Town Square

Owners seek shelter from CS zone

Original post made on Mar 11, 2009

Likening the Commercial Service zone along Old Middlefield Way to a dying coral reef, property owners of offices, repair shops and commercial supply houses appealed to the City Council on Tuesday for some relief from the city's land use regulations there.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:47 PM


Like this comment
Posted by Joe Cree
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm

One reason this area lost so many tenants is the property owners wanted such high rents, Larry's Auto is one example of this. His old location is now full of offices by the way. When we had to relocate a couple of years ago we wanted to stay in Mtn. View but with the only allowable zoning area being Old Middlfield and the extremely high rents the property owners wanted we were forced to move to San Jose where both the city and the property owners have made it somewhat affordable for our type of business. The city needs to either keep that area as CS or find another suitable zoning area for the businesses that are forced to stay in the CS zones. The city has allowed far too many areas to be re-zoned as residential or mixed use and won't allow CS types of owners to use open space. I understand the property owners want to rent their spaces but in numerous cases they're not renting because their asking price is just way too high for this type of business. In 2007 we spent almost a year looking for space and never saw one location in the CS zone for $1 a foot or less, most were closer to $2 a foot.

Like this comment
Posted by Brad Kellar
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm

This would be a better location for the Day Worker's Center of Mountain View than the residential neighborhood they are looking at. A property owner could offer free or reduced rent to the DWC and write it off their taxes as a charitable contribution. The DWC will enjoy better operations, given Old Middlefield Way's freeway access and commercial traffic. The City of Mountain View won't have to bend its residential zoning definitions, and Mountain View's residential neighborhoods will be protected from commercial incursion. That's a win-win-win-win for everybody.

Like this comment
Posted by Madison M.
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 11, 2009 at 4:08 pm

I think that's a great suggestion, Brad!

Like this comment
Posted by Larry Moore
a resident of Shoreline West
on Mar 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm

In 2001 I and many other business owners on Old Middlefield Way appeared before the City Council to speak in favor of a five year moratorium on a zoning change and the stronger enforcement of the existing zoning regulations. The result today, based on my conversations with property owners on the street, is an ordinance that apparently has made it very difficult to use buildings in that area for anything but precisely what the CS zone allows, even if a building existing before that time did not fit those zoning requirements. Our intention was to assure that buildings that had been built specifically to house our type businesses not be leased for other uses unless in fact there were no legitimate renters of this type available at the current prevailing rate for that type of space. We did not wish to see buildings legally constructed for office space be forced to convert to CS usage, only that rates that were excessive for CS usage could not be quoted to discourage renting a space that had been designed for that purpose. At that time several developers were purchasing the CS property and then extensively reconstructing buildings to a higher lease rate use. At that time many shops and businesses were being forced out of the area as a result of being quoted office rates (competing with high tech businesses) to continue in their space. Our desire was, and is, to see the existing zoning enforced by the city and to not allow significantly non-conforming uses to replace conforming use.

I believe Mountain View should not be overly zealous in using zoning laws to counter the natural movement of businesses into or out of an area that could easily be made suitable for their usage. Penalizing or forcing owners of non-conforming buildings that predate a rezoning change to pay substantial fees for non-conformance is not in the best interest of the community. Buildings should be allowed to remain for the use they were designed unless it is clear that no tenants of that type are available.

As I argued at that original meeting, I believe strongly that there needs to be a place for businesses wishing to provide services for local vehicle owners, and history has shown that those areas will typically be lower rent areas than those zoned for office, R&D or retail space. By having that space available on a “going rate” basis, conforming business owners wishing to provide those services can factor those costs into their business model and decide if it makes financial sense. If no conforming businesses are available to take that space, building owners should be allowed to make reasonable modifications to their buildings to provide space for other similar but not identical businesses. Varying the ratio of office versus storage is not something that would preclude ever having non-load bearing walls removed or added in the future. Converting CS space to a space that could not accommodate CS usage in the future, such as fully built-out office space, almost certainly assures that it will never again be used for CS businesses.

I know this is a difficult issue that pits the rights of property owners against the “good of the community” and can be very difficult to oversee, however an outright ban or artificial cost inflation through the assignment of fees to existing non-complying structures does not seem to be in the best interests of the property owners or the community-at-large. Neither is allowing developers to purchase property that currently supports the best use of the area and convert it to a use that will bring more money but eliminate the possibility of conforming or nearly conforming businesses ever using that property again. Just as converting business to housing precludes the likelihood that business will ever again occupy that property, allowing a currently “hot” business, but very different business type, to displace a necessary but not “hot’ business can preclude that space ever being used for the original purpose again. Decisions of that magnitude need to be made by city leaders, not city staff. I believe leadership in Mountain View needs to assure that space is available in the city for all types of services that are likely to be needed by the local populace. It is up to those businesses whether they wish to take advantage of that space, individual economics of property and business owners will decide that in the long run.

If the current ordinance, which I have not had the opportunity to fully review, does not support the use of Old Middlefield Way properties in the manner I describe above, I would support the repeal of that ordinance.

Larry Moore - Larry's AutoWorks

PS - I find it interesting that the old middlefield area is not available to choose as a neighborhood. What does that say about it's status as a special area in Mountain View?

Like this comment
Posted by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff Writer
on Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Daniel DeBolt is a registered user.

Thanks for your perspective Larry - I don't think it was well represented at Tuesday's meeting.

Staff here at the Voice agree that the neighborhood selection tool for Town Square is less than desirable and we hope to expand it in the future.

Like this comment
Posted by MC
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 12, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I think the big problem here is that the city is lumping together two disctinct issues with very different answers. I agree with much of what Larry has to say-- penalizing property owners for building or improving structures WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CITY is ludicrous. The Council should grandfather in the current use for any building or existing use that exists *today* in the CS zone.

Rezoning the area is a completely different issue. I personally think that the CS zone is something that should be maintained in Mtn View- there really is nowhere else for vital service businesses to realistically locate in Mtn View.

Any property owner that in good faith has developed what is now considered a non-conforming property and is, as a result, being penalized has a very legitimate gripe with the city. Anyone else who owns a building in the CS zone bought it based on the current laws (or very similar ones) and should have no expectation that they would be able to substantially alter their property.

The City Council needs to sort out these two issues and deal with them appropriately. Preserve the CS zone as-is, but grandfather in currently non-conforming buildings

Like this comment
Posted by Louis Meadows
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 13, 2009 at 1:02 pm

I have noticed most if not all buildings are single store along Old Middlefield Way. I suggest that the zoning for the first floor remain CS zoned supporting the service sector and 2nd and above floors zoned for office and residential use.

I agree with Larry

"I believe Mountain View should not be overly zealous in using zoning laws to counter the natural movement of businesses into or out of an area that could easily be made suitable for their usage. Penalizing or forcing owners of non-conforming buildings that predate a rezoning change to pay substantial fees for non-conformance is not in the best interest of the community."

With this in mind the compromise would be that the landlords could improve the building, but keep the existing first floor CS zoned space. The end result would be new mixed use buildings. On the first floor you would have service business, contractors, auto repair, restaurants, which by the nature of the business are most effected by high rent rates which must be passed on to the community which gets the befit of the services. However the property owner does need to be able to profit as well, so they should be able have office/residential space above the CS zoned first floor. As for parking several companies produce parking elevators. Due to noise from service business landlord should construct the building so that it does not transmit into office or residential use space. As we know the auto service business can be very noisy. By allowing office and residential use above the first floor, many folks in these offices, and residential space would use the service businesses. I not in favor of restricting business, but a requirement for a six foot side walk with new construction would be great for the community that walks along Old Middlefield Way as I like to do when I go to Fred's to watch a 49ners game.

Best Regards

Louis Meadows

Like this comment
Posted by Bernie Brightman
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 16, 2009 at 3:53 pm

'Kasperzak said, and "another dot-com real estate boom is probably not going to happen again in our lifetimes." ' There we are. Once again the uninformed and unaware lack of intelligence which, Greg Perry apart, has always characterized our public officials and likely always will. Companies like Google and Facebook that are leading the world right now, where do you think they are located? Mountain View officials are just the tail on the dog that is the Silicon Valley high tech sector, which is the engine makes all of our lives possible. You'd think by 2009 the city officials would have learned to study and understand something about it, but no, they just go blithely along in ignorance, mere re-actors to whatever happens.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Gemello

on Jun 4, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?