Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council rejects latest idea for 291 Evandale

Original post made on Jun 24, 2009

The City Council unanimously refused to support a project Tuesday that would have renovated the vacant and long-troubled apartment complex at 291 Evandale Ave. to turn it into affordable housing.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:53 PM

Comments (16)

Like this comment
Posted by anna
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 24, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Maybe council should look into something similar to;

Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Seer
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 24, 2009 at 2:31 pm

The problem isn't the type of construction, but the un-constructiveness of our parochially focused city council and a planning department whose only vocabulary seems to be "no." When you add this fiasco to the nixing of a proposed rebuilding of an apartment complex on Escuela because it was "too tall" even though you can't see the tops of the story poles for the project from the sidewalk, the pattern becomes clear: Just say no, and don't bother with suggesting an alternate way forward.

Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jun 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm

I think it's interesting that Ronit Bryant is rejecting the project because she has not been taken on a tour of the other KDF projects. If she really is in support of it, she and other City Council members should be pro-active about working with KDF instead of expecting everything to be spoon fed to them.

Like this comment
Posted by reader
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2009 at 3:50 pm

From the quote in the article, I thought it sounded like Ronit Bryant had asked for a tour and that KDF (that I know nothing of) did not reply. Maybe the Voice or Ms. Bryant can clarify that.

Like this comment
Posted by Sandra
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 24, 2009 at 4:31 pm

City should buy it, flatten it, turn it into a really nice park.

Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 24, 2009 at 5:14 pm

How do you make low-income housing work without a school, shops, or transportation? Senior housing needs those, and so does family housing. The only housing that makes sense is high-end housing where people have two cars, two jobs, and expect to drive to private schools, or at least drive every where including shops and schools. And is that the pollution-generating and congestion-generating life-style that we want?

Without the supporting infrastructure, housing of any kind except luxury housing can't go there - luxury meaning condos or single family homes. There is no infrastructure to support a quality life-style in this part of town. And why would families choose to live so near the freeway and so far away from anything else?

Yes, low income housing is needed. However;
1.) This complex is truly old and run-down - can it really be
renovated and made livable and still be low income?

2.) Low-income should be near amenities. This complex is right by
the frontage road and freeway. There is NO school - in fact,
students at this location have a home school of Huff -- way on the
other side of El Camino. Not exactly conducive to low-income ease,
and there is NO public transportation to go from this location to
Huff school - all elementary schools are only within driving
distance, so this is a hardship on any low-income family.

3.) Walking distance to shopping centers or other resources? No.
This area has nothing to be attractive to low-income families - it
is isolated from the rest of any activity in MV, across from and
next to commercial buildings.

Why put low-income at the outskirts of town? Except to make it
invisible as if the duty has been done. This area is not
family-friendly, certainly not for any families with school-aged
children, so who is the market for this area? People with children
have no incentive to move there.

Like this comment
Posted by LN
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 24, 2009 at 5:43 pm

I was at last night’s meeting. It is now clear that any attempt to rehabilitate this 55 year old property is out of the question. It is time to clean up the mess left behind. If you care, please write and send a letter to the City Manager at 500 Castro Street, Mountain View Ca, 94041. Let them know you care about your neighborhood.

*** Please request that the City Attorney’s Office take immediate action to declare the real property located at 291 Evandale a public nuisance as defined in the Article 1, SEC 25.1 of the Code of Ordinances for the City Of Mountain View. The property needs to be demolished and cleared for a new development that will use the special R4 zoning designation that set up for this project. The Mayor in her own words has declared this an unfortunate property, and it is clear the City Council would like to see the property move forward with a development that will be new and improved. Please write and email. Use the Mountain View City website and link to the City Attorney page.

Like this comment
Posted by Gary Rosen
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 24, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Unsurprisingly, the people most enthusisastic about putting affordable housing in the Whisman neighborhood live south of El Camino.

Like this comment
Posted by j.cooper
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jun 24, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Jane raises a good point, there is no school in the area. Both have been rented out by the school district. Existing schools are at capacity, except for the middle schools. There's a need for coordination with the city & schools if high density housing is going to be re-established there.

Another issue, it's close to freeways, but far from mass transit, so this seems to also counter high density housing.

What about the long term housing plans at Moffett?

Does the City have a plan?

Like this comment
Posted by Matt
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 25, 2009 at 12:03 am

The article states, “KDF Communities would have taken the 64 apartments down to the wood frame, replacing everything from electrical to sheetrock and roofing”, yet this is not what KDF presented in it’s hour long meeting to the Wagon Wheel Neighborhood Association. They indicated that they were going to reroof (of course) and that drywall was handled on a wait and see basis. They also said that “mold can be taken care of with bleach”. Of course we all know that the 291 Evandale complex has major structural problems that will only be turned up after things like the roof are torn off but none of that is “official” since it has yet to be actually uncovered. Moreover, KDF touted it’s good standing with San Jose yet neglected to mention it’s rather bad standing with San Francisco. Also, we have zero data on other cities/projects they have attempted and never started. KDF’s properties in San Jose are neither remarkable nor slums. They are all newly remodeled so there are no long term examples to visit/view (someone spoke about 10 years at the CC meeting but it’s less than 5 if you do the background checks). Moreover, some of their current residents are less than pleased with KDF’s performance as indicated by Apartment Ratings website for KDF's Cherry Creek Apts in San Jose.: Web Link .

One thing the article doesn’t mention is the requirement that the property remain affordable housing for the next 55 years. Anyone care to do the math and figure out how to keep 50 year old buildings with a 50 year life span for 100 years. 291 Evandale may last another 10 years but another 55 it can’t. The owners passed up offers of up to 20 million (source: Eduardo Cerna, Marcus and Millichap) and are desperate for KDF’s current offer of 6.5 million (source: Ray Harper, KDF). The owners made a multimillion dollar mistake and it’s not our responsibility to bail them out with taxpayer funds (the funds KDF was to use to purchase/renovate the property are tax credits which large corporations buy to avoid paying taxes as well as stimulus funds; read: you and I pay for it, not KDF). City Council did the right thing, affordable housing on KDF’s terms was something we can not afford. Some BMR housing would be great, how about taking some of the cities BMR funds to partner with a developer—the city provides affordable owner occupied units, the developer provides some as well and the developer also gets to have some at market rate. On the other hand folks could just find places to live which are BMR, I conduct rental surveys of Mountain View and surrounding cities regularly and the number of available BMR units is quite high. (With KDF’s annual turnover rate of 20-30% (source: Ray Harper, KDF) you get less than 2 units per month.) All of my apartments are BMR with 4 out of 5 being $300 below market. And no, they are not slums, I live in one myself and have tenants who highly recommend me. I’m not under some city mandate and I’m not publicly funded. I charge what I do because I seek long term stability and believe that charging what I have to charge rather than what I can charge is the right thing to do. Maybe I’m not a good businessman but at least I can sleep well at night.

MJF, 250 Evandale Avenue

Like this comment
Posted by arh
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 25, 2009 at 8:41 am

The buildings have already been RED Tagged; Let MVFD run fire drill practice on the structures and then force the owners to hall away the debris. Leave it an empty lot until a decision can be made of what type of housing to build there.

Like this comment
Posted by jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:27 am

If MV wants low-income housing in an area that makes sense, then near Castro School, between California Ave & El Camino and between Escuela and San Antonio: walking distance to Castro School (woops, at capacity but at least walking distance); walking distance to the shops at San Antonio which includes several grocery stores; walking distance to the train and other ammenities. Not place low-income housing at the furthest edge of town with no low-income resources.

As for this Summerhill location, is it written in stone that housing has to go there? It sure would be nice to have a park and a community garden at this end of town; there is a lack of play areas for children.

Like this comment
Posted by ct
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15 am

I agree with Jane on the infrastructure issues and have written to City Council after reading about the Minton project. How can it be "green" when there is no school and grocery stores that's walkable?

In addition, this City Council seems to want high density housing for every housing project proposal, but they first have to deal with the over crowding in school, the lack of community services, parks, and etc. How about a city master plan?

Like this comment
Posted by Ada
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 25, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Jane -

Spot on there. High density makes no sense there unless the bottom floor includes both a grocery store and an elementary school.

Like this comment
Posted by Smart Growther
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 26, 2009 at 6:31 pm

I wouldn't expect the city to do anything. At this point given the low property value most developers will not want to go through the headache of trying to please the planning department, council, and the neighborhood. This property will sit as is for several years. Trying to blame the developers is short-sighted. What person would want to risk money on developing this property.

Like this comment
Posted by Dandy
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 3, 2009 at 9:22 am

I am just astounded that the MV council listened to the neighbors about this project, but they don't listen to the 108 Bryant Street residents when it comes to the Franklin/Evelyn BMR project. We submitted a petition, yet it was ingnored. We offered alternatives, yet they were ignored. Every single attempt to work with these people goes ignored. People have already lost tons of property value because of this project, and some lost money because they had to sell right now. The BMR project is impacting people, yet the MV council is unsympathetic and uncaring.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 20 comments | 5,070 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 786 views