019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
Miles Imwalle
D (415) 772-5786
[email protected]
September 24, 2025
Edgar Maravilla
Project Planner
City of Mountain View
[email protected]
Re: 843, 871, 881, 903 Castro Street, 750 Fairmont Avenue, and 700 W. El Camino Real (PL-2023-065 & PL-2023-066) – Density Bonus Letter
D
ear Edgar:
This letter is submitted on behalf of GPR Ventures (the “Applicant”) to request certain benefits under the State Density Bonus Law in relation to project application (PL-2023-065 & PL-2023- 066) for a mixed use development on a 1.43-acre site1 along Castro Street, Gateway Park, El Camino Real, and Hope Street in Mountain View, California (the “Project” or “Site 1”).
I. P roject Summary
The Project is an 8-story development, with 140 residential units. A complete Project Description is provided under separate cover.
II. A pplicable Land Use Controls and Development Standards The Project is bounded by Castro Street, El Camino Real, and Hope Street, and is within the City’s Downtown Precise Plan (“DTPP”), which permits residential, retail, and restaurant uses. As per Table 1 , below, development along Castro Street is limited to 4 floors (55 feet) and development along Hope Street is limited to 3 floors (35 feet) north of Fairmont and 4 floors (55 feet) south of Fairmont.
Table 1 – Applicable DTPP Height Limits
Location City Limits Source
Castro Street / El Camino
Real 4 floors or 55’ DTPP, p.
112
Hope Street – north of
Fairmont
3 floors or
35’2
DTPP, p.
112
1 Previous applications referred to a smaller 1.31-acre site, which relied on net instead of gross acreage.
State Density Bonus Law directs that density is based on the site’s gross acreage. 2 The third floor must be “tucked into the roofline so that the building looks like a two- story structure.” (DTPP, p. 112.)
Attachment 8
Edgar Maravilla
September 24, 2025
019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
Table 1 – Applicable DTPP Height Limits
Hope Street – south of
Fairmont
4 floors or
55’3
DTPP, p.
112
The Project is subject to rear yard setbacks along the Castro Street frontage, which require a minimum 15 foot yard, or a distance equal to the height of the adjacent building wall 4 as
measured to the top of the wall plate.5 In effect, this creates a larger rear yard requirement as a building’s height increases.
III. Density Bonus Law
The Density Bonus Law applies to housing development projects that provide on-site affordable housing and provides for not only increased residential density over the maximum density otherwise allowed, but also an unlimited number of waivers and a certain number of concessions, among other benefits. This Project is seeking additional density, a number of waivers, and a single concession, each as discussed below.
A. Base Density
In order to understand the density bonus applicable to the Project, a base density must first be established. The DTPP allows for most of the Project to develop at 50 dwelling units per acre (“du/ac”), with some of the Project site at 30 du/ac. 6 In particular, the density is 50 du/ac for everything along Castro Street and Hope Street south of Fairmont and 30 du/ac for the portion on Hope Street north of Fairmont. As per Table 2, the Project is eligible for 70 base residential units.
Table 2 – Base Density Calculation
Density
DTPP
50 du/ac
DTPP
30 du/ac
Site area (SF) 56,8487 5,4788
Site area (acres) 1.305 0.126
Total site area (acres) 1.43
3 Building height along Fairmont Avenue may not exceed 3 floors and 35’, although Fairmont Avenue will be vacated on this block so this height limit is no longer applicable. (DTPP, p. 112.) 4 Based on City guidance, we have interpreted “adjacent building wall” to mean the Project’s building wall closest to the parcel line. See, e.g., City Zoning Calculations, p. 4 (Figure 6). 5 DTPP, p. 113.
6 Although the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential allows 13 –25 du/ac, according to Density Bonus Law, where there is inconsistency, “the greater shall prevail.” (Gov. Code, § 65915(o)(6).) 7 Includes the gross SF of the following APNs: 158-06-008, 158-06-010, 158-06-037, 158-06-038, 158-06- 039, and Fairmont Avenue.
8 Includes the gross SF of APN 158-06-036.
Edgar Maravilla
September 24, 2025
019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
Table 2 – Base Density Calculation
Max density allowable 50 30
Max allowable residential units 65.3 3.8
Total base residential units (base density) 70
B. Density Bonus Project
The Project proposes to provide 15 percent of the base density at the very low income affordability level. As a result, the Project meets the criteria for an initial 50 percent density bonus. The affordable commitment also entitles the Project to an unlimited number of waivers.
The state updated Density Bonus Law pursuant to AB 1287, which allows additional density bonus in exchange for an increase in the percentage of affordable units included. To be eligible for AB 1287’s additional bonus, a project must first meet the requirements for the initial 50 percent density bonus (e.g., by providing 15 percent very low income units), and then commit to constructing additional very-low income or moderate income units.
The Project is proposing to provide 15 percent of the base density at the moderate income affordability level, which qualifies the Project for an additional percent density bonus of 50 percent, for a total of a 100 percent bonus. With these bonuses, the Project qualifies for 140 units.
To meet the affordable requirements, the Project will provide 11 units (15 percent of the base density of 70 units) as affordable to very low income households, and another 11 units (another 15 percent of base density) as affordable to moderate income households.
C. Requested Waivers of Development Standards
So long as a project qualifies as a density bonus project under state law, the City must waive any development standard that would “physically preclude” construction of the proposed building at the density allowed, unless certain narrow findings can be made.9 Courts have also clarified that “a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.”10 That is, it is not relevant if a project could be designed in a different way to comply with the development standard for which a waiver is sought, but rather the only question is whether the development standard in question would physically preclude the project as it has been proposed. As pointed out by the courts, it is noteworthy that Density Bonus Law used to require applicants to demonstrate that the waiver was necessary to
9 Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 770. 10 Id. at 775 [emphasis added], citing Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346.
Edgar Maravilla
September 24, 2025
019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
make the project economically feasible, but the statute was amended in 2008 to focus only on the “physically preclude” standard.11
The grounds for denying a waiver are limited to instances where the jurisdiction finds that the waiver would have a “specific, adverse impact, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact” or when a project “would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or [is granted] any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.” (Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1).) In other words, once an applicant establishes “its eligibility for the density bonus . . . it [is] entitled to a waiver of any development standards that would preclude construction of the Project unless the City ma[kes] certain findings.” 12 None of
these exceptions should apply to the Project.
Here, Density Bonus Law waivers are essential in providing the amount of space needed for the “bonus” units, whether that is by building up (height waiver) or out (rear yard waiver).
Additionally, and despite not needing to provide this information, the “Reason for Waiver” column below explains both why the development standard would physically preclude the Project as well as a brief explanation of the building design. We provide the rationale for the design for informational purposes.
The Applicant’s list of requested waivers is included in Table 3, attached.
D. Request for Concession Under Density Bonus Law
1. Legal Background
Concessions13 recognize that affordable housing is expensive to provide, which is addressed by providing relief from development standards in order to reduce costs, which helps provide the affordable units. Accordingly, the legal test for whether the City must grant a concession is if it will “result in identifiable and actual cost reductions.”14 What can qualify as a concession is very flexible, so long as it meets the cost reduction requirements.
The City must grant (i.e., “shall approve”) the specific concessions requested by the Applicant unless the City makes written findings, based on substantial evidence, that the concession would (1) not result in a cost reduction, (2) have a specific adverse impact on health or safety
11 Wollmer 193 Cal.App.4th at 1346.
12 Bankers Hill at 774.
13 The SDBL uses both terms incentive and concession, but they have the same meaning, so this letter uses the term concession for readability purposes.
14 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(1)(A).
Edgar Maravilla
September 24, 2025
019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
(as defined), or (3) be contrary to state or federal law.15 The City bears the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession.16
Projects receive a certain number of concessions, depending on the level of affordability provided. The Project qualifies for three concessions and currently requests one.
2. Concession Request: POPA Open Space Credit
Pursuant to Government Code § 65915(d), the Applicant requests a concession to allow specific portions of the Castro Commons project, including the Fairmont paseo (the vacated Fairmont Avenue right-of-way and related open spaces totaling approximately 15,800 SF) (“Paseo Areas”) to qualify for the City’s Privately Owned/Publicly Accessible (“POPA”) open space credit under City Code § 41.11. The Paseo Areas are shown on Attachment 1 (POPA Site Plan) to this letter.
The concession proposes to use the § 41.11(b) “alternate proposals” pathway for POPA credit, but a concession is needed to provide relief from the development standard that the “alternate proposal” consist of a single, contiguous area greater than one 1 acre. Despite being less than 1 acre, the Paseo Areas satisfy the “alternate proposals” purposes to serve a diverse park user population (§ 41.11(b)(i)) and to provide design benefits that exceed the general POPA requirements (§ 41.11(b)(ii)) based on the specific design, access, and programming described below:
• Diverse users. The Paseo Areas will operate as an all-ages, universally accessible, through-block public promenade linking Castro Street transit/retail to neighborhood destinations, with benches, shade trees, and bicycle parking features that support casual lingering, mobility impaired users, families with strollers, older adults, and cyclists. Public access with wayfinding/signage will ensure clarity of use. A community room and the provision of open space to public sidewalks can be used by the community and neighborhood residents.
• Design benefits. Compared to the general POPA standards, the Paseo Areas offer traffic-free safety, activated edges with eyes on the street, programmable nodes (e.g., small performances/markets), through-block connections, a community room, activation benefits to the existing Gateway Park, and stormwater/urban canopy co-benefits that are not achievable in an equivalently sized, single-parcel park. These attributes comport with the City’s stated goals for quality, publicly accessible open space that advances Citywide recreation access without City O&M burden.
15 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(1).
16 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).
Edgar Maravilla
September 24, 2025
019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
If the City does not agree that the Paseo Areas satisfy these diverse users/design benefits criteria, the Applicant alternatively requests additional concession(s) to deem the Paseo Areas eligible for POPA credit.
Granting this concession results in identifiable and actual cost reductions required under State Density Bonus Law:
• POPA Credit. Chapter 41 requires that residential subdivisions dedicate land for park purposes, where parkland must meet certain requirements, and if that is not feasible, to pay a fee in lieu of dedication. For dense, infill projects, providing parkland on-site, as either a public park or as a POPA, is often not feasible because there are minimum size requirements. Reducing this standard and allowing the Paseo Areas to qualify provides a real, quantifiable cost reduction.
• Site-planning efficiencies. Recognizing the Paseo Areas avoids acquiring or redesigning to create a single, larger 1-acre parcel, reducing hard costs (demolition/regrading/utility relocations) and soft costs (design, legal descriptions, surveying), while preserving yield.
• Operations alignment. POPA elements embedded in the Project’s ground-plane and frontage treatments leverage shared maintenance/security already planned for common areas, avoiding duplicative improvements and long-run O&M premiums that a stand- alone 1-acre park would impose.
Finally, this request meets the definition of a concession under the State Density Bonus Law. A concession under § 65915(k) includes reductions or modifications of local standards that produce cost reductions. Here, the Applicant seeks a reduction in a site development standard (i.e., the eligibility standard to receive POPA credit) such that a private park that is smaller than 1 acre qualifies for POPA open space credit.
While not directly relevant to the legal standard for a concession, this request is also consistent with Housing Program 1.8 in the Housing Element, which supports relaxing restrictions on the size and type of POPA areas and allowing credit for pedestrian connections. In addition, as part of implementing Program 1.8, the City recently studied parks level of service and found that a need exists for additional mini parks, both in the current state and projected future needs by 2034.
Because the concession reduces identifiable, actual costs by enabling POPA credit application to the project’s Paseo Areas, it furthers Chapter 41’s purpose of creating high-quality, publicly accessible private open space, and it does not seek any “waiver of fees” under § 65915, none of the narrow statutory findings for denial apply.
Edgar Maravilla
September 24, 2025
019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Very truly yours,
Miles Imwalle
Attachment
019306.0001 4929-9164-6800.6
Table 3: List of Requested Waivers
Reference Development Standard Waiver Request Reason for Waiver Building Height
DTPP Area
J, Part B.2;
• Castro Street frontage: 4 stories and
55’
• H ope Street frontage: 3 stories and
35’, and the third floor must be
“tucked into the roofline so that the
building looks like a two-story
structure.”
• Castro Street/El Camino Real block:
4 stories and 55’
• Castro Street frontage: The Project
requests a waiver to provide 8
stories and 92’ to roofline.
• H
ope Street frontage: The Project
requests a waiver to provide 3
stories and 37’ north of the paseo
(without a “tucked” third story) and 8
stories and 92’ to roofline south of
the paseo.
• C
astro Street/El Camino Real block :
The Project requests a waiver to
provide 8 stories and 92’ to roofline.
The Project as designed exceeds both
height limit metrics (stories and
measurement). Therefore, the applicable
building height development standards
here would physically preclude
construction of the proposed Project.
The Project’s proposed height is required
in order to accommodate the number of
bonus units permitted, including the
proposed affordable housing units. The
proposed heights also provide an
opportunity for a diversity of forms and
better design.
Rear Yard
DTPP Area
J, Part B.4;
• Castro Street frontage on blocks
between Church Street and
Fairmont Avenue: minimum 15’ or
distance equal to height of adjacent
building wall as measured to top of
wall plate
• Although the Project complies with
this rear yard requirement on the
first and second floors, it fails to do
so starting on the third floor and
above and requests a waiver for
these exceedances.
The applicable rear yard development
standard here would physically preclude
construction of the proposed Project at
the density allowed under Density Bonus
Law.
The Project’s proposed massing would
accommodate the additional bonus units
at the Project’s higher floors, which is
necessary to achieve the project density,
including the proposed affordable
housing units. In particular, the rear yard
setback increases as the building height
increases, so the area available for
building mass becomes constrained as
height increases. However, efforts were
made to locate upper level units away
from neighboring residential areas.
Attachment 1
POPA Site Plan
1 | BUILDING FOOTPRINT C ASTRO
2 | PASEO ENTRANCE ON CASTRO STREET C O M M O N S
3 | PROPERTY LINE
SPANGLER MORTUARY EXISTING 1 & 2 STORY 4 | 1-6" PLINTH FROM GROUND LEVEL 799 CASTRO STREET RESIDENTIAL HOMES
5 | LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE MIXED -USE
6 | NEW PASEO AT FAIRMONT AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY. SEE DEVELOPMENT
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR ENHANCED DETAILS MOUNTAIN VIEW
)
YOSEMITE. AVE 1 ms CALIFORNIA
8 | STAIRS
SE a 9 | TRASH ROOM AND UTILITY LS
| asar
10 | LOBBY us
EXISTING 4 STORY 11 | LOADING ZONE GPR VENTURES
es 12 RAMP TO BASEMENT https://gprventurescastro.com/
STARTING WITH BLEND RAMP
a yi bee vn E 43 | PARKING STALLS
EXISTING TT >
2 STORY Y 14 | TRASH STAGING NW
RESIDENTIAL a y yr
Ln 15 | BIKE ROOM (LONG TERM) SS
HIGH S ) 16 | TRANSFORMER ROOM À Lui Rs = ŒIL = 3 > o TRASH MANAGEMENT RAMP FOR PULLING BINS P - ERC 1 ‘4 17 TO STREET LEVEL KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS INC. | ELECTRICAL RASH Lis | 6 O ELE = 3 . L 18 PARKING ENTRANCE GATE 44 North Whisman Roa vite 2 e Bsraclaaa all | ae EXISTING 1 & 2 STORY “a "° at 3 AREA Less 4 3 RESIDENTIAL HOMES |_| 49| CARD READER/ISLAND Mountain View. CA 650.965.0700 — À J a =
E = = = > - ee 4 4 VE FRA LEGEN D
= au A à % Na À
ee | ee | COMMUNITY ROOM
| E NA o AE
372 Castro Street
CIRCULATION
A \ Campes : Pe a], TRASH AND UTILITY ROOM
LE 7 ca 5 8 A, Y a = : is ELECTRICA E = po Si à = A $s ‘3 bn Es i oc) A ROOM : JT ss … = 2 TE dé ae Ree a j AMENITY SPACE YA a === Pal . Fe = EN
4 o — lA A = ie ag COMMERCIAL WILLIAM MASTON ARCHITECT & ASSOCIATES \ ES Fes
P GAL = — NHOUSE => (A
7: COMMERCIAL | vs M Ton aa
À *
Mountain View C A 6 5 0 , 9 6 8 7 9 0 0
Ú " y
o N
Y
pe n
a : RESIDENTIAL Oooo we CONSULTANTS
Lossy mmm 52 ie RESIDENTIAL PORCH
(oo WU is + Y
DES - i FAIRMONT AVE LONG TERM BIKE PARKING
406' ~ Pye
À gi
Vy” NOTE: 43 oh | ES
BY 1. THE PROPOSED SIGNS ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL
100 ES MENITY N A PURPOSE ONLY
Mu ES BR se | 2. THE LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING ROOMS WILL BE SECURED BY ; KEYPAD, UTILIZE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, AND
ms g 6 MP DOWN ACCESSIBLE TO AUTHORIZED RESIDENTS & PERSONNEL ONLY PR Eo TO PARKING ! A\ "a 3. CLEARLY VISIBLE SIGNAGE TO BE POSTED FOR BIKE PARKING REVISION A A | | | — AREA RACKS 02.12.24 FORMAL PLANNING SUBMITTAL De SN Mi . 4. THE ACCESS WALKS FROM TRASH ROOMS #1 AND #2 WILL BE co pres one 5 ON BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE 06.28.24 FORMAL PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL +1 COMME = EXISTING 2 STORY 10.31.24 FORMAL PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL #2 10 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 11.29.24 FORMAL PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL #3 Fo APARTMENTS 02.28.25 FORMAL PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL #4
EXISTING + 126' nr 05.15.25 FORMAL PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL #5 3-4 STORY OFFICE 09.19.25 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBMITTAL Wa PROJECTNO. 37.668 DATE 02.01.24
.
DRAWN BY SCALE AS SHOWN
CHECKED BY
XISTING COMMERCIAL
ER
y
Elia C À MINOR EAL > A-1
O' 30' 60'
©) 2025 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC,