|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View approved its first builder’s remedy project, a seven-story condominium development that will create more ownership opportunities in the city but fewer community benefits than the developer had originally proposed for the project.
In a 6-0 vote, with Council member Margaret Abe-Koga absent, the City Council approved a 70-unit condo development at 2645 and 2655 Fayette Drive, after reaching a settlement agreement that was announced at the council meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 19.
The developer, Octane Fayette, submitted the project application last year when Mountain View did not have a compliant housing element. The development qualifies under the state provision of builder’s remedy because 20% of its units are designated for low-income households. With builder’s remedy, the project is exempt from local development standards that could derail it from getting built.
Five years ago, the City Council approved a previous iteration of the project, which at the time was a 44-unit, six-story condo building that was compliant with the city’s development requirements. But the project never moved forward, as it faced high interest rates and unfavorable lending conditions, according to Emeric McDonald, managing director of Octane Capital.
The developer resubmitted it as a builder’s remedy project that now is taller and denser. Instead of a two-level underground parking garage, Octane Fayette has raised it up one level – a massive cost-saving measure, McDonald said.
To comply with builder’s remedy, the city waived many of the development standards that would limit the density or feasibility of the project, but it balked at the proposed waiver of the park land fees.
“The builder’s remedy does limit local control,” said City Attorney Jennifer Logue. But she also noted that there was some ambiguity about whether cities could impose fees on these kinds of projects.
The San Antonio neighborhood, where the project is located, is lacking in park land and open space. For a development of its size, the fees could have been as high as $13 million, according to the council report. The city and developer ultimately agreed to park land fees of a little more than $1.5 million as part of the negotiated settlement.
For several council members, the outcome of the settlement was favorable. It adheres to the city’s housing priorities, Council member Lucas Ramirez said.
Mayor Pat Showalter expressed similar support. “I’m very pleased that we’ve reached this settlement agreement, which does seem to bring together a good project, perhaps bigger than we would have planned otherwise,” she said.
But Showalter also said that she would have liked to have seen a better mix of affordable units for larger-sized families – a point that several other council members raised as well.
The developer has set aside 14 units as affordable, consisting of five studio and nine one-bedroom units.
Council member Lisa Matichak expressed the greatest disappointment about the terms of the settlement, stating that the park land dedication fee was not enough, especially for a part of the city that needs more parks and green space.
“I’m disappointed that the applicant chose to use the builder’s remedy to propose a project that doesn’t meet our development standards and doesn’t contribute to the creation of a great neighborhood,” Matichak said. She also noted that the removal of nine heritage trees and seven non-heritage trees would result in less tree canopy coverage over time, even with the replacement trees.
Ultimately, Matichak said she backed the project because the developer worked with the city on a settlement agreement and extended the affordable housing deed restriction from 30 years to 55 years. She also did not want to contravene state law, she said.
For Council member Ellen Kamei, the project had its shortcomings, but she also found parts to value about it. “One thing that’s remained the same about this project that I’ve always appreciated is that it’s ownership, and I will thank the applicant for always making that a priority,” she said.
Vacant Mountain View building condemned after 3 people, small fire found insideJanuary 16, 2026 5:15 pm
Six stories of homes are badly needed in this area!
Also, a note about the parking, since this is often a bone of contention. The developer could have saved even more money by just eliminating the second level of parking. But they understood what future residents would want and stuck with two levels. As has been remarked elsewhere, no minimum parking doesn’t mean no parking.
I would like to post this in the comments section, any objections? I attended the November meeting and spoke to Mr. Linebarger afterwards to ask why the project went from the initial 11 units (pre-pandemic) to 33, then 44 units, and now 85. He says it must be 85 to include 20% affordable housing units, and tried to make the case that people want to live in close, vibrant communities. When he asked wouldn’t we want a nice retail district with a coffee shop I realized he was saying what he thought would influence me; when I pointed out we have a coffee shop he was unaware of the Clocktower a block from his property.
I believe Mr. Linebarger has an agenda with the City of Mountain View going back many years. Reading the history of this property reveals several instances where he seemed more ready to take an antagonistic approach than to reach an agreement. He had the plans for this 85 unit tower ready to submit the same day Builders Remedy projects became possible, and rather than adding 20% affordable housing onto his 44 unit plan he jumped to the much bigger one he is now pushing.
I also note that while he says in this article he did not have time to read the city’s “200 conditions of approval” his lawyer sent a letter contesting them the same day as the meeting, forcing the city to postpone the hearing until they could read the lawyer’s letter. A cynical mind could interpret those events as an attempt to set the city up for litigation.
I live in the neighborhood and have attended several meetings regarding rezoning and proposed developments. Residents actually welcome the plans the city has in place for opening areas for development and have lamented the loss of rental units in the area which were very much affordable units.
Mr. Linebarger’s 16 units of affordable housing will not offset those losses as much as the units the city has already included in other developments. His total project will however add at least 100 cars to a busy and uncontrolled intersection. I am being charitable by assuming not all residents will have two cars as most people in the neighborhood do.
The city planners admitted they have very little control over this project and it seems to be moving forward as speedily as a small department can manage. A few of us see no way to prevent it; it instead will become the poster child for urging Sacramento to revise the Builders Remedy law to prevent developers forcing unsightly and unsuitable projects into local communities.