|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The City Council approved a pair of four-story apartment complexes on Tuesday that will add 362 homes to the city’s booming real estate market.
Council members unanimously approved the first project, 150 units for Summerhill Apartment Communities at 865 and 881 El Camino Real. The project will replace California Billiard Club and India Fresh grocery store on a 2.3-acre site.
The second project, proposed by Prometheus Real Estate Group, puts 162 units at 1720 and 1730 El Camino Real, replacing the shuttered Tropicana Lodge hotel and Western Appliance on the 2.6-acre site.
For the Prometheus project, Jac Siegel cast the only dissenting vote after expressing concern with the project’s use of 108 parking “stackers” in an underground garage more common in places like New York, but a first for Mountain View. The car lifts allow one car to park underneath another; without them, the project would be 21 spaces short of city requirements. Siegel said he saw the lifts in Barcelona, Spain, and “people hated them. I think it’s going to be a mistake.”
“If this project had stackers and parking were available in the street, I would be opposed,” said council member John McAlister, who often sides with those who worry about parking overflow in their neighborhoods. “It’s their money; buyer beware.”
Both projects will compensate residents for using public transportation, a practice that the council will ultimately adopt a standard for in a precise plan for El Camino Real, said planning director Randy Tsuda. There is still some question as to what is the best way to do that, however, and the council ended up approving a different method for each project in what Tsuda called an ” experiment.”
The council required that data be collected to evaluate the different approaches. Summerhill will provide “Eco-Passes” that the Valley Transportation Authority provides at a dramatic discount for three years, and an optional $25 a month rent credit to residents after that. Prometheus was required to provide a similar subsidy right off the bat.
As the council discussed options for the Prometheus project, council member Margaret Abe-Koga noted how much of a discount Eco-Passes can provide for groups large enough to receive the discount. According to the VTA website, the cost is $3,600 a year to provide Eco-Passes to every employee at a 100-person company. That cost of $36 each represents a savings of $95,400 from the cost of individually purchased passes. But the passes are limited to VTA light rail and buses; Caltrain is excluded.
“If I were a resident I’d be a little perturbed that you’d be forcing me to use bus or light rail” said council member Chris Clark, who noted the popularity of Caltrain. Others suggested the use of Clipper cards and reimbursing residents for what was actually spent on transit.
The Environmental Planning Commission recommended that Prometheus be required to provide Eco-passes to residents for the life of the project, which Prometheus opposed. That led city staff members to recommend that the council not approve the Prometheus project ahead of a precise plan for El Camino Real, “due to the applicant’s opposition to the (Environmental Planning Commission) requirements regarding ongoing transit subsidies and the lack of a mobility-related community benefit offering,” a report to the council said.
Jon Moss of Prometheus argued that other benefits — including $1.4 million for below-market-rate housing versus Summerhill’s $1.3 million — made up for his company’s smaller transportation subsidy.
Council members removed the possibility of an easement for a trail to Latham Street along the back of the Prometheus project, which neighbors in a town home complex said would run through their backyards. Council member Ronit Bryant clarified that it would be built only if homeowners there decided to redevelop their properties or sell them one day.
Both projects include 150 bike-storage spaces required by city code and a car-sharing program. Prometheus plans to include electric car-charging stations as well. Garages provide parking under each project: 249 spaces for Prometheus and 228 for Summerhill.
If environmental friendliness were a contest, the Summerhill project would win, with 135 points on the “Greenpoint checklist” of sustainable building features. The Prometheus project had 118 points.
Park space for both projects could be put on adjacent properties that could be sold to the city in the future. At Summerhill, a used car lot on the corner of the site could potentially be sold to the city for a park, while a piece of the former Austin’s BBQ property next to the Prometheus project — also the site of the project’s second phase — could be sold by Prometheus for a city park. Both projects provide around 190 square feet of common open areas.
Prometheus will pay the city $3.7 million in fees to go towards park space, while Summerhill will pay $3.4 million.
“.. will add 362 homes to the city’s booming real estate market.
Jon Moss of Prometheus argued that other benefits — including $1.4 million for below-market-rate housing versus Summerhill’s $1.3 million
Both projects include 150 bike-storage spaces required by city code and a car-sharing program.
Prometheus will pay the city $3.7 million in fees to go towards park space, while Summerhill will pay $3.4 million”
And people wonder why housing is expensive. These excessive fees add enormous costs to building adequate housing. It wont happen unless developers feel they can recoup costs.
This happens, but the old Austin’s is still vacant? I’m all for revitalizing dying properties, but I want to play pool in Mountain View!
keep packing them in.
Where all the members of the city council lives? It can’t be Mountain View because you are screwing it up for anyone to want to live here with all of your stacked apartments.Have you moved over to the Los Altos area to get away from the over building and gangs?
And with all the money the city gets why is Castro such a run down street?
I use to be proud to live in Mountain View.
I have watched online, in noticed, meeting minutes and this paper. IMO this project was well planned, designed and then replanned very well. The city council did their job due to local input from the residents around the project, nothing is perfect. Wonder why things cost so much to build? Takes years of planning, oh yes labour is high and that patch of earth.
That is an improvement to run down, horrible looking buildings, I am for the city buying more park space.
let’s see, 162 units for Prometheus and 150 for Summerhill. If MG will be getting about $3000/unit for the rentals in SA Village, let’s use $2500/unit for these two projects; So the rental income for Prometheus is $400K/mo and the rental income for Summerhill is slightly less. That converts to $4.8M/year and $4.4M/yr for the two develoments.
Their respective $3.7 and $3.4M outlay to the city is about 9 months rent…but the rent just keeps on coming for 30+ years, and will go nowhere but up, while the assessment is only a one time charge.
So, maybe it is a 2% adder onto the price? Not too bad to pay for “community benefits’..consider it like a social tax….maybe to offset having another 310 cars on the road every day…
We need more parks. The neighborhood near the Summerhill project has no public park but lots of apartments (so people don’t have yards there).
190 square feet of open space is a joke! Thats barely larger than a single parking space.
Got rid of the bowling alleys and the pool halls. What can we focus on next? That skate park at Rengstorff looks like it could fit a good 4-6 condos easy. And think about all the open space at Shoreline! That’s some prime real estate for Prometheus just sitting there not even making money! They should look into that.
Uh, where will all of the water for all these places come from?? Does anyone at the city understand we have a water SHORTAGE????
I think as more planning of apartments, homes, offices and retail here or in the future. I think open space in both public and private spaces should be planned. Yes I think 190 square feet is too small, but then again does that count indoor space, swimming pools or any other patio space that is common areas.
Public space is important, public commons, green park space or any kind of physical recreation use. See walking, running or bike trail. Any kind of ball court, or play space for all ages. Grass, relaxation area or some place to admire view. Private space can be the same.
Have some ideas about parks, open space and other things.
Shoreline Blvd., it is 6 lanes in place, well why not shrink it to 4 lanes, put park space running down the middle. California St around Rengstorff Park, lots and lot of run down nasty looking apartments buildings. OK with all the new stuff going up that is rental, why not plan for low dense row homes with flex area for studios or 1 bedroom apartments in basement or lower floor? If they want to change to rental they could but if not that is fine. Open space, park space can be designed into area, or draw random lines from Rengstorff Park to?
San Antonio, El Camino, across Central Expressway. Space for larger parks, schools and public safety building must be planned. This might take years or less time. Just an idea, build new rental stock, getting rid of the old, water using, electric eating car centered soft story buildings.
Is there an error in the map on page 219 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, or do they really intend to eliminate the through traffic path from the Americana north across El Camino Real to Sylvan Ave?
http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/civica/inc/displayblobpdf2.asp?BlobID=10250
@Math Man. “So, maybe it is a 2% adder onto the price? Not too bad to pay for “community benefits’..consider it like a social tax….maybe to offset having another 310 cars on the road every day…
Its actually much higher than 2%. The benefits listed above add up to 10 million, plus there are other fees (transportation cards, BMR fees, studies, etc. ) But at 10 million for 362 units, that $27,600 per unit. These small apt units (<1000 sqft) might capitalize rental values at 500k per unit putting the cost at 5.5%. Adding other regulatory costs and a 3% BMR fee would put the costs close to 10%. A lot of research suggests even higher costs.
Putting another 310 cars on the road costs very little when compared to the 10 plus million the developer and renters will pay to the city in fees. Some fees are ongoing.
As long as you have renters, you will have developers building apartments and other renters. You have homebuyers you will still have developers building homes. They are renting or selling space. Just as airlines sell seats, demand and use sometimes require planes.
I don’t expect Google or any high tech from to build homes for non . Or school district to sell homes for their workers.
Bad spell checker.
Rentals, firms and their non workers.
Would rather build here then on green open space in some far away city.
Am I the only one concerned about the water that will be used by every single person in these new dwellings????
In regards to the comments about forcing the residents into using transit.
Why does the city of Mountain View force each of the tenants to pay for parking spaces? Parking spaces and living spaces should be decoupled. The tenants should be allowed to rent as much of each as they choose not to be forced to pay for something that they don’t need.
I live right behind this project which started demolition today. My patio backs right up to it!!!! What is going to be done to protect me and my home from all the dust and construction mess that will be happening for the next 2 years!!
We can replace run down buildings with fun stuff for us, like shops, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc., without having to crowd to the sky and tower over everyone, blocking any hope of a good view from one’s home of the mountain view in “Mountain View, not to forget a view of the moon rise on the horizon, or a sun rise, etc. And there are the also the views those in these high rises have of us! Into our windows and yards! Plus their cars crowding not only the roads (all of them) but their crowding everything! Theaters, restaurants, etc. I like to eat out without reservations always required. I like the current size of MV. Stop the stacking! Bag ABAG!
Don’t worry too much about parking spaces being handed out for each unit. Residents can always sublet to someone else in the building with the need for parking more than one car. Imagine a two bedroom apartment with a mom & dad & 2 teenage sons and two teenage daughters: They have 6 cars and a motorcycle! (Two spaces are the max requirement, no matter if it’s a 3 bdrm or more!) This would mean a motorcycle and 4 cars are going to be parked on my street, crowding me out! If this family sounds unlikely, there could be 6 roommates sharing the expense of a three bdrm apartment, leaving possibly 4 of them parking on the surrounding streets, that then have no room for my car or my guests! The main good purpose of coupling the parking spaces with the units serves is that those who want to save a few $$ will have to bother to sublet their parking space, and only then will they park on the surrounding residential streets. Hopefully this deters it a little bit, whereas uncoupling the parking from the units encourages residents of the complex to just park on surrounding streets from the get!
Linda,
“This would mean a motorcycle and 4 cars are going to be parked on my street, crowding me out!”
It is not your street. It is the public’s street, which includes new residents in new developments. If you live nearby, the park in your own off-street parking spot.
I do park in my own off street parking space. And where do my guests park? They don’t because there is no place for them to park due to people with an attitude like yours who could care less. Like Kasperzak.
Linda,
You don’t have any off-street parking for your guests?! But..you want other residents to provide off-street parking for their guests, so you can have your guests park on the street?
Talk about not caring less…
No, you got it wrong. You can’t quite comprehend what I’m saying. Let me make it easy for you: I want the building to be built with enough parking for everyone who lives there to park anything they need to park there, as does my building, so their guests can park out in front of their building and not be crowded by them, and my guests can park out in front of my building, not crowded by them either or by we who dwell there. My building provides ample parking for all residents living there. If it didn’t, it would not have been approved. It also has 96 solar panels that I give the electricity from away for free to the tenants so they can drive totally clean electric cars. But that is another story. This story is that the city’s parking ratio has been changed, requiring only one parking spot per bedroom, up to a max of two, even if they are building all three, or more, bedroom units. And there is no requirement at all for any guest parking to be in addition to this, so if two adults share a one bedroom and both have cars, they have one half enough parking provided for them in the brand new place just built for them. And with several units occupied similarly, the overflow parking will crowd out any public parking you insist everyone has a right to. Yes, everyone does have a right to it. But good luck getting a shot at it, no matter what you call yourself.
Linda,
“You can’t quite comprehend what I’m saying.”
I bet you get that a lot.
“My building provides ample parking for all residents living there. ”
So you guarantee that your residents always park on your property and not on the street. Wow. What a fantasy-land you live in.
“It also has 96 solar panels that I give the electricity from away for free to the tenants so they can drive totally clean electric cars. ”
Free, huh? Do you charge rent to your tenants?! Do you think that MV residents are stupid enough to think that you are not profiting off of those solar panels?!
“…public parking you insist everyone has a right to.”
Wow… you are outraged that the public has the right to park in public parking areas. You realize how ridiculous your comment is?
Instead of bragging about your solar panels, why don’t you stop raising your tenants rent and driving hard-working families out of our area!
Your statements are all assumptions, PublicParking, and not correct ones. Just one example: The rents at my little place are a third of those less desirable ones on my streets, and my spouse and I both work full time to make up for that. Because we care about the people living there. You appear to care about arguing and being insulting, so there not much more to be said.