|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Large rowhouse developments are a rarity in Mountain View but that could change soon as a developer is seeking to build nearly 200 rowhomes in East Whisman, including dozens for moderate-income families.
In a 6-0 vote, the city’s Environmental Planning Commission backed a proposal last week for a substantial rowhouse development at 515 and 545 N. Whisman Road, despite some concerns about the affordability of the homes and how they would be dispersed on the 10-acre property. Commissioner José Gutiérrez was absent from the Feb. 4 meeting.
The developer, Stonelax A, wants to construct 195 three-story rowhouses spread across 30 buildings, replacing two office buildings and a surface parking lot. The plans show three- and four-bedroom units with attached two-car garages and a roughly quarter-acre minipark open to the public. The property is surrounded by office buildings, as well as single-family and multifamily homes across North Whisman Road.
The plans include 46 below-market-rate units, which are homes offered at prices meant to be affordable for less wealthy households. Last year, the average sale price of a three-bedroom rowhouse in Mountain View was $1.6 million, pricing out even moderate-income households, according to a city analysis.
“This will be a little over a three-fold increase in the 14 BMR units for ownership that currently exist within [the] city,” said Brian Griggs, representing the developer. “Right now, those 14 units represent one-tenth of 1% of the roughly 14,000 owner-occupied residences, and we think there is a big need.”
Planning commissioners weigh in on proposal
Commissioners did not dispute the need for ownership housing, as opposed to rentals, in Mountain View. However, there were a few raised eyebrows at the income levels that the developer plans to price the BMR rowhouses for. Of the 46 units, 28 are set for moderate-income households, or those earning roughly 80% to 120% of the area median income.
In Santa Clara County, the median income for a three-person household is $175,700, according to state data.
The remaining 18 units are for above moderate-income households, or those earning 160% to 200% of the area median income. For a three-person household, that’s between $281,120 and $351,400 annually.
“I’m kind of struggling to understand why creating more units at that moderate band, which is kind of hitting close to where the market is, is actually creating more BMR units that would not be available on the market,” Commissioner Shwetha Subramanian said.
Housing Director Wayne Chen noted that it has been difficult for moderate income households to purchase homes, even at the 150% AMI level, prompting the city to expand its middle-income housing strategy to those earning up to 200% AMI. There are other benefits to the city’s BMR program too, he added.
“Oftentimes to be competitive on the open market, you would have to bring, say 50% of the down payment or even buy all cash and be involved with bidding wars,” Chen said. “In fact, it wouldn’t even allow someone that can pay all cash to buy this because that would mean that they would have some means.”
Commissioners also expressed misgivings about the dispersal of the BMR units. The developer plans to place the bulk of the BMR rowhouses in a cluster of buildings instead of spreading them out on the site. These more affordable units also are a bit smaller than their market-rate counterparts.
“My understanding of the entire BMR program is that we wanted inclusionary housing,” Commissioner Hank Dempsey said. “We want everybody mixed together so you could hardly tell.”
Dempsey added that this problem was not limited to the Whisman project, but rather is a systemic failure connected to the state’s “density bonus” law. The law allows developers to apply for waivers and concessions for projects to reduce costs and make them more feasible, provided that they include a certain number of affordable units in their plans. In this case, the city agreed to modify its BMR dispersal requirement.
“We are falling away from the spirit of being inclusionary and that is concerning to me,” Dempsey said. “I hope we could find some way to kind of inch our way back towards being a little bit more inclusionary because I don’t like where this is headed.”
Commissioner Bill Cranston expressed surprise at the number of waivers requested by the developer. The waivers were requested to modify development standards, like maximum floor area ratio and site coverage.
“A concession and 20 waivers, I was shocked,” Cranston said. “None of them are egregious but there’s a lot.”
He added that the city had worked hard to come up with the existing development standards for the East Whisman area.
Cranston also pressed the developer to preserve more heritage trees, which are bigger mature trees that are protected by a city ordinance. Currently, there are 335 trees on the property, including 151 on-site heritage trees, according to the staff report. The developer is planning to remove all the non-heritage trees, as well as 139 heritage trees. Approximately 440 new trees will be planted, although it will take more than 10 years for the trees to reach maturity and provide a canopy that matches what currently exists, according to the staff report.
Commissioner Subramanian encouraged the developer to plant more mature trees to try and make up for the initial canopy loss.
A letter to the city submitted by Tom Boer, a partner at Hogan Lovells law firm, in opposition to the project also prompted some concern from commissioners about potential environmental hazards. The property is located on a known Superfund site that had groundwater contamination.
Eric Anderson, the city’s advanced planning manager, tried to allay those concerns with a description of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s procedures to ensure safety during construction, as well as habitability for future residents.
“We have been working with EPA for a long time on these sites in the [Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman] area,” Anderson said. “We’ve gone through this process a number of times with developers throughout the MEW area. We have strong safeguards in place.”
Ultimately, commissioners backed the rowhouse project, recognizing that the constraints of state laws would make it difficult to require modifications that could prevent the rowhouse development from getting built. They also expressed general support for more housing.
“We need all the housing we can get so please bring it to Mountain View,” Subramanian said.
Santa Barbara judge rules against company that turned to Trump for help restarting pipelineFebruary 26, 2026 3:10 pm
Hank Dempsey seems to be confused about math: pay less, get less.
Looks like really good news. Get rid of more office space! All these new rental units get built and hardly any ownership housing in a large project since Whisman station. It’s high time for more. Plus, in this economy adding more rental units is a dubious investment for any developer, so it was pretty much ownership or wait longer.
Once again the city is falling behind on its commitment to provide 3 acres of park space for every 1000 residents by not requiring this developer to pay its fair share in park in-lieu fees.