|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Plans for a seven-story condominium development in Mountain View took an unexpected turn this week after the developer submitted a last-minute proposal to reduce the number of affordable units for the project.
On Wednesday afternoon, Sept. 2, Community Development Director Christian Murdock held a public hearing for a 216-unit condo project that is poised to replace 29-rent controlled apartments on Gamel Way, a cul-du-sac located across the street from Castro and Mistral elementary schools.
Under state law, the project qualifies for a streamlined administrative review, one that does not require a City Council vote unless an appeal is filed. At the Sept. 2 hearing, Murdock did not make a final decision to sign off on the project.
“I want additional time to consider the public comment provided today along with all of the written public comments I read before today’s hearing,” Murdock said. “State law has established a deadline of Sept. 8 for the city to act on this project. I anticipate that I will render my decision on that date.”
For the better part of a decade, Kevin DeNardi, of DeNardi Wang Homes, has been looking to build condos at 1919-1945 Gamel Way. Initially, DeNardi planned to construct a four-story condo development on the roughly 3.2-acre site, which the City Council approved five years ago. Then in 2023, DeNardi submitted a new application for a seven-story project, nearly twice the size of the original.
The updated proposal was submitted at a time when Mountain View missed the deadline to get its housing element certified by the state. That opened the door for the plans to proceed as a builder’s remedy project. Under California law, builder’s remedy projects can skirt local zoning regulations and development standards, as long as a certain portion of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
In 2023, DeNardi proposed to set aside 20% of the condos as affordable units to qualify as a builder’s remedy project. Since then, changes have been made to state law, lowering the requirement from 20% to 13%.
On Aug. 28, a few days before the hearing, DeNardi sent an email to the city stating his intention to include fewer affordable units under the updated provisions of builder’s remedy.
“I understand this is not an ideal development late in the project,” DeNardi wrote. “However, this step is essential to ensure the project moves forward and delivers much needed housing in this high interest rates and high construction costs environment.”
The change results in 29 affordable units, instead of the 44 units previously proposed, according to the city staff report.
Community opposition
It was not just the cut to affordable units that raised eyebrows at the meeting. The hearing was also notable for the large turnout of community members.
More than a dozen people showed up to oppose the condo development. Many voiced concerns that an influx of vehicles would contribute to traffic and parking congestion and pose safety hazards, particularly near the elementary schools. The project plans call for a parking garage for 252 vehicles.
Several commenters also raised concerns that the development was too big for the neighborhood and would overshadow existing one- and two-story homes and apartment buildings.
Others however noted there was little the city could do legally to impose constraints on the project. Instead, they urged the developer to meet with community members to work toward common goals together.
“We want this to be the beginning of an ongoing conversation. We don’t want this to be a hit-and-run,” Mountain View resident Marty Connor said. “We offer knowledge and insight into our neighborhood and how it functions.”
In response, DeNardi signaled a willingness to talk with people about their concerns, adding that he was born and raised in Mountain View and has seen a lot of changes over the years.
“I want to talk to you,” DeNardi said. “I’m open to continuing the discussion and listening to what you guys are saying.”
Ultimately, though, DeNardi said the project would benefit the community in the long run.
“This project provides a lot of the much-needed housing to help try to draw down the rental prices that we all experience in Mountain View,” DeNardi said. He added that the project will provide other benefits, like relocation assistance for renters who will lose their homes in the redevelopment, as well as offering a “right of first refusal” for displaced tenants to return to a new condo unit.
The city will post a final decision about the project to the city website, likely on Sept. 8, according to Murdock. The decision can be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days of the date the applicant is notified by email or mail, he said.
Separately, the City Council will vote on the authorization of the sale of Gamel Way, a public street, to DeNardi. The sale of the street is necessary for the development to get built. Murdock did not say when the vote would occur. The terms and conditions of the sale are not publicly known.
Most Popular
Rumors fly about potential closure of Mountain View's Cinemark Century 16 movie theaterSeptember 1, 2026 7:04 pm
Gamel Way developer cuts down affordable units for builder’s remedy projectSeptember 4, 2026 1:47 pm
Remember that in Nov. You get who you vote for residents. They want to build baby build in your backyard and have 7story towers next to your ranch house.
7 stories or even five stores have no business in R1 neighborhoods. There are plenty of parking lots and warehouses to use.
This is much more about the state legislature lebel – your state senator and state assemblymember. Local municipalities have to react to all these complicated dictates and schemes.
Note: this does not mean more housing should not be encouraged or done. There are many ways to domthat!
It IS too late, sadly, mostly, on the loss of sensible and knowledgeable local zoning control, with state officials voting in favor of big developers with low interest in aesthetics. Somewhat under the guise of taxpayer subsidized housing for others.
Traffic considerations: 🤷♀️.
Bye bye to reasonable height limits; they.do.not.care
Shame on you Kevin Denardi. I support building more apartments in Mountain View but there’s a big difference between your original 4-story proposal and this now ridiculous 7-story design. And to drop the affordable units to 29 instead of 44 is just greedy. I hope Mountain View refuses to sell you the street. We need a developer that actually cares about our city and it’s residents.
“Others however noted there was little the city could do legally to impose constraints on the project.” That seems to go for most commercial projects in Mountain View, especially when the city apparently missed an important deadline “to get its housing element certified by the state”. Developers are not in the business of providing charitable housing – they exist to make a profit. Be careful when voting and make sure that the council hires competent staffers.
I disagree for that one project. The City negotiated the sale of a public street and there was a lot the City could/should have done legally during that negotiation. If we wind up with 29 affordable units (to replace 29 rent controlled units), hard for the City to hide behind the usual excuses “our hands are tied, we’re legally obligated to approve because of Sacremento….”.
Let’s add a condition of 50 affordable units to sell the public street.
Developers can not eminent domain public land so the street sale was negotiated and one would really hope it was tied to the previous deal with 44 affordable units. If so, street sale deal should be off the table. If not, just hope the City didn’t commit to anything behind closed doors as it’d be a shameful deal: there were 29 rent controlled units with the public street, so providing 29 affordable units and privatizing the street is just a wash on affordability with a loss of public land.
The building should fit the neighborhood. This seven story building is ridiculous. It does not fit in that neighborhood is too big. If the city council allows this project to proceed we will not forget the names of the city council members, and we must vote them out whenever seats are up.
I think the city ought to require neoclassical architecture style for new builds in order to avoid the visual occurrences such as in the rendering from coming to fruition.
This is what happens when the city drags their feet and misses critical deadlines. They have been doing this nonsense for years along with other cities, this resulted in the laws that caused these consequences for failing to act at a local level. The builder should make it taller, a monumental symbol of MV’s failure to act.
Time for the City to level with its residents, full transparency on terms of sale of Gamel Way.
I was appalled when I heard about this development. Not because of the issues already mentioned, but because of the horrible traffic issues this will cause on Escuela Ave. The traffic on this road is already unacceptable. When the kids are getting dropped off, or picked up at Gabriel Mistral School, especially on rainy days, the street is completely grid locked. Residents cannot get out of their own drive ways, and frustrated drivers will drive on the wrong side of the road passing multiple cars while trying to get around the folks waiting to get into the school’s drop off zone. It is already dangerous for the kids. Adding this many cars to the mix is crazy. Not only for the danger it poses, but for the frustration it will cause the new residents when they find they cannot get their cars out of the parking garage. This is a bad idea.