|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a region that struggles with housing affordability, Mountain View is no exception as the median price for single-family homes sits at $2 million, far out of reach for most people.
But that could change, as Mountain View seeks to develop a strategy to make homeownership more affordable for moderate-income households.
Earlier this year, the Urban Land Institute San Francisco, a local nonprofit, presented a report based on a hypothetical question posed by the city: What would it take to build affordable, moderate-income homes on a vacant 1.4-acre city-owned site in the North Bayshore?
The premise is that Mountain View would provide the land at no cost to a developer but no other direct financial assistance. The question facing ULI is whether such a project would be financially possible.
“The city asked us, ‘Can we do 100% affordable homeownership that’s affordable in perpetuity with nothing more than the land restriction?’ The answer is kind of … no-yes,” said David Cropper, a ULI executive board member who presented a draft of the report in January.
The ULI report lays out three possible scenarios that could create more affordable homeownership opportunities in the North Bayshore with options ranging from low-rise townhomes to five and eight-story stacked flat condos.
Each design would require different kinds of tradeoffs with the number of housing units that could be built, levels of affordability and price points.
Ultimately, the report backs the option of townhomes and five-story stacked flat condos as the most feasible models that would require minimal additional subsidies from the city.
“Missing middle housing is missing for a reason,” the report said, adding that Mountain View was on the right path to getting it built.
Wayne Chen, the city’s housing director, said in January that the nonprofit’s work explores options to build housing on the city-owned site, and that this planning for the property is still in the early, initial stages.
Three-story townhomes
The townhome option is at the lowest end of possible housing density for the site. Arranged in a L-configuration, the three-story buildings would provide 44 units of affordable moderate-income housing. The residential development would have an even split of two and three-bedroom units and would include single-family garages and green space.
To accommodate the design, however, the units would be smaller than what is typical for a townhome. The two-bedroom units also could pose a challenge in terms of market desirability, as these often are not seen as suitable for individuals or growing families, the report said.
Even with the smaller units, the compromise might not be enough to make the project financially viable. The ULI report suggested that the city would have to make one more concession, specifically dropping an assumption that the construction be done with prevailing wages, which increases project costs.
Even so, this model could be easier to finance than other options because the construction could be phased, lessening the risk of development, the report said.
The project’s estimated cost is $26 million.
Five-story stacked flat condos
A five-story condominium building is another option for the site, offering a lot more housing than the townhomes. The 116-unit condo development would have a mix of one, two and three-bedroom units.
The five-story building would include a one-level parking garage with a parking ratio of 0.79, which is less than one parking space per residential unit. This could be a market deterrent, the report said.
The report also notes that half of the units would be affordable to moderate-income households but the other half would need to be sold at market-rate for financial feasibility. Still, the project would add “a significant infusion of attainable housing” in Mountain View, the report said.
The project’s estimated cost is $96 million.
Eight-story stacked flat condos
An eight-story condominium could be built on the site as well, providing the greatest housing density of all three options. The 180-unit condo development would have a mix of one, two and three-story units spread across five residential levels above a two-story parking garage.
Similar to the five-story condo development, there would not be enough parking spaces for each residential unit, creating possible challenges with market uptake. The eight-story building also would be more costly to build because of the two-level concrete parking podium, the report said.
The project’s estimated cost is $170 million. The ULI report did not recommend the eight-story condo as a feasible option for the city to meet its middle-income housing goals.
‘The end of an era’: After 36 years in Palo Alto, Il Fornaio prepares to closeJanuary 13, 2026 2:05 pm
Even with the taxpayers buying land and giving it away, they can’t make the numbers pencil. Some say it’s not my tax money, it’s the developer’s funding it. Well where do they get their money from?…..the people that buy/rent market rate housing. So in effect, landlords raise their rents so the city gets money to buy land for middle housing.
One thing the very good report doesn’t dig into is how much more expensive union labor is than non union labor no how much that adds to the cost of a home. So far I haven’t seen any non-union buildings fall down, so they can’t be that bad!
The difference between union labor and non union labor is that everyone on a union site (save for apprentices are qualified to be there. With less learning on the job, there’s more quality and skilled labor. That’s not to say that you can’t have a non-union crew build solid, safe buildings. It is to say that it lowers the probability of the small differences that make union built dwellings last longer and provide a higher quality of usability. So, do you give that up for lower costs?
Maybe. For longer lasting buildings, like a hospital, that might make sense. I hadn’t though of rework costs. But for apt buildings where the expected life is 30years, there’s still no evidence it’s worth the extra 20-40%. Good comment!
This matter raised awareness about the long-term effects of TCE on public health, prompting the EPA to address concerns and regulate emissions.
Wasn’t this the location of the Google fantasy project that was teased by the company with Mountain View for more than 10 years? Is this just another dream? By the way the City still hasn’t dealt with the water pollution case it lost in Federal Court. The case where the storm water drains beed to be treated because e coli from wildlife is polluting the bay. Where is the water treatment plant design? Where is the storm drain redesign? The recent Sacket V EPA case did not help Mountain View. And right now the case is just a atom bomb on this city. The current path looks like Mountain View will lose. And what about the TCE vapor problem in Mountain View. It is known that the outside air is exceeding the TCE EPA exposure standard? In December 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency banned TCE. It was to go into effect on March 21, but now some lawmakers want to reverse that ban. TCE, a clear, colorless liquid, has also been found in household products, including spray adhesives, aerosol cleaners and paint removers. So consumers have faced increased exposure if they use the chemicals in their homes and, unknowingly, inhale the vapors or absorb it through skin contact.
In 2023, elevated TCE levels forced several Wisconsin apartment buildings to evacuate. Residents were displaced after moving into housing before required testing for the harmful chemicals had been completed. This incident highlights ongoing concerns about TCE exposure at home, leading to class-action lawsuits and calls for stricter regulations of site testing and cleanup efforts.
In the early 2000s, residents of Mountain View, Calif., became concerned about health risks after discovering their exposure to harmful levels of TCE released from a nearby semiconductor plant.
This matter raised awareness about the long-term effects of TCE on public health, prompting the EPA to address concerns and regulate emissions.
In what sense is this going to be affordable? If it’s ownership of the building space together with a long term lease, the owners still need to get a mortgage and buy the building unit and pay the ground lease in some fashion. If their profit potential on a resell is deed restricted, I’d question if that is really ownership of housing. If there is a limit on profit on a resell, how does that maintain continuous affordability over time?
The problem is that the rental units designed for non low income residents are limited to those housing groups, families, earning between 80% and 120% of area median income. Around here that is still very expensive.
In the case of condo units, the HOA maintenance fees are often quite high, and it’s very difficult to predict what might make them go up over the years. the only thing that makes that risk worthwhile is the potential for appreciation on a future resale. I think this means that condo units aren’t suitable for achieving long term affordability across multiple owners over the years. It’s too much to hope for.