Council approves 20‑unit Sierra Vista row‑house project but rejects developers alternative affordable‑housing plan

The Mountain View City Council on Sept. 9 conditionally approved a planned unit development and related permits for a 20‑unit row‑house project at 828–836 Sierra Vista Avenue and 1975–1979 Colony Street, but voted against a late‑submitted alternative affordable‑housing mitigation proposal from the applicant.

Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro told the council the project occupies about 1 acre of R3‑two zoned land and would create 20 for‑sale row‑house lots plus two common lots; the proposal relies on State density bonus provisions to allow a slightly larger site coverage than local standards. The staff recommendation included a CEQA finding that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (infill development).

The applicant, represented by Albert Wang of Legend, and project team members described the development as a family‑oriented mix of three‑ and four‑bedroom homes with craftsman‑inspired architecture and on‑site parking. Wang said the team would provide three on‑site affordable units and "over half a million dollars" toward the citys affordable‑housing fund under an alternative mitigation package submitted after the zoning administrators July 23 hearing.

Housing Director Wayne Chen explained the citys BMR (below‑market‑rate) equivalency methodology: the in‑lieu fee is calculated using an "equivalency" method that compares developer construction costs to the BMR sales price, rather than a market price gap approach that would produce a larger fee. Chen said the equivalency approach was intended to make in‑lieu fees roughly cost‑equivalent to building on‑site units so that a developer would be economically indifferent between the two options.

Council members debated whether to accept the recently submitted alternative mitigation package. Council Member Ramrez moved to approve the staff recommendation without the alternative mitigation proposal — i.e., to require conformance with the city's objective BMR standard rather than the in‑lieu package — and the motion passed 4–2.

Project details disclosed at the meeting include estimated BMR sale prices for the three proposed on‑site units: one 3‑bedroom at about $307,000 (80% AMI), one 3‑bedroom at about $504,000 (100% AMI), and one 4‑bedroom at about $751,000 (120% AMI). Staff and the applicant estimated market‑rate row homes in the project would sell in the roughly $2.2 million range, depending on size.

Council discussion focused on two themes: the citys policy preference for on‑site ownership BMR units and the structure of the BMR in‑lieu methodology. Several council members said the city has a longstanding policy interest in producing owner‑occupied BMR units and expressed discomfort with a last‑minute change that shifts on‑site units into a partly in‑lieu package. Others — including council members and the applicant — said the equivalency methodology was intended to maintain affordability while keeping projects financially feasible.

The council approved the projects planned unit development and development‑review permits and a vesting tentative map to create 20 residential lots, finding the proposal categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15332. The approved permits omit the applicant's post‑hearing alternative mitigation proposal; the councils action therefore preserves the city's objective BMR requirement as the condition of approval.

The city will return the draft resolutions, conditions and required technical exhibits to reflect the council's action before issuance of final entitlements.

Ending: The project team said it intends to move into building‑permit processing now that council has given conditional approval. Staff said it will finalize the entitlements and the vesting tentative map conditions for recordation and proceed with the usual building‑permit and construction process.