|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A developer’s plan to build an eight-story condominium complex at a prominent gateway to downtown Mountain View got the greenlight Tuesday evening after a legal dispute over parkland fees threatened to derail the project earlier this year.
In a split 4-2 vote, the City Council approved a 140-unit condominium project with nearly 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail space at the northeast corner of Castro Street and El Camino Real, replacing three commercial properties and four homes.
Council members John McAlister and Ellen Kamei cast the dissenting votes at the April 28 meeting while Alison Hicks recused herself from the discussion because of the proximity of her home to the property.
The vote comes after a disagreement over the amount of parkland fees that the city could charge the developer, GPR Ventures. The city had planned to charge GPR Ventures roughly $2.9 million but lowered it to $2 million, as part of the project’s condition of approval, according to an April 23 settlement agreement.
As part of the deal, the City Council also approved the $4.2 million sale of Fairmont Avenue, between Hope and Castro streets. The developer plans to close the roadway to vehicle traffic and turn it into a promenade, according to the city staff report.
“I think the $4.2 million in unrestricted funds in exchange for the sale of public right of way is very worthwhile,” Council member Lucas Ramirez said.
For the past decade, GPR Ventures has been looking to build a condominium complex at 881 Castro St. Dubbed “Castro Commons,” the project site covers roughly 1.4 acres. It extends north for nearly two blocks along Castro Street, stopping short of Yosemite Avenue, and east to Hope Street. It also includes Gateway Park, a patch of green space at the Corner of Castro Street and El Camino Real that is frequently used for protests and other gatherings.
The project drew general praise from Ramirez who noted that GPR Ventures had worked closely with the city to uphold many community priorities.
Ramirez noted that the project met the city’s housing goals by providing more ownership opportunities, including affordable units. Of the 140 residential units, 22 have been set aside for low- and moderate-income households.
“It’s great to see the inclusion of affordable units geared towards that moderate-income household that we have not been able to meaningfully serve in many of the developments that we’ve reviewed,” he said.
The project also includes two levels of underground parking, with 33 commercial and 167 residential parking spots, according to the city staff report. Ramirez described the parking as an asset since the developer could have opted not to have provided it under state law, other than offering the 33 required commercial spaces.
However, McAlister raised concerns that the project’s home ownership component was not guaranteed, as GPR Ventures had indicated a preference to rent out the units before putting them on the market as for-sale condos.
“If the projects start one way and the developer decides that he has to go another way, that’s their right,” McAlister said. “But it’s not what I initially thought it would be.”
Glen Yonekura co-founder and managing principal of GPR Ventures said that the project needed the flexibility of a rental option because of a 10-year liability law in California. The law protects buyers from bearing the cost of fixing defects in newly built condos, but does not apply to rented apartments. Under current economic conditions, this is making it difficult to get condominium construction loans from banks, he said.
McAlister also expressed disappointment about the city giving up Fairmont Avenue, stating that he did not believe in selling city property and that there were other ways to make money.
“I think the city should maintain owning this property and that we should be able to generate funds that way,” McAlister said. “Maybe we can get a better use project that would match the needs of the city.”
Legal dispute over parkland fees
Notably absent from the council deliberation was discussion of the negotiated settlement over the parkland fees. In a closed door meeting last month, the City Council voted 4-1 to authorize a $2 million settlement with GPR Ventures.
Council member Kamei cast the dissenting vote. Hicks recused herself from the discussion while McAlister was absent from the March 10 meeting.
At the time, City Attorney Jennifer Logue said that the disagreement had been over the calculation of park fees. The city charges developers these fees to offset the cost of providing parks and recreational facilities for the residents moving into new housing developments.
GPR Ventures had wanted to reduce the parkland fees, arguing that it should receive credit for the fees with its “privately owned publicly accessible” open space areas. The city and GPR Ventures disagreed on the amount of open space credit to be applied toward the open space area, as well as whether the city’s eligibility criteria for the credit could be sidestepped, according to the April 23 settlement.
Ultimately, the city and GPR Ventures settled on $2 million as a compromise to avoid “the delay, expense and uncertainty of litigation,” the settlement said.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that Council member Lucas Ramirez referred to ownership housing and parking as community priorities.
That would be “right of way,” not “right away.”
I’m sure these homes will be a fine addition to downtown, whether condos or not. Note that there’s a condo defect liability reform bill moving through the Legislature that would make condos more feasible.
Thanks, fixed!
Great, thank you!
Why is the developer praised for “preserving Gateway Park, a patch of green space at the corner of Castro Street and El Camino Real” ? It’s a public park, was there ever a legal option for a private developer to NOT preserve it?
The city should have traded gateway park for a park space on the neighborhood facing side of the development. Gateway park is a wasteland. Nobody uses it except for vagrants and homeless. Why would anyone want to visit a park on ECR with the noise, exhaust, and “wildlife”. I’ve lived across the street from this worthless “park” for nearly forty years and it is nothing but an expense to the city and a blight to the neighbors. They never even bothered to replace the flag pole that was vandalized over a decade ago.
The developer offered to move the park in an earlier version of the design, but the city declined.
Also if I recall, the “offer” was also a way to get out of the developer’s obligations to provide new net additional park land/in lieu fees.
So why give developer praises for preserving an existing public park and not getting out of their own park obligations?
This entire building will look out of place, for sure.
I don’t know why Ramirez gives credit to the developer to preserve Gateway Park when it doesn’t belong to them (the developer) at all.
It is a City Park, a public space. They should get no credit for that. It doesn’t sound like the developer is “preserving communities priorities” since they did not want to pay their fair share of park fees to enhance the community as a whole. I hope the City keeps a close eye on this project so that the many trees at Gateway Park are protected from harm as they are part of what makes that such a nice park.
I 100% agree with Thomas G that it will look out of place there. That much should be obvious to even a casual observer who is even faintly tuned in to the area. How does such a thing happen? What process has failed?
The visual design language in the rendering does not fit the downtown Castro look/feel at all, which has more of a traditional style. The visual look in the rendering is of the very low cost, low quality visual design style — the plain, squareish, three flat colors.
Frankly, this is in the style of the massive condo jobs you see along the 101 out away from civilization.
Mountain View deserves better.
What can the City do to enforce a modicum of classic design, or at least not being overtly cheap and utilitarian and insulting looking? I’m not against building. I’m against gradually ruining downtown with preventable mistakes.
I hope this one gets torn down as quickly as it gets put up.
Oh, and I use that park on the corner sometimes. It’s a good park. I’m not sure it will be as good when overshadowed by this monstrosity. It is indeed a good park visually as a buffer/entry to downtown, and for occasional use to sit and take in a little nature on the way to/from downtown on foot!