|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A 15-story builder’s remedy project in Mountain View could become one of the city’s tallest structures, towering above the surrounding one- to three-story homes and commercial buildings in a neighborhood near U.S. Highway 101.
Mario Ambra, a former Mountain View Mayor who was removed from office by a civil grand jury more than two decades ago, is proposing to build a 455-unit apartment complex on Rengstorff Avenue, between Leghorn and Plymouth streets. The development is near Mountain View’s Costco and would sit directly next to a former olive oil factory that Ambra’s family has owned for generations.
In a 6-1 vote, the City Council speedily approved the 15-story development Tuesday evening, expressing support for the possibility of adding hundreds of new homes in Mountain View, including nearly 100 affordable apartments.
Council member John McAlister cast the dissenting vote at the Nov. 18 council meeting, voicing concern that the scale of the development would not foster a sense of community.
“I know some people on council are happy as delight that this thing is as large as it is, but community is more important than size,” McAlister said.
The Ambra family, however, highlighted their longtime presence in Mountain View, characterizing the project as a continuation of their commitment to the community.
“Mario’s family has cared for this land and stewardship for this land for almost a century,” Liz Ambra said. “It’s been in the family, and we remain committed to ensuring that this land serves a community for generations to come.”
The project would be bigger than the two other builder’s remedy projects that the City Council has already approved. Both are seven-story condominium developments – one at 2645 and 2655 Fayette Drive and the other at 294 and 296 Tyrella Ave.
Maximizing height and density
Ambra submitted the project application at a time when Mountain View had missed the deadline to get its housing element certified by the state, opening the door for the plans to proceed as a builder’s remedy project. Under state law, projects submitted when a city doesn’t have a compliant housing element can skirt local zoning regulations and development standards, as long as 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
Located on a roughly 1.3-acre site at 901-987 N. Rengstorff Ave., the 15-story project covers nearly the entirety of the property, replacing an existing duplex and three storage structures. Under local regulations, the city would typically allow for 19 new units to be built on the property, instead of the 455 units, including 91 affordable units, that Ambra is proposing. The building is also four times taller than the 45-foot maximum building height allowed in the neighborhood, rising to roughly 180 feet in height, according to the council report.
City staff told the council that they believe this project would be higher density than any existing residential building in Mountain View. The most comparable development would be Avalon Towers on the Peninsula, at 2400 W. El Camino Real, staff said in a memo. However, they added that Avalon Towers is only ten-stories tall on a larger property, with about a third of the floor area ratio of the Ambra project.
Ambra is also proposing to remove dozens of trees, including 19 heritage trees. It is unclear whether there will be a net gain or loss of tree canopy once the new trees that he is proposing to plant reach maturity, according to the council report.
Community weigh in on plans
The builder’s remedy project has drawn mixed reactions from community members, with some expressing support for the added housing while others have voiced concerns about its height, density and environmental impact.
“The one thing I’ve seemed to see over and over is we need housing. We need lots of housing,” said Pat Knoop, a public commentator. “That’s a perfect location. It’s a great spot for commute. It’s a nice wide street. Looks like a nice project but overall, we need housing.”
Others strongly opposed the project. William and Elizabeth Gass wrote a letter to the City Council with concerns about the development’s proposed height, massing and architectural style.
“The plan conflicts with local land use patterns and undermines the comprehensive plan that guides responsible and cohesive growth,” they said.
The letter also said the traffic mitigation measures and parking plan were inadequate. The project is planning for 429 total parking spaces with spots available in a “partially sunken podium garage,” according to the council report.
A speedy approval
The City Council quickly approved the Ambra project, unlike previous builder’s remedy hearings in which council members have expressed ambivalence about the reach of the state law, noting that it often overrides local considerations.
Council member Chris Clark described the Ambra project as relatively straightforward. However, the council still had to field a last-minute request by Ambra’s legal counsel to waive certain conditions of approval – most notably, to extend the expiration date for the project permits to eight years.
“In today’s challenging financial environment, longer timelines are paramount in allowing for the successful delivery of projects,” said Genna Yarkin, an attorney representing Ambra. “They can make the difference between the project ever getting out of the ground or not.”
But the City Council decided to follow a staff recommendation to approve the project without granting the extension. City staff said there was not enough evidence to suggest that the existing two-year deadline, which can include a two-year extension, would render the project infeasible.
“The requested time extension… is speculative and does not result in quantifiable cost reduction,” said Rebecca Shapiro, the city’s deputy zoning administrator.
Yes, it’s big, about as tall as 444 Castro. But this is what happens when you don’t get your Housing Element approved on time. Some of us will welcome the new homes. For those who don’t, I look forward to your collaboration on the next Housing Element!
Thanks for visuals in this article so we can see what this will be like.
The impact of these tall buildings is obvious up close – this will cast a long shadow over many neighbors and the sun will set much earlier. But it also impacts how the city looks from a distance. From Rancho San Antonio, most of Mountain View looks like a lush forest. But in areas like downtown where the building height exceeds the tree height, the look changes to that of a treeless city. And one solitary tall building has an effect that greatly exceeds its footprint. This is not to say that we shouldn’t have tall buildings but that they should be tightly grouped. That is the point of a general plan and zoning, all of which was bypassed by this builder’s remedy project.
Disrespectful of landowners.
There’s almost nothing to walk to from there. Nobody is walking to Costco….and walking back with 15lbs of milk. Everyone will be driving down Rengstorff to run errands on the weekend. Exactly why we have zoning. Monstrosity.
If that were the reason we have zoning, we’d have tall buildings around every shopping center with a grocery store. We do not, except for San Antonio. YIMBYs would support a plan like that, but hey, we got this instead.
Pretty gutsy for the developers to leverage laws written to provide urgently needed housing…..to then try to twist the same laws to justify delaying building by 8 years.
Some projects never pan out , no matter the entitlement period. When that happens, often the community has to deal with chain fences and blight for 2 to 4 years. Imagine having those all around town for 8 years?
This will be a project which concentrates luxury apartments renting for a high price right near its target tenants jobs in the Googleplex. There is no other infrastructure in the area to draw residents, and public transit is completely absent. It will be a real money maker for the developer, so long as the Googleplex continues to employ a bunch of people compensated way way above the area median income. Otherwise, it could see a lot apartments sit empty for a long time. Given the lack of desirability of the location, it might have lower rents than units located say on El Camino Real.
Also, being so close to 101, workers from other cities might choose to live there. Hard to say with the limited parking.
The only issue I have with this project is that it should have double the number of parking spaces.
I don’t know if this proposed development is close enough to Moffett Field to have it’s height limited by FAA rules…but I know that some of our city is restricted in this way. Does anyone know if it is affected?