News

Landmark North Bayshore housing project wins approval

Council agrees to reduce fees to save pilot housing development in tech park

In a crucial proof of concept for the city, the first major housing project in North Bayshore received approval at the City Council's Tuesday, Oct. 23 meeting. In the process, the 635-unit project by the Sobrato Organization won a deep discount on city fees.

The mixed-use project, which includes office space, is now cleared for construction after winning a 5-1 vote, with John McAlister opposed. Councilman Ken Rosenberg was absent.

Sobrato's project, located at 1255 Pear Ave., is a snapshot of the city's goals to transform the corporate office park in North Bayshore into a self-contained neighborhood with housing, parks and schools. For that reason, it was vital to show that the project was not only possible, but profitable as a way to encourage the full construction of 9,850 new homes envisions for the area.

"I'm looking forward to this being the first landmark housing project in North Bayshore, and I want to make it work," said Councilwoman Pat Showalter "The discussion on how we can do that is valuable."

Yet the project also was a showcase for the myriad challenges of this kind of multifaceted development. Sobrato Vice President Tim Steele pointed out that his firm pitched initial plans for a project at the Pear Avenue site back in 2011, which was later revised in 2015 as a housing project under the city's gatekeeper process. Along with the 635 homes, the Sobrato project also calls for a six-story, 231,000-square foot office building intended to be leased to Google. As an incentive, the project is donating a 1.4 acre parcel of land for a future 140-unit affordable housing project.

Since the project was submitted, the city fees have reportedly skyrocketed, especially for parks and schools. In 2015, those fees were set around $32,000 per housing unit. Earlier this year, his firm withdrew their project for a period after learning those city fees had practically doubled to $60,000 per unit, or about $38 million for the entire project.

At the time, Sobrato and other prospective housing developers issued warnings that the city fees were gutting their profit margins and making housing construction infeasible in North Bayshore. These fees are largely tied to land values in North Bayshore, which have soared in recent years as the city-fueled development frenzy took stride. Concerns that developers might pull out set off alarms among city officials, especially those who had made North Bayshore housing a top priority for Mountain View.

At the Tuesday meeting, the City Council sought for the third time to tinker with the fee structure.

For park space, council members agreed that Sobrato's private open space should count toward its required quota of parkland as long as it would be publicly accessible. In particular, council members agreed to give a credit of 75 percent toward a 1-acre private park on the Sobrato property's south side, a value equal to about $7.5 million.

City officials acknowledged that the parkland being dedicated by Sobrato would not normally be eligible for credit because it is too narrow and spread out, resembling an apartment courtyard more than a park. Council members urged Sobrato representatives to do their best to make the space an active park by including amenities like volleyball and basketball courts, and barbecue pits.

A similar bending of the rules was made for the school fees. Representatives from the Mountain View-Whisman and Mountain View-Los Altos High school districts could not reach an agreement with Sobrato over how many students likely would be generated by the new housing or how much the developer should pay. The districts insisted Sobrato pay $24.4 million while Sobrato officials countered with an offer of $7.25 million, about a third of which would go to the state.

Mountain View council members ended up splitting the difference by agreeing the school fees should be lowered to $12 million. It was a compromise that didn't thrill anyone, especially from the school districts. If the city buckles on fees for Sobrato, every other developer would be requesting the same, warned Mountain View-Whisman School Board president Laura Blakely.

"I'm worried that you're setting a precedent here with Sobrato, and then you'll have Google next saying, 'Me too! Me too! We want a smaller amount!" she said. "The school district wants certainty, we don't want to be left with a big hole."

Similarly, Councilman John McAlister, who was teleconferencing in from Hawaii, was clearly frustrated that the city seemed to be caving on its fees. Warnings by developers of walking away from North Bayshore were just a bluff, he said.

"We're so eager to discount this so soon," he said. "I play a little bit of poker, and I know pushing the limit. We can hold firm on our ordinances and requirements, and I think the project will still go through."

Mayor Lenny Siegel said that wasn't the case. It wasn't a simple matter of squeezing Sobrato to accept tighter profit margins, he said. Developers needed to show a full inventory of their costs and expected revenues upfront in order to attract investors to the project. In a meeting last month, the city's own consultant agreed that the city fees were making development infeasible, he said.

While Sobrato was getting some slack, council members insisted that other developers wouldn't get similar treatment.

"I don't want to set a precedent for other projects," said Councilwoman Lisa Matichak. "While I'm willing to make an adjustment this one, I don't want people to assume we're always going to be doing this."

While the Sobrato project was approved in a 5-1 vote, McAlister voted against the project, saying he couldn't support the reduced park fees.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

6 people like this
Posted by Shane
a resident of The Crossings
on Oct 26, 2018 at 10:29 am

Transportation in and out of North Bayshore is a disaster, with basically all traffic funneled over the Shoreline and Rengstorff overpasses. Additionally, since North Bayshore up until now has basically been a big office park, public transit is virtually nonexistent on the weekend. I hope the City Council pressed hard to get a light rail extension or some other transit solution into North Bayshore.


18 people like this
Posted by Carlos
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 26, 2018 at 2:48 pm

This is amazing, finally a city that supports businesses and development. It's a shame other cities don't take note of how lowering fees and restrictions allows developers to build more housing and smaller companies to compete in the market which lowers prices for everyone.
Thank you city council for finding real solutions and not just some socialist dream/nightmare.


9 people like this
Posted by Rossta
a resident of Waverly Park
on Oct 27, 2018 at 10:19 am

Rossta is a registered user.

Sounds like a big LOSE. 231,000 sq. ft. of office space is surely MORE added employees than the 635 residential units so it is just putting our housing/jobs balance even further out of whack. And the council wanted this so badly that they gave a big discount on the fees.

We can't dig our selves out of our housing shortage by adding more office space. Repeatedly our council has failed to stop approving - can't say no to Google. Is it time for a citizen backed moratorium?


5 people like this
Posted by Voter
a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 27, 2018 at 11:40 pm

Thanks this article helps me choose which city council members NOT to vote for.
basically anyone who doesn't have the backbone to standup to developers and keeps approving awful projects that are ruining Mountain View (5 not to vote for, 1 to consider, 1 absent). If housing crisis is as bad as claimed why approve more office and hotel projects which make the problem worse? Why do the hideous, generic, light-blocking "luxury" (HA) developments lining every inch of El Camino still have "leasing" signs months after they are completed - with many additional ones still being built all over town? The problem at this point isn't a housing crisis per se, but rather new developments pushing out existing affordable complexes to build more "luxury" ones. Lack of affordable housing is what is contributing to increase in homeless people downtown as well as all the RVs along Shoreline. Young Google employees still mostly prefer to live in SF rather than MV which is what causes the massive traffic disaster every commute time. DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM NOW! City Council Out!


17 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of another community
on Oct 30, 2018 at 10:12 am

In a free market in a place like Mountain View, now wealthy, there would be no shortage of housing for those who can afford to live in one of the priciest places on earth. Demand is high. "Affordable housing" is a dream. Most all funding must now go toward housing those who have to get off the street or die. Study the numbers. Economics (accounting).
George Drysdale social studies teacher and land ecnonomist


Like this comment
Posted by kay dubya
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Nov 17, 2018 at 6:46 pm

We have such a shortage of housing, I don't know why the city keeps increasing its fees. What they should do is keep fees high, but give a discount when increasing density. If you're only converting a house into a duplex, get a tiny discount discount. If you're converting 1 residence per acre to 100 residences per acre, you get a big discount because by increasing density, you're making much better use of our limited land. Buildings for housing are expected to last 50-75 years on average. It takes a long time before it's economical to redevelop existing housing into denser housing. For example, it makes zero sense to tear down a 1 year old house in order to build anything denser; it's too new! But tearing down a 100 year old house to build an apartment complex makes a lot more sense; the old building is not worth refitting with modern conveniences like insulation and windows. We need to aim for significantly higher density projects.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

After 39 years of cakes and pastries, Palo Alto institution Prolific Oven to close
By Elena Kadvany | 55 comments | 17,451 views

Local Transit to the Rescue?
By Sherry Listgarten | 16 comments | 2,009 views

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Process Explained
By Steve Levy | 8 comments | 1,446 views

"You Gotta Have Balls [to do counseling] . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,209 views

 

Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info