p74lea Peter Gilli City Council by: App o I by: Community Development Director City Manager Peter Gilli, Zoning Administrator Zoning Administrator

Transcription

1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW l J MEMORANDUM 2 DATE: October 6, 2011 TO: FROM: City Council Peter Gilli, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO GATEKEEPER STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 11, 2011 On October 4, 2011, Lennar Homes withdrew their Gatekeeper request for San Rafael Avenue. The request was received after the production of the Council report. Please disregard all reference to the San Rafael Avenue proposal, which is the fourth Gatekeeper request summarized in the Council report. Prepared by: App o I by: p74lea Peter Gilli Zoning Administrator andal Tsuda Community Development Director aniel H. Rich '"` City Manager PG/ 2/ CAM M-E- 1^ Attachment: 1. Gatekeeper Staff Report October 11, 2011

2 COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA: October 11, 2011 CATEGORY: New Business DEPT.: Community Development 7.2 CrrY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TITLE: Gatekeeper Requests RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions on the requested Gatekeeper applications: 1. Authorize the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a Precise Plan Amendment to allow an apartment project with a density of 60 units per acre at 2580 and 2590 California Street. 2. Authorize the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a rezoning to allow an apartment project with a density of up to 70 units per acre at 1720 and 1730 El Camino Real West. 3. Defer or deny the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning for a conversion of industrial land to residential use at 1951 Colony Street until after the adoption of the General Plan update in spring Deny the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning for a conversion of industrial land to residential use at 924 and 940 San Rafael Avenue. 5. Authorize the revision to a previously authorized Gatekeeper request for a new apartment project at 870 El Camino Real East, subject to specific conditions described in the staff report. 6. Authorize the revision to a previously authorized Gatekeeper request for a new office project with up to a 1. 0 FAR at 690 East Middlefield Road, subject to specific conditions described in the staff report. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for Planning and Public Works staff review of each authorized Gatekeeper application shall be on a cost-recovery, hourly basis paid by the applicant, reducing the fiscal impact of the application review to the City.

3 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 2 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Gatekeeper The Permit Streamlining Act (State law) requires that any development application submitted by a property owner that complies with City zoning and General Plan regulations be processed by the City in a timely manner. The Act does not apply to an application that requires legislative actions such as General Plan, Precise Plan and zoning amendments. In these cases, the City Code gives the City Council the authority to control the processing of these applications based on available resources and consistency with City policies. This Council authorization is commonly referred to as the "Gatekeeper" process. For each request, Council can authorize staff work on the proposal; defer staff work to a later date; or reject the study of a proposal, primarily based on the availability of staff resources. Proposals that implement current or proposed General Plan policies are prioritized. Workload and Funding Currently, Planning staff is near capacity based on the following projects and responsibilities: General Plan Update Staff is preparing the public release of the draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for fall General Plan Implementation Based on prior Council authorization, staff is in the process of a comprehensive North Bayshore Precise Plan to implement new General Plan policies. Housing Element and Implementation The final version of the Housing Element is scheduled for Council adoption in late October 2011, at which point staff will begin working on implementation items such as updating our density bonus regulations and identifying a zoning district to permit emergency housing shelters. Development Applications Staff continues to review several major applications including several Gatekeeper requests authorized in June While Council approval has been given for projects such as San Antonio Center and Mayfield, there remains significant staff work related to plan checking and construction management. Ongoing Planning Projects Planning staff continues to provide support and analysis for ongoing planning projects such as the Sustainable Community Strategy SB 375 implementation), Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bus Rapid Transit Planning. To maintain the City's expectations for comprehensive staff review of land use changes and development projects, Planning staff has utilized hourly billing to achieve full cost recovery

4 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 3 on major projects for several years. This has allowed Planning to respond to recent increases in applications by securing necessary resources such as additional permanent staff or contract planners. These projects also require significant review from the Land Development Engineering Division of the Public Works Department, who will now also bill hourly for their review of major development projects. The cost-recovery approach provides flexibility to fund additional Planners and/ or Engineers to analyze and review proposals, but the availability of managers and directors to provide coordination, guidance and decision making on key issues is finite. For that reason, while prior Gatekeeper reports have typically recommended authorization of requests, this report recommends deferral and/ or denial of some proposals based on limited policy support and staff resource impacts. Initial Processing Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) Study Session The Gatekeeper applications being considered have not been comprehensively reviewed. Detailed analysis will begin only if the Council authorizes City resources to review these applications. Early identification of major policy issues is critical to the review of any authorized Gatekeeper. Authorized Gatekeepers will be scheduled for an EPC Study Session, where the EPC will provide input and direction to staff and the applicant on the land use policy issues to be studied and considered for each proposal. The EPC Study Session will also provide an opportunity for early public input on the proposals where the community can raise other issues that need to be analyzed. Staff and the Development Review Committee DRC) will begin work on the project design within the context of EPC direction following the Study Session. The EPC will provide Council with a formal recommendation on the legislative component and the Zoning Administrator will provide a formal recommendation on the development project. Gatekeeper Requests There are six Gatekeeper requests proposed (see Attachment 7 Map of Gatekeepers). The first four are new requests and the last two are revisions to previously authorized Gatekeeper requests. Each request has a brief summary and recommendations, except for the last one, which is more complicated and has more analysis.

5 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 4 1. Address: 2580 and 2590 California Street (Marazzo) Applicant: Prometheus Acreage: acres Existing Zoning: San Antonio Station P(8) Precise Plan Gatekeeper Request: Request to amend the Precise Plan to implement the proposed General Plan allowance for mixed-use development with a housing density of up to 60 units per acre and construct approximately 300 rental units in four-story building( s) see Attachment and 2590 California Street Gatekeeper Request). Discussion: The site has several transit options, being close to the San Antonio Caltrain station and a major VTA bus stop on Showers Drive. The site is also along California Street, which has bike lanes connecting to downtown. The existing Safeway plans to move to a new building at San Antonio Center. The existing commercial building at the corner of California Street and San Antonio Road will remain and will be expected to be upgraded and integrated into the overall project. No new retail area is proposed for this project, which may be acceptable considering the close proximity to San Antonio Center. The proposed density is consistent with the draft General Plan update. Final hearings on the project would not occur until after the new General Plan is adopted. Therefore, no General Plan Amendment is necessary, only a Precise Plan Amendment to implement the new General Plan policy. Recommendation: The project site is located in an area identified by the General Plan update for high-density, transit-oriented development. Staff resources can be secured to study this request, though the overall processing time may be extended depending on how many of these Gatekeeper requests are authorized.

6 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 5 2. Address: 1720 and 1730 El Camino Real West (Tropicana Lodge) Applicant: Prometheus Acreage: acres Existing Zoning: CRA (Commercial/ Residential Arterial) Gatekeeper Request: Request to rezone the site to P ( Planned Community) to implement the proposed General Plan allowance for mixed- use development with a housing density of up to 70 units per acre and construct approximately 160 rental units in four-story building(s) ( see Attachment and 1730 El Camino Real West Gatekeeper Request). Discussion: The project does not propose any retail area to replace the existing motel and appliance store. This may be determined acceptable considering the close proximity of the El Monte Shopping Center. The project can implement Grand Boulevard policies by adding new buildings closer to El Camino Real with residential densities that could increase pedestrian activity to and from the El Monte Shopping Center and VTA bus ridership, as encouraged in the draft General Plan update. Final hearings on the project would not occur until after the new General Plan is adopted. Therefore, no General Plan Amendment is necessary, only a rezoning is required to implement new General Plan policies. Recommendation: The project site is located in an area identified by the General Plan update for high-density, transit-oriented development. Staff resources can be secured to study this request, though the overall processing time may be extended depending on how many of these Gatekeeper requests are authorized. 3. Address: 1951 Colony Street Applicant: City Ventures Acreage: acres Existing Zoning: MM (General Industrial)

7 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 6 Gatekeeper Request: Request for a General Plan Amendment from General Industrial to Medium Density Residential (13 to 25 units per acre) and a rezoning from MM (General Industrial) to R3-2 ( Multiple-Family Residential) to allow up to a 28 unit rowhouse project (see Attachment Colony Street Gatekeeper Request). Discussion: This site is part of an area that was identified in the 2002 Housing Element as a housing conversion site to meet the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation RHNA). In 2006, the City rezoned 5. 7 acres across Colony Street for the 108- unit Gables End rowhouse project, creating a small remainder pocket of MM zoning along the south side of Colony Street for future conversion. This resulted in the project being bordered by residential uses on two sides (across Sierra Vista Avenue and Colony Street) (see Attachment 8 MM Districts). The proposed 2011 Housing Element does not include the site as a housing site because the City was able to meet its RHNA obligation without including this MM zoning remainder area. The final Council hearing on the 2011 Housing Element is scheduled for October 25, This site is not part of a change area in the draft General Plan update. The Council may consider it appropriate to continue the conversion of this MM remainder area since the process was started with the 2006 rezoning of the Gables End project. Alternatively, the Council may consider the retention of the industrial land to be a greater community benefit than housing since the City's RHNA obligations are met without converting this site. Recommendation: While current policy supports this conversion, the soon-to-be adopted 2011 Housing Element does not require this site to be converted to residential to meet the City's RHNA obligation. A pattern of conversion exists in the area and continuing the conversion may be desired. Due to competing interests for staff resources, staff recommends that the proposal be delayed until after the adoption of the General Plan update in spring 2012 or denied with the option to reapply after the General Plan update is adopted.

8 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 7 4. Address: 924 and 940 San Rafael Avenue Applicant: Lennar Homes Acreage: 1. 8 acres Existing Zoning: MM (General Industrial) Gatekeeper Request: Request for a General Plan Amendment from General Industrial to Medium-Density Residential (13 to 25 units per acre) and a rezoning from MM (General Industrial) to R3-2 ( Multiple-Family Residential) to allow up to a 36- unit townhouse/ rowhouse project (see Attachment and 940 San Rafael Avenue Gatekeeper Request). Discussion: There are other sites in the City, particularly sites that are zoned for residential use, that are available for housing development. Unlike the 1951 Colony Street proposal, the proposed site is part of a well-defined, cohesive MM District, one of the few remaining in the City (see Attachment 8 MM Districts). Unless the entire surrounding MM District is intended to convert to residential, this proposal would result in multi-story housing with direct views from upper-level bedrooms into neighboring industrial sites to the west, east and north. This will not create a desirable residential environment, and will lead to complaints by future residents about adjacent industrial business operations. This proposal is not supported by existing or proposed General Plan or Housing Element policies. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this request due to the lack of policy support for the conversion, the undesirable location for this type of housing and the limited availability of staff resources.

9 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 8 5. Address: 870 El Camino Real East Applicant: Archstone Acreage: 9. 7 acres Existing Zoning: CRA (Commercial/ Residential Arterial) and R3-2 ( Multiple-Family Residential) Previously Authorized Gatekeeper Request: Rezonings and General Plan Amendment to implement the new General Plan policies for mixed-use development of up to four stories along El Camino Real and allow higher-density residential up to three stories on the rear portion of the site for up to 333 units. Council authorized this Gatekeeper in January Revised Gatekeeper Request: Request to modify the proposed rezonings to allow fourstory buildings on the rear portion of the site while maintaining up to 333 units (see Attachment El Camino Real East Gatekeeper Request). Discussion: The revised Gatekeeper request would study a limited amount of four-story building heights on the rear portion of the project, but would not increase the number of units for the overall project; therefore, the primary issue is visual mass and compatibility with adjacent one- and two-story homes and duplexes. With adequate setbacks and sensitive design, limited amounts of four-story building heights could be acceptable. The appropriate site and architectural design may not end up providing the unit count that the developer desires, but that will not be determined until the design review process is completed. Authorizing this Gatekeeper revision does not in any way oblige the Council to approve the overall project, or any four-story buildings on the rear portion of the site, when the project eventually comes to Council for final action. Of the authorized and proposed Gatekeeper requests for high-density residential projects, this is the only project to propose a retail mixed-use component. The developer is considering dedication of public park land as part of the project. If the Gatekeeper request is denied, Archstone would retain their original authorized Gatekeeper and could proceed with a project that has up to four stories

10 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 9 along El Camino Real and up to three stories adjacent to the existing neighborhood. Alternatively, the developer could abandon the proposal and retain the existing apartments. Recommendation: Staff believes that it is possible to design the project so that the visual impacts of the four-story buildings on the rear portion of the site are minimized. Staff recommends authorization of this request, subject to the following conditions: Multi-story buildings on the rear portion of the site must have appropriate transitions to the surrounding neighborhood. Adequate transitions may require some portions of the buildings to be two stories, stepping up to three and possibly four as you get further away from the neighborhood. Four- story sections of these buildings will only be supported if it is demonstrated that the visual impacts on adjacent Mountain View neighborhoods is minimized. While still informal, the site plan for the rear portion of the lot has a row of parking along Muir Drive, the neighboring residential street. The final site plan should have a strong pedestrian-oriented street frontage along Muir Drive to integrate the project into the neighborhood. A complete redesign of the rear portion of the site may be necessary. Staff would recommend this design change even if the revised Gatekeeper is not authorized. Resolution of these design issues is likely to result in a total number of units that is less than what the developer prefers. 6. Address: 690 East Middlefield Road Applicant: Dostart Acreage: acres Existing Zoning: ML-T (Limited Industrial with Transit Overlay) Previously Authorized Gatekeeper Request: Zoning Text Amendments to create a new Transit-Oriented Office district to allow Floor Area Ratios (FARs) of up to 1. 0; and rezoning the site to this new 1. 0 FAR district. The developer would fund the new ordinance which would be dependent on the completion of the General Plan update. Council authorized this Gatekeeper in April The EPC reviewed the proposal at a Study Session on September 7, 2011.

11 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 10 Revised Gatekeeper Request: Rezone the project site to allow office development up to 1. 0 FAR independent of the General Plan update and ahead of the new Transit-Oriented Office zoning district. Discussion: The General Plan update is studying the potential for office FARs up to 1. 0 in the East Whisman Area and encourages highly sustainable office campuses with generous open space, design and operational features that reduce dependency on automobiles and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environments. Currently, 0.5 FAR is the maximum allowed in East Whisman under the existing Transit-Overlay District regulations, and the 690 East Middlefield site has an existing approval for a 340,000 square foot office project at 0.5 FAR, approved by Council in The developer has applied for a Development Agreement to extend the approval of the 0. 5 FAR project, which will come to Council later in the fall. If the General Plan update ends up allowing an increased FAR, a new set of office zoning regulations must be prepared and enacted to implement the increased FAR and the City's expectations for projects that propose the higher FAR. The optimal goal would be that the zoning regulations could be developed in conjunction with the final review of the General Plan update, which could allow the Council to enact the new zoning regulations shortly after the General Plan update is adopted. The scope of work to prepare the new regulations is estimated to be $100, 000. The developer initially agreed to a process where they would fund the creation of the new zoning regulations, while concurrently processing a development proposal for office buildings up to 1. 0 FAR( up to 680,000 square feet). This was outlined during the original Gatekeeper proposal Council authorized in April 2011 ( see Attachment 9 Staff Report Excerpts for April 2011 Dostart Gatekeeper). Staff intended to credit the developer for the funding of the new ordinance from future transit funding contributions. It is important to the developer that the higher FAR office project be before the Council for final action in June 2012 to allow the construction to be completed to accommodate a potential major company. It may be feasible to meet this time line under the original Gatekeeper request if: (1) the adoption of the General Plan update remains on schedule; 2) the General Plan EIR is not legally challenged; and (3) the new zoning regulations remain on a schedule that results in enactment shortly after the General Plan adoption. However, to avoid potential delays, the developer does not want to be dependent on the General Plan update schedule and submitted a revised Gatekeeper proposal. The revised Gatekeeper proposal would reduce the uncertainty for the developer by separating the project from the General Plan update, which would increase the

12 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE:. 11 probability that the project could meet the developer' s deadline (see Attachment East Middlefield Road Gatekeeper Request). The revised Gatekeeper proposal has drawbacks to the City: The source of funding for the new transit/ office ordinance is lost, but the Council' s approval of the 369 North Whisman Development Agreement provides the City with a contribution from Keenan- Lovewell that can fund the transit/ office ordinance. By separating from the General Plan Update, the developer proposes to have a 1. 0 FAR on the subject site even if the General Plan ends up with a maximum FAR that is less than By separating from the General Plan update, the project also separates from the CEQA analysis in the General Plan EIR. That will require the project to have its own EIR. The developer states that the certainty of their time line is worth the cost of the EIR. The EIR is also an additional resource impact to staff. While Planning and Engineering staff costs will be recovered through hourly billing, the EIR will reduce the availability of managers in Planning and Engineering for other projects and tasks. Recommendation: Staff recommends authorization of the revised Gatekeeper request, subject to the following: The project shall comply with the FAR and all other policies in the General Plan update related to new office development, whether they are in draft or adopted form when the project receives a final action from the Council. This compliance is important to ensure that the project design meets the City' s new regulations and expectations. If the project' s final action is after the General Plan adoption, then it is clear that the project will be required to meet the new policies, including the maximum FAR, even if it is below Even if the project receives a final action before the General Plan adoption, the project must still comply with the draft policies in place at that time. If Council chooses to deny this request, the developer can continue the process outlined in the prior Gatekeeper authorization for up to a 1. 0 FAR or focus on marketing the approved 0. 5 FAR project.

13 AGENDA: October 11, 2011 PAGE: 12 ALTERNATIVE Authorize, defer or deny the study of any of the Gatekeeper requests. PUBLIC NOTICING Agenda posting. Prepared bey: / Ap a d by: i)4n 1. 40, Peter Gilli Randal Tsuda Zoning Administrator 0 Community Development Director PG/ 6/ CAM M-EA aniel H. Rich/ City Manager Attachments: and 2590 California Street Gatekeeper Request and 1730 El Camino Real West Gatekeeper Request Colony Street Gatekeeper Request and 940 San Rafael Avenue Gatekeeper Request El Camino Real East Gatekeeper Request East Middlefield Road Gatekeeper Request 7. Map of Gatekeepers 8. Map of MM Districts 9. Staff Report Excerpts for April 2011 Dostart Gatekeeper

14 9 PROMETHEUS Attachment 1 September 14, 2011 Peter Gilli Planning Manager City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA Re: Gatekeeper Request 2580 & 2590 California Street Dear Mr. Gilli, Please accept this letter as our " Gatekeeper" application for your consideration of a proposed new apartment development at 2580 & 2590 California Street, the site of the current Safeway Grocery store and adjacent retail. Location The development site totaling acres is bordered on the north by the Old Mill Office Complex, on the North and East by the Crossings residential development, on the West by San Antonio Road, and on the South by the San Antonio Shopping Center redevelopment. The site has quick access to Central Expressway, El Camino Real, and the San Antonio Caltrain station. Additionally, the VTA bus transit stops are only a block and a half away. Proposal The existing Safeway will soon be moving to their new location across the street in the San Antonio Center redevelopment area. In anticipation of their relocation we have formed a joint venture with the owner of the subject site to plan for its redevelopment after Safeway relocates. The property has been in the owner' s family for several generations and the owner currently plans to live at the property in one of the apartments for the remainder ofhis retirement as his grandparents did many years ago. Our plan is to construct an apartment development at 60 units per acre, similar in density to what is being constructed by Carmel Partners directly across the street at San Antonio Center and consistent with the current direction of the revision to the City' s General Plan zoning and density for this area. Our four story rental development would include a leasing office, pool, fitness center, clubhouse, and other amenities for the residents. Our proposed apartment development will be Green Point Rated and utilize many energy saving features that provide long term benefits to owners and residents alike. It goes without saying that we would plan to use high quality materials and workmanship that would be a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods Norfolk Street, Suite 150 I San Mateo, California T I F com

15 We believe that a high quality apartment development at this location would contribute significantly to the success of the San Antonio Center redevelopment that is currently underway. Retailers need " more rooftops" in order to make their businesses viable and successful, in both this current economic environment and for the long term. We believe that having those rooftops" just steps away from their front doors would provide a significant boost in sales for the Center' s retailers which in turn would ultimately provide additional tax dollars to the City of Mountain View. Company History Prometheus is local, family- owned, financially capable, and the largest private owner and manager of multi- family properties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Prometheus has a longstanding reputation for developing, managing, and carefully maintaining high quality rental apartment communities for the long-term. All Prometheus properties are meticulously managed by Prometheus employees and not by a third party management company. In Mountain View alone, Prometheus owns and/ or manages 1, 686 apartments and 112,000 square feet of office/retail. This portfolio includes the highly successful Park Place and Park Place South apartment communities in the downtown, both of which were developed on the former Mountain View High School site. These properties also won numerous design awards from the Pacific Coast Builders Conference, Harvard Graduate School of Design, as well as the Mayor's Award from the City of Mountain View. Prometheus has a philosophy of a long term hold with its assets which also include the North Park Apartments and Heatherstone Apartments. Request We respectfully request that the City allocate staff time to formally consider our" Gatekeeper" application. We believe that a well- designed, attractive development fronting California Street, directly across from the San Antonio Center redevelopment and adjacent to the San Antonio Caltrain Station will significantly contribute to the area' s vibrancy and ultimate success. Sincerely, P' : ETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP J na an Moss xe' utive Vice President and Partner

16 01t, 2580 and 2590 California Street f Ria'S4tfa f rw- z r ' f r n,' / fir. f T. 7 t... S- V44 J rw wwa t, v r,_ p, Ig California Street s / gr a t,.. f. U j t. ate. Y San Antonio Shopping Center

17 PROMETHEUS Attachment 2 September 16, 2011 Peter Gilli Planning Manager City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA Re: Gatekeeper Request 1720 & 1730 West El Camino Real Dear Mr. Gilli, Please accept this letter as our" Gatekeeper", application for your consideration of a proposed new apartment development at 1720 & 1730 West El Camino Real, the sites of the current Tropicana Lodge and Western Appliance. Location The development totaling acres is bordered on the North by several multi-family residential projects, on the East by a small retail development, on the West by the future Mariposa Mews mixed use development, and on the South by El Camino Real. The VTA bus transit stop is approximately 90 feet away on El Camino Real and the shopping center is across the street at El Monte and El Camino. Proposal The existing properties currently include the Tropicana Lodge and Western Appliance store. The Tropicana Lodge has been in business for approximately 50 years, is in disrepair, and has reached the end of its useful life. This long time owner does not plan on continuing to operate the Tropicana any longer. Western Appliance plans to close down its business next year as it is no longer a profitable operating business. Our plan is to construct a very well designed apartment community at 70 units per acre, consistent with the City' s current direction of its General Plan with El Camino identified as a" Change Area". Additionally, this concept plan is consistent with the " Grand Boulevard Initiative" and VTA' s Bus Rapid Transit plans. Furthermore, the City' s General Plan Update Preferred Land Use Strategy identifies this site as El Camino Real High Intensity Comm/ Res allowing for 43 to 70 DU/ac and 0. 5 FAR. We are requesting a " Gatekeeper" now rather than after the general plan adoption as the current land owners prefer to sell now as the current businesses are ready to close down. Our four story rental development would include a leasing office, pool, fitness center, community room and other amenities for the residents Norfolk Street, Suite 150 I San Mateo, California T I F eus reg. Co rn

18 Our proposed development will be Green Point Rated and utilize many energy saving features that provide long term benefits to the owners as well as the residents. We plan on meeting with all of the stakeholders to receive their input on all facets of the design of this important development. Request We respectfully request the City allocate staff time to formally consider our" Gatekeeper" application. We believe that a well-designed, attractive development fronting El Camino Real, directly adjacent to retail and transit is consistent with the current direction of the City' s General Plan and the City' s vision for the " Grand Boulevard". Sincerel,, 0I PRO THEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP Jon.. s Exe' e Vice President and Partner

19 1720 and 1730:::, E1 Camino Real Avenue c i 44. f VS., IsApp it, As,.. ia 44,, 4-.,,, ti l ` X v 4 k,--- --,., 4 A 1. '.'. II*: J' ',' r `, l 0 he El Monte Shopping Center i t. I y

20 Alb Attachment 3 This acre site is in an industrial/ residential transition area. The surrounding neighborhood includes a mix of light industrial, single family residential, and multifamily residential. To the north of the site is the Gables End townhome project that was developed by Regis Homes. To the west and east of the site are single family homes. To the south of the site is commercial development along Old Middlefield Way. The site' s location and proximity to the nearby Sierra Vista Park make it an ideal site for townhome development at similar densities to the Gables End Project. The site is currently designated as General Industrial on the General Plan however, as you can see from the map below, the area includes a mix of residential and industrial designations. New residential investment continues to transform the neighborhood. The sites to the east of the property that are designated as industrial on the General Plan are mostly used as single family residences. The applicant, City Ventures, along with the project' s planning and design team at Hunt Hale Jones, has studied the site and we feel that a plan for 28 new homes is both compatible and desirable for the neighborhood and the community. City Ventures will apply for a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to allow residential development of the site. We feel that this change will eliminate incompatible uses and will work well with the residential uses that are currently on three sides of the site. We are eager to work with staff and elected representatives to design a project that enhances both the neighborhood and the City of Mountain View. The Project Team has developed a conceptual site plan that will offer three and four bedroom homes in three- story buildings. Access will be provided on Colony Street to minimize traffic impacts on Sierra Vista Avenue. Homes will front Sierra Vista Avenue, Colony Street, and an internal pedestrian paseo. Each home will have a two car side by side private garage off a shared private drive aisle, a small private yard, and will feature porches and stoops that connect to the street and to the surrounding neighborhood, activating the street. The site has been designed to allow pedestrian connections and circulation throughout. Homes will range in size from approximately 1750 to 1877 square feet. Green design measures will be incorporated throughout, with LEED Gold or above ratings, solar on each home and a specific focus on healthy, energy efficient living. There is strong market demand for these homes. They will offer an alternative to older 50' s era single-family homes and will attract young couples as well as move- down buyers who are looking for value in a new, low-maintenance, convenient home with high end finishes, convenient access, and a sense of community. Wyandotter Reinert mat. lp'c'1f r W a F w~ COLONY ST N171 aka. og OLD MIDDLEF LD WAY 3 c City Ventures

21 47 Jurisdiction City of Mountain View, CA I Address 1951 Colony Drive Lots APN: I Site Approximately acres Applicant City Ventures Current Land Use Commerical/ Industrial Proposed Land Use Medium Density Residential Homes 28 Three Story, Four Bedroom Townhomes ( see plans) in 6 buildings with 4 to 5 homes per building r4, * ' 7,... 40,6, , 414 ki l a =,.. 1! rt A iiii _ t x. t i V. tr ' f r a wowcwu CETPOI in Ct--- I- jartz. _ i 444mir h1 i t lift 1. s, 4, 8 I int 4 5 tt- a Y"

22 I 1951 Colony Street t i If F ii AM R it iii t tit. lee x i Q t=om r 1. J _ '_!. f M _) '` C tt r E. i i ter.-. Old Middlefield Way' y" y- a. rc tt 3 II' ruz. z. - L. It i

23 Attachment 4 LENNAR September 16, 2011 Mountain View City Council c\ o Community Development Department Mr. Randy Tsuda 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA Re: Gatekeeper request for 924 and 940 San Rafael Ave- Mountain View, CA( APNs and ) On behalf of the property owners, Lennar Homes of California, Inc. is respectfully requesting Gatekeeper approval from City Council authorizing staff resources to work on a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Tentative Map and environmental review of 924 and 940 San Rafael Avenue. The subject property is currently the office, maintenance building and storage yard for El Camino Paving. El Camino Paving is planning to relocate to a more manageable and efficient location as the site provides capacity that is well in excess of their current and projected needs. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. is proposing to assemble the two properties, demolish the existing commercial uses, and develop a new high quality 36- unit townhome community. The assembled properties total approximately acres and are surrounded by single family homes to the south and east, and general commercial ( office and distribution) uses on the remaining borders. While the design is preliminary, current concept ideas include primarily three-story at-grade townhomes, dropping down to two-stories along the south border of the property adjacent to the existing single family. The townhomes would be a mix of three and four bedroom homes, with primarily two-car side by side garages ( the smallest homes having two-car tandem garages). The site is currently designated General Industrial. The only permanent structure onsite is an office of approximately 1, 627 SF. The remainder of the site is used for storage and equipment maintenance. Once El Camino Paving departs, the existing property would be of limited use to any industrial user and would thus be grossly under-utilized. We are requesting that the City consider the Medium Density Residential ( units/ acre) designation for the property. Such a program will serve to transition between the single family homes bordering the property on the south and east and the warehouse and industrial spaces to the north. It will also provide much needed housing in an area with rapidly dwindling supply of affordable housing. We respectfully ask that City Council approve this Gatekeeper request to allow Staff to work with us on a detailed project design and the entitlements necessary for future Council consideration. Please feel free to contact me at( 925) or by at douglas. rich@lennar.com. We appreciate your time in considering our request and look forward to working with the city on this project. Sincerely, Doug Rich T Vice President Cc: Estevan and Marie Alva 6121 Bollinger Canyon Road, Ste 500, San Ramon, CA PH: Fax: LENNAR. COM

24 s, 924 and 940 San Rafael Avenue w s tt raz y a. r r 1 i9 l is a 13,,,,.::,:,,,, - `, tom) L1 c 1a nzr m r_ * M i - r Pe I. L Ili ilg San Pablo Ave

25 ARCHSTONE awe Attachment 5 FP 0 0 September 1, 2011 s 2011 P Mountain View City Council CIO City Planning and Zoning Mr. Peter Gilli 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA NN/VG 0/V/S/0 N Re: Archstone Mountain View Redevelopment 870 East El Camino Real Dear Mr. Gilli: Thank you for meeting with us earlier this month to review a new development concept for redevelopment of our Mountain View property. Per your request, we are submitting an amended Gatekeeper application that suggests an alternate design approach for redevelopment of the property. As you noted, this approach is not compliant with the R3-1 zoning identified in our previous Gatekeeper application, approved by the City Council in January Our updated proposal is to redevelop the acre site with 333 apartment units ( one more than in our previously approved application) and 5, 238 square feet of commercial space ( down from 5, 400 sq. ft.). The property is currently developed with 180 apartment units in a combination of two story buildings, one story ( above parking) buildings and one story ( on grade) buildings. The new conceptual plan, included as Exhibit A to our revised Gatekeeper application, utilizes a common building type with residential units in three or four story configurations over a parking garage structure. Unlike more conventional podium structures interior " courtyards" are natural ground surface, not a concrete slab. For your reference Exhibit B to the revised Gatekeeper application is the plan originally submitted for the Gatekeeper process. Although our new project concept does not comply with R3-1 zoning requirements for the northerly portion of the site, we believe that our revised building/ site plan concept' s provision of more useful open spaces provides a superior design solution. The overall density of the site would be 34.2 units/ acre based upon the existing property boundaries, or units/ acre for the reduced parcel. We would estimate that the density of the existing CRA portion of the site would be +/ dwelling units per acre. The average density of the balance of the site would be +/ dwelling units per acre. If, as described by staff as a potential consideration, the CRA line is adjusted to the north during the El Camino Real rezoning process, such that it remains parallel to El Camino Real while connecting to the southerly right of way of Moraga Drive, the density of the adjusted CRA portion of the site ( as shown in the

26 ARCHSTONE twa current site plan exhibit attached to the revised Gatekeeper application) would be +/ units per acre while the northerly portion of the site would have a density of+/ units per acre.. We appreciate the opportunity to engage the Council, Planning Department, and community at large in designing a vibrant addition that furthers the City' s urban development objectives. It is our hope that Council and staff will provide guidance on a zoning solution which will accommodate the proposed plan which includes the proposed dedication of an 0. XX acre public park. We ask for your approval to continue our redevelopment efforts utilizing a revised project concept. S/incerely, 1 r tax v / Richard A. Juarez Senior Vice President

27 IR l r i 870 East El Camino Real se-' it q f +! 1 S' ' : 4; _ may' r A., t, i.;,.... 4AllivelViihw, e.,,,,, f rlii,.,. i ' kr i _ A M.. r f ---, it '. i 7 e j e" - i,., x s 0C i g scto i II Reai 7C, 0..." Al

28 Attachment 6 EXHIBIT A 690 E. Middlefield Road We are requesting the City Council authorize staff resources to study our proposal to approve a rezoning to allow for a maximum of 1. 0 FAR. We are also requesting to potentially consider the addition and similar rezoning of one or more of the adjacent parcels fronting Maude Avenue ( each approximately 1 acre) into an integrated development ( see Exhibit B). Our currently approved project allows for the redevelopment of the existing aged industrial buildings of 184, 060 square feet to a total of 340, 066 square feet of Class A office on the site. A maximum FAR of 1. 0 would allow for a total of up to 680, 132 square feet for 690 E. Middlefield on its own or approximately 708K sf to 909K sf if one of more of the Maude parcels were to be added to the project. We believe that this request is consistent with the city' s broad General Plan vision of increasing density near public transit. We understand that the city is currently studying a broader potential change to the ML/ML-T zoning in the new General Plan that would allow for densities between and 1. 0 FAR. We believe market conditions merit consideration of our proposal prior to completion of the new General Plan, and that 690 E. Middlefield Road is both an ideal and unique candidate for the higher density end of that spectrum for the following reasons: E. Middlefield property is bounded by Highway 237, Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, and the adjacent Maude Avenue parcels at a very high visibility " gateway site" with prominent freeway frontage on the southeasterly corner of Mountain View. 2. At acres, 690 E. Middlefield is one of the largest applicable sites in the City and uniquely suited for the highest level of density being contemplated. The large area of the site would allow for an up to 1. 0 FAR project to remain harmonious with other properties in the neighborhood while also allowing the project to rise above the adjacent freeway which falls at approximately the second/third level of the future project. 3. The property is located within an office/ industrial neighborhood in a location that lacks land use/ development conflicts with residential parcels E. Middlefield is located just 425 ft from a VTA light rail station, which is a 2- stop/ 6- minute ride to downtown Mountain View and the Caltrain Baby Bullet. The additional square footage would further be in keeping with the City' s sustainability goals for encouraging public transit usage and transit- oriented development K sf or greater is a project large enough to create a true campus environment of the kind that would motivate a company to relocate its corporate headquarters to Mountain View.

29 EXHIBIT A 6. Expanding the 690 E. Middlefield site to include one or more of the adjacent parcels would allow for the older, single- story concrete tilt-up buildings to be upgraded or replaced as part of a cohesive, integrated development of a Class A office campus. Our plan would be to re- design the currently planned development by some combination of adding an additional building to the site plan and/ or enlarging the two approved buildings as well as adding a parking structure. Regardless, we would propose to maintain the general architectural style and quality of our already-approved site plan and work with city staff to produce a final proposal that we believe would reflect the vision of the new General Plan. Thank you for your consideration.

30 EXHIBIT B Adjacent Parcels One or more of the following parcels may be included in the aforementioned combination and rezoning proposal for 690 E. Middlefield. Exact parcels, if included, to be determined and disclosed prior to submittal of our formal application. Approx Lot Existing APN Address Size Building SF Current Owner Central Calif Conf Maude Ave +/ ac. +/- 8, 500 SF Assoc Of The Seventh- day Maude Ave +/ ac. +/- 15, 000 SF Silicon Valley Ca I LIc Maude Ave +/ ac. +/- 15, 930 SF Delucchi & Vogel Maude Ave +/ ac. +/- 15, 810 SF Delucchi & Vogel Maude +/ Ave ac. +/- 16, 000 SF Ivy Jerry Trust Mountain View Maude Ave +/ ac. +/- 9, 570 SF Holdings Ltd. N R MS 56 4,ii r OF A4/ 1 5] Y 7 rq PCLR M/ > 4A / PCL C,., J a - TRACT N Q I- = 209' j PTN 6A PTN I.' s 9 9 k PTN. 1 C M4UpE P.M. 466M5A 4VE 4. fio oe 50 FAQ 8 qo Ns O 44 1 K 665 Y

31 l * 690 East Middlefield Road r C 4..$,...''' 44,. ral, te ilor. c. O 7-.. V"..-:.;,. r- 4kig 1 k.,,` j 94e 7 f I ii Y w 447, 1 F JAW 4i l 111 k S. Co ti,: 40 r o A- 1 Ai,: :.,,/..., '. ' il- 1 y i - \

32 I Attachment 7 4cclon),- s \\ 0 Y Y SI. I 1 I 1 i 4/// Iii- 13 < l O Q co. id O m Q ',\* 2W Sy 0, a/ v/ o o 0. i 1 P t i, 14::;.% UALNI f[r= ( l E-. p: goon FP') -1k, / ca 5 (=?"' l-..../, 0., 1-1-1_, i' zy o Qo t. 45,4) 1 71/5" 41: c/ 4.;.. t' -, "/ voc< c.././-> ywc== 31 r c io y oo/ L.. i, Q 7 D 3l o 0 3nN IVOWd2i1W L.J. in o - S'- J IQ 14/ 0 p 39 / y 7., P'' 7\ N G W 44, 3 2 N ao, v 4,.. h o, / ky J- 1r' I oo o I r," 7 / ciz_: A,,,z., z - IL U iii N, - - J_ i C_ N I I E- 3 V 31NOW l3 I f, w 0 s U / No1NfrNfr 0? o S Q w. V o m 1 N w ed

33 I I 1 Attachment 8 cn ea Lir N),_\ Gjss''' o a=. N L 0 i' O j 71 i- I N OOCl/ Sllim CO m C4/ y. Ly , a Pp ' III i a q L,' '`\,` sue ACM=> S 1p CU z Q C I Q rz BC7 OAIB_3NIl310HS N I wiavi l( ! : 1 e''' s> / 0- r D U L r. q, q r 4+,- Jq4/,- O 3 O Z, o c. W Coq C q J 0'> y qq o O c z 25 E O lc E o' - q r 1 4) o0 v o,q go4vgq O 0 C qt. J o w e 131 a) COO )\----. q d,.) nnr 1 ' l O4 i M G q Uq" e z. I N 4/ O f 0 i N o t r Q- 7 I NON NS 0 o =.; 07c L L, i ED fin l 22 O c' N, a> i ani 2 ' 0" O N- 4iVb. N N _ N 1 w. 0',. U ` / Nys E E cè `_ r IN 1,

34 Attachment 9 AGENDA: April 26, 2011 PAGE: 3 ANALYSIS EAST MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Applicant Request Dostart Development Company, LLC, is requesting a new Transit Overlay (T Zone) zoning map amendment for 690 East Middlefield Road, and potentially several adjacent Maude Avenue properties, to allow a maximum of 1. 0 FAR( Floor Area Ratio). A maximum of 1. 0 FAR could potentially result in a total of 680, 132 square feet for the 690 East Middlefield Road site, or between 708,000 square feet to 909,000 square feet if one or more of the Maude Avenue parcels were included (see Attachment 1 Map: 690 East Middlefield Road and Attachment 2- Gatekeeper Request). 690 East Middlefield Road Project Site Description The 690 East Middlefield Road site is acres and currently contains 184, 060 square feet of building area, with an FAR of The six adjacent Maude Avenue sites are located between Logue Avenue and Highway 237 and include a variety of older singlestory buildings on parcels. Any inclusion of the Maude Avenue sites to the larger 690 East Middlefield Road site would be determined and disclosed prior to formal submittal of the formal application. Previous Approval In April 2008, the City Council adopted a T Zone (Transit Overlay) zoning map amendment and development application for 690 East Middlefield Road to allow a new 340,066 square foot building with an FAR of This previous approval received a permit extension to April General Plan and Zoning Designations/2030 General Plan Policy Direction The existing General Plan designation for the sites is General Industrial. The existing zoning is ML (Limited Industrial). The City' s 2030 General Plan update is considering greater intensities for the East Whisman area, which includes these sites. The General Plan project team is currently studying the potential impacts of allowing up to 1. 0 FAR for this area.

35 r AGENDA: April 26, 2011 PAGE: 4 Evaluation of Request This request could be evaluated by phasing the analysis as part of the City's General Plan update process. This analysis would also be informed through development of a new Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Ordinance. The first part of this phasing work would be based on the FAR analysis from the 2030 General Plan update. The General Plan project team will be analyzing an appropriate FAR range for several "change areas" over the next several months as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including potential impacts and mitigation strategies. Linking the General Plan' s FAR analysis and the proposed applicant' s FAR request would ensure policy consistency between these efforts. The second part of this phasing approach would involve development of a new TOD ordinance to replace the City' s existing TOD ordinance. Developing a new TOD ordinance is a draft General Plan action item that would help implement the City' s future vision for the area. Accompanying the TOD ordinance would be a study of highsustainability performance measures, which is also a draft General Plan action item. This study would outline what high-sustainability features, improvements or fees could be required for new development that exceeds a certain FAR threshold. The last phase of this option would include the review of the development project. Staff notes that informal review of the project could commence earlier in the process to provide greater streamlining to the overall project time line. Staff would also work closely with the applicant on the overall timing and schedule of the development project, new TOD Ordinance development and the General Plan FAR analysis. This gatekeeper proposal would be funded by the applicant as full-cost recovery and would include hiring of a contract planner and engineer for part or all of the proposal. The applicant would also fund development of the new TOD ordinance. The City would retain and manage a consultant to help develop this ordinance, which could be considered as partial fulfillment of the applicant' s TOD project requirements. City staff and the applicant would further discuss the details regarding the TOD ordinance scope and cost and T Zone project requirements.