Can we see a map and/or current photos of this site?

First off, kudos to Malea Martin for providing a handy link to the MV City Council meeting where this item was discussed.

There is an adage, "whatever is measured improves". Hence I think it would be both reasonable and smart for voters to be able to easily see the number of housing units created for each income level with new projects going forward. I will try to do this as best I can in the comments, but the readability suffers because I cannot format tables. It would be awesome if such tables were available and better formatted in the main story.

EXISTING HOUSING

42 existing units will be replaced, but it's not clear what the targeted income categories were for those units. Were they all rent-stabilized units? I tried to parse through the article, maybe I missed it, but that would be interesting to know. I'm guessing they were.

NEW AND APPROVED HOUSING PROPOSAL

Income Level : Number of Housing Units
Very Low (<=50% AMI): 33 (8.9%)
Low (51%-80% AMI): 9 (2.4%)
Moderate (81%-120% AMI):
Above Moderate (>120% AMI): 329 (88.7%)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total: 371 (100%)

Note that this project is constructing new units at a rate of 11.3 BMR units for every 88.7 market-rate units, which is LESS THAN the average of 12 BMR for ever 88 market-rate that MV achieved during the last 8 year RHNA cycle.

“The project will provide 11% of the project's base density for units affordable to very low-income households, “

[correct, 11.3% rounds down to 11%]

”making it eligible for a 35% density bonus and up to two concessions under the state density bonus law, plus development waivers.”

Knock me over with a feather. State Dems have set impossible low-income RHNA targets for MV to achieve without SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL FUNDING unless we essentially DOUBLE THE AMOUNT of housing in our fine city (I provide the math in the comments of this story, “Proposed development on San Antonio Road gains commission's support, but questions remain about affordable units” Web Link )

meanwhile state Dems created a “state density bonus law” that provides awesome benefits to developers for providing as little as 11% BMR units in the project.

This really sickens me. Relying on developer-only funding to solve the housing crisis is nothing but fool's gold. It is nothing but a recipe for gentrification, which drives lower-income people out of the community.

Leslie, perhaps you can explain how a project guaranteeing the return of existing tenants at their existing rent that also increases the supply of guaranteed low-income housing "drives lower-income people out of the community."

Another way of looking at this: Project that had 42 lower-income units is being replaced by project that has 42 lower-income units + 329 market-rate units.

Net change: ZERO CHANGE in lower-income units + 329 new market-rate units. Woo-hoo!

Developer is "guaranteeing the return of existing tenants", great!, but remember they are now forced to do so by law. Consider the goodies that they get for doing so! They are eligible for "a 35% density bonus and up to two concessions under the state density bonus law, plus development waivers." Woo-hoo again!

May I point out that the "jobs/housing imbalance" applies to low income workers too? Don't we want EVERYBODY to be able to live near their job, so NOBODY has to commute? Or is that only true for the techies?

When 329 new highly paid workers come from out of the area to live in these market-rate units, how many low-income workers will need to be hired to support them? How many additional maids, private cooks, restaurant and retail workers, uber and delivery drivers, nannies, etc. will need to live here too? At least 1 or 2, surely. For 329 new households? Maybe 5% of 329 would be better guess, or about 16 people. Where are those workers and their families going to live? Note that NO ADDITIONAL BMR units will be constructed in this project for them, yet the council unanimously approved it.

Anyone who cannot afford to live in expensive, market-rate housing should take heed to the truth of what is happening in MV. Relying on developer-only funding to solve the housing crisis is nothing but fool's gold. The only council candidate calling for additional funding so that we can actually end this crisis is Li Zhang.

[Portion removed due to being off-topic]

Leslie, there weren't 42 low-income homes in the existing development. This is a net increase, and none of those existing homes were guaranteed low-income housing. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Statement: "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

I would like for someone to explain why the following text was included in the news article if the 42 existing units were not lower-income rent-stabilized units?

"The council recently adopted a unit replacement policy, which requires that any demolished rent-stabilized units occupied by households earning above 80% area median income (AMI) be replaced as deed restricted units at 80% AMI or below.

As a result, this project will replace the 42 units with 33 units at 50% AMI and the remaining nine units at 80% AMI (or lower), Brennan said.

[Translation: 42 units occupied by households earning above 80% AMI will be with 33 units at 50% AMI and 9 at 80% AMI (or lower)]

Displaced tenants are also eligible for relocation assistance based on income. The applicant voluntarily proposed to provide the cash equivalent of four and a half months of rent for eligible tenants, which is a month and a half beyond the standard requirement. Displaced tenants also have the first right of return once the development is completed."

Statement: "That you continue to lie about things like this is truly disappointing, and may be why the Voice staff removed your comments."

Making evidence free personal attacks out of thin air against others is against the Terms of Use. I am reporting this objectionable content to the moderators.

Leslie, *above* 80% AMI includes the wealthy tech employees you consistently decry.

Even more, rent-controlled homes don't have any income requirements, so nothing about them is guaranteed low-income housing. Once they become vacant, they are "market-rate" again, even if they're currently occupied by low-income earners. This project will replace those with guaranteed low-income homes. Maybe I was wrong, you're not lying, just blinded by preconceptions and misunderstanding?

Expensive, market rate units are built for those in the Above Moderate income level, who earn (>120% AMI).

Over the last 8 year RHNA cycle, the target number of Moderate (81%-120% AMI) income units was 527 (or 18% of the overall total target of 2926 units). But only 253 were actually achieved, a success rate of 48%. Developers don't like to build units at this income level, the only level they hate more is for VERY LOW income workers (50% AMI or less).

Meanwhile the target of Above Moderate (>120% AMI) income units was 1093 (or 37% of the overall total target of 2926 units). A whopping 7082 were built, a success rate of 647.9%.

Persons who earn (81%-120% AMI are still lower-income earners, they do not belong to the highest wage earning category, which is >120% AMI.

Making personal attacks against others is a horrible habit.

Leslie, it 's *above* 80% AMI, not 80-120%. It includes the "highest wage-earning category." 80% of AMI is over $80K for a single person. They live in market-rate homes. These new homes are actually guaranteed to be for low-income people, so it's patently false when you said "Net change: ZERO." Some were rent-controlled homes occupied by low-income tenants, and some were rent-controlled homes occupied by wealthy tenants. Now, all of them will be guaranteed low-income homes. Why can't you ever admit that you might have been wrong about something?

I am awaiting the decision of the moderators, I won't participate in any more back and forth now. But I note that yet another PERSONAL ATTACK was made.

Does anyone know of a "Personal Attacker Anonymous" group that might be able to provide some help?

Facts are extremely important. Of the 233 new homes being built, I think it's wonderful that 42 of them will be guaranteed to low-income families, where none were before.

I hope when cleaning up the low-quality content some other posters are posting in an attempt to get actual facts about this project removed, the Voice will not leave the misinformation above about this project not having net new low-income homes. At the very least, it's important that misinformation from this poster not stay up.

As I explained in my first post, "I think it is both reasonable and smart for voters to be able to easily see the number of housing units created for each income level with new projects going forward. I will try to do this as best I can in the comments,"

[Note the words, "I WILL TRY TO DO THIS AS BEST I CAN IN THE COMMENTS"]

I was able to put together an "after table":

NEW AND APPROVED HOUSING PROPOSAL

Income Level : Number of Housing Units
Very Low (<=50% AMI): 33 (8.9%)
Low (51%-80% AMI): 9 (2.4%)
Moderate (81%-120% AMI):
Above Moderate (>120% AMI): 329 (88.7%)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total: 371 (100%)

I wanted to put together a "before" table, that would be similar, that is:

EXISTING HOUSING

Income Level : Number of Housing Units
Very Low (<=50% AMI):
Low (51%-80% AMI):
Moderate (81%-120% AMI):
Above Moderate (>120% AMI):
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total: 42 (100%)

but I was unable to do so because as I wrote, "42 existing units will be replaced, but it's not clear what the targeted income categories were for those units. Were they all rent-stabilized units? I tried to parse through the article, maybe I missed it, but that would be interesting to know. I'm guessing they were."

I am not intentionally trying to lie or deceive anyone, I am just trying to obtain and present the facts to MV voters. It would be truly awesome if the Voice could accurately describe the "before" situation for all of us. If what Frank is saying is true, that a significant number of rent-controlled homes in this project were occupied by "wealthy tenants", as he calls them, I would like to better understand those details. If that is true, I would like to better understand what was going on there and why that was happening.

[Portion removed due to being off-topic]

Leslie, please, try to read things carefully before jumping to conclusions, which is why I was trying to get you to elaborate on how this project was going to "drive lower-income out of the community."

The "project site" currently has 20 residential buildings on it (and a leasing office). This project is replacing 5 of those buildings (42 homes, and a leasing office) with 2 buildings (233 homes). You keep adding in the existing homes for some reason. 42 of the 233 new homes (191 net new) will be guaranteed low-income housing. While the existing 42 units are rent-controlled, anyone can rent a rent-controlled apartment, even wealthy tech employees, so I don't know what you mean by "why that was happening."

When lining up the actual facts, your posts are misinformation, intentional or not. The "low-quality content" merely refers to your weird off-topic posting.

Have a simple question for the two main posters on this thread:

While lovewer income restricted units are probably more affordable than rent controlled units, per SB330 they are considered "replacement units"

How will these 42 affordable units count towards RHNA affordability goals? Net new units? Replacement units (i.e. treading water, no net loss)?

Who makes that call and when?

City staff will prepare and submit their annual housing element progress report to include each project and how it affected the different categories, which is how they assess progress towards our housing goals. It'll depend on what the rents for those apartments was and which incomes they're affordable to. Just looking at the 42 guaranteed affordable homes, it will most likely be a reduction in moderate and above moderate income affordability and a net increase in the other, lower-income categories.

@Frank Richards.

If the about 200 net new units are market rate units, how can this project result in a reduction of moderate/above moderate income affordability?

Sorry, I thought you were asking about the 42 homes ("How will these 42 affordable units count towards RHNA affordability goals?"), which is why I prefaced it with "just looking at the 42 units."

So for RHNA, it's a net of about 200 above moderate/market rate units.
..and an unknown percentage of the 42 replacement units counted as "affordable" (less than above moderate) although fair to say it won't be 15% of the units in the project?

I guess it'd be too much to ask for the State to set some clear rules/guidance on how these "replacement" units are counted :(

Instead, it's left to anyone's guess ?

"Leslie, please, try to read things carefully before jumping to conclusions, which is why I was trying to get you to elaborate on how this project was going to "drive lower-income out of the community.""

What an insulting comment, as if I don't "read things carefully" in the first place, and implying that I "jump to conclusions". Another personal attack, sigh.

The phrase "drive lower-income out of the community" refers to the fact in the "new MV", there will simply be insufficient room for lower-income people. Building 88% of the units for "wealthy tenants" as Frank puts it gives them oodles and oodles of spaces. Building 12% of the units (or with THIS project, 11%) of units for those who don't make such awesome salaries means that EVERYONE who makes less than 120% of AMI must compete for a relatively small number of units. There simply aren't enough affordable housing units for all of the lower-income people who work here, so people will have to find other places to live, OUTSIDE of MV.

Imagine a cake where 88% of it is given to those who make > 120% AMI, and 12% of it is given to everyone else. That solution would be great if 88% of the population makes > 120% of the AMI, but that is certainly not the case. There are far more lower income people in the world than those who earn astronomical salaries.

I don't know what Frank's source of "facts" is. He obviously is not getting them from the news article. Funny how he isn't a YIMBY, he doesn't work for a developer, but he claims to have all of this knowledge - much superior to mine, of course - of "the facts". Maybe he IS a developer, so he doesn't "work for one". Who knows? He doesn't provide links to his sources, though. How he has all of this knowledge remains a mystery.

@SRB, I don't know the answer to your questions, I'm sorry. We need to know what the "before" metrics look like. I haven't seen that data, I WANT to see that data. But I agree with the importance of the questions that you are asking.

Leslie, all I did was spend 5 minutes reading the staff report for this project. It's available on the city's website, it's not some secret hidden knowledge. 42 / 233 is 18%, not 11%. I don't know why you're still miscounting like this even after I pointed out your error.

I'll ask again, how does a project that adds new guaranteed low-income housing and guarantees a right-of-return to existing low-income tenants drive anyone out?

Your fixation on percentages is mind-boggling. Would you prefer a 100% low-income project that provides 20 homes, or a 10% low-income project that provides 40 low-income homes? To me, the choice is clear: I want more low-income homes. How about you?

When discussing things on a public forum, one can either make friendly suggestions to help others better understand the issues, or one can insult those who do not share their same understandings and/or call them liars.

In my first post, I wrote "42 existing units will be replaced, but it's not clear what the targeted income categories were for those units. Were they all rent-stabilized units? I tried to parse through the article, maybe I missed it, but that would be interesting to know. I'm guessing they were."

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me to a credible source (including links and page numbers) where this information is provided:

EXISTING HOUSING

Income Level : Number of Housing Units
Very Low (<=50% AMI):
Low (51%-80% AMI):
Moderate (81%-120% AMI):
Above Moderate (>120% AMI):
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total: 42 (100%)

If a significant number of persons are now living in rent-controlled apartments at 870 E. El Camino Real who have incomes in that last category (>120% AMI), I would like to know that. Like most normal human beings, I do not claim to have intimate knowledge of every single aspect related to housing in MV.

Regardless, all of this sound and fury is merely a deflection from my point: developers are now forced by law to not displace existing residents, lovely!, AND the state density bonus law AWARDS GOODIES TO THEM too (but ONLY if developer builds a large enough number of new market-rate units, ironically): "a 35% density bonus and up to two concessions under the state density bonus law, plus development waivers." The state is AWARDING developers for building expensive, market-rate units! It's kind of shocking.

Statement: “I'll ask again, how does a project that adds new guaranteed low-income housing and guarantees a right-of-return to existing low-income tenants drive anyone out?”

I JUST answered this question, sigh. Why are you asking it again? If you see an issue with it, maybe you could point out where you think the flaw is in my logic?

Furthermore, I also pointed out above that the "jobs/housing imbalance" applies to low income workers too. EVERYBODY should be able to live near their job, so NOBODY has to commute (for the sake of the planet). Any project that disproportionately increases the amount of market-rate units in MV is part of the problem: not building ENOUGH affordable housing for lower-income persons.

Statement: “Your fixation on percentages is mind-boggling.”

I understand math, I don't know what else to say.

”Would you prefer a 100% low-income project that provides 20 homes, or a 10% low-income project that provides 40 low-income homes? To me, the choice is clear: I want more low-income homes. How about you?”

I want a solution to the housing CRISIS, not a fake solution that keeps the pain going while wealthy players make bank.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Leslie, I haven't accused you of anything. I've pointed out a very strange coincidence with the number you keep posting in every article on the Mountain View Voice (and now multiple times per comment). If, as you say, this is entirely coincidental, then I have to take you at your word, but it's not a good look to be doing that while posting conspiracy theories about "wealthy elites" trying to destroy your city. I'll let other readers judge for themselves.

I am just an ordinary concerned citizen who lives in MV. The housing crisis is a perhaps the top political issue facing our city. This news item is a great example of what is wrong with the housing policy being forced onto us by state Dems, and being carried out mostly without complaint by the current council.

Re allegations of "conspiracy theories"- one of my earliest experiences with political issues was Watergate. I read about it in the papers and watched it unfold day by day. Deep Throat famously told Woodward and Bernstein to "Follow The Money". I eventually realized that "Follow The Money" is THE MOST IMPORTANT rule to follow when evaluating political events. Woodward and Bernstein exposed Nixon because they followed that advice. Throughout history, wealthy players have used their wealth and power to obtain even MORE wealth and power. This is not a "conspiracy theory", it is historical truth and I hope that young people take heed.

The FACTS are that 42 rent-controlled units are being REPLACED with 42 BMR units.

What is the existing income level distribution of those 42 units? I think it is a very important question, which is why I politely asked for this information. I never got an answer, I made my best guess. I assumed that rent-controlled units are primarily inhabited by lower-income persons, not "wealthy tenants".

Regardless of the answer for the project in the story, I now wonder about the details of the state density bonus law. If some hypothetical developer replaces low-income apartments with an identical number of new BMR units, and also a tremendous number of new market-rate units, do THEY qualify for the bonus? If so, am I the only one who sees the problem?: developers would be REWARDED for building MARKET-RATE units. That's like giving a kid $100 for finishing their ice-cream. Why would state-law reward developers in this way? Hint: follow the money.

REGARDLESS of those answers, the “state density bonus law” provides awesome benefits to developers for providing as little as 11% BMR units in a project. If we rely on developer-only funding, which is how the 42 units in this project were funded, why would a developer EVER provide more BMR units at a greater rate than 11%? They are profit-driven entities, to provide additional BMR units above and beyond would be a bad financial decision on their part.

State Dems have also given MV the following RHNA targets for 2023-2031:

Income Level : Number of Housing Units

Very Low (<=50% AMI): 2773 (24.9%)
Low (51%-80% AMI): 1597 (14.3%)
Moderate (81%-120% AMI): 1885 (16.9%)
Above Moderate (>120% AMI): 4880 units (43.8%)
Total: 11,135 (100%)

In other words, the state is telling MV to build 6,225 BMR units (2773+1597+1885=6,225).

If we rely on developer-only funding, the REALITY is that we will ACTUALLY need to build a great deal more than 11,135 units. We'd actually need to build a whopping 56,590 units, which would MORE THAN DOUBLE the size of our fair city.

11% of 56,590 = 6,225 BMR units

There is no way on earth that we can rely on developer-funding alone to meet the RHNA targets for affordable housing that have been set for us by the state by building "only" 11,135 total units.

Do state Dems understand the math? If so, why didn't they set more HONEST targets for MV?

Very Low (<=50% AMI): 2773 (4.9%)
Low (51%-80% AMI): 1597 (2.8%)
Moderate (81%-120% AMI): 1885 (3.3%)
Above Moderate (>120% AMI): 50,365 units (89%)
Total: 56,590 (100%)

Do the current members of our city council understand this math? I'm not sure.

But I do know that LI ZHANG Web Link is the ONLY candidate running who understands that we simply CANNOT rely on developer-only funding if we have any hope of achieving the strange and inconsistent RHNA targets that have been forced upon MV.

1) This project has 18% guaranteed low income homes being built, not 11%. It's rich for you to criticize others when you consistently make basic factual and mathematical errors.

2) I remember you being really mad that some people wanted to find alternative funding sources to rely on, but once Li Zhang states a vague statement about that being her goal as council member, you think she's a visionary! Funny how that works out.

1) Quote: "The project will provide 11% of the project's base density for units affordable to very low-income households, making it eligible for a 35% density bonus and up to two concessions under the state density bonus law, plus development waivers. Concessions allow developers to build higher in exchange for providing affordable units."

2) ??? That never, ever happened. Your memory is faulty, I'm sorry, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Why would I be opposed to alternative sources for affordable housing?

I want competition for developers, so they stop playing a game of chicken with the city council, forcing them to choose between multiple lousy options:

"I think it's sad that the city is being forced to choose between two options where such a small number of BMR units are proposed. And that the city is being given a Sophie's choice: either accept a larger number of BMR units that are inequitably distributed, or a smaller number of units so that BMR residents are not given the crappiest ones and/or aren't stigmatized.

Can't you just feel rents starting to drop around town as a result?

Reminds me of an old joke where a manufacturer lost money on every unit sold, but was looking to make a profit based on volume, lol." - Web Link

Relying on developer-only funding to solve the affordable housing crisis is nothing but fool's gold.

42 / 233 =18%. I corrected you on this already, you keep adding in the existing homes. At this point you must be willfully misrepresenting this information. For someone with so many strong opinions, you are completely incurious as to what the actual details are. It took me literally 5 minutes to read the staff report on this project, and I posted the details here for your easy consumption, but you are just ignoring them.

??? I am quoting the information presented in the main article itself. If you have a beef with the reporting, I suggest you take it up with the Voice instead of attacking me.

And for the record, you NEVER provided a link to your source and/or page numbers where the information could be found. I would be more than willing to examine legitimate sources, but not to go on wild goose chases.

For the record, I tried to examine what I thought might be your source, a link in the article related to this text: "Located at 870 E. El Camino Real, the project proposes two, six-story buildings that will have 233 units, of which 191 are considered net-new, as the project will be replacing 42 existing units on site. The combined count for the existing and new development will be 371 total units." I found a 149 page document, I tried searching through it for RHNA and found nothing, and for "AMI" which resulted in too many hits because the address is on El C"AMI"no Real.

You might consider providing links and page numbers if you want others to review your source material, instead of attacking those who are unable to locate it themselves. Just a suggestion.

I've gone back and forth with you on enough articles to realize you'll never admit to having been wrong, so I'm just limiting myself to correcting your misinformation. Even in the quote you just posted, it says that the project proposes adding 233 homes, 42 of which are guaranteed to people with low incomes. 42 / 233 = 18%.

This is a direct quote from the main article, Frank:

"The project will provide 11% of the project's base density for units affordable to very low-income households, making it eligible for a 35% density bonus and up to two concessions under the state density bonus law, plus development waivers. Concessions allow developers to build higher in exchange for providing affordable units."

If the information in the main article is wrong, please ask the Voice to review and potentially correct it's error. Arguing with me just seems counterproductive and silly.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]