|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It was a tough series of trade-offs involving trees, parking and environmental health, but the Mountain View City Council voted 4-2 on Tuesday to approve a major infill development project that packs hundreds of housing units into an existing apartment complex.
The decision marks the end of a lengthy saga for 555 W. Middlefield Road, a project that has wound its way through the planning process for seven years. Proposed by the developer AvalonBay Communities, the project has gone through multiple major revisions and met its fair share of opposition, both from residents in the apartment complex and those living nearby.
Top of mind for those opposed to the project was that it would create heavy-duty construction impacts for tenants in the 402 existing apartments on the property in order to construct 323 new units, which will be added on the current surface parking lots. The work is expected to kick up particulate matter, particularly dust, that would reach unhealthy levels.
Although one of the project’s biggest perks is the developer’s intent to build around rent-controlled apartments instead of razing them for a complete redevelopment, it’s also causing some of the biggest challenges. Existing residents are going to have to deal with seven years of construction, and a suite of perks, including air filters and upgraded windows, did little to assuage the concerns of current tenants.
“I will not be able to live in seven years of construction, dust, noise and stress,” said resident Elizabeth Munoz. “We all deserve to live in a place of peacefulness.”
Opponents also decried the loss of 51 heritage trees, which would be cut down in order to build additional homes and underground parking. Across the many years the project has been mired in the development process, the number of trees on the chopping block has changed dramatically, always reducing the total slated for removal. At one point, 117 heritage trees were going to be cut down, which was pared down earlier this year to 62.
After the City Council held back on approving the project to give the developer one more try to save more trees, the latest version came back with a proposed loss of 51 heritage trees. Doing so took a significant trade-off, and required a parking reduction of 44 spaces.
Despite efforts to soften the blow, the majority of the dozens of speakers at the May 10 meeting still opposed the project, largely for the air quality issues and loss of trees. Resident Kristine Keller said she was concerned about the detrimental environmental impacts of losing a tree canopy and protective buffer from the pollutants and noise coming from State Route 85, which is directly east of the project.
“These are our climate warriors and our sound buffers for our entire community,” Keller said.
Gita Dev, speaking on behalf of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, said that her organization is supportive of infill development but only when it is “respectful” of nature, calling the trees slated for removal an important part of the tree canopy and biodiversity corridor that connects the Bay to the hills.
“Ecosystems and natural communities are not merely property that can be owned, destroyed or damaged,” she said.
The stance differs significantly from the Sierra Club’s past position on felling hundreds of redwood trees in North Bayshore.
Other speakers argued that Avalon has done what it can to reduce the impacts of the project time and again, and that the city can’t keep moving the goalposts and demanding more of the developer. Resident Salim Damerdji said the community isn’t best served by the city when housing development takes seven years to get across the finish line, and that these last-minute changes – like demanding a trade-off between parking and trees – indicate the city doesn’t even know what it wants and failed to make its expectations clear from the outset.
“When you set up hurdle after hurdle for new housing, you are making new housing more expensive. When you make exaction after exaction of a project, you are making housing more expensive,” Damerdji said. “All of this micromanagement I understand is well-intentioned, but it is hurting the community. And I genuinely think it’s embarrassing.”
For some residents opposed to the project, there was a feeling that Avalon can’t be trusted to mitigate poor air quality and provide tenants with information and the support they’ll need to make it through long phases of construction. In recent months, residents of the apartment complex have complained that they were blindsided by asbestos removal efforts on the current buildings and felt unsafe in and around their homes. City officials say air quality regulators are monitoring Avalon’s work and ensuring health and safety, and that tenants have been offered arrangements to temporarily vacate homes when asbestos work is underway.
Avalon is offering to transfer elderly tenants, families with children and those with medical conditions to a different apartment complex in the area (also owned by Avalon) in order to get them away from the construction impacts. Those who want to get away from the construction by terminating their lease will not face termination fees.
Mayor Lucas Ramirez said the project has a lot to offer despite some of the drawbacks, including 48 affordable units, a 1.3-acre park and millions in community benefit funds. On the whole, he said the project’s merits outweigh the impacts. Councilwoman Pat Showalter pointed out that the developer complied with a late request in February to save trees by reducing parking, and that it’s important that the rent-controlled apartments will remain in place.
Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga opposed the project, and said she worries people are taking too lightly the air quality impacts and how they will affect tenants and nearby residents on the site. She worries that while the project isn’t displacing anyone outright, people are going to last six months to two years before moving out because they’re “miserable” with the construction.
Although Avalon has made concessions to ease the impact of particulate matter caused by construction and will be preserving some trees, Abe-Koga said she felt the project as proposed should never have been greenlit to go through the planning process, and is fundamentally not a good fit.
“I believe that from the beginning this could have been done better,” she said.
Councilwoman Lisa Matichak took a similar stance, pointing out that the city’s general plan and blueprint for housing growth in Mountain View did not contemplate ratcheting up density on the property. She also said the downsides of the development are still too steep.
“That is still a lot of trees that are proposed to be removed,” she said.
The council voted 4-2 to approve the project, with Mayor Ramirez and council members Showalter, Sally Lieber and Alison Hicks in favor. Abe-Koga and Matichak opposed the project, and Councilwoman Ellen Kamei was absent.
Council’s support for 555 W Middlefield will matter all the world to the 300+ families who will soon enough be able to call our city home. Big-hearted communities make space for new neighbors; this was the right call
Please correct this article: residents do not receive a “suite of perks.” We do not get upgraded/secure windows. Avalon refused to upgrade the windows/sliders despite Council asking if it was possible, and that stays true. We will only have unsealed 1960s single pane windows throughout the noise and dangerous PM2.5 air for 7 years. There is only a $350 credit to use on air filters, which not enough for a 7 year project. There are no “perks” only deficients. Please correct the article especially the misinformation that windows are being replaced- we fought hard for that but Avalon didn’t want to spend the money or time needed to help protect residents in that way before demolition/construction. Please correct. Thank you.
It was not a “tough series of trade-offs.” People in this town will always find a reason to oppose any project, including an excellent one such as this.
Poor developer saves 5 million dollars from building fewer parking spaces. Such a burden not to spend that.
OK, then. Ramirez, Showalter, Lieber, Hicks and Kamei are the ones not to vote for next time. Someday people will ask, why were buildings allowed to go to 4 stories and then 5 and 6 and even 7 in this otherwise nice, residential area? It’s because these people allowed it. You don’t see them approving such things in the Cuesta Park neighborhood by the way.
Bernie, I’m confused. Isn’t it still a residential area, since we’re just going to add more homes?
LongResident, the nearby residents asked them to reduce the number of parking spots in order to retain more trees. Win-win-win!
“You don’t see them approving such things in the Cuesta Park neighborhood by the way.”
You’re absolutely right. It’s long past time for some 4-story apartment buildings in Cuesta Park!
My big objection is not about density or height, but that this does not in fact help our community. People are trapped in rent because there aren’t enough homes; the competition for homes has driven prices through the roof and only high tech workers and speculator/investors can afford to buy. If these were condos to increase the pool of homes available for young families looking to set down roots in the community, I’d have been in favor.
Tony, this adds 323 new homes to our community.
@Randy, Tony’s complaint is about the cost of housing. Tony correctly understands that “the competition for homes has driven prices through the roof and only high tech workers and speculator/investors can afford to buy.”
323 new homes is not enough to bring down the cost of rent.
In general, a strategy of primarily building expensive, market rate housing units in this area is NEVER EVER EVER going to bring down the cost of rent in any significant or meaningful way. That strategy does have the benefit of maximizing ROI for developers, though.
“Poor developer saves 5 million dollars from building fewer parking spaces. Such a burden not to spend that.”
Agreed. And Randy, read the article again. Doesn’t sound like most of the residents believe that this decision was a win for them.
Leslie, what is your solution to the problem? How do you propose bringing down home values?
As for the parking, the meetings are public. Last time this came up a couple months ago, there was a clear request by the many residents that the developer save the trees and reduce parking. People shouldn’t ask for things they don’t want!
Freudian slip, Randy? I thought goal was to increase the amount of affordable housing in the area, not to “bring down home values”. FYI, the housing market went very soft during the financial crisis around 2008, one could root for another crisis if that’s your goal.
The root cause of high housing costs is the ABUNDANCE OF HIGH PAYING JOBS. Here’s how:
* Availability of jobs increases demand for housing. Certain remote places are gorgeous, but if they don’t have jobs, people don’t flock to live there.
* Well-paying jobs increase the cost of housing, in two ways: 1) those with $$$ compete against each other to buy homes, and perhaps even more importantly, 2) developers know that there is MARKET for expensive, market rate homes and thus an opportunity for them to obtain great ROI.
There is little incentive for developers to build “missing middle” units when there is HIGH DEMAND for much more expensive units. Think about it. How many job seekers would accept a job paying $500 a week when there were plenty of jobs that paid $1000 or $2000 a week? What would you choose? Developers usually only build “more affordable” housing when they are FORCED to do so: they make less $$$!
It is fantastical thinking to believe that developers are ever going to willingly build an oversupply of expensive housing in the Bay Area that would make the price of real estate collapse. It’s not EVER EVER going to happen. But they are more than willing to accept the help of those who believe that “zoning” and “parking places” are the cause of high housing costs. SB9/10 created more opportunities for developers to build market-rate units, which was a WIN for them, lucky ducks.
In order to increase the supply of affordable housing, we need to BUILD affordable housing. Why didn’t the state pass laws to do THIS, eh? BMR units require funding. As you know, I recommend Prop 15, to force wealthy corps to no longer receive property tax breaks that were never intended for them in the first place.
Leslie, it’s not a “Freudian slip” it’s the same thing you’re arguing for. If homes are too expensive, how do you make homes affordable without bringing down the price of homes? Otherwise, you’re just saying you want homes to get more expensive, but everyone should spend even more money to subsidize the ever-increasing gap between home prices and incomes.
When, as you’ve pointed out, you want BMR homes for more than half of the people in the city, how much would that cost?
Keep in mind that the new apartments would already be nearly done if the city council hadn’t rejected the application for the project the first time. They wanted to keep the existing rent controlled apartments then too, and do infill on the space once kept open, not just parking lots but other open area.
The city monkeyed around and delayed. They MADE the developer come back with a plan for more density and more impacts on existing residents during construction. Lucky for the city that the developer saw a rising projection for rental income from the new apartments individually and because there would be more of them. The developer is stuck with the result of the city insisting that it build more density. It was not a developer decision.
Randy, I have given my ideas on how to increase the amount of affordable housing in the area. IMHO, a goal to “bring down home values” is both unrealistic and perverse (why do you want to hurt homeowners?). The genie is out of the bottle, it’s not going back in. Developers are NOT going to put their financial resources into projects that will be a net loss to them. They need to make a profit, or they will stop building, period. They will NEVER put their time and money into projects that will make real estate prices collapse in the bay area. Would you do that? Invest in a project KNOWING that you would lose money? If not, why would developers? It would be like burning $$$.
The creation of affordable housing in Silicon Valley is a tremendously non-trivial problem. Prop 13 was established in 1978, because old people were being forced out of their homes; they could no longer afford the property taxes, due to rising home prices. High housing costs have been around for over 40 years!
What’s new is young job-seekers get hired by Big Tech, are lured to the Bay Area due to fabulous salaries, and then get disappointed by the high cost of housing. They have swallowed evidence-free propaganda put out to blame existing homeowners for the high costs. We are “blocking supply”! “Exclusionary” SFH zoning is the primary cause of high costs! FYI, MV has “zoning”, we don’t have “exlusionary zoning”.
Turns out, no. SFH zoning is dead, thanks to SB9. Have prices come tumbling down? No, just the opposite. Land is even MORE VALUABLE now. Zoning can’t be blamed, so now “enforcement” of the law is being blamed. ::eyeroll::
IMHO, job-seekers hired by Big Tech need to understand that they are being duped. Big Tech has problems hiring because the cost of housing here is so high. There is no reason why so many Googlers need to work at the Googleplex. If Google truly cared about it’s workers, it would GROW NEW JOBS in places that are AFFORDABLE to it’s workers, like Hewlett-Packard did, instead of going to war against existing residents of MV.
I think the thing I appreciate the most about the Mountain View Voice comments section is how the posters are dedicated to understanding the world through facts and evidence. Take LongResident, for example. They definitely don’t just make things up in service of “winning” an argument, with no concern for the accuracy or consistency of their beliefs.
Leslie, how can you both make housing affordable and keep housing prices high? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
Randy, I’ve noticed that you haven’t pointed out flaws in my arguments. You insult me instead.
As I said earlier, the creation of affordable housing in Silicon Valley is a tremendously non-trivial problem. Prop 13 was established in 1978, because old people were being forced out of their homes; they could no longer afford the property taxes, due to rising home prices. High housing costs have been around for over 40 years! Trying to make housing prices collapse is like chasing after fool’s gold. But developers will happily exploit those who want to try.
Apparently you don’t like the idea of requiring developers to dedicate more of their projects to the construction of lower cost housing units? Why not? Did you know that in MV, 15% to 25% of new construction is supposed to be BMR, but over the past 8 year RHNA cycle the actual percentage is about 12%? Ka-ching, ka-ching, more $$$ for developers, and a lower number of affordable housing units for the community. What a deal!
Apparently you don’t like the idea of wealthy corporations like Google paying property taxes on the market rate value of their holdings, instead of frozen rates that were never intended for them when Prop 13 was passed? yimbyaction.org does! https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/november-2020/california/#props
“Proposition 15 will get rid of property tax breaks for big businesses, and put billions of dollars towards schools and local services.
“Currently, thanks to 1978’s Prop 13, owners pay property taxes based on the price they originally paid for that real estate—typically a lot less than what it’s worth today. Prop 15 will roll this back for many large businesses, raising property taxes to be assessed based on the property’s current (probably much higher) market value. Prop 15 will raise approximately $6.5 to $11.5 billion — 60% for cities, counties and special districts, and 40% for schools and community colleges.”
Just think about how many BMR units that $$$ could fund.
It’s not an insult to point out that you’re advocating for two mutually exclusive goals: adding more affordable housing and maintaining high home values. If your house was a good investment, that’s at the expense of the next generation. Making homes affordable necessarily means making them cheaper, that’s simply the other side of the transaction.
The solutions that I have provided will increase the amount of affordable housing without causing housing prices to collapse. Your claim that I am advocating for two mutually exclusive goals is simply false.
Teachers, service workers, and non-techie kids would have more ability to live in MV. Don’t we all share that goal?
Can you concisely state two specific policies you’re advocating? I get, and support, Prop 15 (vote out Larry Stone, he campaigned against it), but it’s not on the ballot again yet. What specific other solutions are you proposing?
Randy, you apparently (or deliberately) missed the point of my comment. Not sure what your vested interests are, but as a single father who was trapped in a never-ending cycle of increasing rents, never able to save for a down payment, earn equity, or get the benefit of tax deductions on mortgage interest, and only finally able to buy my first condo in the community after my last child graduated from high school, I know all too well what life under Avalon (and Prometheus, et al) is like. We have not solved the problem of runaway home prices for families who deserve these benefits in our community. I’m totally fine with the increased density — but we should support developers who want to build condominiums and townhomes that not only the tech elite can afford to buy and enjoy the benefit of their homes being their nest egg investment.
The key issue was the protection of tenants nearby homeowner’s long-term health from a combination of exposures to PM2.5 for seven years of construction and exposures to toxic and carcinogenic airborne contaminants from auto and trucks on busy Highway 85 after the removal of the tree barrier system which absorbs and filters highway pollutants according scientific studies by EPA and the Forest Service. This will last for 20-30 years until an effective tall dense tree barrier system grows up and matures. AvalonBay had better alternatives to project design that they failed to seriously consider. The number one priority for any project is mitigation of significant threats to public health. The removal of the tree protective barrier is the most significant threat to public health and was avoidable and controllable. PM2.5 or dust pollution from construction activities is controllable at the source of emissions using multiple dust suppression methods. Removal of the highway vegetation barrier creating “uncontrollable” and direct exposures to highway pollutants to nearby tenants and residents. This public health threat was not even addressed in the EIR.
Tony, I agree, ownership should be affordable for anyone who wants it, but I don’t think we should preclude homes for people that want to rent. Affordability across the board should be our goal, and I don’t judge someone for preferring renting over owning, or vice-versa. Bringing down skyrocketing home prices will help everyone who wants to live in Mountain View, and adding these 323 new homes is a step in the right direction.
@Randy, it amazes me that after hearing @Tony share his experience as a “single father who was trapped in a never-ending cycle of increasing rents” that you would respond with comments like “I don’t think we should preclude homes for people that want to rent” and “I don’t judge someone for preferring renting over owning.”
Won’t somebody, anybody, please think of the poor corporate landlords?
Top 5 Worst Corporate Landlords (Corporate YIMBYs Win Honorable Mention)
https://www.housinghumanright.org/top-5-worst-corporate-landlords-corporate-yimbys-win-honorable-mention/
“As corporate landlords keep setting sky-high prices in the rental housing market, tenants are getting slammed by unfair rents, more evictions, and more homelessness. Known for their predatory business practices, corporate landlords also shell out huge amounts of campaign cash to stop tenant protections. Politicians too often fail to talk about the widespread damage caused by Big Real Estate, so we’re going to change that — with our Top 5 list of the worst corporate landlords. Corporate YIMBYs, who carry out the real estate industry’s greed-driven, trickle-down housing agenda, win a well-deserved honorable mention.”
* Honorable Mention: Corporate YIMBYs
* 5. AvalonBay Communities
Lo and behold, AvalonBay is the developer for the project cited in the article at 555 W. Middlefield Road, which was just approved by the MV City Council.
Just think, @Randy, 323 new tenants to “enjoy” AvalonBay management!
* 4. Essex Property Trust
* 3. Invitation Homes
* 2. Equity Residential
* 1. Blackstone Group
I have no clue what you’re even fighting for anymore; it’s clear what you’re against. You talk a lot about affordable homes for people, but here’s a project that’s going to add 323 homes, 48 BMR in perpetuity, and preserving rent-controlled homes without displacement. In the other article, you’re fighting to make an affordable housing development smaller because it doesn’t have enough parking spots. I’ve tried to ask you in good faith what policies you advocate, and you repeatedly handwave it away.