A proposal for a new office development on nearly four acres of land in Mountain View’s East Whisman Precise Plan garnered unanimous approval by the Environmental Planning Commission on Wednesday.
While the proposal came with some drawbacks, including the removal of 61 heritage trees to make room for development, commissioners were encouraged by the community benefits and publicly accessible open space that the project will add.
"One of the real exciting components to this was the development of the public open spaces throughout the project, and the connectivity, the flowing of pedestrians through the spaces to really make this a very inviting environment that really creates significant value for the whole community," landscape architect Gary Laymon said on behalf of the applicant, Sand Hill Property Company, at the March 22 meeting.
The development, located at 189 N. Bernardo Ave., will feature a new four-story, 83,000-square-foot office building, located within the site’s existing surface parking lot; a new six-story parking garage, with four stories above grade and two levels below grade; and renovations to an existing two-story, 59,000-square-foot office building.
The site is located within the East Whisman Precise Plan, and is zoned for high intensity office uses in the city’s general plan. Surrounding the proposed project are some existing office buildings and multifamily housing.
New office developments proposed within the East Whisman Precise Plan are typically beholden to the jobs-housing linkage strategy, a program the city created to try to balance office and housing growth. The jobs-housing linkage requires a certain amount of housing to be built for every 1,000 square feet of office space being developed.
But this project is exempt from that housing requirement because it’s part of a transfer of development rights (TDR) program established in January 2018, more than a year before the East Whisman Precise Plan, and the jobs-housing linkage program, was finalized.
Established between the city and the Los Altos School District, the TDR program authorized this project to add up to 28,000 square feet of floor area as a trade-off for giving $3.6 million to the school district. In other words, developers get to build a denser project, and in exchange, the district gets much needed funds to support their acquisition of a new school site, city staff said at the meeting.
In addition to the extra floor area from the TDR program, developers also requested about 48,000 square feet of extra density under the East Whisman Precise Plan’s bonus floor-area-ratio program. In exchange for that added density, the developer will give a $1.3 million community benefits contribution to the city, which staff plan to use for an undercrossing project on Bernardo Avenue, a joint venture between the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale.
The project will also provide community benefits in the form of a privately owned, publicly accessible (POPA) open space, a multi-use path with bicycle facilities and a north-to-south pedestrian walkway.
To make way for the new office building, as well as some of the publicly accessible site improvements, 111 trees have to be removed, including 61 heritage trees.
“The applicant has worked extensively with city staff to develop the optimal site design to achieve tree preservation where possible, while providing public access envisioned in the East Whisman Precise Plan complete streets network,” said associate city planner Brittany Whitehill at the meeting.
To make up for all the lost foliage, the developer proposes planting 220 new trees, including 46 coast live oaks and 36 valley oaks. Once those trees reach maturity, the overall tree canopy will be larger than it is right now. The applicant will also make 85% of the landscaping native plants.
“There are always tradeoffs with anything here, and I think in this case it’s mostly the trees, unfortunately,” Commissioner Chris Clark said at the meeting. “But I’m encouraged that we were able to find additional trees we were able to save, and I think some of the impacts are of our own making, with requiring the multi-use trail.”
Clark moved to support the project, which means it will next go to the city council in May for final approval. The motion passed unanimously.
Comments
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 24, 2023 at 1:57 pm
Registered user
on Mar 24, 2023 at 1:57 pm
oh boy! more office space! more loss of green space! how exciting!
"New office developments proposed within the East Whisman Precise Plan are typically beholden to the jobs-housing linkage strategy, a program the city created to try to balance office and housing growth. The jobs-housing linkage requires a certain amount of housing to be built for every 1,000 square feet of office space being developed.
But this project is exempt from that housing requirement because it’s part of a transfer of development rights (TDR) program established in January 2018, more than a year before the East Whisman Precise Plan, and the jobs-housing linkage program, was finalized."
Because of course it is.
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 24, 2023 at 2:53 pm
Registered user
on Mar 24, 2023 at 2:53 pm
What only 61 heritage trees to be removed? The council is slipping. Mountain View will be treeless before the end of the decade if this bunch have their way. Even the council logo has gone from three trees to one. Says a lot.
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 24, 2023 at 7:28 pm
Registered user
on Mar 24, 2023 at 7:28 pm
I usually avoid posting in comment threads because almost everyone's opinion (including mine) is uninformed garbage... but in this case I thought I'd point out that if any of the previous posters had bothered to use Apple or Google Maps to go look at existing site, they'd see it is occupied by an existing set office buildings of debatable architectural value. Rotating the street view, we _also_ see a stand of new housing within walking distance cross Central Expressway. There are worse ways to redevelop existing office space.
It's tougher to argue over the loss of the trees... but given that we all implicitly agreed that living in car-dependent suburban tracts was a good idea, we have all implicitly agreed that open space is a great idea until we want to put a single-family home on it. Plus, Street View reveals that at least 5% of those trees are already dead.
Registered user
Waverly Park
on Mar 24, 2023 at 9:47 pm
Registered user
on Mar 24, 2023 at 9:47 pm
well we did make a deal for TDR, (I assume Los Altos is actually going to build a school at some point) but we really need to take another look at anything that creates more office space. More office space allows more good jobs, good jobs draw more people in and we can't house, school or water the people we have. Why can't these jobs be exported to Texas or Colorado or Idaho or someplace that wants them?
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 25, 2023 at 12:36 pm
Registered user
on Mar 25, 2023 at 12:36 pm
More than anything else, I’m baffled that the economics of an office development make sense. Going back to Street View shows a “for lease” sign; setting aside the larger social questions of office:housing ratios and such… how do the developers expect to recover their investment?
Also, if the various lifestyle trend pieces are any guide, while statehouses in Texas and Idaho may want Californian… actual Texans and Idahoans don’t want Californians moving in next door, finding them to be overly wealthy and entitled. One sympathizes.
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 26, 2023 at 2:33 pm
Registered user
on Mar 26, 2023 at 2:33 pm
@DoctorData, may I try to share some truths with you?
One of the top issues today is the “housing crisis”. Many think the rent is “too d*mn high”. This situation has actually been true for decades and decades, housing has been far more expensive in CA than in other parts of the country. In the past, we used to joke/cry about the “sunshine tax”. Our area is highly desirable for many reasons, the conventional wisdom of the past was “location, location, location” is the reason housing costs were high. Great weather, great cultural scene, world class universities (including Stanford) producing top tech talent, a highly polished venture capital industry. Silicon Valley is a uniquely magical place in the world. People want to live here, businesses want to be here.
It is only recently that politicians have been telling us housing costs are high because “we have been doing a bad job at producing housing”. Weird that this was NEVER identified as an issue in the past. Also weird: policies being pushed to solve the crisis are designed to maximize the production of expensive, market rate housing … housing that is UNAFFORDABLE to the majority of folks who are suffering.
Politicians say that we have a “jobs/housing” imbalance, they want to force density on residents. But there are two sides to that coin. Another way to solve the problem is to slow/stop the production of new jobs. Question: if the housing crisis is TRULY a CRISIS, shouldn’t slowing the production of new HIGHLY PAID jobs also be one of the tactics that is pursued?
I think State politicians aren’t really trying to “solve the housing crisis”. The fact that they aren’t serious about the JOBS part of the imbalance is a tell. Building new office space during the housing crisis is kind of like watching fire fighters battling a raging forest fire and allowing lots of flammable material to be added to it WHILE THEY ARE WORKING. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:23 am
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:23 am
We never talked about it before, so it's not a real issue? Can you imagine making that claim about, say, police brutality?
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 27, 2023 at 1:38 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 1:38 pm
ivg, your comment is fascinating at first, but soon flickers out when one takes any time to think about it.
Do you seriously believe that police brutality was never discussed before the last few years?
Do you seriously believe that the high cost of housing in CA has never been discussed before the last few years? That nobody felt it's pain before the current generation of young tech workers?
Do you think that everyone in previous decades were idiots? Do you really believe that if efforts were being made to "block supply" in order to keep housing prices high, that those alive in previous decades would never have noticed and spoken out to object? That no journalist would have written a story about that topic?
Have YOU not noticed that the majority of efforts from the CA YIMBY movement are focused on maximizing the production of expensive, market rate units? Who benefits THE MOST from such policies? Low income and average workers? No. The biggest winners are those who DESIRE an increase in production of market rate units, namely developers and Big Tech companies who were previously having problems hiring workers, that is before they started laying off workers. Developers make more $$$ on market rate units, duh. Under capitalism, a worker is never hired unless the employer will make a profit from doing so. Google pays FABULOUS salaries, can you imaging the profits that Google is making in order to pay those salaries? But young workers who understand that those fat salaries won't buy a house in Silicon Valley were saying no, which interfered with Google's bottom line. Rather than making an effort to hire workers in more affordable locations, Google has chosen to conduct a whisper campaign to demonize the residents of MV in order to get what it wants.
Those who truly care about the plight of teachers, service workers, and kids who don't code understand that building at a rate of 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit is a path to failure for them. MATH.
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:36 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:36 pm
Also, the people who benefit the most from today's supply-constrained environment ("seller's market") are incumbent homeowners. But move right along, nothing to see here.
Registered user
another community
on Mar 28, 2023 at 12:28 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2023 at 12:28 pm
The city has plans for a lot of new housing to be built in the East Whisman area. On the other hand they have always had plans for way more new office space to be built there. The new housing that is produced is not going to be sufficient to affect housing costs in general, but it will include 20% or so regulated BMR units which will increase the supply of housing where rent is controlled to be affordable for households of lower income levels.
It's not going to reduce the price for market rate housing, and certainly not for single family homes. What the new apartments will do is to push up the price of single family homes, so those homeowners stand to benefit price wise from increased population density. What the city is doing is to try to compete better with San Jose at attracting business growth to occur up here rather than down there by Bart.
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 28, 2023 at 3:36 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2023 at 3:36 pm
Yes, it would have been much better to get more housing into the East Whisman plan.