighbourhood Association’s representative, Nicky Sherwood, was especially concerned about the developer’s lack of transparency. The project blueprints were not available online at the time of the hearing. We don’t have as much visibility into this project as we often do, which is my problem. She clarified that there isn’t a whole data set or anything.
According to municipal documents, there will be other opportunities for the public to comment on the proposal, including a joint administrative zoning and subdivision committee hearing, though the date has not yet been set.
Source
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
Eliot Pierce is a dedicated writer for ChiefsFocus.com, covering local crime and finance news. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for storytelling, Eliot aims to provide his readers with clear and insightful analysis, helping them navigate the complexities of their financial lives while staying informed about important local events. His commitment to delivering accurate and engaging content makes him a valuable resource for the community.