|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A developer is looking to turn a vacant lot on Middlefield Road into high-density condos, adding to the growing number of housing proposals for the recently rezoned East Whisman area of Mountain View.
The project, located at 282 E. Middlefield Road, proposes building 91 for-sale condos on just over an acre of land near the N. Whisman Road intersection. With building heights in excess of 62 feet, the proposal would stand tall above the neighboring single-family homes, ratcheting up density in an area considered ripe for redevelopment.
It’s exactly the kind of housing that city officials have been looking for, said Kevin DeNardi of the DeNardi Group, which submitted the application in May. It provides ownership condos in an area that’s been flagged for housing growth, with a targeted sale price below $1 million. With nearby townhouses hitting $1.8 million and single-family homes approaching $3 million, he said it’s important to fill a niche for more affordable options.
“This allows first-time home buyers a better price point to buy in at, and we feel strongly about that,” DeNardi said.
Unlike other for-sale housing developments that pay the city a housing fee in lieu of building affordable units, DeNardi said the proposal includes 14 condos that will be sold at below-market rates.
Though historically an office-heavy, industrial area of the city, East Whisman has been rezoned to allow up to 5,000 new housing units to transform into a dense, mixed-use neighborhood reliant on public transit and walkability. Other housing proposals for the area include 400 Logue and Google’s massive Middlefield Park project.
What sets the latest condo development apart is that it won’t be located in the highest-density core of East Whisman, but on the western fringe of East Whimsan in an area that’s been dubbed the “village center.” Focused on neighborhood retail for the future East Whisman neighborhood, the village center does allow for between 50 and 200 homes, which the DeNardi project would largely fill.
But the village center is meant for lower densities and conflicts with what the developer is seeking. The development would reach just under of 63 feet tall — higher than the 50-foot height limit — and would more than double the square footage allowed under the zoning for the property. It would also have 101 parking spaces, less than the 142 required by the city.
DeNardi said the plan is to use California’s State Density Bonus Law to increase the number of condos that would normally be allowed under the city’s plans. The same developer previously used that law to crank up density for a similar project on Gamel Way.
As it stands, DeNardi said city planning staff are still at odds with them over whether the density bonus is allowed. State law tends to calculate density by the number of units per acre, while the city is focused more on square footage. The proposal is to build 122,000 square feet of housing in a location where 50,000 is allowed under city zoning rules — a massive increase, but still eligible for a waiver under state law, DeNardi said.
DeNardi said it comes down to a “difference of opinion,” and that the project is slated to come before the City Council for a public hearing on Nov. 16.
City staff did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the status of the development application.
Under the city’s zoning for East Whisman, office development cannot proceed without a commensurate increase in housing, roughly translating to 3 housing units for every 1,000 square feet of offices. The hope is that residential developers will team up with office developers to preserve that balance and even provide incentives for housing to be built. DeNardi said he has yet to discuss a partnership with any officer developers, but that might change once the project is approved.
And while some housing proposals in East Whisman have collapsed due to the high cost of new construction, DeNardi said he believes that the Middlefield Road condo project can make it to the finish line.
“We are confident and we want to move forward,” he said. “We want to add to the housing inventory in East Whisman as well as the inventory of for-sale condos.”
The latest City Development Update from August 2021 (see: https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=35982)
States that this project was:
“Under review. Tentatively scheduled for a City Council public hearing on August 24, 2021 for the applicant’s appeal of the City’s determination that the development application is not complete.”
What ever happened to that appeal?
I used to live on E. Middlefield, very close to this project. There are single family homes on Flynn Ave that will now have a five story building constructed right next to them. I pity those poor people, I cannot even imagine.
Parking was already pretty scarce when I lived there. Only one parking space is planned per unit for this project so parking is going to be even more of a nightmare. Most of the units will only be affordable to the highest wage earners … are they only going to have 1 car per family? Of course not. Also, there was not great public transportation in that area over twenty years ago, so a car for each working adult in the family will typically be a necessity. Is any urban planning being done to eliminate the need for these cars? I believe the answer is no. But that makes me a so-called “NIMBY”, for having the audacity to even speak of such issues. More “virtuous” people ignore these issues and choose to let residents and neighbors duke it out among themselves when the easily forseen disputes and tensions arise.
Did I mention the heritage trees that will be cut down? To get 91 units … an empty lot will be replaced with a stack and pack monstrosity. On the bright side, the site faces a mini-mall and office space on two sides. There are worse places in MV where a monstrosity such as this could be housed.
I like that these are proposed ownership units. Will they remain ownership units by the end of the proposal process? Maybe. Maybe not.
“Some council members were surprised at the June 22 meeting to see how much the project had evolved since then, protesting that the city’s planning process [ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO COMPLETELY REDESIGN PROJECTS] once they get their foot in the door.” https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2021/06/23/mountain-view-city-council-approves-dense-408-unit-apartment-complex-in-east-whisman
I know, Leslie! I can’t see why anyone would call you a NIMBY. In the middle of a generational housing crisis, you just want to make sure no one can see the new building, that it’s not “stack and pack,” and that the city mandate plentiful homes for cars. That’s just good urban planning.
@Leslie, I own a house next to the proposed development, right between this, and the almost completed townhomes on flynn, and I welcome this project and the other. Just like i welcome townhome development in my literal backyard on the other side. No pity required.
This would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, compared to the current abandoned lot which is an eye sore. Condos are modest in size (<1000 sq ft average), so mostly suitable for young couples or singles and 1 car is plenty of parking per condo. It is literally a short walk away from bunch of major employers (Linked In, Google) and a bike ride away from others (Microsoft, Intuit and the rest of Google campuses). Plenty of families don’t need two cars and for them this will be a great deal.
There is plenty of urban planning happening in the neighborhood, you should check out the east whisman redevelopment plan.
I live a short distance from the proposed development, and though I welcome increased density, I also know that there is insufficient street parking in our neighborhood to absorb the overflow that will definitely happen when couples living in this proposed development, each with their own car to take them to their separate workplaces, find themselves with no place to park at the end of a long day because the developer chose not to provide enough parking spaces.
The person who said there was plenty of parking in the area may be thinking of all the corporate parking associated with corporations like Google and Symantec, but trust me, there is very little public parking available. Google does not consider itself a public parking lot and if you try to use it as such, you may wander out in the morning to find your car has been towed at your expense. You can’t park on Middlefield, you can only park in a handful of places on Whisman, and Easy Street, Flynn, Tyrella and Sherland have most of their street parking filled with the cars of people already living there, with very few open spaces We could not absorb another 90 cars.
By all means, bring density. But don’t try to fool us into thinking that 91 units will only have single people living in them or people who only own one car. I’m surprised that the developer wants to take the risk. The value of his property will suffer from the lack of parking. Get real – make it a 4-story building, or a 3-story building – whatever number of units it takes to make the parking ratio appropriate for Silicon Valley transportation patterns.
Perhaps the developer has never walked the neighborhood. Perhaps he is spinning stories to make his proposal more attractive. But the City Council should know better. Mountain View is their town. They need to deal with reality, not succumb to a fantasy. This is not a time for smoke and mirrors.
This proposed building is way too large
The foundation will go significantly underground, damaging the surrounding ecosystem immensely.
Packing people in this densely is unhealthy, as should be obvious by the need for parking waivers and exceptions, as well as the complete demolition of greenery and severe lack of open space
@Frank, I see that you live in Cuesta Park just like me, a lovely area that is not anywhere close to Middlefield. Are you familiar with the area for the new project? I lived there for eight years.
The word NIMBY is a slur used to bully and silence those who have concerns about a proposed development. I have learned that bystanders have much power when bullying happens; they often keep silent, the net effect of which is to give their power to the bully. https://www.kidpower.org/ I choose to give my power to victims, which requires speaking up and speaking out “when a person or group deliberately tries to make someone else feel upset, scared, or ashamed.”
Are you aware of Big Tech’s connection to the YIMBY movement?
“The tech industry’s key agents are California YIMBY, the statewide lobbying group founded and funded by tech executives, and State Sen. Scott Wiener, who, since 2015, has socked away a staggering $554,235 in campaign cash from Big Tech, including sizable contributions from Facebook, Google, and Amazon.” https://www.housinghumanright.org/inside-game-california-yimby-scott-wiener-and-big-tech-troubling-housing-push/
Big Tech is having a sad because they are having problems hiring workers because of high housing costs. That is why SB9/10 and R3 rezoning are being put forward, not to solve “a generational housing crisis.” They want more housing that is “affordable” to tech workers, so they can hire more of them. If low-income and average wage earners are hurt by the “solutions”, or if “NIMBYs” are demonized and scapegoated, too bad so sad. Big Tech is focusing on their bottom line, period. YIMBY tactics are villainous and evil.
Raising concerns about a project does not mean that one is 100% opposed to construction. One raises concerns in order to have potential issues addressed. For this proposal, having one parking spot per unit without adequate transportation alternatives will result in pain and misery for both residents and neighbors.
NIMBY is a slur? Get down off that cross. You don’t want homes for people you don’t like near you. They have to live somewhere, but you are opposed to anything that will house the wrong people. “Too tall”, “stack and pack”, “not enough car homes” are just the standard way NIMBYs like you express yourselves.
@Frank, shame on you. Stop spreading false allegations against someone you don’t even know.
This is why YIMBY tactics are so vile and evil. I have expressed concerns about PARKING, and somehow you translate that into “You don’t want homes for people you don’t like near you … you are opposed to anything that will house the wrong people.”
What complete and utter bullsh*t.
Every other post of yours is ranting about how evil other people are and how bad tech workers are. It’s plain as day for anyone reading your recent spray of comments. You give away the game talking about “stack and pack” and how scary a five-story building is.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a YIMBY, as obsessed with them as you are. Some people just think you’re wrong and obviously a NIMBY.
Your translation function is broken because of all of the hatred you have swallowed, Frank.
Provide the quotes of anything that I ever said that leads you to conclude: “You don’t want homes for people you don’t like near you … you are opposed to anything that will house the wrong people.”
Re techies – so many YIMBYs are techies spreading lovely tales about ending homelessness and providing space so that our kids can live here too. The vision is so lovely. But the cold hard truth is building tons of expensive housing will not lower the rents for most low-income and average wage-earners. It WILL NOT end homelessness, and it WILL NOT provide space for our kids to live here UNLESS they are techies too. SB9/10 will likely enable a few techies to buy homes in Los Altos, but not all of them and not even most of them. SB10 is predatory: it will replace SFH ownership with RENTAL units.
If you want to fight for more tech workers to be able to live here, be HONEST about that. Don’t pretend you are fighting to help bring rents down for everyone, because that ain’t true. I’ve been asking for FOR MONTHS now for someone to explain to me how exactly that would work, and the result has been *crickets*. Building thousands of market-rate units will help Big Tech hire more workers, which is why high-density is being forced down the throats of voters without their consent. Under capitalism, an employer will ONLY hire a worker if they will MAKE A PROFIT by doing so. Think about how much profit is at stake.
And I will say it again: most of the units will be RENTAL housing, not OWNERSHIP units. So most of the techies who come here will hand over their paychecks to their landlords. Have you ever heard the term “wage slave”? Building thousands of market-rate RENTAL units is essentially worker exploitation in my book … which is why I am against it. If you think it sounds awesome, god bless, but I will fight you as best I can.
See what I mean? You can’t even write posts without RANDOM capitalization of WORDS, and just regurgitate the same unhinged rants regardless of topic.
You really got me with that one, Frank. Sigh.
It’s easier to hate “NIMBYs” than accept the fact that you’ve been lied to by the YIMBY movement.
I don’t hate you, I think you are working in your self-interest having accrued millions in wealth through no effort of your own and are animated by anger at YIMBYs and tech workers, who you think are the same people and aesthetically displease you. It’s sad that someone who’s received a windfall wants to just pull up the ladder behind her, but understandable.
I’m sad that the Voice deleted my response. I have no idea what I said that Staff considered to be a personal attack from me. I was defending myself from Frank’s words, which I believe are very much a personal attack.
“I know, Leslie! I can’t see why anyone would call you a NIMBY. In the middle of a generational housing crisis, you just want to make sure no one can see the new building, that it’s not “stack and pack,” and that the city mandate plentiful homes for cars. That’s just good urban planning.”
The word NIMBY is always used as an insult. It is used against people who NEVER UTTER THE WORDS “not in my backyard”. It is used to bully and intimidate. To call someone a NIMBY for raising a concern about parking is a false and ugly accusation. It has the effect of silencing those who share the same concerns, because they are afraid to speak and receive the same treatment. Which is exactly the effect that the developers, and now the politicians, want.
Anyone who would do this obviously has never lived in a place where parking was scarce. People get weirdly possessive about curbs in front of their homes. People have been known to fight and even shoot others out of anger from the situation. Its awful.
I raised a number of urban planning issues in my first post. And what comes back is an ugly and angry strawman argument about me from a person who knows nothing about me. The anger in your words is evident. I’m accused of “wanting to pull up the ladder” because I have empathy for both the existing residents and also the new ones, empathy that my accuser clearly lacks.
I’m just shaking my head now. Where does such vile hatred come from? The other day I was accused of being xenophobic and a Trump supporter because I had talked about parking issues. PARKING ISSUES! Which can be fixed by either adding more parking spots, or addressed with some kind of transportation solution.
Here’s a hint: you care more about homes for cars than homes for people.
I repeat: “Anyone who would do this obviously has never lived in a place where parking was scarce. People get weirdly possessive about curbs in front of their homes. People have been known to fight and even shoot others out of anger from the situation. Its awful.”
I care about people living in misery, all to enable a developer could save a few bucks.
I don’t know really how to argue with someone’s Mad Max delusions about people regularly murdering each other over free parking. I’ll be cute and point out that, if you don’t think there’s enough parking, you demand that these people have their homes somewhere else, not in your proverbial backyard.
“I don’t know really how to argue with someone’s Mad Max delusions about people regularly murdering each other over free parking.”
Your frame is both insulting and dishonest, that is not what I said.
“I’ll be cute and point out that, if you don’t think there’s enough parking, you demand that these people have their homes somewhere else, not in your proverbial backyard.”
I think that would make YOU a NIMBY Frank. An honest to goodness REAL NIMBY. I just want solutions to the parking issues, either by increasing the number of parking spaces and/or improving the transportation options to residents. It would be lovely if cars were not needed! But that is not true for that area of MV today.
I don’t think you read what I wrote, I’m saying that you, Leslie Bain, would rather this building be somewhere else than have what you deem not enough parking. It wasn’t a suggestion, it was an assessment of facts
This comment is not addressed to you personally Frank.
I am old, when I was in college I had the opportunity to travel to Europe. One of the places I visited was Dachau.
I learned there that the seed that ultimately enabled Hitler to come to power was the horrible economic situation at that time. As I recall, inflation was rampant. People were angry and miserable, they wanted a solution. The idea went around that the Jewish people were hoarding money; the Jewish people were responsible for the inflation! There was not any evidence that such a thing was true, but who needs evidence? It sounded kind of reasonable, it must be true! The Jewish people became a wonderful scapegoat for Hitler. Hating the Jewish people became popular. Were the Jewish people actually responsible? No. It was a lie.
Today in the Bay Area there is a horrible economic situation. People are angry and miserable, they want a solution to the housing crisis. The idea is going around that NIMBYs have been intentionally “keeping supply low”. NIMBYs are responsible for the high cost of housing! There is not any evidence that such a thing is true, but who needs evidence? It sounds kind of reasonable, it must be true! NIMBYs have become a wonderful scapegoat. Hating NIMBYs has become popular. Are NIMBYs actually responsible for the housing crisis? What is the evidence?
What I learned in Dachau is that horrible economic situations are like fertile soil for the unscrupulous. Many political types find it convenient to identify scapegoats, and then stir up a mob against them. Mobs act in angry, unthinking ways. Many people embrace ideas without asking for evidence. I think that is a tragic flaw in the human soul.
After the Holocaust the Jewish people went to great lengths to implore that mankind “never forgets”.
Obviously NIMBYs have not been subjected to anything close to the Holocaust. I share this story because I think the seeds are strikingly similar.
Leslie, please get a grip. It’s absurd to the point of being offensive to compare getting called a NIMBY to your own personal Holocaust. Your last sentence shows your understand the ridiculousness of it, but that should have been the point at which you decided not to post it.
New condos for under $1M is not targeting “highest earners”. A two income family at the county median income or even a little less can afford this. And it is great to see the BMR ownership units as well. As to the parking – I live in a near by condo complex, and many people remain working from home, including myself. As long as 1 person in a two person household is working from home, one car works!
This down the street from us. The space is surrounded by single family homes, most residents drive, and this building will tower over us and crowd us further.
The City Council reportedly regrets that they have to approve so many new developments that are displacing lower- and middle income families, but the City is in charge of zoning and has the ability to decide against these. There is a hearing on October 12 where this is supposed to come up, I hope many of us call in to speak against this huge project.
I am not against new housing as described in the article, but this developer is trying to push more units and a higher building than even the new zoning written by the council for East Whisman. Please speak up against this!
The area of Mountain View bordered by 85, 101 and Sunnyvale is essentially the East Berlin of Mtn View. We have no say, all projects are rubberstamped with no regard for residents’ concerns of parking or traffic. You won’t see a 450+ apartment complex going up west of El Camino Real in Mtn View, but take a drive down Evelyn Ave. You will see a massive Prometheus complex, minimal setback from the sidewalk, inadequate parking. Jammed-up against the affordable housing literally on Sunnyvale border next to a gas station and towering over existing townhouses and apartments. And these are not homes, this is temp housing for the affluent, average stay of about 2 years. And BTW all these new projects are protected from rent control by Costa Hawkins.
I’m still waiting to hear about infrastructure improvements for the hundreds of new 1- or no-car residents of the proposed developments. The Shoreline Safeway is the only supermarket that’s maybe in walking distance, the elementary school is at capacity, and the few restaurants near the Dollar General are already busy. Even now, it’s often impossible to get a maple glazed donut if you arrive at Roger’s after 8:30 am!
Goodness, as if we didn’t have enough half filled high rise buidings around here anyways. Ridiculous to say they will have units at “below market price” when these developers are the ones colluding and determining the market price.
Such a sad state of affairs here, because it’s not more housing we need, but more affordable housing. Truly affordable, not “I only make $120k at Google not including my bonus” affordable.
NIMBY rhetoric is really out there! On what planet is a five-story building a “high-rise”? Where are all the buildings with 50% vacancy rate?
People who are completely detached from the housing market aside from complaining about new buildings and seeing their property values soar really should not be commenting on collusion that keeps prices high…
well I don’t see how they are going to hit that $1M/unit sale price if it’s costing the city $1M to BUILD the 120 BMR units downtown and the developer in North Bayshore is complaining that his project doesn’t pencil out without more office space (his costs were about $850K 2 or 3 years ago when last reported in the Voice). Still any housing is good housing with a deficit of 500K units in the Bay Area.
@Frank Richards. On what planet is a five-story building a “high-rise”? LOS ALTOS
Where are all the buildings with 50% vacancy rate? THERE ARE MOVE-IN PROMOS ALL OVER THE VALLEY. OPEN YOUR EYES.
MyOpinion, why are you shouting?
Just because NIMBYs in Los Altos and Mountain View recoil at the thought of a building taller than a person, that does not make those building high rises.
Just because a building offers move-in incentives does not mean it’s half-empty.
I’m in favor of more housing, and realize that multi-story, multi-unit buildings will replace single family homes in the Whisman area. It’s not a higher-density building we object to, it’s the excessive height and number of units. The proposed building is five stories high, in a neighborhood where even new developments are a maximum of three stories.
For perspective, the development on Moffett and Central Expressway, across from Castro and downtown, is four stories. What is proposed here is something more like Santana Row – which by the way is still only four stories high.
The developer seems to be making some pretty bold assumptions about the lifestyles of the future residents of his building: that they will have only one car or no car for a household of two or more people, that they will have jobs within range of existing public transit, that they will use public transit for all activities. The City seems not to think there will be more kids needing school space, that there will not be an increased burden on fire and public safety resources, or traffic control! that those who purchase units below market will not sell them soon at higher prices.
Regarding the “difference of opinion,” the EPC will review that proposal next Wednesday and the City is recommending denying that proposal. The meeting materials provide all the details behind that denial.
Thank you @SRB, that is good news. But I will continue to voice my objections just to make sure.
There are several new multi-unit developments in the area that are moving forward which we in the neighborhood are accepting (with some grumbling). So I appreciate the City recognizing this one doesn’t fit.
That’s great news! I’m glad we’ll be able to preserve the majestic splendor of the blighted lot next to the Rotten Robbie rather than spoil it with too many homes.
@Rachel. It looks like the City objection is rooted in the developer willfully ignoring any of the densities set after years of planning for East Whisman upzoning.