|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With a focus on preventing housing insecurity, Mountain View is taking steps to create a local ordinance that will protect tenants from losing rent-stabilized units to redevelopment projects.
Addressing housing displacement is a top priority for the city, said Mayor Alison Hicks, who spoke at a study session devoted to the issue at a City Council meeting Tuesday evening.
Since 2012, nearly 1,000 rent-controlled units – covered by the city’s Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) – have been demolished or are slated to be demolished to make way for 30 new residential projects, according to the study session memo.
The increase in housing is significant. The city will add 2,300 units to its stock, amounting to a net gain of 1,300 units. But there is a catch.
“The majority of the total new units is market-rate housing,” said Housing Director Wayne Chen. “Only about 40% of the CSFRA units lost would be coming back as affordable,” he added.
A state law, SB 330, which went into effect in 2020, requires that cities replace demolished, rent-protected units so there is no net loss. Additionally, it requires that low-income tenants receive relocation benefits and gives these tenants the opportunity to return to the redeveloped property at an affordable rent or sale price.
The city has met these requirements, Chen said, referring to the council’s directive to replace rent-controlled units at the income level of previous tenants who earned 80% or less of the area median income (AMI). For moderate and above-moderate income households, these units will be replaced with deed-restricted units at 80% AMI, Chen said.
But while SB 330 has given the city a mandate to replace rent-stabilized housing, it is set to expire in 2030.
“The state giveth and the state taketh,” said council member Emily Ann Ramos, who supported the creation of a local ordinance – instead of a more flexible framework – to ensure that protections remain in place for tenants.
The displacement of tenants from their homes has weighed heavily on Mountain View, she said, sharing the sentiment of public comments that referenced the controversial redevelopment of 2005 Rock St., a 2018 decision that replaced older, more affordable apartments with $1.3 million rowhouses.
“There was this palpable sense of helplessness, that we had people standing right there saying, please do not take away my home,” Ramos said, recounting the lead-up to the project’s approval.
“And generally, when you have that deep feeling of helplessness, you do what you can to make sure that never happens again,” Ramos continued. “This is our opportunity, we can lock in our protections, no matter what the state decides to do.”
Several council members, Lucas Ramirez, Alison Hicks and Pat Showalter, also supported the idea of an ordinance, with Showalter advocating for more data collection about how displacement plays out in the community and whether tenants return to their units once they are redeveloped.
Council members Margaret Abe-Koga and Lisa Matichak took a “wait-and-see” approach, with the perspective that a lot can change before SB 330 expires in 2030, or that it might even be extended past 2030.
Council members also expressed support for the staff recommendation of replacing CSFRA units with moderate-income units, that stipulate rents between 80% and 120% AMI. Lower-income units will still be included, but having moderate-income units will make redevelopment projects more feasible, according to the study session memo.
These units put a focus back on “the missing middle,” said Council member Ellen Kamei. “Those who are in the 80% and 120% AMI range may feel like they are above moderate, but they are really moderate to low-income in our state and county,” she said.
Ramos agreed, adding that it would extend the right to return protections in SB 330 to middle-income tenants who are displaced by redevelopment.
Council members also supported the idea of parsing out vacant units from the housing stock, potentially making them available to lower-income tenants.
City council will hold another study session, addressing other parts of the city’s displacement strategy in early 2024. The ordinance likely will come back to council for review in late 2024, City Manager Kimbra McCarthy said.
The more the city tries to interfere with the accurate pricing of housing, the more it will be distorted. The best thing the city could do is encourage and expedite developers to build all classes of housing.
Thanks for the reporting / reporter. I especially like the ‘accountability’ for how specific council members are ‘attached’ to their specific policy comments! It is very hard and time consuming to attend a meeting and get This Right.
“The increase in housing is significant … But there is a catch.
“The majority of the total new units is market-rate housing,” said Housing Director Wayne Chen.”
These are TRUE + IMPORTANT statements. For the past 8 years, ALMOST ALL of MV’s new housing units have been expensive, market-rate units (see “Housing units, built and planned, for 2015 through 2023 in MV”, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/photos/2021/august/16/39484_col.jpg ) NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED to ensure a different outcome over the next 8 years! MV is on track to increase our population by 40% and add 15,000 new housing units, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/08/04/with-mountain-view-poised-to-grow-by-15000-units-planning-commissioners-worry-about-parks-utilities-and-public-services … ALMOST ALL of these new units will be market rate units. Who will be able to move into them? Teachers? Service workers? Kids who don’t code? NO! Only highest wage earners in the land (/tech workers) are able to “afford” market rate units.
Per the Housing Element Adopted April 11, 2023, page 241, MOST OF THE NEW HOUSING “mandated” by the state is supposed to be AFFORDABLE housing. But that is NOT what is going to be built.
“The City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table 35 … the City of Mountain View is required to plan to accommodate the development of at least 11,135 housing units. This includes 2,773 units for very low-income households, 1,597 units for low-income households, 1,885 units for moderate-income households, and 4,880 units for above moderate-income households.” – https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6022eff36cb23905ed1d5b1c/t/6514809d3415f7277f721162/1695842485279/ADOPTED+Mountain+View+HEU_04+26+2023_clean_reduced.pdf
2,773 + 1,597 + 1,885 = 6,255
Over 6,000 of the new units are supposedly “mandated” to be affordable to the 3 lowest income categories (very-low-income, low-income, and moderate). But will these targets for affordable housing be met? No.
“The majority of the total new units is market-rate housing,”
SB 567 is going to force the city to do more.
In fact, it was partially because of Mountain View that SB 330 and SB 567 are state laws now.
To many developers tried to game the system, and each loophole will get plugged.
The CSFRA made many renovictions a problem in the city, and now it is statewide.
So people like Dan criticizing the city for being ahead of the curve for once should understand, this is going to get tighter and tighter. Unless the MARKET decides to do it voluntarily
we are never going to fix this on the supply side, even with all the zoning and density restrictions set aside (at least for affordable housing): it is just too expensive and time consuming to build here. A couple of years ago, pre-pandemic, the City decided to build 120 units of affordable and subsidized housing on a parking lot downtown. The cost? $114M, or a tiny bit under $1M a unit. (I don’t recall if it ever got built and if so what the final price was). Since the subsidized tenants cannot afford to buy or rent a unit that costs that much to build, it means big permanent subsidies. There just isn’t enough money to make up a 250-500 thousand unit deficit in affordable housing in the Bay Area. We need to clamp down on business expansion here and not bring any more high paying jobs in. New business development should only be allowed if the developers agree to destroy/convert to housing and equivalent amount of floor space. Fewer wealthy renters and buyers entering the housing market will allow prices to stop escalating (not drop…) and give us a chance to make up the proportion of BMR for the middle and the working class.
Seth, you are exactly right. We lack affordable housing for one main reason: for-profit developers build most housing, and they voluntarily choose to build as few affordable units as they can get away with, because that maximizes their profits. They choose to focus primarily on one market segment alone: expensive, market rate units.
For-profit businesses don’t provide free lunches to the public. Why not? For-profit businesses don’t build affordable housing in a place where land and building costs are so expensive for the very same reason. But now we have politicians who are exploiting that basic dynamic to imply that affordable housing is not being built because the residents of the city are elitists who are against affordable housing. Which isn’t true, especially not here in MV, which has historically been more of a working class town than other nearby communities. The politics are very deceptive.
“We need to clamp down on business expansion here and not bring any more high paying jobs in.”
Good luck with that. “Newsom signs 56 housing bills to boost affordability, help tenants” https://www.mv-voice.com/real_estate/2023/10/12/newsom-signs-56-housing-bills-to-boost-affordability-help-tenants One of them is especially deceptive. SB 423, from Scott Wiener, was put forward in order to “extend and strengthen” SB 35. On the surface, SB 35 sounds lovely. A bill that enables/forces construction of at least 50% of units as below market housing in a housing project? What’s not to like? When one looks at the Vallco Mall Project, which is the largest project to have utilized SB 35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_35_(2017) , the answer becomes visible: the profit will come from a sneaky trick: OFFICE SPACE is part of the “housing” project. Here’s a cool bit: In order to qualify for SB 35, the project must “be on land zoned for residential use”, that’s one of the rules. That’s why the folks in Cupertino are so upset.
@LongResident left a great comment: “Cupertino was forced to allow over 2 Million square feet of new office and commercial space into the city, in the name of adding housing. But it’s not even enough housing for the people working in the project itself!”
It’s important to correct some misconceptions about SB35. SB35, or Senate Bill 35, is a California state law that streamlines the approval process for certain housing developments. It requires cities and counties to quickly approve housing projects that meet specific criteria, such as affordability and zoning regulations. To qualify for SB35, a project must be consistent with local zoning and general plan standards, and a specified percentage of the housing units must be designated as affordable.
Being consistent with local zoning and general plan standards means that a proposed development aligns with the regulations and guidelines set by the local government for land use and development.
Let me break it down:
Local governments divide land into different zones, such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Each zone has specific rules about what can be built there. For instance, a residential zone might allow only houses and certain types of low-impact businesses, while a commercial zone could allow shops, offices, and restaurants. To be consistent with zoning regulations means that a proposed project fits the designated land use for that area.
The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term document that outlines the community’s vision for the future. It includes policies related to land use, transportation, housing, environmental conservation, and more. Developers need to ensure that their projects align with the goals and policies outlined in the general plan. For example, if a general plan emphasizes green spaces and sustainability, a proposed development should incorporate these elements to be consistent with the plan.
To comply with SB35, a housing project must adhere to both the local zoning regulations and the general plan standards of the respective area. Since the Vallco development complied with both of these, it’s an odd criticism to be upset at SB35. It’s simply holding cities accountable for their documented zoning and general plans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_35_(2017)
Note the 2nd item, “be on land zoned for residential use.”
“In order to use the streamlined approval process [under SB 35], the development must:
• follow all local objective zoning and design standards
• be on land zoned for residential use.
• designate some units to be priced below market rate for people making certain incomes:
◦ if the locality did not meet its above-moderate income RHNA goal, at least 10% of units must be below market rate housing
◦ if the locality did not meet its low income RHNA goal, at least 50% of units must be below market rate housing
• not be constructed in an ecologically protected area.
• be multi-unit housing and not single family homes.
• pay construction workers union-level wages.”
I am providing facts here, not “misconceptions”. @LongResident’s comment is absolutely correct: “Cupertino was forced to allow over 2 Million square feet of new office and commercial space into the city, in the name of adding housing. But it’s not even enough housing for the people working in the project itself!”
At first glance, SB 35 sounds lovely. A bill that enables/forces construction of at least 50% of units as below market housing in a housing project? What’s not to like? But then I wondered what would induce a for-profit developer to embrace SB 35? Developers are business people, they are driven by profit, and there simply is not profit in building affordable housing. When one looks at the Vallco Mall Project, the answer becomes visible: the profit will come from a sneaky trick: OFFICE SPACE is part of the “housing” project.
“We need to clamp down on business expansion here and not bring any more high paying jobs in.”
This is obviously not possible when the very housing bills forced upon us by state politicians are used to enable/force business expansion against the will of the residents. Alert readers need to focus on the common theme of these bills: enabling developers to make MONEY, despite any objections from the community.
You’re correct that the second bullet point, which specifies that the development must be on land zoned for residential use, is an important criterion for SB 35 eligibility. The Vallco development did follow the local zoning and general plan for that area, which included zoning for a mix of office space and housing. However, it’s important to emphasize that the first bullet point, which requires compliance with all local objective zoning and design standards, still applies.
Even though the Vallco development was on land zoned for both office space and housing, it would still need to adhere to specific zoning and design standards set by the local government for each of these land uses. If the project complied with all the relevant zoning and design standards for both office and housing components, it would satisfy this requirement for SB 35 eligibility.
In summary, for the Vallco development to use the streamlined approval process under SB 35, it would need to meet the conditions of both the first and second bullet points by following all local objective zoning and design standards and being on land zoned for the intended use (which, in this case, included a mix of office space and housing according to the local zoning and general plan).
The amount of office space in the proposed development is consistent with Cupertino’s plans for the area. SB 35 simply requires that certain cities approve residential projects consistent with the city’s plans. If Cupertino did not want the mix of uses in the Vallco proposal, why did they choose to allow it in their land use plans?
“The Vallco development also highlights an important advantage of the new legislation: up to 1/3 of the SB 35 project can be dedicated to non-residential uses. In other words, SB 35 can expedite mixed-use projects like Vallco. Commercial and retail uses might help developers to budget for the affordable housing portion of certain projects, and cities might be more inclined to add new housing if the housing is coupled with new retail or commercial tax revenues.” https://www.gravel2gavel.com/assessing-sb-35/
Adding office space uses cancels out the benefit of adding more housing. Politicians won’t mention that part though, they’ll only brag about all the affordable housing being created.
“State housing law requires cities and counties to report their housing production annually according to the number of building permits issued within the jurisdiction by income level. SB 35 applies to cities that are unable to issue sufficient number of building permits to meet their regional housing needs allocation (“RHNA”) goals for both above income and lower income units. At this time, Cupertino has issued enough building permits to meet its RHNA goal for construction of above-moderate income housing. However, there has not been enough construction activity leading to the issuance of building permits for lower income units” – https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21654
Note that MV is in the exact same position that Cupertino was in. “there has not been enough construction activity leading to the issuance of building permits for lower income units”
We did not meet our targets for the past 8 year RHNA cycle, and we don’t have plans or funding to build the 6000 affordable units required in our new housing element.
As a result, the residents of MV will be harmed in multiple ways:
1) we won’t get the 6,000 units of affordable housing that the state knows we need.
2) the state actually BLAMES US for not providing this affordable housing to ourselves (!)
3) developers become eligible to use a bill like SB 35 to create office space in what was previously a residential area, thus keeping the jobs/housing imbalance going and keeping housing costs high.
Bills like SB 35 are very sneaky. They don’t solve the problems, they keep the problems going.
Please stop spreading misinformation. SB 35 only applies to projects that are consistent with a city’s zoning and general plan.
@Clarence, I have provided links to my sources. I am not spreading misinformation, I am helping readers determine the truth for themselves.
Yesterday I realized an even worse side effect of SB 35, it is like a dangerous weapon that created a civil war in Cupertino. I fear that a similar civil war is raging right here in MV. SB 35 is a tool that was used by a developer to put pressure on city leaders, over the objections of residents. Lovely. Thank you Sen. Scott Wiener, D-SF, for creating such a tool, and thank you Gov. Newsom, for signing a similar one, SB 423, into law.
In the second paragraph below, note the key words, “Sand Hill [the developer] leveraged SB 35 to incentivize the Cupertino City Council to approve the project”:
“In October, under the pressure of the impending SB 35 deadline, the Cupertino City Council voted 3-2 to approve the previous, community-driven proposal. The approved project called for 2,923 housing units, 1.75 million square feet of office space and 400,000 square feet of additional retail, plus a new city hall for Cupertino. Then, a community group gathered enough signatures to put a referendum before voters in 2020 to halt the community proposal. The referendum spurred the developer to again pursue the city-approved SB 35 project, potentially costing Cupertino many benefits only included in the community plan, such as a new city hall, a new performing arts center, over $11 million for adjacent bike paths, and over $14 million to benefit Cupertino schools.
Vallco Mall is now the largest project to utilize SB 35 to date. Sand Hill leveraged SB 35 to incentivize the Cupertino City Council to approve the project. However, while project opponents cannot use a referendum to stop the “by right” SB 35 proposal, they have filed a lawsuit alleging that the Vallco does not qualify for SB 35 because it is built on a hazardous waste site, among other objections. (The City denies that any portion of Vallco is a hazardous waste site, and the developer has proceeded with demolition work.)” – https://www.gravel2gavel.com/assessing-sb-35/
MV did not meet it’s affordable housing targets for the past 8 year RHNA cycle, and we don’t have plans or funding to build the 6000 affordable units required of us in our new housing element. So we are vulnerable to the same scenario that played out in Cupertino.
Yesterday I thought I realized the worst side effect of SB 35, it is like a dangerous weapon that created a civil war in Cupertino. But today I realized something even worse. Developers are actually being REWARDED by state politicians for not building affordable units! They have an opportunity to use SB 35 as a result!
Our city lacks BOTH plans and funding to build 6,225 affordable units. Noises have been made to put a measure on the ballot in 2024 to increase taxes to find $50 million to “fully fund” 1,690 affordable units “in the pipeline” (whatever that means), but there are no plans in place for all 6,225 units – https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/09/13/citing-big-funding-needs-mountain-view-looks-to-put-ballot-measure-to-a-vote-in-2024
As a result, the residents of MV will be harmed in multiple ways:
1) We won’t get the 6,225 units of affordable housing that the state “requires” (because they know that we need it). Why not? The answer is very simple: for-profit developers build most housing, and they VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to build as few affordable units as they can get away with; that maximizes their profits. Building affordable housing is like giving away free lunch. For-profit business people rarely do this. Over the last 8 year RHNA cycle, ALMOST ALL of the housing creating in MV was expensive market rate units. Were tons of affordable housing projects proposed by developers, and then rejected by the city? No.
2) State politicians are now playing a clever game where they BLAME residents for not providing this affordable housing to ourselves (!). They frame us as being elitists who abhor affordable housing, when the truth is they have handed us an incredibly expensive and unfunded mandate. This is nefarious.
3) Using the excuse that residents / NIMBY activists are to blame for a lack of affordable housing, state politicians are actually creating bills like SB 35 and SB423 to be used as weapons for developers to use in order to silence objections of any kind from residents. But developers are ONLY ELIGIBLE to use SB 35 if among other criteria, certain RHNA targets have not been met. Do you see? FAILING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING enables developers to “incentivize” a City Council to approve an SB35 project.
State politicians are serving the best interests of developers and others who profit from the production of market rate housing instead of ordinary residents. Why is that? https://www.housingisahumanright.org/inside-game-california-yimby-scott-wiener-and-big-tech-troubling-housing-push/ Is this truly the kind of world you want to live in, and leave to your children? Where developers are actually REWARDED for not building affordable housing? Voters need to urgently wake up and see this, and keep that in mind when you vote next year.