So here we have the very essence of the local housing crisis, distilled in a nutshell. Affluent home buyers, especially newcomers to the area, clamor for any new construction regardless of price. That demand incentivizes property developers to demolish existing housing and replace it with twice the density, and simultaneously higher prices per unit. Long-term tenants are displaced.

This is almost a direct competition between new affluent residents and existing renters who could still afford their rents.

I'm a long-term tenant (been renting in Mountain View since 2011), and I see this project as an opportunity to possibly finally buy a home - because the high-end cost of $1.1M is lower than most of the property prices I'm seeing these days (I'm hoping those most expensive ones would be 3BR). Just because I might be able to afford $1.1M (whereas I can't afford $1.3M or $1.4M), does that mean my needs are discounted?

Great to see more "owned" housing coming available. I do feel for the people who will need to relocate but unfortunately that is life when you rent. One of the main reasons people by a home is for "stability" in a particular neighborhood or school district.

Rosenberg continues to show total ineptitude as a council member, as evidenced by his quote above. There should be clear legal standards for when developments are approved. Requiring "above-and-beyond type of gestures" means that the gestures are not, in fact, above and beyond. If the council wants to impose heightened standards, then change the law, but developers should not be required to divine from the mind of his Highness Rosenberg what the standards are on any particular day.

I am waiting to see this level of scrutiny on a 16 employee office space project.

We are creating miles of red tape for home creation, at the same time we grant office space concessions that are orders of magnitude larger.

Agree with Resident of OMV: Disgusting quote from Rosenberg. Does he not realize or not care?

Once again, Rosenberg, for whom I voted in the last election and will never support again, manages to disappoint. It was "tough" to support the development, but isn't it wonderful that the landlords waived a few months rent for those families who are losing their affordable housing? In Rosenberg's eyes, waiving a few months rent (when you're about to make major sums in capital gains) makes you "part of the solution"! No, Ken, waiving a bit of rent may be nice, but part of the solution is maintaining/increasing the supply of affordable housing for individuals and families who are rapidly being priced out of Mountain View.

Good! Maybe we can finally see increase in school quality. We keep paying so much in rent but the school is 4/10?
I just hope that those displaced by the development are not decent middle class professional families who put a lot of effort in their kids' education but just happen not to work in IT... This is my only concern.

Multi-story condos would be preferable IMO. But this does increase density, so that's good.

We desperately need a grocery store on Rengstorff. Can the mayor please harass Trader Joes into building where the Fresh & Easy was? Dear god we need shopping.

The article reports that although some councilmembers "found it hard" to vote to eliminate apartments in favor of million dollars row houses proposed by a wealthy developer, they all voted for it - all except one. Politicians make me sick.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Each of these homes is 3 bedrooms with floor areas of up to 2500 square feet. They have 2 car garages. All this fits on these 2 small lots--not massive apartment complex locations. It seems reasonable to realize that these "units" are bigger than the ones being replaced. They are much more likely than existing single family detached homes to be shared by more than one potential renter. I wonder how many apartment rentals these 33 units will replace. I bet it's more than 50 such rentals, by people or families who share one of these houses rather than renting 2 or 3 separate apartments. Much nicer situation than Carmel The Village units and more space and rooms each, so easier to share. These would cost owners under $5000 per month in mortgage payments and homeowner fees. Caremel The Village apartments rent for $8000 per month.

@Scott

Some may prefer multi-story condos, but the current proposal's size already "butts up against" the neighborhood's zoning limits. I'm not surprised the developer chose to build to the limits of the current zoning, rather than try to get these two properties in the middle of the block rezoned. That would have been a long, uncertain process. (Remember the proposed residential development of the Mayfield site?)

Meanwhile, the neighborhood's smaller, older homes will gradually be replaced by new homes, built to the limits of the neighborhood's zoning.

Could we please get City Council to look into a Grocery Store to replace F-N-Easy? I suggest that everyone here complete the location request form on the Trader Joe's website and request that they lease out the old Fresh N Easy location

Web Link

It's not the councils responsibility to search for a private business and tell it where to locate. Our neighborhood has been reluctant to support a local grocery store. When a retailer thinks he can make a profit, then he will open a grocery store. The council is not going to stop this. It takes both buyers and a willing seller to make a market

Design and building future housing so when the kids are gone some space can be converted into a studio or 1 bedroom rental unit.

Actually, our area does desperately want a grocery store. Fresh and Easy was a national bankruptcy. Regardless, it was never very fresh (or good).

Walgreens closed the location because it spends ~6 hours a day being blocked by bumper to bumper cars, because CalTrain won't fix the lighting system at the intersection. I shopped there and filled prescriptions there, etc.

Thank you Lenny Siegel for taking into account the people who currently live in Mountain View. Despite his campaign promise of "Residents First", John McAlister and his colleagues, when it comes to holding on to the remaining "affordable" housing in our area, continue to put developers first and residents last.

I might add how sick I am of council members, with their pained expressions, disclosing their "concerns" and "reservations" and what a "difficult decision this is" immediately before voting "yeah, sure, go ahead and tear down the affordable apartments and replace them with luxury housing."

"Actually, our area does desperately want a grocery store. Fresh and Easy was a national bankruptcy. Regardless, it was never very fresh (or good)"

They closed the store well before declaring bankruptcy. Your argument is contradicted by the history of locating a store in your neighborhood. If its so desperate why has no chain elected to locate a store there?

I am a little baffled by the phrase "permanent housing" in your article" "Council OKs 33 new row houses". What makes this housing more "permanent" than apartment houses? You quote Council member Ken Rosenberg saying "it's important to promote more permanent residential properties in a city where 60 percent of the population lives in rental units". What does "permanent" mean in this context? This development may not replace units rented out with units that are occupied by the owners. Unless it becomes a CID or PUD that limits or bans renting out.

I live in a condo complex in Mountain View with close to 300 units. Some condo complexes limit renting or leasing units to some percentage, say 25%. My complex chose to impose a different rule: No unit can be rented out in the first 12 months of ownership.

But there are buyers who consider this a good area to park their excess money. In my complex we have had buyers who happily left the unit they bought unoccupied for 12 months before renting it out. We even have an owner who has left her condo unoccupied for three years. Presumably because it is still a good investment.

Now, how does this contribute to providing more housing in Mountain View? A city that has around 75,000 residents, but about 85,000 employees working here.

Permanent as opposed to short term rental. AirBnB, hotels and some apartments are only short term housing. Most apartments and single family homes whether condo or individual are permanent housing.

@Not Very Hungry

Are you a crazy? Our neighborhood does not support grocery store? Our people don't like convenience? We prefer to drive and sit on the rengstorff traffic to cross the train just to get a bottle of milk from a grocery store? With out shopping, everything is inconvenient, traffic will be more packed on rengstorff and central, because literally every single thing you need you need to cross to the train to get it.

Grocery store was closed because we had shitty fresh n easy, let's have a real grocery store here. It is time to build a functional and neighborhood in monta loma and north mountain view. This will greatly solve the city's traffic problem.

@TQ
There was a "real grocery store" there, before Fresh & Easy, before Golden Phoenix. It went out of business. Have the surrounding neighborhoods added enough residents to support a "real grocery store" there? If not, then the next one will just go out of business too.

Darin makes some excellent points about the neighborhood supporting a real grocery store. The evidence contradict TQ's assertion that the neighborhood will support a store. It may be an inconvenient truth, but the only thing stopping a "real " grocery store from opening In this area is the lack of customer demand.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Yes! More buying, less renting will balance the community!!!!

It's obvious from the article that the issue is oppressive zoning. I go by the vacant lot several times a week, and it's a fine size and a fine location for a tall block of apartments. Instead, it's being wasted on this 2-3 story BS that also has to destroy the apartments next door. If there was no zoning, developers could actually build the amount of housing needed to solve this crisis.

Also, Not Very Hungry, you just don't have the facts about the loss of the Fresh and Easy. It didn't close until the entire national chain died. Too bad you didn't like it, but I relied on it.

I support this development. (I just wish it were denser/taller!) By adding to the housing supply, we help more Mountain View residents stay in their community in the long run. The alternatives like freezing construction, protecting all existing housing units and tenants, and rent control are short-term band-aids that don't fix the underlying problems, like the jobs-housing imbalance.

It sounds like the existing tenants have been treated very fairly in this process: 180 days notice and months of free rent are nothing to sneeze at, plus many of them qualify for city assistance. Of course it's never a pleasant experience to move when you'd rather stay in your rental unit, but that's better than most renters get.

I find Lenny Siegel's position just baffling - he's not in favor of it because he'd rather keep the existing apartments which are the usual, run-down buildings like we have so many all over Mountain View... like, seriously?

I strongly agree with baffling