Why We're Taking a Stand: Whisman's Future

We are the Whisman Action Committee, a group of Whisman residents dedicated to maintaining the character and quality of life in our neighborhood. We support thoughtful housing development but not development at all costs.

The Developer’s Gamble: 294-296 Tyrella Avenue

The development at 294-296 Tyrella Ave began as a three-story eleven-unit townhome project that fit our neighborhood which consists mostly of single story homes with some 2-3 story multi-family buildings. We had no objections to this plan and it received approval from the City of Mountain View in November 2021.

In February 2023 the developer escalated to a 7-story, 80-unit complex through the “Builder’s Remedy” provision, a state law that allows developers to bypass local zoning under specific conditions.

What do we want?

We urged the City Council to push back. Instead they approved the project. Development should enhance our community, not overwhelm it.

We want:

  1. The city to follow its own ordinances, and uphold state and federal law, especially regarding safety and affordability.
  2. For this particular project: a development that respects our neighborhood – even the originally approved project.

We believe thoughtful development that respects neighborhood context is possible while still addressing housing needs.

Questions? Comments? Want to join our efforts?

contact@whismanaction.com

What Resident Say About the Proposed 7- Story Development at 294-296 Tyrella Ave

I would really welcome a 2-3 story development on the site with trees and new landscape, to make our community a better place.
- Hui
Please consider less units, 3 to 4 stories - tops! Please care about the neighbors who already live here and not the almighty dollar. Thank you.
- Carol
Do not approve this permit. Do not approve this development.
- Ivan
The proposed 20% affordable housing allocation, equating to 17 units, is insufficient given the economic demographics of this neighborhood.
- Reyna
Tyrella has barely enough room for 2 lanes for cars and most do not slow down where people cross with bikes, kids and pets.
- Bonnie
I have grave concerns about the height and seismic stability of the proposed project. Such a development poses dramatic seismic risk to nearby, smaller structures.
- Tamara
I as well as the community have concerns about safety for our children who bike to school, additional traffic load in and around this intersection. This is a project for a different location, where density and height is appropriate.
- Ken
Had the City completed the state required housing plan by the deadline required, no approval would be required as builders remedy would not apply. The City needs to take a stand on this project and go to court if necessary to get this project cancelled or modified.
- Roger
Developer’s proposal has maximized the envelope in mass and number of units, while minimizing parking, open space, and neighborhood compatibility.
- Scott

City Conceded to Developer - Oversized and out of scale

  • 7-story building over twice the allowable height in a predominantly 1-2 story residential area (maximum height: 45’, approved height: 96’3”)
  • Minimal setbacks as close as 4 feet crowding residents (required setback: 15’, approved setback: 4’ to 10’)
  • Extreme density – five times above normal limits at 167 units per acre (maximum allowed: 17 units, approved: 80 units)

“Although the project is inconsistent with a number of the development standards in the R3 Zoning District, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, the City may not disapprove the project based on the project’s noncompliance with these development standards.” pg 8, City Council Report

  • Inadequate parking with less than half the required amount 83 parking spaces for 80 units instead of the required 173 spaces, guaranteeing street parking overflow.

“Notwithstanding the above-noted inconsistencies with the development standards in the R3 Zoning District, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, the City may not disapprove the project based on the project’s noncompliance in this regard.” pg 13, City Council Report

Affordable housing but not for families

  • Affordable units are only tiny studios without private open space while market-rate units include larger family-friendly 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments most with balconies.

“City staff inquired whether the Applicant’s proposed BMR unit mix could be modified to better align with the City’s proportionality requirements, and the Applicant informed staff that any such modifications would make the project infeasible.” pg 14, City Council Report

“However, the project proposal for private open space does not meet the private open space requirement as only 54 of the units have private open space (65 to 72 square feet) when 40 square feet of private open space per unit is required. Since not all units are provided private open space, this does not meet the requirement of the R3 Zoning District. Notwithstanding the above-noted inconsistencies with the development standards in the R3 Zoning District, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA, the City may not disapprove the project based on the project’s noncompliance in this regard.” pg 12, City Council Report

Bypassing key safety checks and environmental concerns

  • No environmental review – despite the project’s unusual scale and location in a seismic hazard zone.

 “This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15332 (“In-Fill Development Projects”) of the CEQA Guidelines and none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.” pg19, City Council Report

  • No mandated geotechnical report prior to approval in a known seismic hazard zone.

“The applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for backdraining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.” pg 14 of Draft Resolution

  • Loss of six heritage trees – the building is so large with minimal setbacks that it leaves no room for large existing trees.

“The Heritage trees are either in good or fair condition but, due to conflicts with the building envelope, are proposed for removal as the tree locations would impact the proposed number of units and would conflict with proposed storm drains.” pg 12, City Council Report

Passing infrastructure burden on to residents

  • No crosswalk improvements – Increased traffic risks without necessary upgrades, forcing residents to subsidize the developer’s impact.

“The remaining MTA recommendations for off-site improvements, including contributing funding to the adjacent Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), construction of a bulb-out at the southwest corner of the Middlefield Road and Tyrella Avenue intersection, and crosswalks on Middlefield Road, were determined to be unenforceable under Builder’s Remedy and, therefore, not included as a condition of approval.” pg 16, City Council Report

  • No park fees paid, eliminating critical funding for parks forcing residents to subsidize the developer’s impact.
  • No transportation impact fees, ignoring critical infrastructure funding,  forcing residents to subsidize the developer’s impact.

“In a good-faith effort to reduce financial constraints on housing development projects for lower- income households and to avoid protracted and expensive litigation over the Builder’s Remedy law, the City will not impose conditions of approval requiring Park Land Dedication In-Lieu fees or Transportation Impact fees for this project.” pg 17, City Council Report

“In a good-faith effort to reduce financial constraints on housing development projects for lower- income households and to avoid protracted and expensive litigation over the Builder’s Remedy law, the City will not impose conditions of approval requiring Park Land Dedication In-Lieu fees or Transportation Impact fees for this project.” pg 17, City Council Report

  • Reduced water and sewer fees, forcing residents to subsidize the developer’s impact

“The Applicant has requested a “waiver” of sewer and water capacity fees for the 16 low-income housing units and deferred payment of the sewer and water capacity fees on the remaining units until occupancy. These fees are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project, and the City Code does not authorize an exemption for affordable housing units. The project has been conditioned to require the payment of sewer and water capacity fees for the development in accordance with the City Code. Historically, payment of fees is required prior to issuance of the first building permit. The project has been conditioned to require payment of the fees prior to occupancy.” pg 18, City Council Report

City: “When this exception is granted for a multi-family dwelling, the City requires an agreement for payment of the utility services and a security deposit. The Applicant has requested that the City grant an exception without requiring a utility payment agreement. Following project approval, the Public Works Director will approve an exception to allow installation of one sewer connection and one water meter for domestic water use for the entire building, as shown on the submitted plans. A utility payment agreement will not be required.” pg 18, City Council Report