|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A seven-story condo development in Mountain View is moving forward as a builder’s remedy project that will add high-density housing to the city. But the pathway is looking possibly litigious, as the developer has dialed back community benefits that had been originally proposed for the project.
Located on a 0.67-acre site, the development at 2645 and 2655 Fayette Drive has undergone numerous iterations over the past 10 years. It has gotten taller and denser and nearly tripled the number of condo units. The developer, Octane Fayette, is now planning to build seven-story, 70-unit condos with 14 units set aside for low-income households.
The project was submitted at a time when Mountain View was not in compliance with its housing element and qualifies as a builder’s remedy project because it includes 20% of its units as affordable.
In a 6-1 vote, the Environmental Planning Commission supported a recommendation for the development to move forward for consideration by the City Council at its meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 16. Despite the favorable vote, many commission members expressed frustration over the outcome, notably the concessions that must be made for builder’s remedy projects.
Commissioner Joyce Yin cast the dissenting vote, expressing disappointment with how little the city was gaining in terms of public benefits – a sentiment shared by the other commissioners as well. “I’m not taking away that these units are valuable. The additional units you’re providing are valuable. I’m saying that relative to what we’re losing, the gain is so small,” Yin said.
Four years ago, the City Council approved the Fayette project, albeit at a smaller scale. The project adhered to Mountain View’s development standards and also proposed a number of community benefits like a two-story underground garage, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle crosswalks and contributions to public funds.
But the developer was not able to secure enough money to get the project off the ground, which Emeric McDonald, managing director of Octane Capital, attributed to high interest rates and unfavorable lending conditions. The project also was facing the prospect of an expired entitlement that would force a payment of $4 million to the city, irrespective of whether the project got built or not, he said.
“We found no other alternative but to pursue a builder’s remedy project as a way of really extending our entitlement. And then we took advantage of the fact that there were less requirements with regard to compliance,” McDonald said at the meeting Wednesday evening.
Under builder’s remedy, Mountain View cannot reject a project that does not comply with local development standards if it would reduce housing density or prevent the project from getting built. There is no dispute that the Fayette development qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. But there are questions about whether requiring the developer to adhere to certain building standards would limit the project’s feasibility.
Mountain View already received letters from YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund threatening litigation if it tries to impose local standards or fees on the project, according to City Attorney Jennifer Logue. “We’re in a tough place. It’s a tough place right now. And so, the question becomes on each one of these items, is it worth the fight?” Logue said.
It appears that Mountain View is largely stepping back from this fight, at least based on the recommendations of the staff report. It is not requiring the developer to comply with certain development standards, like setback, height and common usable space requirements. It also has acceded to the developer’s plans to limit the affordable units to just studios and one-bedrooms, even though the project includes two and three-bedroom units as well.
While the developer has submitted a transportation demand management plan, it is not committed to implementing it, a matter that the city says it will not enforce as a condition of the project’s approval, according to the report.
Mountain View is looking to collect on park fees for the development that could bring in more than $3 million to the city’s coffers. However, whether this is possible under builder’s remedy is still a matter of contention, Logue said.
The collection of park fees was a particular sticking point for the planning commissioners, with several noting that it was an important public benefit.
“We are a housing-focused community, and that’s what we do, and part of that is making sure that when the people come here, they have a good quality of life,” said Commissioner Bill Cranston. “If there’s never any park space, the quality of life for those people in those 70 homes is going to be reduced.”
McDonald did not back down, stating that it was the position of the developer that the imposition of park in-lieu fees was unlawful under builder’s remedy.
Commissioner Joyce Yin provided some of the harshest comments, noting that a lot of what made the project initially attractive for the city has been taken out, like its decision to remove one of the subterranean parking levels, while still providing 101 vehicle spaces. “The ground floor now pretty much is a parking garage, other than that corner entry. There’s no active use around this building,” Yin said. She also expressed dismay with the proposal to remove nine heritage trees from the site, adding that it was another loss for the city.
Not willing to give up on the park fees, Yin encouraged the city to take a strong stance and recognize that it was asking for very little compared to what was being taken away. “We need the parks. Can we have the park fee? I’d love to get more, but if we’re just scrambling for crumbs, can we try,” she asked.
While the other commissioners expressed disappointment with the project, they ultimately supported the staff recommendation for it to move forward, on the basis that it was adding housing and litigation could be costly.
“If we want to be the poster child or the lab rat of taking this to court and trial when we could just get 70 units, we (could) get in lieu fees – (let’s) live and let live and move on with our lives,” said Commissioner Alex Nunez. “That seems like the far easier option for me.”
Please, stop more apartment buildings in our already crowded and congested city of Mountain View. Let them be built in Los Altos, LAH, or Palo Alto, see what the neighbors there say
Build baby build! Love it. Build more. Build build build. Love me some new buildings. Let’s upzone a lot of the wasteful single family housing. Cuesta Park is ripe for bulldozing all that wasteful SFH and putting in dense walkable communities.
I have no problem building, just when the build happens without support for infrastructure, this all falls apart fast. Let’s build a bunch of buildings where the first floors are garage. Because that feels great where exactly?
Not exactly sure why Another MV is picking on Cuesta Park. There are far superior SFHs to replace near transit. (Downtown!). Feel free to explain.
Ramirez, probably because the wealthy are untouchable. It’s ironic that those profiting most from the area’s growth are least asked to help with the externalities.