|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Making some tradeoffs to get more homes built, Mountain View backed an affordable housing development that will support lower-income residents, but will have very few parking spaces for them.
CRP Affordable Housing is proposing to build an eight-story apartment complex at 334 San Antonio Road, replacing a Valero gas station and auto repair shop.
The City Council unanimously approved the affordable housing development on Tuesday evening, despite expressing some concern about the dearth of vehicle parking spots – 16 to be exact.
“This isn’t the perfect project. I don’t think any of them are, but I will support it,” said Council member Lisa Matichak at the Dec. 17 meeting.
The project has a lot of upsides. CRP Affordable Housing plans to build 100-apartment units, with 99 of the units for lower-income households. The apartments are a mix of unit sizes, with about 60% designated as two and three-bedrooms to accommodate larger families.
CRP Affordable Housing also is not seeking city funding. Instead, it plans to rely on federal, state and private funding sources, a proposition that the council viewed favorably. If built, it would be the first affordable housing developer to not apply for city subsidies.
“The fact that you are going to be able to deliver this without city money is just terrific,” said Mayor Pat Showalter, directing her comments to the developer. “We really hope that … you can tutor other people about how to do it because we do have a pipeline and we have funding, but they don’t match,” she said.
There are some tradeoffs to make the project pencil out, however. A recent state law, AB 2097, allows developers to bypass parking requirements if projects are located within half a mile of major public transit. CRP Affordable Housing is using the provision to provide just 16 vehicle parking spaces.
The developer has built other projects with low parking ratios, according to Shellan Rodriguez, representing CRP Affordable Housing. People who are car dependent sometimes choose not to rent with them, or downsize their number of vehicles, she said.
“It’s really important to us that we are creating communities where people move into and then live there for as long as they need,” Rodriguez said. “Oftentimes, if they do have multiple cars, they’ll choose not to have one, or sell one, or not need one, or do other things so that they can have the housing,” she said.
The developer plans to offer new residents a $50 transit subsidy for the first three years after the project is constructed. There will also be 100 long-term bicycle spaces and 14 short-term spaces, according to the council report.
Council member Lucas Ramirez acknowledged that the lack of parking would be challenging for residents but said the need for affordable housing outweighed some of the project’s downsides.
“I would imagine folks move into a development like this eyes wide open. They know that they may not have access to a parking space and that’s the tradeoff that they make as well, benefiting from the stability of affordable housing,” he said.
Mountain View nonprofit forgoes federal funding, rather than compromise valuesFebruary 6, 2026 2:20 pm
Lol, yes please “tutor” developers how to build housing that makes parking a disaster for local residents. Five more of these and they’ll be parking in Palo Alto.
All these people will end up parking in the village at San Antonio during the week while they commute to work.
Saying the need for housing outweighs parking needs is like saying the need for water outweighs the need for food. Sure, you can survive on one for a bit, but not forever. Surely the council realizes housing is really a transportation problem. All the people that want to live here want to live here because they have a job close by. The poors generally don’t have tech jobs so they HAVE to drive to their office cleaning job.
Good Luck to that neighborhood that sits behind this soon to be monstrosity and be prepared for your residential streets to become public parking. Be real about anyone getting rid of a car or two. They’ll be parking on the streets for sure. Kinda’ like we’ve got here in Downtown Mountain View where people park to catch the train. This is progress so “they” say.
A family requires more than a single bicycle parking lot. Go beyond state law requirements and think about the people who will actually have to live there.
Trade-offs?! Be serious. 16 parking spots for 100 apartments? That should be a deal-breaker, not a trade-off. You say there will be 2 and 3 bedroom units “to accommodate larger families”….
#1. What is your definition of a larger family? My family is 2 people, and we are tight in a 2 BR apartment.
#2. The larger the family, the more the need for transportation options.
To suggest getting rid of a car is insulting…”because you’re low-income, we’re going to make your life more challenging.” Beggars can’t be choosers, right?
“You can get your kids to school and daycare on your bike, and then pedal your way to work, wherever that may be. Then do it again in reverse after work, sometimes in the dark.”
And public transportation isn’t always a reasonable option, depending on where you need to go.
City Council, you are tone-deaf, and apparently too far removed from the demographic you are trying to help. It would be wise to have representation from that demo be able to advise and weigh in on a decision like this, so a truly informed decision could be made.
Please do better.
Of course everyone drives everywhere when we bake that assumption into all of our city planning! Cities around the world with much worse weather than Mountain View , such as Paris, have shown that it’s possible to get away from cars if you make an effort.
There is no excuse for so few parking spaces. None. Just no excuse. Even only 50 spots would be very skimpy. Hope there is adequate, SAFE parking for scooters and bikes. Families with kids in school and no car, really? Jobs not close to transportation. I hope you never do this again. Rethinking voting plans for the future.
I’ve had the same thought about voting, but our Council has been pro-development for decades. That’s how we got into this mess. But recent thinking that allows buildings without parking is newer, and getting out of hand. What we’ve got now is a bunch of council members willing to OK just about anything that contains the minimum % of that holy grail, “affordable housing”, and screw parking and/or community benefits. I believe they know their assumptions about parking are wrong, and vote for more housing anyway. With all this new San Antonio area housing I would like to see the latest ridership numbers of our available mass transit: train, bus, and shuttle. Has it increased in proportion to the number of new units? I doubt they know, or care. The idea that lower-income people don’t need (or can live without) cars is a fantasy.
Yet another rental-housing proposal rubber-stamped by our city council.
Why more rental housing? Why not housing that actually has a path to ownership? That’s how you build a community: with people who have an ownership stake in the city, not with itinerant renters.