|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View City Council members rolled out the welcome mat for the first of many high-density housing projects expected to transform the city’s East Whisman tech park into a mixed-use neighborhood with thousands of new homes.
And although some council members expressed uneasiness about its massing, height and an attempt by the developer to pay lower park fees, few at the April 17 meeting objected to the fact that the project had nearly doubled in size since the last time it was presented to the council.
Mountain View City Council gave the green light for the SummerHill Homes proposal in January last year, making it the first housing development project for the East Whisman region of the city, according to a city staff report. Council members are still hammering out the details of the East Whisman Precise Plan, a template for high-density housing in the region, but SummerHill is wasting no time entering the housing market.
The project is also significant because SummerHill proposes building beyond what’s currently allowed through a Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), making a deal with the Los Altos School District to essentially “buy” increased density from property in another part of the city.
In a Letter of Intent signed by SummerHill Homes last year, the developer agreed to purchase 10,000 square feet of additional density rights for its East Whisman area site on East Middlefield Road for $1.3 million.
The project proposed Tuesday night, April 17, was substantially different from what SummerHill showed council members in January. The developer originally proposed building 250 residential units on the 6-acre property, but then said it was infeasible due to the high cost of construction. Now SummerHill is proposing a 447-unit development of four- and seven-story buildings, with 265 apartments, 134 condominiums and 48 flats, boosting the density to about 75 units per acre. The current height limit in the area is six stories.
Katia Kamangar of SummerHill Homes framed the increased density as giving more relief to residents struggling with the regional housing shortage and the high cost of living by providing much-needed homes, particularly ownership units.
“Our proposal offers an opportunity for 447 new housing units within a quarter mile of transit, for rent and for sale,” she said.
Council members Lisa Matichak and John McAlister both pointed out that the project is nearly twice the size as it was in January, almost making it an entirely new proposal, and raised concerns that the architecture is a massive, tall box without anything stepped-back.
Councilman Ken Rosenberg said he felt a little bit of pressure over the SummerHill proposal, which he described as potentially setting the tempo for the rest of the housing projects in the area. He said the East Whisman Precise Plan’s vision, changing a light industrial region into a residential neighborhood, feels like a long-term conversion that could take decades, but high-density projects like the SummerHill housing proposal could accelerate that process.
“Here we are, before the Precise Plan is done, putting in more than we thought in a space,” he said. “And this particular project may grease the skids for other projects to come down the road.”
City Council members largely praised the mix of ownership and rental units, and showed an interest in trying to set aside some of the project’s affordable housing units for middle-income households. Although the project could provide 15 percent of the apartments as low-income units — the minimum requirement set by the city — Kamangar said SummerHill Homes is willing to try different models. One of the options, for example, sets aside 20 percent of the apartments at a reduced rental rate for moderate-income families.
Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga said she wanted to find some way to earmark the moderate-income units for specific professionals, like teachers, who are part of the community but don’t make enough to live in the area.
A conceptual site plan for the project shows that it would provide 614 parking spaces, which breaks down to about 1.37 spaces per unit. A significant number of units, 217 in total, are either two-bedrooms or larger.
School district reliant on TDR sales
SummerHill Homes is one of six projects going through the city’s planning process that increases density through development rights purchased from the Los Altos School District.
Last year, district officials proposed buying land in the San Antonio area of Mountain View for a new school campus. In order to pay for it, City Council members agreed to allow the district to build a school well below the maximum density allowed on the property and sell the “excess” density rights to developers elsewhere in the city.
District officials are planning to sell off 610,000 square feet of development rights to developers — most of which will turn into higher-density office construction throughout Mountain View — to the tune of $79.3 million, which will go towards the purchase of land at the corner of San Antonio Road and California Street.
Whether the school district can secure the property, given that the current owners have publicly expressed opposition to any sale, is unknown. The school district may seek to take the property through eminent domain.
Our neighbors are very concerned about the high-density housing project and how it will impact the surrounding area’s traffic, pollution, noise and general quality of life. We lived a neighborhood (Moffett/Whisman Planning Area) near this project that was zoned medium density. The General Plan was amended again to jump from a medium density to high density population that will greatly impact the quality of life. A high-density project known as 555 West Middlefield Road will immediately impact communities on Cypress Point Drive and Middlefield Road. When these projects are planned independently of each other they do not look so bad. But when you look at all of them together, holistically, you can see how detrimental the sum of these high-density projects are on our communities and society as a whole. That is why we have a well-thought out General Plan for future planning of commercial and residential building to preserve the quality of life for its community members. If this is the intention of our city counsel, why not make the whole city high-density and throw out the General Plan?
I agree. The original plan “jumped” from some 250 dwelling units (DUs) to 447 DUs by the time it arrived in front of City Council, while the 4-6 story restriction, too, fell by the wayside. Summerhill Homes implied that the project was unfeasible within the original framework, yet was eager to pursue the project anyway, before nearly doubling the DUs. It took Council 2+ hours to wade through their concerns only to have it pass with full (unanimous) acceptance. These were largely silenced when it was stated that the “total” number of units prescribed for the area would not change, and that the 7th story should be set back from the face of the building to reduce their presence. Further amendments/adjustments to the Park in-lieu/BMR fees also were considered that likely would substantially increase their profits & reduce fees collectible by the City. Furthermore, such wholesale capitulation of the code, for the first developer in the area, all but guarantees that all subsequent projects will request similar waivers. Summerhill Homes will make a killing and go on to its other projects throughout the Bay Area leaving the residents to deal with the increased density, for which the already over-taxed infrastructure is unprepared to handle.
As usual the council pretends to have concerns only to lay down everything for the developer. As usual they are hell bent on ruining the city. Increasing traffic crime pollution homeless rates. They have put a giant target on the city ‘come crash here in your RV, run a drug lab inside we won’t do a thing about it!
As usual they line their pockets at the cost of the Mountain View citizen.
We don’t need more homes. We need more schools and parks. We need the larger businesses to pay their share and not get their way every time.
Mountain View could be the ideal place to live, but the council has been ruining it for years.
More residents should have been paying attention and maybe stood up in front of city council saying ‘NO’ when council decided to make the deal with Los Altos school District which involved the transfer of development rights to various other locations in the city — greatly increasing their allowed density and the impacts these developments would have on the residents and city as a whole. The giveaways involved in the TDR’s are staggering…density bonuses, setback variances, open space requirements waived or minimized, parking requirements way loosened, and on and on. It was a wholesale giveaway, at the expense of the residents of Mountain View.
The chickens are coming home to roost…and it’s just getting started.
The great Mountain View give away continues. The council will not stop till every road in the area is clogged. It’s time for the other cities to step-up and do their bit. It’s built baby build at all costs. The cost of progress – not!
I am in support of this project. I like that some of the units will be for sale. However it does not look like parking is adequate.
Everybody wants low rent, nobody wants new development
Out come all the usual residents proclaiming the apocalypse at a tall residential building getting built, during a housing crunch when there’s a whole generation of people behind you trying to live and work here crammed into whatever expensive crevice is available with their crevice-mate, since it’s too expensive to rent one by yourself these days.
Glad to see this actually get approved. Hope to see more of it here and elsewhere.
As a resident and a homeowner of East Whisman, who will live less than quarter mile from the proposed development, I welcome the new neighborhood and removal of old delapidated offices and replacing them with housing and public park.
Much needed housing and this is within walking distance of both Google Quad and Symantec. We need to build more of this type of dense and tall housing closer to these massive job centers to cut down on commute traffic clogging our streets and Hwy 85.
That’s hilarious. What did you build except for vast unearned wealth on the backs of people who have done actual work?
Build em all and as fast as you can. This community is starving for housing specifically for our middle/low income workers.
Why not go to San Jose where they are welcoming high rise tenements and let us be. Why come to a neighborhood filled with people who do not agree with your values and ruin their homes? Why do you want to live near people who do not want you there?
It is disingenuous to suggest that people who own homes now have unearned wealth. Taxes will take much of the appreciation.
Hey Robyn, you don’t even live here (“another community”), so you don’t get to speak for what Mountain View residents want. Mountain View residents love having new neighbors.
By the way, what property taxes are you paying? Let me guess, 0.1% of market value?
How would know anything about that, Hitchens? After all, you haven’t been out of your house in years…
William here clearly earned the right to tell everyone what to do. Living in Waverly Park, he probably owns a $2.5M house, and given that he’s an old crank, probably pays about $2K a year in property taxes. Really keeping the lights running in the city. Keeping housing scarce makes that home value skyrocket and his liabilities stay real low.
How far off am I, William?
Your comments do not invite discussion. Rather than calling people names, ie old crank based upon dubious speculation about tax rates, why not try to respect the rights of others and engage in a discourse. You have no idea when and where people purchased their homes or the price they paid. What about a 25 year old who bought a house in 1996 during a time of high interest rates and worked hard all through the recession when values fell to keep it? Is that an “old crank” by your definition?
New ticky tacky high density tenements (high rise ghettos)will create further discord between the owners and wannabe owners who now rent. Much of the new construction has no patio or terrace. The view is into your neighbors’ bath and bedrooms! The streets outside are gridlocked. Natural resources cannot adequately serve those who are already here.
“New ticky tacky high density tenements”
It’s funny how the original mention of ticky tacky was in reference to the massive sprawls of suburbia that were being built in the 60s in response to the massive demand for housing, and now it’s being turned around by owners of said housing to sneer at new housing that might house other people.
“will create further discord between the owners and wannabe owners who now rent”
Because blocking all of that housing from being built isn’t causing discord?
I was born and raised in the bay area and I have lived in Mountain View for 25 years. I love this community and always thought I’d stay here until the day I died — until a few years ago when things began rapidly changing in ways that were incompatible with keeping the quality of life that was once here, and one I wished to continue to experience.
I made the tough decision back then (a few years ago) to purchase land out of state and began building a home in a new community — one which I hope will be warm and welcoming and also provide me with the quality of life that is rapidly being lost in Mountain View.
I am going to miss a lot about this area, but on balance there is just too much going on here that is out of balance…and ultimately, I’ve got to do what’s best for me and my health.
peace out
P.S. I’m not the only one…I know several people who have made the same choice, and for the very same reasons. It’s not the cost of living that’s driving these folks out it’s – to them – the degraded quality of life, plain and simple.
@peace out
Thank you for choosing to sell and choosing to move out to a quieter area that fits your needs more.
@peace out, of course cost of living isn’t driving you out: you bought a home long ago and have fixed your housing costs thanks to Prop 13.
Thankfully, you’re acting like an adult and realizing it’s not for you to decide how other people live. If only more of the NIMBYs here thought like you, live-and-let-live, we’d be much better off.
What you want for this area to look like NYC? Where quality of life is nothing but bumping into people because there is not enough room on the sidewalks to walk? If you any your type want that, go there, and leave our beautiful place alone. I’m sure google has offices there, you can go there.
So basically all the people that hate prop 13 like you want to kick out our grandparents and the builders of this community so they can bring in more money to the city coffers. Unbelievable what people will do for more money.
Yet I’m sure you don’t see the gross mismanagement of the govt. of our money, yet you want to pick on the old and feeble that have live in the community for decades. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!
Four- and seven-story buildings won’t turn us into NYC, and pretending that it does just makes you sound silly.
Unless you plan on donating your house to charity or are currently housing the homeless, it’s fairly obvious that NIMBYs driving up their home values by killing off development are the people who only care about filling your coffers. You’re more concerned with making sure your $2.5M home value (on which you pay $2K / year) keeps rising astronomically than giving relief to people forced to live on the street. Save me the crocodile tears for our “community builders.”
@psr: “Thankfully, you’re acting like an adult and realizing it’s not for you to decide how other people live. If only more of the NIMBYs here thought like you, live-and-let-live, we’d be much better off.”
Evidently it’s people like you (whom I choose NOT to call derisive names) who have decided how I am supposed to live if I wish to remain in my home of 25 years — so, how is that “live and let live”?
@psr “You’re more concerned with making sure your $2.5M home value (on which you pay $2K / year) keeps rising astronomically than giving relief to people forced to live on the street.
Personally, I would GLADLY give up a fat $1.5M+ of my homes paper value, if it meant that we could get the quality of life back in this city that we had just a few short years ago.
100% would do it…in a HEARTBEAT.
Tragically, it’s too late for that.
peace out
No one has changed a single bit of your property, but, unfortunately, you didn’t buy the entire city, so you don’t get to dictate what everyone else does. No one has decided how you live your life.
@Resident of the Crossings
Oh, spare us from that tortured appeal to the Poor Grandparents kicked out of their home if not for Prop 13. You guys could have just as easily passed a tax deferment for the elderly if you wanted to, rather than a blanket freeze of all property taxes state-wide. And it did nothing for Grandma if she happens to rent.
The only thing Prop 13 has done is allow entitled homeowners to block new housing and cause housing costs to shoot through the roof while shielding themselves from the effects. The rest of us pay the costs of your actions while your property values just continue to climb.
@psr: “No one has changed a single bit of your property, but, unfortunately, you didn’t buy the entire city, so you don’t get to dictate what everyone else does. No one has decided how you live your life.”
– Are you honestly suggesting that only changes that physically happen to a single individual’s property effect their quality of life?
Don’t be deliberately obtuse. It’s beneath you…or it should be.
peace out
I’m not being obtuse. I’m pointing out that you bought a tiny plot of land, not the entire city. Buying a house doesn’t mean you bought an entire city and get to tell everyone else what to do with their property. Most adults understand this, and given your decision to leave I thought you did, too. Unfortunately, it sounds like you have the same entitled attitude as the other NIMBYs.
@psr
I never once claimed that I purchased an entire city, nor the right to tell anyone else what to do with their property. How did you get it so wrong?
What I did state was:
“I love this community and always thought I’d stay here until the day I died — until a few years ago when things began rapidly changing in ways that were incompatible with keeping the quality of life that was once here, and one I wished to continue to experience.”
Your apparent disdain for anyone who may not embrace your visioning is telling and disheartening, and frankly one of the reasons I decided to leave this city. Life is too short to live it with people who think deriding other folks for no other reason than they may have differing opinions, is good for the community.
peace out
“Evidently it’s people like you (whom I choose NOT to call derisive names) who have decided how I am supposed to live if I wish to remain in my home of 25 years — so, how is that “live and let live”?”
No one cares how you live or what you do in your house. The entitlement is when, for some reason, other people choosing to live differently than you is “deciding how [you are] supposed to live.”
This conversation is a perfect example of how the internet kills civil discourse. Comments sections enable anonymous conversations with no culpability for rudeness. Try imagining you are talking to each other over a cup of coffee. It might help you see each other’s points of view.
Instead of sniping from the sidelines, why don’t you mediate and lay out what our points of view are?
As I said above…
Dear Steve Nelson, check out the zoning map and look at how many R4 properties are on the map. 291 Evendale ripe for this kind of development. I don’t know why everyone is so upset. In R4 zoning, BMR apartments could be set aside for Teachers!
This is a lose / lose / lose for everyone involved, except for some Los Altos Hills residents who get to send their kids to a brand new school in Mountain View and some developers who will profit billions.
Man the lack of consideration for cars is simply stunning
There goes the neighborhood! High rise nightmare.
Like some of the early posters – this increased residential unit density – is AT A LOSS to the local schools (MVWSD will get more students) and a relative GAIN to Los Altos School District. (they will have less students than the residential development proposed for the San Antonio area.)
Council members Abe-Koga and Showalter were exactly right on the LASD “deal”.
I generally support YIMBY tendencies, but the taxation/benefits of this “sale” of development “rights”? A load of c$#!.
(IMO)
Neighborhood school. ‘It isn’t a question of if, but a question of when!’ I guess the old administration of MVWSD was right, even if they didn’t really git it! The question of TIME for reopening a neighborhood elementary in Whisman/Slater, is at hand! The shovel ceremony (“groundbreaking”) for this school, is this coming Thursday, April 26, 2018!
https://www.mvwsd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=418858&pageId=537436
and BTW, Trustee Wheeler finally (after re-re-considering) provided the magic 3rd (majority) vote on this policy
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2015/12/11/ending-a-years-long-effort-by-families-in-the-whisman-and-slater-area-lobbying-for-a-neighborhood-school-the-mountain-view-whisman-school-district-board-voted-3-2-thursday-night-to-reopen-an-elementary-school-on-the-slater-elementary-campusendi
LASD has been dumped on repeatedly by the city of Mountain View and their plan to pave every inch of land in the city and cover it with multi-story apartment buildings. They are expected to educate the children and provide the park space for the apartment dwellers at the expense of the permanent residents of Los Altos and Palo Alto who have chosen a more sensible approach to growth.
I remember plenty of expansion in the south bay area that has ended up deserted after whatever tech giant causes the building goes broke and sells out. It leaves a blight of huge buildings that serve no purpose other than to remind us that nothing is forever and unplanned growth (with is what Mountain View excels at doing) results in a mess for those who actually have roots and care about the community.
We need less temporary housing and more housing that can be bought with all those tech dollars. Perhaps than those who are here to make a quick buck and move on when they are bored will contribute more to the community that they are benefiting from. YIMBY should be thrilled about that since he wants more tax dollars, but I guess he only wants tax dollars from those who built the community, not from those who are only here to reap the rewards of the older residents hard work.
So, will the poor residents of East Whisman suddenly become occupants of a “high rise ghetto”, just like SF or NYC — with no on-street parking???? It’s time to “retake the Mountain View City Council” and stop this Urbanization Madness!
@Slator Gator – hope you got to go to the Slater neighborhood area neighborhood elementary school formal “groundbreaking”. (5:30 PM, Thursday Apr 27) [I’m not-so-into zoning map specifics]
The council woman from N. Wagon Wheel, Lisa Matichak, Vice Mayor was there. She has been active in her ‘civil representative job’ working on housing issues in her neighborhood and throughout the city. She also was a public supporter of the MVSD Board making a neighborhood school, in the Whisman/Slater area, a school district Public Policy.
I’m no longer on that elected local legislative body. But the new school fields, will come with all-weather turf, and other improvements, that the neighborhood can enjoy. Maybe a new crossing-signal. It’s So Fine, the continuing City-MVWSD cooperation.
actually … if the MVWSD Board made it a public policy “direction” that the administration swap Acre for Acre some street frontage at Wavery Park area’s school property (SAVECOOPERPARK.org) for some small R4 properties elsewhere …
Slator Gator has a very good suggestion. 3 or 4 R1 properties, on Eunice Street, smack in the middle of an existing R1 zone, would not (IMO) raise so much neighborhood opposition. (but ask SAVECOOPERPARK.org : )
Not a complete one-stop solution, but maybe part-of-a-puzzle.