|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Plans for an eight-story apartment building are taking shape in the East Whisman area of Mountain View, a part of the city that is better known for office buildings and surface parking lots than high-density housing.
Even the modern yuppie needs a place to live.
Alex Nunez, Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission Member
The applicant, Jeffrey Stone of WTA Middlefield, is proposing to build a 460-unit apartment complex with nearly 9,400 square feet of ground floor retail at 490 E. Middlefield Road, replacing a two-story office building. Currently, the site is surrounded by other office buildings, but more residential growth is planned for the East Whisman area, including a massive development down the street at 675 and 685 E. Middlefield Road.
In a 6-1 vote, the Environmental Planning Commission backed the proposal for the eight-story apartment building at 490 E. Middlefield Road. Commissioner José Gutiérrez cast the dissenting vote at the Wednesday, Jan. 21, meeting.
Overall, the commissioners praised the developer’s plan to build dense housing with street level retail, something that they said was lacking in East Whisman.
“What’s most important is that this is dense housing in an area of the city where we need dense housing,” Commissioner Hank Dempsey said. “I’m absolutely going to be supporting this today, just on the strength of that alone.”
However, a few commissioners also expressed concern about the size of the apartments, which are overwhelmingly studios and one-bedrooms that are a bit smaller in square footage than typical apartments in Mountain View. The project plan shows studios that are 409 square feet and 460 square feet, as well as one-bedrooms that are 614 square feet and 690 square feet.
Andrew Jacobson, a consultant for the developer, noted that the smaller unit size was intentional and part of the project’s vision to create more affordable homes. The project also is oriented around shared common spaces and amenities like courtyards, roof decks, interior workspaces, lounges and fitness studios.
“One of our strategies for this project was also to pull people out of their units,” Jacobson said. “We want people collaborating, hanging out at the pool, hanging out at the amenities, hanging out at the retail.”
He added that the project includes 462 personal storage units to make up for the smaller living spaces.
The vision seemed to convince the majority of commissioners, with a few noting that the unit types and amenities could appeal to a certain kind of tenant.
“Even the modern yuppie needs a place to live,” Commissioner Alex Nunez said.
However, Commissioner Gutiérrez expressed a preference for more family-sized units and also encouraged the developer to designate an additional two-bedroom unit as affordable for low-income families.
The project has 55 below-market-rate units for low and very low income residents. Of the 55 below-market-rate units, 26 are studios and one-bedrooms slated for low-income residents. The remaining 29 units are slated for very-low-income families, with two of these units set aside as two-bedrooms.
A few other commissioners also expressed a preference for more of the affordable apartments to be larger sized units but did not dwell on the point. Some noted the constraints of state laws that allow developers to bypass certain local regulations to facilitate more housing.
Instead, more attention was given to the issue of parking near the planned retail space and the lack of room for vehicles to make deliveries on East Middlefield Road by the main entrance to the building.
The developer is proposing a single-level garage with 442 parking spaces for residents. The project also includes 54 surface parking spots, 34 of which would be reserved for commercial uses, plus three residential loading spaces accessed from Ellis Street and East Middlefield Road, according to a city staff report.
The commissioners pushed the developer to add more loading and unloading spots closer to the retail storefronts and the main entrance on Middlefield Road. They noted that this has been a perennial problem for other developments in Mountain View with delivery vehicles and ride shares loading and unloading in bicycle lanes and “no parking” zones, despite signs prohibiting it.
“I think providing loading and drop off zones far removed from the retail spaces is only going to encourage bad behavior with trucks stopping in the middle of the street right in front of the store and doing offloading right there,” Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian said.
Commissioner Bill Cranston proposed adding a “curb cut” for delivery vehicles near the main entrance of the building, which would require an exception from existing standards for the East Whisman area.
“I would not object to that being put in place going forward because I think there’s more benefit to the community,” Cranston said, adding it would help bicyclists and create less friction with delivery drivers and passenger pick-ups and drop offs.
However, Community Development Director Christian Murdock cautioned that the framing of the request could be problematic, noting that there was not “an objective standard to allow the city to require the installation of such a delivery parking space.”
In response, Cranston did not propose his recommendation for a curb cut as part of the formal motion to approve the project.
“It’s just advice to everybody,” he said.
I appreciate the developer aiming for maximizing affordability with the decision to provide the smaller unit (even though, granted, we need the larger units as well across the city). And commissioners emphasizing the need to keep bikeways clear of delivery vehicles. This has truly been a significant problem for Mountain View, one that is only increasing over time.
This is a wonderful development.
What is amusing here is how an advisory panel gets picky over what a developer is subsidizing. They want large apartments at cheap prices. They should be thanking the developers for subsidized housing. What’s next? The apartments must come with internet! French door refrigerators! A bidet!
I don’t think Gutierrez realizes that when he says “could you convert one more 2BR to affordable” he’s really saying: can you charge all the other market rate units more so we can make one more unit affordable?
Maybe if he said that out loud, he would think twice the next time.
It’s sad that there aren’t more large apartments in this or the other proposed Middlefield developments. However, since there’s no school, very little park land and no grocery store in the area, it’s probably just as well.
What does ‘there was not “an objective standard to allow the city to require the installation of such a delivery parking space.”’ mean? Would be great if the journalist writing the article explained this even if the city staff did not, because having a spot for delivery vehicles to pull of the road (and not into an active bike lane!) is really important.