|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A developer is seeking to build more than 400 apartment units on a small property in the East Whisman area of Mountain View, marking the latest effort to replace the city’s sprawling offices with high-density housing.
The proposal by the developer Miramar Capital, submitted last month, calls for fitting 407 units onto a property on Logue Avenue just over 2.5 acres in size, requiring unusually dense construction that crams in 160 units per acre. Most of the units will be studios and one-bedroom apartments, which rely on roof-top open space and minimal parking spots in order to fit.
For context, Prometheus’ 583-unit apartment complex on San Antonio Road is just over 102 units per acre, while the 623-unit Greystar apartments under construction at San Antonio and California Street is close to 73 units per acre.
East Whisman is poised for a major transformation in the coming years, after recently being rezoned for a dense, mixed-use neighborhood of offices and housing. Similar to North Bayshore, where Google is planning to build 6,600 homes, the revamped zoning in East Whisman allows for taller, more urban buildings that stand in stark contrast to most existing neighborhoods.
The project at 400 Logue Avenue has evolved since it first came before the Mountain View City Council in 2018, particularly the decision to pare down the building height. Miramar originally proposed that one of the buildings would stand 11 stories tall — at about 128 feet, it would have made it one of the tallest buildings in the city.
Miramar’s latest proposal retains most of the units, but scales down the maximum building height to eight stories, or 95 feet.
In the application, Miramar touts that the project would be less than a block away from the Middlefield VTA light rail station, making it ideal for public transit, and would go a long way towards meeting the city’s housing goals for East Whisman. Baked into the city’s plan is a requirement that offices in East Whisman cannot be build without a commensurate number of housing units acting as a counterbalance.
The project is also narrowly outside of the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman Superfund site, which covers a large swath of East Whisman and poses a potential health hazard to those who live and work in the area. Groundwater contaminated with toxic substances including trichloroethylene (TCE), a known carcinogen, require any development within the plume to take extra precautions to keep the property safe for occupants.
Though the dense project largely fits the mold for the new zoning in East Whisman, it does go above the limits approved last year. In 2018, Miramar bought the rights to build up to 72,000 square feet of “bonus” development on the site through a deal with the Los Altos School District. Called a transfer of development rights (TDR), the complex transaction essentially “moves” building density out of the San Antonio shopping center area — where a new school will be built — and onto the Logue Avenue property.
Miramar told city officials last month that they were only able to “efficiently utilize” 42,000 square feet from the deal, which boosted the project from 388,000 square feet to 430,000.
The proposal sets aside 62 of the apartments for low and middle-income families, and provides a total of 420 parking spaces, allocating only one space for two-bedroom apartments. City officials say the model parking ratio calls for two spaces for two-bedroom units, which should bring the total up to 486 spaces.
The city’s Development Review Committee is scheduled to review the project on Wednesday, Aug. 19. Virtual attendance is available on the city’s website.
East Whisman is a great place for housing, and lots of it. And Mountain View still needs it. One of my toddler’s favorite teachers is leaving his daycare this year because she lives far away and she’d rather have a shorter commute and more time with her family. Maybe if Mountain View had had a better jobs-housing balance, she could have lived here instead.
62/407 is 15% of below-market-rate (subsidized) homes, which seems like a pretty good rate as these things go.
I think we should be giving people the option to live without a car if they want to, especially in an area that’s so good for biking and that’s near light rail. Parking spaces take up tons of room, and they reduce livability by pushing everything farther away from other things. And land is money, so parking spaces make homes more expensive, whether or not the resident would use the 1 or 2 parking spaces.
I know it feels a little weird to talk about building anything when we’re still in the upswing of a pandemic, but projects like this take years to complete, and in a couple of years COVID will be on the downswing. (I hope! In the meantime, keep being safe and smart, wear masks, avoid congregating indoors in high risk environments.)
Most of the units “will be studios and one-bedroom.” Not very family friendly. Oh, were these planned for the high tech workers who are leaving Mountain View now with the work-from-home policies?
I hope this project gets dropped kicked into the bay. No way should something this dense and with not much parking be approved. Not many families can use a 1 bedroom apartment. All trips would be in cars, two for each apartment, parked up and down the street. I guess the developers want to stick it to Mountain View and get out of town. No way
Although I do not see this development as a ‘family friendly’ environment nearby (lack of a neighborhood park, no nearby grocery store, limited ‘family’ services, etc), this is not necessarily a bad thing. Since the majority of the housing will be built as studios and single-bedroom units, located in a neighborhood of technology-dense employers, and within a block of a light rail station, it is a perfect place for younger tech workers to get a foothold into the Mountain View community. Google, Symantec, Synopsis, Omnicell, etc. employ workers straight out of school, who lack cars, but are accustomed to using public transit or private car services. Mountain View needs to attract, and keep, these young adults in order to keep building the community. When I first arrived in Mountain View 38 years ago, we lived in a cheap, basic apartment (no amenities, other than the apartment house washer & drier) for a few years, saving every extra penny to purchase a ‘starter’ townhouse/condo near Whisman Park. We saw the city transforming from a gritty, rundown ghost town into a walkable, vibrant city center. Nearly a dozen years after arriving in Mountain View, we purchased a run-down house in Waverly Park, renovating it and continuing to stay involved with the schools, community, and supporting area businesses. Mountain View needs an infusion of younger residents with ideas, talents, and voices to continue growing it into a desirable community.
Different strokes for different folks (at various phases in their life). Although my dad and I grew up in (SoCal) the single family (2 bd / 1ba) house my grandfather had built, my wife started out in a one bedroom apartment that her parents rented. And both my wife and I had studios or one bedroom rentals ’till we married. Lots of units, for singles, couples and one child families. NO PROBLEM. That is what high density allows in a public transportation-close area.
I don’t agree with the reporter/planners. HIGHer DENSITY is not just units per acre. It is also residents per acre!
The point made above that these are designed for young high tech workers is perfectly valid, but lets cut the rhetoric about these high density buildings being aimed at keeping the diversity of Mountain Views low and moderate income families. The YIMBY organizations pushing them are funded by high tech companies and developers. Check the story in today’s SF Chronicle about the turnaround on all those high density housing built for high tech folks who are checking out. One of the high rises in MV is offering two months free rent now…a sign of what is a ahead perhaps. Meanwhile, the affordable, low rise, family oriented apartment complexes around the city are being torn down (not in this particular case but elsewhere). Just stop patting ourselves on the back for building more dense studio and one bedroom apartments for young single tech workers…in the “old days” since several people posting here mention them, they used to share houses and rent garden apartments.
Yes Bloomberg just did a story about the Tech exodus found here (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-18/the-silicon-valley-tech-exodus-could-be-a-plus) It is describing that the valley is in the perfect state for a serious correction regarding the economy.
The reality is that COVID has started the ball rolling regarding the collapse of quality of life businesses in the valley. My greatest loss was Clark’s Burgers. The reality is that those that are in the position to do so are leaving, and those not in the position are stuck.
And AB5, the Microsoft case (https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c/dont-treat-contractors-like-employees-idUSTRE53063S20090401) and the Dynamex case (https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2018/05/articles/class-actions/dynamex-decision-independent-contractors/) regarding contractors is forcing tech workers to relocate out of state to avoid the tech business to reclassify them as employees.
All these developers are doing now is making plans for high income high density demands where it could be that those demands vanish. Thus they get stuck with empty units, like what we are witnessing now. The fact that rents have dropped 15.9% year over year on the current Mountain View market.
The housing industry will not change its plans, so many will gamble on a a regional recovery that is highly unlikely to occur. This is setting up the valley for another serious economic loss.