San Jose Mercury News/Peninsula/Daily News/Rhea Mahbubani, Staff Writer, 3/2/15. "Developer wants to build 29 three-story row houses in Mountain View."
 |
| 333 Rengstroff Avenue, Mountain View Tear down the old, rip-out old trees, put up the new. |
.... The developer plans to cut down 90 trees -- including 38 heritage trees -- because a majority are "stressed" or "structurally damaged," the report notes. But 88 new trees will be planted with an eye toward increasing the tree canopy. .... The parcel's assessed valued is $7,202,416 and the developer would have to contribute $870,000 in below-market-rate in-lieu fees if the project is approved. Read more.
Reference, the architectural firm. Dinard and Associates. From the Firm profile:
"Dinar & Associates is a full service architecture, planning and
interior design firm with 30 years' experience in residential,
commercial, transportation, hospitality and mixed-use developments."
Established in 1984..."Note graphic rendering from Dinard's current regional work.
Reference, the project. City of Mountain View Administrative Zoning and Subdivision Committee hearing, 12/10/14, pdf pages 4. 4.4. 333 North Rengstorff Avenue, Moshe Dinar for Dinar and Associates. Request for a tentative map to allow the subdivision of a 1.72-acre lot into 29 residential lots and one common lot on a 1.72-acre project side (multiple-family residential) District. And, 4.5. 333 North Rengstorff Avenue, Moshe Dinar for Dinar and Associates. Permit to construct 29 three-story rowhouses to replace a 32-unit apartment complex, and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 38 Heritage trees on a 1.72-acre project site. Google map. Also see the current City of Mountain View, "Current Project List".
Related, article - Mountain View Voice/Daniel DeBolt, 5/19/10. "Of all the plans we've seen this has been most compatible with the neighborhood", said Council member Laura Macias, who has usually been one of the council's biggest opponents of high-density housing. Macias and the rest of the council made supportive comments about the project during the May 11 study session for three-story condos at 333 North Rengstorff Avenue. The only real concern expressed by the council was the loss of dozens of trees at the site because of its underground parking garage. Two large redwoods would be saved. .... If approved, the 1.7 acre site would eventually have two new three-story condo buildings and a total of 64 units, most of which would be one-bedroom or "entry level" for-sale housing. The site is now home to a 32-unit, two-story apartment complex, which city staff said would be likely to fall in an earthquake because of its soft-story design."
Related, article - Mountain View Voice/Daniel DeBolt, 5/19/10. "Of all the plans we've seen this has been most compatible with the neighborhood", said Council member Laura Macias, who has usually been one of the council's biggest opponents of high-density housing. Macias and the rest of the council made supportive comments about the project during the May 11 study session for three-story condos at 333 North Rengstorff Avenue. The only real concern expressed by the council was the loss of dozens of trees at the site because of its underground parking garage. Two large redwoods would be saved. .... If approved, the 1.7 acre site would eventually have two new three-story condo buildings and a total of 64 units, most of which would be one-bedroom or "entry level" for-sale housing. The site is now home to a 32-unit, two-story apartment complex, which city staff said would be likely to fall in an earthquake because of its soft-story design."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
16 comments:
Every Other city can but Pacifica.
This project will reduce the number of housing units in Mountain View. Is that really something you want Pacifica to do?
827, think infill improvement, as obscure as that might seem to YOU.
Infill improvement is exactly what I WAS thinking. This project is not infill, it's demolishing existing units and replacing them with fewer units. Infill housing development increases the housing stock. Why can't this project at least keep the same number of units and not reduce the housing stock? Even better, add a few units. This project is not helping, it's going backwards.
145, perhaps you didn't think about newer earthquake standards, the improved structures, design element "most compatible with the neighborhood"; and of course there is the $870,000 in lieu fees paid to build "below market" affordable housing (as stated in the article, also highlighted by me for your easy thinking).
The City of Mountain View seems to move city planning forward. Their "current project list" has now been added to the above article (reference section). And that proactive city planning action list is something for this City to think about.
If I could buy a bunch of those Linda Mar ranchers, would you support me tearing them down and putting up 3-story row houses?
$870,000 in lieu for a project on 1.7 acres and we get a crape $330,000 in lieu fees for two below market units on two acres of land in a 27 acre Fifty million dollar project.
Careful 436. You'd be amazed at the latent Nimby tendencies your comment could expose. Leave us our illusions, please.
Yeah 751 and where'd that money go? Right down council's rat hole. Should have been used for affordable housing as in construction or loans like other cities do. You think council left a loophole so they could spend it at their discretion? Does Andy Pappas like crab?
Watch The incredible shrinking housing fund disappear.
Got to make the General Fund look good so they take $12,000-15,000 a year out of the in lieu fund to cover membership fees that historically have been pain out of the G.F.
Just another slash fund for Staff & Council
1241 I suspect you aren't far off in your assumption. Do you ever get the feeling that the attitude of senior staff and some of our council members is "what they don't know won't hurt us"? The "they" being the public and the "us" being the politicians we trust with our money and the savvy civil servants they hire to facilitate spending it on their agendas, rather than ours. My experience may be limited, but Pacifica seems to excel in this area. So much so, in fact, that they can't or won't tell us what they spent millions on.
Spending money recklessly is one thing....
losing $4,000,000.00 is a crime.
1146 There's a connection. And now, no one knows a thing about it. Do you believe that? Where's that audit? How doctored will it be before the public sees it--if the public sees it. Been about 15 months since that dramatic reveal, hasn't it? City Hall must think the smell will go away if they stall long enough.
More like 6-7 Months. The depleted funds were reviled at one of the last budget hearings and Council just had the mid way budget report.
That is still more then enough time to have an audit done and make a public report on what happen to the $4,000,000.
I for one will not be satisfied until we have a full& detailed report.
I want to know what happen and how we keep it from happening again.
To quote the Joker in Batman:
"This town needs an enema"
Knowing a dirty little secret and sharing it with the public are two very different things. Guess the party couldn't start til Ms. Tinfow was on board. According to info on Fix, Ms.Tinfow revealed the news that four million dollars was unaccounted for during city council meeting of June 9, 2014. Of course she didn't discover it then and in the reveal remarked to the effect that when she started as CM on October 13, 2013 she was aware to some extent of our precarious financial situation. No shit Sherlock! It's a shell game that's gone on for years and it's been a dirty little secret at city hall. Guess it just seemed like a good time to come clean. Ducks in a row and all. Barely caused a ripple. Ducks are just fine. Money still unaccounted for. Interfund lending continues but they might be keeping track now. Hardly anyone cares.
Post a Comment