News

Housing woes still dominate city politics

2018 was a year of grappling with growing pains

For a snapshot of Mountain View's housing situation, take a look at the soon-to-be complete Evelyn Avenue Family Apartments. The new project, located at 779 E. Evelyn Ave., is held up as exactly the kind of housing expansion the city needs. It features 116 new apartments as well as a gym, a homework center and community event space.

But most importantly, all of the apartments are subsidized for families earning well below the median income. That means they provide a rare opportunity for someone working in construction, retail or the restaurant industry to afford new housing.

The Evelyn Avenue Family Apartments are the largest affordable-housing project completed in Mountain View in years, but what resulted is typical -- it has turned into a fierce lottery. The developer has reportedly received more than 1,500 applications, three-quarters of them from families already residing in Mountain View.

It is just one example of the pent-up demand for housing that Mountain View faced through 2018 that's likely to continue to dominate city politics in 2019. City officials are mostly united in the belief that adding housing could help cure the Bay Area's worst problems, such as traffic congestion, wage inequality and possibly even global warming. But that housing push requires a series of sacrifices from local residents, and it relies on Mountain View's example eventually inspiring other nearby communities to take similar risks.

"Our commitment to build housing remains the biggest thing that makes Mountain View stand out," said Mayor Lenny Siegel. "More and more, other communities are now realizing it, and they're following our lead."

In this look back at 2018, the Voice reviews some of the top stories and issues, and how they developed through the year.

Homelessness

There could hardly be a clearer sign of the housing crisis than the surging number of people living on the streets. Across the Bay Area, homelessness has become the most visible sign of the region's high cost of living and its history of restricting new housing development.

This homelessness epidemic is remarkable because it is pushing many children and working families onto the streets. Earlier in 2018, the Voice profiled students at local public schools and community colleges who were living out of vehicles because their families couldn't afford housing in Mountain View.

In Santa Clara County, more than 2,500 youth are believed to be homeless, nearly triple the number last counted in 2015. Many experts believe this figure is actually a severe undercount.

Santa Clara County has made strides in building new housing, reportedly adding about 1,500 new subsidized apartments since 2015. This growth comes thanks to the $950 million Measure A housing bond that South Bay voters approved in 2016.

In Mountain View, the politics surrounding this issue have become extremely polarizing, especially when it comes to people living out of vehicles on public streets. A large number of residents say their sympathy has bottomed out, and they have publicly complained that inhabited cars shouldn't be parked in front of their homes.

For much of the year, the City Council held off on imposing harsher parking restrictions on inhabited vehicles until there was some alternative in place. Earlier in 2018, the city helped sponsor a safe parking program, but it has managed to secure only eight spaces. Mountain View officials believe there are about 300 inhabited vehicles in the city.

At their last meeting, council members approved a new safe parking site that could hold an extra 11 vehicles, but they also signaled they wanted some kind of stricter parking measures. Those restrictions are expected to come back before the city in early 2019.

Rent control

Intertwined with Mountain View's housing troubles, the city's controversial and complex rent control program hit its stride in 2018. The system, which ties rent increases on older apartments to inflation, was approved by voters in 2016, but it was held up for much of 2017 by lawsuits and policymaking.

But 2018 showcased how the fledgling program still faces plenty of new challenges and unanswered questions. For example, mobile home residents led a campaign to also be included under the rent control program. After waging an unsuccessful lawsuit, they are currently considering an appeal, or possibly a ballot initiative in 2020.

Similarly, rent control opponents who lost in court also sought redress through the ballot box. A political action committee, Measure V Too Costly, began collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to essentially gut rent control by allowing it to only take effect under extraordinary circumstances. The measure spurred allegations by tenant advocates that it was a "sneaky repeal" being promoted under the guise of a reform or expansion of rent control. The measure failed to get enough signatures to qualify for the 2018 election, but it has qualified for the 2020 ballot.

Rent control's system for sorting out tenant-landlord disputes was also put to the test. As of October, the city had received a total of 14 petitions from landlords seeking additional rent increases, half of which were decided, settled or withdrawn. Two cases went to long drawn-out appeals, including one over a 105-unit apartment building at 141 Del Medio Ave.

The year also showed how much was being demanded from the city's Rental Housing Committee, as the volunteer members often endured long meetings and fierce public complaints. Committee members Tom Means and Evan Ortiz both announced their resignations, leaving two seats in need of new members.

North Bayshore

If the capstone of 2017 was the precise plan to build 9,850 homes in North Bayshore, then 2018 was marked by the tricky details for how to get that done.

After years of work and countless meetings, city leaders laid out an ambitious road map for bringing thousands of homes into the heart of the tech hub. But the challenges inherent in that goal became clear as the first residential project came forward.

A 635-unit project by Sobrato was nearly scuttled based on the hefty costs, particularly for parks and a future school. Since 2015, those fees have nearly doubled to about $60,000 per apartment -- or, in the case of Sobrato's project, about $38 million in additional costs. The city later agreed to reduce the fees in order to make the project pencil out.

Google has also raised warnings that the city's fees could need to be lowered. In December, the company pitched its first high-level plans to eventually build 8,000 homes in North Bayshore, split among three new mini-neighborhoods. The first of these plans calls for the creation of the Shorebird neighborhood, including 2,950 homes and 1.18 million square feet of new offices.

Other plans for a new neighborhood at a gateway property along Shoreline Boulevard face a different challenge. The firm SyWest, which owns about 16 acres in the area, announced it could not reach a compromise with Google, and it is independently moving forward with development plans.

Meanwhile, the future prospects of a new school in North Bayshore remain uncertain. Google has reportedly offered a 3.5-acre site near San Antonio Road at Casey Avenue.

Election

The 2018 election represented a stunning change of course for Mountain View -- all three council incumbents, who had been elected four years earlier, are leaving office. Siegel and Councilwoman Pat Showalter lost in their re-election bids, while Councilman Ken Rosenberg declined to seek a second term.

In their places, three newcomers will be stepping in. Ellen Kamei, Lucas Ramirez and Alison Hicks will assume their council seats later this month.

It was the closest election in Mountain View going back at least 20 years, particularly for Hicks and Showalter, who traded third and fourth place several times as updated vote results came in over the course of a month. In the end, Hicks won by just 97 votes.

But it was hard to diagnose what message voters were sending, aside from an anti-incumbent sentiment. Aside from former council member John Inks, who finished last, the other five candidates campaigned on strikingly similar platforms, voicing support for housing growth, rent control and tolerance toward the homeless.

Siegel believed that residents were frustrated with the slow pace of housing growth, despite its popular support. As mayor, he said he suspects that he became a target for voter anger.

It remains to be seen what this means for city policies. In the coming months, the new City Council will face several big decisions to test their mettle on homelessness, mass transit and North Bayshore housing growth.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.

Comments

65 people like this
Posted by Concerned MVer
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 3, 2019 at 3:25 pm

Siegal and Showalter were shown the door for a specific reason - they did not rid our streets of RVs, plain and simple. For Siegal to now deflect that he somehow "became a target for voter anger" is inaccurate.

Please, give the MV voting public some credit. He was voted out due to his politics and the he refused to rid the city streets of the RVs. He and Showater are gone, Clark is next if he does not change his course.


27 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2019 at 3:55 pm

RVs are a symptom of the housing crisis. Decades of underbuilding relative to demand needs to be corrected ASAP with tall, dense construction next to existing mass transit (which can be further invested in to service the increasing headcount). Until then, RVs and hacker houses will be the norm as people go to extremes to live near the good paying jobs in the area.


44 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 3, 2019 at 4:12 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

[Post removed due to repeated violations of terms of use]


14 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2019 at 6:30 pm

"And STATISTICALLY the majority of RV dwellers are not people we want living in our city."

This same mentality brought us Sundown Towns. Rather than stigmatize a group of people and try to restrict who can move into the city, you should accept that cities are fluid, they grow, and people move in and out of them. Go live in a gated community with an HOA if you want more control over who lives around you.


45 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jan 3, 2019 at 10:30 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

The housing dabacle in Mountain View lies squarely with city hall. For years the green light has been given to employers--build the city's prestige while feeding the beast at city hall with permit fees and taxes. Only when pressured to do so has the city made mediocre efforts to address the displacement issue. No, Mountain View, you are not leading the way. You are a shining example of creating the problem rather than solving the problem.

Some float the idea of a moratorium on the redevelopment of antiquated 60's era apartment sites. Rather, the moratorium should be enacted immediately on further office development in the city until the housing mess reaches equilibrium in the Bay Area. The only appropriate "emergency ordinance" is stopping millions of square feet of office space added to an already dysfunctional city.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2019 at 11:10 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“Some float the idea of a moratorium on the redevelopment of antiquated 60's era apartment sites. Rather, the moratorium should be enacted immediately on further office development in the city until the housing mess reaches equilibrium in the Bay Area. The only appropriate "emergency ordinance" is stopping millions of square feet of office space added to an already dysfunctional city.”

Unfortunat4ely for the city a new law was initiated that now requires all new project to provide an equal amount of housing units or more for any project. It is called:

“GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV

TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] ( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66210] ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

CHAPTER 4. Zoning Regulations [65800 - 65912] ( Chapter 4 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )

ARTICLE 2. Adoption of Regulations [65850 - 65863.13] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )

65863. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 or its housing element program to make sites available pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). At no time, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), shall a city, county, or city and county by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households.

(B) (1) NO CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY SHALL, BY ADMINISTRATIVE, QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR OTHER ACTION, REDUCE, OR REQUIRE OR PERMIT THE REDUCTION OF, THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ANY PARCEL TO, OR ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL AT, A LOWER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF SUBDIVISION (G), UNLESS THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY MAKES WRITTEN FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element.

(B) THE REMAINING SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. THE FINDING SHALL INCLUDE A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL.

2) IF A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY, BY ADMINISTRATIVE, QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR OTHER ACTION, ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL WITH FEWER UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY THAN IDENTIFIED IN THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THAT PARCEL, THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY SHALL MAKE A WRITTEN FINDING SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT REMAINING SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. THE FINDING SHALL INCLUDE A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL.

(C) (1) IF A REDUCTION IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ANY PARCEL WOULD RESULT IN THE REMAINING SITES IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT NOT BEING ADEQUATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584, THE JURISDICTION MAY REDUCE THE DENSITY ON THAT PARCEL IF IT IDENTIFIES SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL, ADEQUATE, AND AVAILABLE SITES WITH AN EQUAL OR GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE JURISDICTION SO THAT THERE IS NO NET LOSS OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAPACITY.

(2) IF THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESULTS IN FEWER UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY THAN IDENTIFIED IN THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THAT PARCEL AND THE JURISDICTION DOES NOT FIND THAT THE REMAINING SITES IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ARE ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED BY INCOME LEVEL, THE JURISDICTION SHALL WITHIN 180 DAYS IDENTIFY AND MAKE AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL ADEQUATE SITES TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED BY INCOME LEVEL. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL AUTHORIZE A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY TO DISAPPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE BASIS THAT APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 856, Sec. 7. (SB 1333) Effective January 1, 2019.)”

It would appear that under this law, there are new controls over the City by the state laws regarding no reduction of units are legal in California.

On top of that there is this law:

GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV

TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] ( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66210] ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

CHAPTER 3. Local Planning [65100 - 65763] ( Chapter 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )

ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements [65580 - 65589.8] ( Article 10.6 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143. )

65589.5. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(A) THE LACK OF HOUSING, INCLUDING EMERGENCY SHELTERS, IS A CRITICAL PROBLEM THAT THREATENS THE ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL QUALITY OF LIFE IN CALIFORNIA.

(B) CALIFORNIA HOUSING HAS BECOME THE MOST EXPENSIVE IN THE NATION. THE EXCESSIVE COST OF THE STATE’S HOUSING SUPPLY IS PARTIALLY CAUSED BY ACTIVITIES AND POLICIES OF MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT LIMIT THE APPROVAL OF HOUSING, INCREASE THE COST OF LAND FOR HOUSING, AND REQUIRE THAT HIGH FEES AND EXACTIONS BE PAID BY PRODUCERS OF HOUSING.

(C) AMONG THE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE ACTIONS ARE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY HOUSEHOLDS, LACK OF HOUSING TO SUPPORT EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, IMBALANCE IN JOBS AND HOUSING, REDUCED MOBILITY, URBAN SPRAWL, EXCESSIVE COMMUTING, AND AIR QUALITY DETERIORATION.

(D) MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO NOT GIVE ADEQUATE ATTENTION TO THE ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL COSTS OF DECISIONS THAT RESULT IN DISAPPROVAL OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, REDUCTION IN DENSITY OF HOUSING PROJECTS, AND EXCESSIVE STANDARDS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.



(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. IF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INCLUDES A MIX OF INCOME CATEGORIES, AND THE JURISDICTION HAS NOT MET OR EXCEEDED ITS SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR ONE OR MORE OF THOSE CATEGORIES, THEN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE USED TO DISAPPROVE OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THE SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED MET BY THE JURISDICTION SHALL BE CALCULATED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FORMS AND DEFINITIONS THAT MAY BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.

(2) THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR EMERGENCY SHELTER AS PROPOSED WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, AND THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO SATISFACTORILY MITIGATE OR AVOID THE SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT WITHOUT RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT UNAFFORDABLE TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OR RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE. AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, A “SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACT” MEANS A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT, AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT, BASED ON OBJECTIVE, IDENTIFIED WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS, POLICIES, OR CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED ON THE DATE THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

(3) THE DENIAL OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH SPECIFIC STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, AND THERE IS NO FEASIBLE METHOD TO COMPLY WITHOUT RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT UNAFFORDABLE TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OR RENDERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE.

(B) IF THE LOCAL AGENCY HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY IN THE INVENTORY OF LAND IN ITS HOUSING ELEMENT SITES THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR HOUSING WITHIN THE PLANNING PERIOD AND ARE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR ALL INCOME LEVELS PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584, THEN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED TO DISAPPROVE OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED FOR A SITE DESIGNATED IN ANY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL USES OR DESIGNATED IN ANY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL USES IF RESIDENTIAL USES ARE PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED WITHIN COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS. IN ANY ACTION IN COURT, THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE ON THE LOCAL AGENCY TO SHOW THAT ITS HOUSING ELEMENT DOES IDENTIFY ADEQUATE SITES WITH APPROPRIATE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE LOCAL AGENCY’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME CATEGORIES.

(G) THIS SECTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO CHARTER CITIES BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT THE LACK OF HOUSING, INCLUDING EMERGENCY SHELTER, IS A CRITICAL STATEWIDE PROBLEM.

(2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:

(A) Residential units only.

(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.

(C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.

(3) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. Housing units targeted for lower income households shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based. Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits are based.

(4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to ensure continued availability of units for very low or low-income households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 243, Sec. 1. (AB 3194) Effective January 1, 2019.)”

Finally the new laws requiring Inclusionary housing are:

“GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV

TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] ( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66210] ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )

CHAPTER 3. Local Planning [65100 - 65763] ( Chapter 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )

ARTICLE 10.10. Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone [65620 - 65625] ( Article 10.10 added by Stats. 2017, Ch. 369, Sec. 2. )

65623 (A) (1) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2), FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 65621, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT SATISFIES ALL OF THE CRITERIA LISTED IN PARAGRAPHS (3) TO (7), INCLUSIVE, OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 65621 IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS DEEMED COMPLETE.

(3) (A) AT LEAST 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50093 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MIDDLE INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 65008; AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE; AND AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE RESTRICTED FOR A TERM OF 55 YEARS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50105 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.

(B) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LEGAL COMMITMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF UNITS FOR VERY LOW, LOW-, MODERATE-, OR MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR 55 YEARS FOR RENTAL UNITS AND 45 YEARS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 92, Sec. 116. (SB 1289) Effective January 1, 2019.)”

It would appear that the City has a lot of new rules to follow. It would appear that the City has no choice in the matter anymore. As of January 1, 2019, the RULES and the GAME has CHANGED.


40 people like this
Posted by Max
a resident of another community
on Jan 3, 2019 at 11:38 pm

After living in many areas across the US, it is perplexing to me that the RVs are allowed to be parked on any city street let alone allow people to live in them. Many residential areas across the US do not allow RVs even in one's own drive way for storage.
Public parks and resort destinations, have always enforced designated areas where RVs are allowed to be parked and others that allow inhabitants. Even KOA campground have designated areas.
That solution here is limited due to the lack of space and high real estate values. However, there must be some areas in the Shoreline Landfill area that the City of Mountain View still controls that could be utilized and paved to allow an RV Park. It would be close to Goggle which without its enormous growth, this situation would not be such an issue. Many of the RV Dwellers work there.
Charge a fair price to rent stalls and provide hook ups or at least refuse and sewerage collection and charge for these services. Also charge for people to maintain the facilities. If the RV Dwellers cannot afford these public RV parks, then they should not be allowed to park on the streets either.
Taxes should be paid by these renters that could be included in the rental price and fees. This only seems fair so that everyone who resides in Mountain View pays into the general fund. Only then can we all afford to live here and contribute.
Ordinances need to be passed so that the police and fire departments can enforce this reasonable alternative and protect the existing neighborhoods. This will keep our properties desirable and valuable.
When I first started working in this area it was during the late 1990s, the fire marshal and police would routinely patrol our industrial area. They would not allow RVs on the street for more than a set number of days. They even cited RVs parked on the owner's property because the industrial area was not zoned to allow it. This was during the Dotcom Era when every building on our street was packed with people often living in hammocks over their desks. For sale signs where never seen since property was in such a high demand. In hind site, it seems like a practice that is greatly needed now to control this mess.


17 people like this
Posted by Worker bee
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2019 at 6:58 am

Let's say you are now mayor. Let's say your inherit the town with 100 jobs and space for 90 workers (for simplicity, ignoring children, etc). This means that 10 workers per day must commute in from out of town.
Your neighboring cities that surround you also have this 90:100 ratio. They also have a deficit of housing.
This means that workers must commute from further and further away. This is exactly what had happened to Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and every other City in the Bay Area, and now we have people commuting in 2 or more hours, and from as far away as Sacramento and Salinas.
As a consequence of these long commutes, it's no wonder that traffic is insane. It's no wonder that people are living out of RVs, because the alternative is not sustainable.

It is clear to me that we need hundreds of thousands of new apartments for everyone to live in. In all cities. Mountain View included.


27 people like this
Posted by Or,
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2019 at 11:48 am

just stop adding all those extra jobs. Stop pretending that more-jobs-than-housing can (for some unexplained reason) solely be dealt with by adding yet more housing to old communities with already strained infrastructure.

After all, it has happened before, repeatedly, here in recessionary times. "Constant job growth" is a perception only of those with both limited memory and no sense of history.


5 people like this
Posted by Censorship
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 4, 2019 at 12:37 pm

[Post removed, user is banned for repeated violations of terms of use]


4 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jan 4, 2019 at 1:29 pm

[Post removed, user is banned for repeated violations of terms of use]


Like this comment
Posted by Censorship
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 4, 2019 at 1:42 pm

[Post removed, user is banned for repeated violations of terms of use]


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2019 at 2:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

You know we are due for Rea Estate price drops whe you read the it is a "buyers market' found here:

(Web Link)

Specifically:

"What can we expect for the future of the housing market?

I try not to predict what will happen. I can make a guess, but I do not base my investment decisions on whether the markets will increase or decrease. I never thought prices would have risen as high as they have, but I also would have thought the builders would have built many more homes than they have.

I really liked buying rental properties in 2010 through 2014. I wish I could buy houses in that price range again in my area, but I can’t. We will probably never see prices as low as they were 10 years ago, unless there is some kind of massive economic or natural disaster that will have most of us forgetting about housing altogether. That leaves us investing in other asset classes like commercial buildings or going to other markets. I am certainly not sitting on the sidelines hoping for a crash that may or may not happen, and neither should you."

Also:

(Web Link)

Specifically:

"There is also more supply on the market now, as new listings come out amid a slower sales pace. Last spring, more than half of the nation’s 50 largest housing markets were considered “overvalued,” meaning prices were at least 10 percent higher than their long-term sustainable levels. In November, that share slipped to 44 percent.

Mortgage rates shot up in the fall, and by the start of November the average rate on the popular 30-year fixed mortgage sat just over 5 percent, according to Mortgage News Daily. It has since fallen back, in response to the major sell-off in the U.S. stock market, and wider concerns over global economic growth. The rate hit 4.61 percent on the last day of 2018. That is still 57 basis points higher than the end of 2017.

The drop in rates, however, comes amid concern over the U.S. economy. Buying a home, which is most consumers’ single largest investment, is an incredibly emotional decision, and this new worry could overshadow the benefits of the drop in rates and prices.

“A strong economy helps homeowners feel confident about the value of their property,” said Frank Martell, president and CEO of CoreLogic. “If recent declines in the stock market shake consumer confidence in the national economy, we may see homeowners’ perception of home value change and a subsequent buyer’s market emerge in 2019.”

Simply put, the future is not bright, and whearing rose tinted sunglasses now will make it difficult to see the signs. The fact that we are not going to see the government shutdown end perhaps for a year is going to do some serious damage.

In the end the City is subject to the tides of the economic ocean. And the damaging waves keep on coming.


14 people like this
Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Jan 4, 2019 at 2:14 pm

Let's see how the 300 to 400 new residents of these subsidized apartments on Evelyn alleviate traffic and reduce waste.


18 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2019 at 2:24 pm

Robyn's response highlights an all-too-common viewpoint amongst a certain generation. What's the most important priority for her? Her personal convenience in driving around her single-occupancy vehicle. The people being forced to live in their cars are secondary, since, as mvresident2003 so eloquently put it, they're "not people we want living in our city."


15 people like this
Posted by MV Renter
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jan 4, 2019 at 2:31 pm

@Randy Guelph,

I share Robyn's concerns. And I'm a renter, I'm Gen X, I can't afford to buy one of the condos/rowhouses that are being built from torn-down apartments.

And yes, my personal convenience in driving around in my single-occupancy vehicle is one of the reasons I pay a fearsome price in rent to live in Mountain View.

I'm against urbanization of this suburb. Or I wouldn't be paying so much to live in the suburb.


16 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 4, 2019 at 2:35 pm

Might I suggest Gilroy? Otherwise, I'm not sure there's much of a discussion to be had with someone who prioritizes their own personal driving convenience over people having shelter.


2 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2019 at 4:37 pm

Darin is a registered user.

I don't see how the Evelyn Avenue Family Apartments, by themselves, will make much of a difference. There are only 116 units, and they received more than 1500 applications. Another apartment complex just like it could open tomorrow, and it would certainly get at least 1400 applications for 116 units.


2 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jan 5, 2019 at 5:01 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

I'll go a step further and speculate that there could be 14 more Evelyn Avenue Family Apartment complexes built in Mountain View and there would be 1,500 applying for the 116 units in the 15th complex. Built it and they will come.


2 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2019 at 5:47 pm

Don't build it and they'll come anyway. In front of your house in an RV.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2019 at 6:36 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to both Darin and The Successful Businessman

Darin Said:

“I don't see how the Evelyn Avenue Family Apartments, by themselves, will make much of a difference. There are only 116 units, and they received more than 1500 applications. Another apartment complex just like it could open tomorrow, and it would certainly get at least 1400 applications for 116 units.”

There is a problem with that idea, NOW that STATEWIDE INCUSIONARY HOUSING WILL REQUIRE 15% AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR THOSE WITH LOW INCOMES.

15% of 116 units are 16 units that WILL NEED to be affordable to those earning 80% or less of the area median income level which is $119,983. The HUD standard regarding rent verses income standards are found here (Web Link) and are determined by this:”

HOW IS RENT DETERMINED?

Your rent, which is referred to as the Total Tenant Payment (TTP) in this program, would be based on your family's anticipated gross annual income less deductions, if any. HUD regulations allow HAs to exclude from annual income the following allowances: $480 for each dependent; $400 for any elderly family, or a person with a disability; and some medical deductions for families headed by an elderly person or a person with disabilities. Based on your application, the HA representative will determine if any of the allowable deductions should be subtracted from your annual income. Annual income is the anticipated total income from all sources received from the family head and spouse, and each additional member of the family 18 years of age or older.

The formula used in determining the TTP is the highest of the following, rounded to the nearest dollar:

(1) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income. (Monthly Adjusted Income is annual income less deductions allowed by the regulations);

(2) 10 percent of monthly income;

(3) welfare rent, if applicable; or

(4) a $25 minimum rent or higher amount (up to $50) set by an HA. “

So let’s use 10% of monthly gross income, and 80% of $120,000= 96000. You divide that by 12 and you get $8,000/month. Then you take 10% of that it comes to $800 a month for housing. Let’s use 30% net income without any reduction of the same level it comes to $2,400/month for housing. But that is without any reductions due to acceptable costs like food, and also any deductions regarding $480 a month for any dependent and an additional $400 for those with a disability or elderly.

NOW that STATEWIDE INCUSIONARY HOUSING WILL REQUIRE 5% AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR THOSE WITH LOW INCOMES.

15% of 116 units are 7 units that WILL NEED to be affordable to those earning 50% or less of the area median income level which is $119,983. The HUD standard regarding rent verses income standards are found here (Web Link) and are determined by this:”

So let’s use 10% of monthly gross income, and 50% of $120,000= 60,000. You divide that by 12 and you get $5,000/month. Then you take 10% of that it comes to $500 a month for housing . Let’s use 30% net income without any reduction of the same level it comes to $1,500/month for housing. But that is without any reductions due to acceptable costs like food, and also any deductions regarding $480 a month for any dependent and an additional $400 for those with a disability or elderly.

NOW that STATEWIDE INCUSIONARY HOUSING WILL REQUIRE 30% AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR THOSE WITH MODERATE INCOMES.

30% of 116 units are 34 units that WILL NEED to be affordable to those earning 120% or less of the area median income level which is $119,983. The same law require that 30 % must be affordable to those earning up to 120% AMI which is $144,000 annually or $12,000 a month take the 30% rule and that means the rent or ownership cost can be no larger than $3,600/month for housing. But that is without any reductions due to acceptable costs like food, and also any deductions regarding $480 a month for any dependent and an additional $400 for those with a disability or elderly.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER IT IS SINGLE FAMILY UNITS FOR SALE OR RENT EXCEPT FOR ONLY SINGLE HOME CONSTRUCTION IN A SINGLE LAND ZONE. I.E. A PERSON TEARING DOWN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A SPECIFIC ADDRESS, NOT A MULTIPLE UNIT LAND AREA.

The rest can be sold for “Market Rate”

If this is not done the project is against STATE laws.

The Successful Businessman stated:

“I'll go a step further and speculate that there could be 14 more Evelyn Avenue Family Apartment complexes built in Mountain View and there would be 1,500 applying for the 116 units in the 15th complex. Built it and they will come.”

I agree as long as they all comply with state laws.


2 people like this
Posted by Tony
a resident of Slater
on Jan 6, 2019 at 9:47 am

Tony is a registered user.

Why don't we have Trump build a wall around Mountain View and deport homeless?


8 people like this
Posted by Miscreants
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jan 6, 2019 at 1:37 pm

Yep, that’s right Randy, most of us don’t want druggies, miscreants living in our neighborhoods.


6 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 6, 2019 at 1:51 pm

Neighbors being priced out of their homes and forced to live in their vehicles aren't "miscreants," no matter how angry you feel about having to see the effects of the housing crisis at your front door.

Perhaps you'd like to endorse Tony's tongue-in-cheek suggestion above?


2 people like this
Posted by Tony
a resident of Slater
on Jan 6, 2019 at 2:13 pm

Tony is a registered user.

OK Randy,

Lets build Trump's wall and Deport all the Landlords to Cabo and Maui.
Someone's got to go if you want everyone to have a house in Mountain View!


6 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 6, 2019 at 2:32 pm

The moral solution to having too many people and not enough houses isn't to try to get rid of people, it's to build more houses.


7 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 6, 2019 at 3:00 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Randy,

Another option, MOVE the JOBS to less expensive places.

Which is already happening.

The reason why housing is NOT being built is becasue the property owners and investors KNOW it.

They know that this area is seeing a slow but steady loss of workers. And a lot of those investors are seeing their investments become more expensive and risky.

So they just sait there and hold on until they go bankrupt.


Like this comment
Posted by Tony
a resident of Slater
on Jan 6, 2019 at 5:22 pm

Tony is a registered user.

Businessman,
If we could move all of the landlords out by deporting them to vacation places like Maui, Cabo or even the French Riviera and the city of Mountain View paid them 500K/year to stay there then we could free up a lot of housing.


2 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jan 6, 2019 at 5:32 pm

Tony, it wouldn't free up any significant amount of housing because the bulk of Mountain View landlords already don't live in Mountain View.


8 people like this
Posted by left for cheaper
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jan 6, 2019 at 7:13 pm

left for cheaper is a registered user.

The best part about reading Mountain View voice is definitely the comment section. Its specifically the reason I read this online publication


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 7, 2019 at 4:00 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Tony you said:

“If we could move all of the landlords out by deporting them to vacation places like Maui, Cabo or even the French Riviera and the city of Mountain View paid them 500K/year to stay there then we could free up a lot of housing.”

First, NO CITY MONEY SHOULD BE PAID TO DEPORTED LANDLORDS, THEY HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS TO HAVE IT PAID TO THEM.

Second, Landlords don’t even live here in Mountain View. IF you were to do the research you would find those NOT RENTING OUT BEDROOMS OR PARTS OF THEIR OWN HOUSE, don’t occupy any apartment units in Mountain View. Those renting out part of their house simply cannot expand in any way anyway. But given the upcoming real estate correction underway, they are in for some problems again. Being underwater on their mortgages.

What we need to target is the existing multi-unit residential parcels of land, that are now STATE regulated regarding no net loss of housing elements, inclusionary housing requirements, and price controls.


3 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Slater
on Jan 7, 2019 at 9:19 pm

Howard is a registered user.

[Post removed due to poster being banned for repeated violations of terms of use]


4 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jan 7, 2019 at 9:33 pm

LOL is a registered user.

[Post removed due to poster being banned for repeated violations of terms of use]


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 7, 2019 at 9:45 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to (Joshua) Howard, you said:

“Are you trying to liberate all the tenants by redistributing all the landlords wealth?”

Nice try to attempt to make a false claim. My only statement is that the NEW STATE LAWS are NOW IN EFFECT. That is all.

Interesting you used the term “LIBERATION” which is defined under the Cambridge Dictionary (Web Link) as:

“1 an occasion when something or someone is released or made free:

the liberation of France from Nazi occupation

Leaving school was such a liberation for me.”

Are you in fact declaring that tenants are treated as if they are imprisoned by the business practices of landlords? It also stated:

“used to refer to activities connected with removing the disadvantages experienced by particular groups within society:

the women's liberation (informal lib) movement

animal liberation organizations”

Are you in fact declaring that you knowingly disadvantage others as being a landlord? This was your choice of words.

THERE IS NO REDISTRIBUTION OF ANYTHING IN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND PRICE CONTROLS.

THE U.S. and CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURTS DO NOT ENTERTAIN YOUR OPINION UNDER THE FOLLOWING STORY (Web Link)

SPECIFICALLY:

“San Jose's mandate that homebuilders either include affordable units in their projects or pay a fee will stand, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to the law.

In a victory for affordable housing advocates and the city of San Jose, the court said it would not hear the appeal of a California Supreme Court ruling last year brought by the Building Industry Association.

"For local governments and affordable advocates, this is great news," said Jacky Morales-Ferrand, San Jose's director of housing. "It puts to rest any challenges on inclusionary housing based on our ability to use our zoning powers to implement these programs. We’ve been working to prepare ourselves to implement the ordinance, and with this decision we can move forward confidently."

The ordinance has been in limbo since 2010, when it was first approved, after it was challenged in court. After a series of legal twists and turns, the law was upheld in a unanimous decision last year, but BIA, with legal assistance from the nonprofit property rights group Pacific Legal Foundation, sought a review by the U.S. high court.

"The rights of all property owners were dealt a blow today, as San Jose's punitive treatment of homebuilders was allowed to stand," said PLF Principal Attorney Brian T. Hodges in a news release.

The outcome was being closely watched throughout the state, because more than 170 municipalities have similar ordinances that could have been threatened if San Jose's law was struck down. You can read more about the issue here.

San Jose’s ordinance requires developers to set aside 15 percent of for-sale units as “affordable” — defined as being priced in reach of households making up to 110 percent of a neighborhood’s average median income — for projects larger than 20 units. Alternatively, developers can pay an in-lieu fee or build affordable units off-site.

The ordinance affects new, for-sale projects that have not received their approvals as of June 30.

Certainty over the law comes as for-sale housing continues to occupy a smaller percentage of development activity as compared to rental housing. San Jose has recently approved a separate program for rental units, which requires payment of an affordable housing impact fee of $17 per square foot on new rental housing.

Both of the regulations are in response to the region's skyrocketing costs for housing. Cities are under tremendous pressure to find ways to increase opportunities for lower-income residents.

Also, San Jose this week is expected to release recommendations on changes to the city's rent-control ordinance. Read more about that issue, here.

While the for-sale law allows builders to pay an "in-lieu fee," officials hope that builders end up including the units into their projects. "Our view is to actually have the units built," Morales-Ferrand said. "It’s not really a tool to get funds. Generally we’d like to see the developers build these homes."

Homebuilders opposed to the inclusionary ordinance have said it would chill development activity and end up reducing the supply of new units, which just end up making market-rate units more expensive.

But they based their legal arguments against the law on the contention that the law was not “reasonably related to some negative impact of the projects being built,” PLF Senior Staff Attorney Terry Francois told me last year. Instead, the ordinance imposes “exactions” on developers’ property, bumping up against the “takings” clause in the state or federal constitution.

"We think it’s very unfortunate the California Supreme Court decision will stand, because we think it’s a decision that’s going to pose a lot of problems for property owners in California," Francois told me on Monday.

However, the PLF said in its news release today that Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence essentially "invited continued legal initiatives to resolve this compelling issue, and PLF accepts that invitation wholeheartedly."


The issue, Francois said, is something called the "Nollan/Dolan" standard, which sets guidelines for what municipalities can exact from property owners. In California, some courts have said that cities are exempt from restrictions under Nollan/Dolan if the exactions are applied universally by legislation. Property-rights advocates say that gives cities a golden ticket to ask for whatever they want, even if it has nothing to do with mitigating the impacts projects actually cause.

In a short concurrence on the court's decision not to hear the case, Justice Thomas wrote: "These factors present compelling reasons for resolving this conflict at the earliest practicable opportunity. Yet this case does not present an opportunity to resolve the conflict."

It’s unclear how many affordable units could be produced or how much money could be collected under the new law. The largest for-sale project in the city — KB Home’s nearly 2,000 unit Communications Hill — would not be impacted because it has already been approved. So is Silvery Towers, a 600-plus-unit condo project under construction downtown.”

SIMPLY PUT YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT CORRECT AND IS NOT ACCURATE.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Downtown Palo Alto gets new Vietnamese eatery
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 6,568 views

On Metaphor and Mortality
By Aldis Petriceks | 0 comments | 1,191 views

Premarital and Existing Couples: Marriage Rules: Yours, Mine, or Ours?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 990 views

Big Island Food Party!
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 817 views