Housing report: City is 'jobs rich'

Call for thousands more homes kicks off 're-visioning' process in Mountain View

Every seven years, Mountain View residents have a chance to significantly change the direction of the city's housing policies, a process called "re-visioning" the General Plan's housing element. And if controversies over the past few years are any indication, the upcoming re-visioning should be a big deal.

The housing element of the city's General Plan -- "the primary policy document for the development, rehabilitation and preservation of housing" -- is under revision and will be discussed in General Plan hearings throughout the year, including a slew of neighborhood General Plan meetings in May.

Kicking off the housing discussion is a new report on the city's housing needs from Bay Area Economics. Among numerous issues, it points out that the city is becoming increasingly "jobs rich," while housing development has not kept pace. It says jobs increased by 19 percent between 2003 and 2008, while housing units increased by only 3 percent since 2000. Mountain View's population has increased 10 percent since 1990, to 72,932.

By comparison, the county has grown by 23 percent since 1990 and had three times less job growth on average.

To meet its "fair share" of the county's unmet housing needs, the Association of Bay Area Governments has calculated that Mountain View needs to accommodate -- perhaps through zoning -- another 2,123 units by 2014, including 467 very low income units. That goal may be difficult to achieve in a slow housing market: Permits for only 99 units were approved last year, while 377 units were permitted in 2007.

The report also points out that high land costs and public opposition to dense housing development have hindered housing production.

About three years ago, when the slow-growth versus pro-growth debate raged during and after the 2006 Council City election, the city had over 3,000 housing units in the planning pipeline. On Wednesday, Planning Director Randy Tsuda said there were only about 1,200 units in the works, including 450 at Mayfield and about 500 at South Whisman.

"The market has definitely slowed down," said Scott Plambaeck, city planner.

Council member Mike Kasperzak believes the city passed on an opportunity to build many homes in the past few years. Unlike other council members, he says it's more of a "community" problem than a regional one.

"It's easy to say Los Altos Hills needs to build more affordable housing on smaller lots, but I don't see any new jobs in Los Altos," Kasperzak said. "It's sort of the same old issue -- if the community doesn't want more people living here we should say no to more jobs. All those [new employees may have to drive now to get here and that's not sustainable development to me."

A changing city

As part of the 19 percent job growth, the city has seen a 294 percent increase in "information sector" jobs since 2003, according to the report. This may explain why the city has more young workers and fewer families than other cities in the county: About 13 percent of Mountain View's households are "non-family," while the county averages 9 percent.

Meanwhile, Mountain View has slowly chipped away at the high ratio of rentals in the city by almost exclusively developing new ownership housing and converting some apartments to condos. The number of people who rent in Mountain View slightly decreased from 62.2 percent in 1990 to 58.6 percent in 2008, according to the report.

For many years Mountain View has been known as a city with a relatively high ratio of renters. The county shows the opposite trend, with about 40 percent renters and 60 percent homeowners, according to the report.

The report cites other concerns. About 19 percent of the city's multi-family apartment buildings are not built to withstand a major earthquake, it says, noting that of the city's 584 apartment buildings, 111 have a "soft story" design where an "open wall condition" on the first floor can lead to "seismic weakness" in an earthquake.

Reflecting county-wide trends, the report says 32 percent of Mountain View renters "overpaid" by spending more than a third of their income on rent, compared to 36 percent county-wide. Seniors overpaid the most: In 2000, the report says, 50 percent of seniors overpaid for housing and 26 percent "severely overpaid."

The report adds that there are no assisted living facilities affordable to low income seniors in the city. It says the city has placed a 180-unit cap on small apartments -- also known as "efficiency studios," like the ones at San Antonio Place -- so only 62 more can be built.

Mountain View's median income for 2008 is slightly lower than the county median of $81,246, according to the report. Per capita income, however, is higher: $46,644 versus $37,470.

The report also points out that 122 homeless people called themselves residents of Mountain View in 2007, and 89 percent said they were unsheltered compared to 71 percent countywide. A bill passed by the state Senate, SB 2, will require Mountain View to zone an area for a homeless shelter within one year of the housing element's adoption.

The BAE report can be viewed on the city's Web site here as a staff report for the April 22 Environmental Planning Commission meeting.


Posted by Elna Tymes, a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 23, 2009 at 5:07 pm

In September, 2008, the Mt. View Senior Advisory Task Force published its "State of Mt. View Seniors" report that, among other things, indicated that there were about 1000 subsidized units in Mt. View, with about 650 of them allocated to seniors. Some of those senior units have become available since 2000, the date cited in the study in the above article. Even so, most of Mt. View's 9000 or so seniors do not have access to "affordable" senior housing. Given that population projections indicate that Boomers will swell Mt. View's senior portion of its population from about 12% now to about 21% in 20 years, something has to be done about "affordable" housing.

The big problem is that NIMBY is alive and well, although perhaps camouflaged by concerns about too-dense housing and its impact on traffic and city services. We all love the benefits of having more jobs in Mt. View, but it seems we're unwilling to deal with the consequences of having all those new employees drive here to work. Ultimately, we can't afford to have more jobs without also having more housing.

Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 23, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Council member Mike Kasperzak does not understand that it is Mountain View's quality of life which attracts companies and residents. Mountain View is a small city with a population density higher than most other cities in Santa Clara County. If we continue to increase our population density, the quality of life will suffer, thus acting as a deterrent to companies and people who live here. Mountain View will then become a high density, low income slum

Posted by mrp, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 23, 2009 at 9:17 pm

If you don't think the homes should be in Mountain View, then why put the jobs here? Surely we have other good uses for the land that don't involve thousands of people driving on the freeway to get here. That's not "high quality of life" for anyone.

Posted by Mr. Ying, a resident of North Whisman
on Apr 24, 2009 at 7:32 am

Put low income housing in out lying areas like Alviso, no put in MV city limits, it bring many problem, crime, old cars, trash, it no no good.

Posted by GDM, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 24, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Who is putting the jobs in Mountain View? I don't think that there is any law or organization requiring companies to locate here. The problem is in looking at Mountain View as a stand alone city which it is NOT. Mountain View is part of a large Metropolitan area. It is simply a matter of how you look at the problem of traffic. I would say the real problem is the lack of good transit systems. Governments don't like to look at it that way because there is no money to be made with transit systems and there is a lot of money to be made with housing.

Looking at the jobs vs housing ratio, you could just as easily say that Los Altos and Los Altos Hills has to get more jobs. Why don't they rezone some land for jobs?

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 21 comments | 1,878 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,273 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,246 views

College Freshmen: Avoiding the Pitfalls
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,104 views

Camp Glamp
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,044 views