|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A contentious builder’s remedy project in Mountain View is headed to the City Council next month, after clearing hurdles with the city’s planning division Wednesday afternoon.
Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investment is proposing to build a seven-story condominium development on a nearly half-acre site, replacing an empty lot and single-family home at 294 and 296 Tyrella Ave.
The proposed density of the project would exceed local zoning standards – an issue that has raised the ire of neighboring residents who say the 80-unit development would tower over existing homes and severely impact street parking and traffic congestion in the area.
But the developer has not backed down, and the project is on track to approval.
“I’m excited to bring one of the first 20% affordable, market-rate projects to Mountain View. It’s been a bumpy road, but I’m hoping we’re almost at the finish line,” Linebarger said at a public hearing on March 12.
The planning division recommended that the City Council approve the project, albeit with conditions. The staff report imposed some restrictions on the developer’s plans for parking, tree protections and below-market rate units, among other things.
Linebarger voiced strong objections to the conditions, claiming it was unlawful to impose them. The project was submitted at a time when Mountain View did not have a compliant housing element and qualifies as a builder’s remedy project under state law, which limits local control over zoning and development standards.
“The latest conditions make the project infeasible,” Linebarger said, expressing particular concern about vesting rights and the short expiration period for approved permits.
The conditions would cause unnecessary delays and increase costs as well as give the city “unfettered discretion to disprove the building permit plan,” according to Linebarger’s attorney, who submitted a letter to the city on March 11.
Prohousing groups like YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund have weighed in on the project, urging Mountain View to approve it or otherwise risk litigation for not adhering to state law.
Linebarger pressed Mountain View to drop the conditions of approval to make the project feasible and clear the path for future projects, particularly for smaller developers.
“We don’t see a lot of projects with smaller developers due to Mountain View policies. I’m hoping to see those policies improve to help smaller developers build housing in established neighborhoods,” Linebarger said.
Public responses to builder’s remedy
While Linebarger urged the planning division to move forward with the project, nearly a dozen people showed up to the hearing to speak out against it.
Community members described the proposal for a seven-story building as too tall and too dense for the neighborhood, noting that most homes in the area were single-family residences and two-story apartment buildings.
“When I saw there was a seven-story, I thought it was a joke,” said Tricia Lackey, who lives next door to the proposed development. “I’ve lived there for 30 years. It’s never felt like that type of neighborhood that would have a high story building with that amount of density,” she said.
Residents also expressed concern about the lack of street parking in the area, an issue they say would be exacerbated by the project, which is proposing 83 parking stalls. They addressed the issue of traffic congestion and road safety too, noting that there was a proposal for a four-story condo development just down the road.
“What is the long-term plan here? I feel like essentially this is a tipping point,” said Joel Gruber, a Kittoe Drive resident. “We’re completely going to change the dynamic of the neighborhood.”
Community members also raised concerns about the removal of six heritage trees. The trees would be replaced with 17 new trees across the site, according to Senior Planner Krisha Penollar.
Some of the existing trees are at the edge of the property, and could have been kept with more thoughtful planning, said Silja Paymer, a member of Green Spaces Mountain View.
“It doesn’t feel like this plan was thoughtful or considerate to the community, the context and where it is,” Paymer said. “I think we need more housing, but it needs to be built in the spirit of recognizing the people who live in that housing will be part of the community.”
Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro responded to the community concerns, noting they were being heard, while also remarking that the city of Mountain View’s hands were tied by builder’s remedy.
“I understand how different this proposed project is from the buildings that exist in the neighborhood around it, but in making a recommendation today, the city does have to be responsive to the city codes and state laws as they pertain to this proposed project,” Shapiro said.
Build, Baby Build, they say. This is what the City Council wants to do across Mountain View. The says they listen to neighbors, but they don’t care. Just look at the R3 housing proposals. They’re going to put 4-story (3+density bump) buildings next to single-story homes.
From this very esteemed Paper:
“For Ramirez, tactical increases in density would bring about many of the desired outcomes that the council has identified as top priorities for the city, like more housing diversity. As it stands, the status quo was not delivering, Ramirez said, noting that in recent years, mostly rowhouses have been built in the R3 district, falling short of the community’s needs.”
Here’s a tactical piece of housing he should love!
I attended the November meeting and spoke to Mr. Linebarger afterwards to ask why the project went from the initial 11 units (pre-pandemic) to 33, then 44 units, and now 85. He says it must be 85 to include 20% affordable housing units, and tried to make the case that people want to live in close, vibrant communities.
Note that he had the complete plans for this 7 story project ready to submit the same day Builders Remedy projects became possible, and rather than adding 20% affordable housing onto his 44 unit plan he jumped to the much bigger one he is now pushing.
Residents actually welcome the plans the city has in place for opening areas for development and have lamented the loss of rental units in the area which were very much affordable units.
Mr. Linebarger’s 16 units of affordable housing will not offset those losses as much as the units the city has already included in other developments. His total project will however add at least 100 cars to a busy and uncontrolled intersection. I am being charitable by assuming not all residents will have two cars as most people in the neighborhood do.
The next step for this project is review by the City Council next month. Please fellow readers and residents of Mountain View, join me in writing to the Council to appeal for any possible adjustment to this project, which seems more like a frustrated developer’s revenge on past planning committees than a thoughtful approach to helping solve our housing needs.
Yes, build build build. Let’s build, baby! Love it. Let’s bring MV into the real world.
Who else attended the hearing? The opponents of the project were mostly from the Wagon Wheel Neighborhood Association. The project is in the Slater neighborhood, not Wagon Wheel.
Each opponent said basically the same thing. ”I’m not a NIMBY. I believe in more housing but not this project in this location…” This perspective is short sighted and the very definition of NIMBY. They want someone else to fix the problem they helped create.
At the ballot box it has been proven time and time again that most Mountain View residents are fed up with how anti-growth forces have driven up the cost of housing. The NIMBYs have their house and they want to close the gate behind them.
No grocery store in reasonable walking distance.
I agree with the other commenter that the increase in scale of this project is unnecessary and is clearly using builders remedy to seek revenge against the city. This wouldn’t have happened if the city had their act together, and now the neighborhood residents are the ones who have to deal the consequences. This neighborhood can’t support that level of density, and anyone who says otherwise clearly doesn’t live there.
“Let’s bring MV into the real world.”
What world are we living in if it’s not the real world? This is hyperbole. The tax paying residents of the “real world” would like to have a word with you. Surely, they get a say on the land…that they pay taxes into? Why should their opinions be discarded by a small group of activists?
If we’re talking about the real world…perhaps tell us how the real world is a better place with 100 more cars parking on the street.
This little developer is so impractical that the project might well not be financed. The city really helped him out but tweaking it enough so as to be theoretically doable, but it’s still quite a stretch. I’m not talking about zoning or approvals, but about THE REAL WORLD and lenders and vacancy rates and what fits into the area’s housing preferences, for renters.