|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View City Council members agreed Tuesday night to allow a new 33-unit row house development, increasing the housing density in the area and adding more permanent housing to a city dominated by rental units.
The project won the council’s favor in a 6-1 vote, but not before some reservations were expressed by housing advocates on the council.
The project calls for demolishing 17 existing apartments in favor of the houses, and some council members found it hard to support a project that ditches affordable rental units in favor of homes that are expected to cost between $825,000 and $1.1 million.
The Mozart Development Company acquired the properties at both 2025 and 2065 San Luis Ave. over the last two years with the intent to build new homes on the 1.8 acres of land, between North Rengstorff Avenue and Sierra Vista Avenue. The project’s total of 33 houses butts up against the zoning limits for the multiple-family residential area.
The project will displace 16 households in the existing apartments on the property, according to a city staff report; 11 of the households qualify for assistance under the city’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. Households making less than 80 percent of the median income in the area qualify for the assistance, which includes a full refund of the tenant’s security deposit and three months’ worth of market-rate rent for a similar apartment in the area.
Justin Mozart, who spoke at the meeting, told council members that they have been in constant contact with the apartment tenants and have waived the rent for months in preparation for the new development. He said tenants have been given close to 180 days’ notice, which he said should ease the transition for the existing residents.
“We’ve done everything we could to go above and beyond the mandated notice time,” Mozart said.
Council member Lenny Siegel, who voted against the development, said he appreciated the good-faith effort on the part of the developers, but struggled to support the project as a whole. He said the property is now home to 17 “naturally affordable” units, which are all going to get torn down in favor of prohibitively expensive homes. At a time when city officials are grappling with the issue of residents forced out of the area because of the high cost of living, he said, it’s important to find ways to preserve the more affordable units available in Mountain View.
“We have project after project where we’re seeing existing housing people can afford to live in being torn down, and replaced with housing that is very expensive,” Siegel said. “We can’t subsidize enough affordable units — we’re doing the best we can — but we can’t keep up with the number being torn down.”
Council member Ken Rosenberg, who voted in favor of the project, said his decision wasn’t a slam-dunk. He said it’s important to promote more permanent residential properties in a city where 60 percent of the population lives in rental units, but losing a stack of apartments in the process makes it it tough to support the development wholeheartedly.
Rosenberg commended the developers for working closely with existing tenants, and said it ought to be the council’s charge to make sure it becomes common practice in Mountain View.
“I do want to send a signal to other developers … if there are people living on your land, that this council requires above-and-beyond-type of gestures,” he said. “We can’t put that into legal words, but you need to step outside of the comfort zone and realize that housing is impacted in this area and be part of the solution.”
Council member John McAlister had some concerns about the project related to traffic and the loss of heritage trees, but looked at the loss of apartments as a necessary step towards shoring up housing stock in the city. If more dense housing is the goal, McAlister said, then fellow council members ought to be supporting this kind of project.
“Here is an example of somebody increasing the density of their property, getting us more units, getting us more diverse housing stock,” McAlister said. “To make an omelet, you gotta crack some eggs. That is what’s required.”
Siegel, responding to McAlister’s comments, said the project is indicative of a larger problem in the city. Because of zoning restrictions, he said, the city has made it difficult to build housing on vacant or under-used land, and forces the council into the awkward position of approving housing projects that tear down existing housing in the process. Increasing available housing in the Bay Area is going to take awhile, so it’s important to preserve more affordable housing options until supply and demand evens out, Siegel said.
“It’ll take awhile for supply and demand to slow the growth in rents. So when we replace units that are affordable to the average middle-income person with units that most people can’t afford, we are creating a problem,” he said.
So here we have the very essence of the local housing crisis, distilled in a nutshell. Affluent home buyers, especially newcomers to the area, clamor for any new construction regardless of price. That demand incentivizes property developers to demolish existing housing and replace it with twice the density, and simultaneously higher prices per unit. Long-term tenants are displaced.
This is almost a direct competition between new affluent residents and existing renters who could still afford their rents.
I’m a long-term tenant (been renting in Mountain View since 2011), and I see this project as an opportunity to possibly finally buy a home – because the high-end cost of $1.1M is lower than most of the property prices I’m seeing these days (I’m hoping those most expensive ones would be 3BR). Just because I might be able to afford $1.1M (whereas I can’t afford $1.3M or $1.4M), does that mean my needs are discounted?
Great to see more “owned” housing coming available. I do feel for the people who will need to relocate but unfortunately that is life when you rent. One of the main reasons people by a home is for “stability” in a particular neighborhood or school district.
Rosenberg continues to show total ineptitude as a council member, as evidenced by his quote above. There should be clear legal standards for when developments are approved. Requiring “above-and-beyond type of gestures” means that the gestures are not, in fact, above and beyond. If the council wants to impose heightened standards, then change the law, but developers should not be required to divine from the mind of his Highness Rosenberg what the standards are on any particular day.
I am waiting to see this level of scrutiny on a 16 employee office space project.
We are creating miles of red tape for home creation, at the same time we grant office space concessions that are orders of magnitude larger.
Agree with Resident of OMV: Disgusting quote from Rosenberg. Does he not realize or not care?
Once again, Rosenberg, for whom I voted in the last election and will never support again, manages to disappoint. It was “tough” to support the development, but isn’t it wonderful that the landlords waived a few months rent for those families who are losing their affordable housing? In Rosenberg’s eyes, waiving a few months rent (when you’re about to make major sums in capital gains) makes you “part of the solution”! No, Ken, waiving a bit of rent may be nice, but part of the solution is maintaining/increasing the supply of affordable housing for individuals and families who are rapidly being priced out of Mountain View.
Good! Maybe we can finally see increase in school quality. We keep paying so much in rent but the school is 4/10?
I just hope that those displaced by the development are not decent middle class professional families who put a lot of effort in their kids’ education but just happen not to work in IT… This is my only concern.
Multi-story condos would be preferable IMO. But this does increase density, so that’s good.
We desperately need a grocery store on Rengstorff. Can the mayor please harass Trader Joes into building where the Fresh & Easy was? Dear god we need shopping.
The article reports that although some councilmembers “found it hard” to vote to eliminate apartments in favor of million dollars row houses proposed by a wealthy developer, they all voted for it – all except one. Politicians make me sick.
People are missing the most important issue from this story. Council member Siegel has no limits to what rights he wants to take away from some people, to be able to give to others.
What has happened to our city, and our country, when it becomes O.K for an elected official who swore to uphold the laws, then wants to deny a property owner the legal right to develop his property within current law, in the way he wants.
Wake up people, it is only a matter of time before these policies will hit you. Stand up now and say no more.
Not good
Each of these homes is 3 bedrooms with floor areas of up to 2500 square feet. They have 2 car garages. All this fits on these 2 small lots–not massive apartment complex locations. It seems reasonable to realize that these “units” are bigger than the ones being replaced. They are much more likely than existing single family detached homes to be shared by more than one potential renter. I wonder how many apartment rentals these 33 units will replace. I bet it’s more than 50 such rentals, by people or families who share one of these houses rather than renting 2 or 3 separate apartments. Much nicer situation than Carmel The Village units and more space and rooms each, so easier to share. These would cost owners under $5000 per month in mortgage payments and homeowner fees. Caremel The Village apartments rent for $8000 per month.
Could we please get City Council to look into a Grocery Store to replace F-N-Easy? I suggest that everyone here complete the location request form on the Trader Joe’s website and request that they lease out the old Fresh N Easy location
http://www.traderjoes.com/contact-us/location-request
It’s not the councils responsibility to search for a private business and tell it where to locate. Our neighborhood has been reluctant to support a local grocery store. When a retailer thinks he can make a profit, then he will open a grocery store. The council is not going to stop this. It takes both buyers and a willing seller to make a market
Design and building future housing so when the kids are gone some space can be converted into a studio or 1 bedroom rental unit.
Actually, our area does desperately want a grocery store. Fresh and Easy was a national bankruptcy. Regardless, it was never very fresh (or good).
Walgreens closed the location because it spends ~6 hours a day being blocked by bumper to bumper cars, because CalTrain won’t fix the lighting system at the intersection. I shopped there and filled prescriptions there, etc.
Thank you Lenny Siegel for taking into account the people who currently live in Mountain View. Despite his campaign promise of “Residents First”, John McAlister and his colleagues, when it comes to holding on to the remaining “affordable” housing in our area, continue to put developers first and residents last.
I might add how sick I am of council members, with their pained expressions, disclosing their “concerns” and “reservations” and what a “difficult decision this is” immediately before voting “yeah, sure, go ahead and tear down the affordable apartments and replace them with luxury housing.”
“Actually, our area does desperately want a grocery store. Fresh and Easy was a national bankruptcy. Regardless, it was never very fresh (or good)”
They closed the store well before declaring bankruptcy. Your argument is contradicted by the history of locating a store in your neighborhood. If its so desperate why has no chain elected to locate a store there?
I am a little baffled by the phrase “permanent housing” in your article” “Council OKs 33 new row houses”. What makes this housing more “permanent” than apartment houses? You quote Council member Ken Rosenberg saying “it’s important to promote more permanent residential properties in a city where 60 percent of the population lives in rental units”. What does “permanent” mean in this context? This development may not replace units rented out with units that are occupied by the owners. Unless it becomes a CID or PUD that limits or bans renting out.
I live in a condo complex in Mountain View with close to 300 units. Some condo complexes limit renting or leasing units to some percentage, say 25%. My complex chose to impose a different rule: No unit can be rented out in the first 12 months of ownership.
But there are buyers who consider this a good area to park their excess money. In my complex we have had buyers who happily left the unit they bought unoccupied for 12 months before renting it out. We even have an owner who has left her condo unoccupied for three years. Presumably because it is still a good investment.
Now, how does this contribute to providing more housing in Mountain View? A city that has around 75,000 residents, but about 85,000 employees working here.
@Not Very Hungry
Are you a crazy? Our neighborhood does not support grocery store? Our people don’t like convenience? We prefer to drive and sit on the rengstorff traffic to cross the train just to get a bottle of milk from a grocery store? With out shopping, everything is inconvenient, traffic will be more packed on rengstorff and central, because literally every single thing you need you need to cross to the train to get it.
Grocery store was closed because we had shitty fresh n easy, let’s have a real grocery store here. It is time to build a functional and neighborhood in monta loma and north mountain view. This will greatly solve the city’s traffic problem.
Darin makes some excellent points about the neighborhood supporting a real grocery store. The evidence contradict TQ’s assertion that the neighborhood will support a store. It may be an inconvenient truth, but the only thing stopping a “real ” grocery store from opening In this area is the lack of customer demand.
Hmmm
Yes! More buying, less renting will balance the community!!!!
It’s obvious from the article that the issue is oppressive zoning. I go by the vacant lot several times a week, and it’s a fine size and a fine location for a tall block of apartments. Instead, it’s being wasted on this 2-3 story BS that also has to destroy the apartments next door. If there was no zoning, developers could actually build the amount of housing needed to solve this crisis.
Also, Not Very Hungry, you just don’t have the facts about the loss of the Fresh and Easy. It didn’t close until the entire national chain died. Too bad you didn’t like it, but I relied on it.
I support this development. (I just wish it were denser/taller!) By adding to the housing supply, we help more Mountain View residents stay in their community in the long run. The alternatives like freezing construction, protecting all existing housing units and tenants, and rent control are short-term band-aids that don’t fix the underlying problems, like the jobs-housing imbalance.
It sounds like the existing tenants have been treated very fairly in this process: 180 days notice and months of free rent are nothing to sneeze at, plus many of them qualify for city assistance. Of course it’s never a pleasant experience to move when you’d rather stay in your rental unit, but that’s better than most renters get.
I find Lenny Siegel’s position just baffling – he’s not in favor of it because he’d rather keep the existing apartments which are the usual, run-down buildings like we have so many all over Mountain View… like, seriously?
I strongly agree with baffling
@Scott
Some may prefer multi-story condos, but the current proposal’s size already “butts up against” the neighborhood’s zoning limits. I’m not surprised the developer chose to build to the limits of the current zoning, rather than try to get these two properties in the middle of the block rezoned. That would have been a long, uncertain process. (Remember the proposed residential development of the Mayfield site?)
Meanwhile, the neighborhood’s smaller, older homes will gradually be replaced by new homes, built to the limits of the neighborhood’s zoning.
Permanent as opposed to short term rental. AirBnB, hotels and some apartments are only short term housing. Most apartments and single family homes whether condo or individual are permanent housing.
@TQ
There was a “real grocery store” there, before Fresh & Easy, before Golden Phoenix. It went out of business. Have the surrounding neighborhoods added enough residents to support a “real grocery store” there? If not, then the next one will just go out of business too.