|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A residential street in Mountain View is poised to undergo some big changes, with a developer proposing to build a four-story condo complex in an area that, until now, has largely consisted of single-family homes and two-story apartments.
Located at 266 and 272 Tyrella Ave., the project would be built as two interconnected buildings on a one-acre site, replacing a fourplex and a single-family home. The 47-unit development will rise about 55 feet in height, substantially taller than any of the surrounding buildings on the street, according to the plan set.
But while rising above neighboring homes, the project should not be confused with the seven-story, 85-unit residential development that has been proposed just down the street, said Bill Maston, principal architect of William Maston Architect and Associates in Mountain View.
The other development, at 294-296 Tyrella Ave., was submitted under builder’s remedy last year, when Mountain View’s housing element was not in compliance with state law.
Community members had recently attended a meeting about the four-story condos and confused it with the nearby builder’s remedy project, Maston said. They had expressed opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about limited parking, and did not realize that it was a totally different development than the one proposed for 294-296 Tyrella Ave.
The issue was cleared up at the community meeting, Maston said, adding that the for-sale condos will have an underground garage with 47 parking spaces, or one car per unit, as well as 52 spots for bicycles.
Because it is within half a mile of public transit, the development can reduce its parking spaces. Still, there were lingering concerns about street safety and putting in traffic-calming measures on Tyrella Avenue, Maston said.
The condos also have been designed to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, according to the plans. The architectural style is “low-key,” Maston said, explaining that it was not in a modern or contemporary style, like what is often seen with residential developments on El Camino Real.
Emily Jones, a consulting architect and Development Review Committee member for the city of Mountain View, described the building as having a “quiet approach, kind of like a good neighbor building design,” at a meeting where the plans were presented to the DRC on July 17.
The condo complex design includes courtyards and a paseo, something that the city encouraged to create more outdoor space, given the height of the buildings, Maston said.
At the meeting, committee members made suggestions for including more tree canopy and green space to reduce the amount of paved area. As of now, there are 24 existing trees on the site with 19 heritage trees. The project will remove 11 heritage trees and two non-heritage trees, and will add 24 new trees, according to the plans.
The 47-unit condominium will have a mix of one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units, with five slated for very low-income households. The developer felt that “pride of ownership is a big deal” and was a motivating reason for choosing to build condos on the site, Maston said. The project is seeking a density bonus in exchange for providing the affordable units.
It’s great to see a real push to put our money where our mouth is when it comes to trying to solve our housing problems and not dealing with a bunch of pearl-clutching liberals-when-convenient being NIMBYs like in Palo Alto.
Once it takes you 30 mins to get across town Mike, you’ll wish we had clutched our pearls a bit more. Building without proper infrastructure leads to….LA.
These condis will sell for between 2 and 3 million dollars each. Money being taken out in profits not put in! We do have a demand for $2 million homes so this responds to that. These will be higher priced than the weird builders remedy project.
Wow. One parking space for each unit! Those two and three bedroom units will have at least two cars! You don’t spend $2mil on a condo and bike or take the bus, despite what Sacramento thinks. Street parking will be at a premium, even more so than it it is today. SMH
Finally. A housing project in Mountain View to build homes that people can actually own rather than rent. Far too long the Mountain View city council has rubber-stamped an endless stream of rental housing proposals without regard to the fact that you can’t have a vibrant community that doesn’t have an ownership stake in it.
Four stories is great for this area!
For the record, LA has terrible traffic because it built exactly the opposite of this project: endless one-story sprawl with excessive parking and no transit.
I don’t think it’s especially noble or great to have housing policies that put the needs of high wage workers over the needs of everyone else in the community.
What about the housing problems of low-income and middle class workers? In project after project after project, only about 11% of new units are AFFORDABLE to these workers, people who make up OVER HALF THE POPULATION of Mountain View. For example, in this project only 5 out of 47 units will be affordable. 5/47 = 10.6%. The math shows that low-income and middle class workers are getting the short end of the stick. The state REQUIRES that MV build 11,000 new housing units over the next 8 years, but the part that keeps being forgotten is that the state also REQUIRES that 6,000 of those units be affordable to those in the bottom 3 income categories. And when we don’t meet this goal, which we won’t because the YIMBYs and our City Council seem to consistently forget about , then YIMBY-backed bills like SB 35 will actually REWARD developers for not bringing enough truly affordable housing projects to the table.
And as the process of gentrification continues, the percentage of residents who work for Google will grow. Mountain View will finally become Google’s own company town, the YIMBYs will outnumber everyone else and so the City Council should defer to their needs under the principles of democracy. Will the hostility that these people have with anyone who disagrees with them continue? IMHO, the answer is yes.
Cars are very expensive these days. Low-income families have a hard time affording even used cars. We must demand carmakers to sell new cars at prices that low-income buyers can afford.
… said no one, ever. But for homes, this line of thinking has become dogma.
With just one car per condo, the appeal will be limited for the new units. But there are so many existing properties valued at $2 Million or more. It is believable that 40 people could be found to purchase new units for $2 Million or $2.5 Million for a 3 bedroom and not mind only having one space in the garage. But a good case could be made that more than one bike parking space is needed per unit, especially for kids living in the 2-3 bedroom units.
Oh yeah, I definitely agree about the bike parking. Strollers, too.
A certain political movement has dishonestly claimed that they are fighting for density in order to help “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code”. And many people have been influenced by that false propaganda.
Density is being forced onto our City by state and local politicians who are more interested in the welfare of “future residents” than the people who actually live here. It makes a mockery of democracy. The welfare of Google workers is more important than the welfare of everyone else in the community.
“We must demand carmakers to sell new cars at prices that low-income buyers can afford.
… said no one, ever. But for homes, this line of thinking has become dogma.”
Friends, these words show that the words “affordable housing” are being used in strange new ways to meet the political objectives of high wage tech workers, but not meet the needs of those much farther down the ladder. It would be lovely if the person who uttered them was alone in their beliefs, but I can testify that this is not the first time that I have been mocked by a member of this movement when I actually point out that “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code” are being thrown under the bus.
When members of a movement express contempt for the so-called goals of the movement, it becomes clear that the PRIVATE GOALS are very different than what the movement leaders claim them to be.
The truth is that they are fighting on behalf of people “who work in Mountain View, but don’t live here”. But even THAT is dishonest, as another comment here has made clear. They are fighting for HIGH WAGE WORKERS who work in MV, I wonder who they work for?
“Low-income families have a hard time affording even used cars.”
BTW, this is another piece of propaganda, put out by those who have an anti-car agenda even when satisfactory alternative transportation does not exist. Even people who are living in RV’s need cars.
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/06/26/as-mountain-view-plans-to-expand-safe-parking-advocates-say-more-space-is-needed-for-commuter-vehicles/
“As the city of Mountain View prepares to increase the number of spots at the Shoreline safe parking lot by more than 50%, program participants still need a place to park their commuter vehicles – the cars they use to get around during the day, but not to sleep in.
The situation is part of a larger challenge the city faces in meeting the constant demand for more space devoted to people living in their vehicles, while also accommodating the secondary vehicles that many of those residents rely on to get around on a daily basis, city staff say.”
My analogy about car affordability was a bit of a stretch, but it would be reality if we (mis)managed the car market the same way we’ve done with the housing market.
We ARE mismanaging the housing market. We are just doing it at an accelerated pace, and without consent from local residents, thanks to the CA YIMBY movement.
The state requires MV to build 11,000 new housing units.
The state also REQUIRES that 6,000 of those new units be affordable to those in the 3 bottom RHNA category.
So much effort has been put into meeting that first requirement.
So LITTLE EFFORT has been put into meeting that second requirement. And when we don’t, which is a certainty because we have neither plans nor funding to meet it, State politicians will punish existing residents by providing streamlined approval to developers via bills like SB 35.
I refuse to cheer at news of yet another housing project that is almost entirely for the benefit of high wage workers. Gentrification causes the displacement of lower income people from the community, often women and people of color. The Voice published an award-winning series in the last few years, focusing on those trying to escape living on the streets. Turns that when one’s time in a homeless shelter is up, many are forced to return to their cars or the streets because there simply is not enough low-income housing for them. I guess we won’t be able to see that in the years to come, now that the State has decided to crack down on the evidence that exists via homeless camps.
We have a housing crisis because we are not building enough AFFORDABLE housing. Nothing has really changed in that regard. The mismanagement continues.
That whole theory is based on the premise that adding market-rate housing somehow hurts people who can’t afford it. This is obviously untrue if applied to any other market. Imagine trying to keep cars affordable by banning sales of new Teslas.