Just an Observation,

Given the track record regarding land management and housing in the City, this is bound to happen, your going to have the STATE dictate to the city its development.

The fact is the City Manager and the so called Community Development Office is so underskilled and needs so much of an overhaul it is incredible.

Especially when it issues policies without ANY scientific or legal basis. Like allowing an R4 apartment to operate in an R3.1 zone. To me, if the state keeps up this trajectory, the Charter Corporation of Mountain View may wind up having to dissolve.

This appears to be starting especially when the population dropped so much in the area it is now at levels it was a decade ago if you read this article

(Web Link

This marketwatch article is very important, the trajectory is possibly making the population drop even faster in the next 3 years. It claims that more immigrants are coming. This article doesn't address the relocation of the IT offices that is occurring here. There is going to be a reduction in per capita earnings thus causing a required drop in demand for many businesses.

Alphabet, is slowly but surely pulling out of Mountain view and the valley. And so far the City has not even discussed it in any meetings.

85 Units on half an acre is ridiculous in that neighborhood. Drive down that street at any given time and there is zero parking. Average 2 cars per household, will add approximately 175 cars to that street. We all know he will pay fees in lieu of having to have parking. City has to start saying no to these outrageous plans. Cooper Park needs to be built on now. Enough of this save Cooper Park...it's not about "saving" the park. It's about keeping renters and low income individuals from that "side of town". Build apartments by the old water tower location near MV High School. Another waste of land for decades now. Build on Cuesta Annex too. At least half of it. The half that is used for dogs to poop. Again the NIMBY residents of that side of town need to know what its like to be pinched in by housing like the rest of the town.

I find the situation described in this article troubling. It is clear that the housing crisis in the Bay Area requires innovative solutions that are able to increase the amount of affordable housing. The fact that a developer like Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investment is willing to build a housing project with 85 units, including 17 affordable units, is commendable. However, it is concerning that the city of Mountain View appears to be stalling this project, despite being out of compliance with state law.

It is disappointing to see the city of Mountain View not fully embracing the "builder's remedy" law, which allows developers to bypass local zoning laws if the city is not in compliance with California's housing development goals. By not allowing developers like Linebarger to use this law to increase the amount of affordable housing in the area, the city is essentially stymieing the growth of the local economy and the ability of people to find affordable housing.

It is important that Mountain View and other cities across the Bay Area take the housing crisis seriously and take steps to increase the amount of affordable housing available. The consequences of not doing so, such as ineligibility for state grant funding and costly fines, are not worth the risk. By embracing the "builder's remedy" law and encouraging developers like Linebarger to build affordable housing projects, the city of Mountain View can take a step in the right direction toward addressing the housing crisis.

Build, baby, build! The Bay Area has the highest housing costs in the country. It has to end. It's despicable to see the Mountain View government trying to stall housing construction yet again, using any means possible. They're kowtowing to the landed elite at the expense of everyone else. Hopefully we will begin to see some positive change under the builder's remedy.

For an 85 unit high rise the construction cost is going to be in the range of $40 Million. And he's objecting to a $50K fee for applying for the permit? He made them do all the work for the townhouse project before changing his mind. I doubt his fees covered their effort on that. Now he wants them to keep processing BOTH a 33 unit project and an 85 unit project at the same time, and it seems to me they need to recover the costs for that.

Just an Observation,

Just doing som math here if the project costs $40,M and produces 85 units, that means the cost per unit is $470k. But didn't these developers

Web Link

Say it costs

"In comparison, the average cost for building below market rate housing in the rest of California outside the Bay Area is $385,185 per unit. Projects in Santa Clara County and Sonoma County were below the Bay Area average, with average values of $621,517, and $497,360, respectively."

That was in 2020, Santa Clara County was claiming it cost $622K to build a unit and now they are asking they can for $470K, a price cut of 32% . With the inflation an all!!!

HERE IS PROOF THAT DEVELOPERS ARE COOKING BOOKS AND INFLATING PRICES!!!

Time to get to the TRUTH of what it actually costs, these proposals have to be made public including parts and service provider breakdowns so that they can be INDEPEDENTLY validated by the people of Mountain view.

The developers have been scamming this city long enough

The annex is a park. I’m not sure why we bring up this old argument about building in parks. As soon as we run out of parking lots and empty land lots in core areas (eg downtown) then we can start talking about building on parks. Build 20 stories downtown if you want to. Not sure when we have to give up green space when we have a ton of blackspace (looking at you shopping centers!)

My guess is that he has no plans to construct the proposed 85-unit building. The scale of that development compared to 11 rowhouses means he probably doesn't have the financial resources. If the 85 units gets approved, he'll try to sell the lot/project to a big development company. He'll keep the 33-unit application as a backup in case he can't get a buyer for the oversized development. In that context, $50k is a lot of money to put up for something 1) he doesn't think has a good chance of approval and 2) if it is approved, he might not be able to sell. But there's no reason for him to whine about it - you can't make money without risking money (except as a property developer in MV).

I'm not sure I understand the point of this project. Why would anyone want to pay market rates to live in a hamster cage with no parking? Especially when Mountain View currently has plenty of available market-rate housing.

And yes, I agree with Steve. Rather than stuffing hundreds of people into 1/2 acre on an already overcrowded street, let's revisit teacher housing in Cooper Park, put affordable apartments on the Cuesta Park "annex," and build anything on some of Mountain View's numerous moribund strip malls.

Also, Mountain View is one of the few towns in Silicon Valley that's actually proposed a housing element in good faith. It's sad that we're being targeted for builders' remedies.

I understand your concerns about the proposed housing project, but it's important to keep in mind that we need a diverse set of housing options that are spread throughout the city in order to meet the needs of all residents, including those who may not be able to afford market-rate housing. The proposed project includes 17 units that would be affordable to low-income residents, which is a step towards addressing the housing crisis in the Bay Area.

While it's true that Mountain View currently has available market-rate housing, the reality is that much of it is unaffordable to many people who work and live in the area. The lack of affordable housing is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed, and the proposed project is one way to contribute to a solution.

Regarding your suggestions for other potential sites for affordable housing, those are certainly worth considering as part of a larger strategy to address the housing crisis. However, it's important to note that the reason the city is facing the possibility of builder's remedy is that it did not abide by state housing law, which requires cities to submit an updated housing element detailing how they will meet mandated housing goals. It's important for cities to take their responsibilities seriously when it comes to addressing the housing crisis, and the proposed project is one way for Mountain View to do so.

"Especially when Mountain View currently has plenty of available market-rate housing."

Housing-crisis denial strikes again.

The whole system the state uses is ill defined. This builders remedy was adopted 30 years ago and never used until now. It's not clear that it even applies at this moment in time. It would be worth taking the case to court because Mountain View YIMBY's worked so hard to delay the city passing a housing element by lobbying to "improve" an already acceptable draft which stalled it from being adopted. The good faith effort the city made to interact with HCD should preclude invoking Builders Remedy here. It will probably matter just how many of the 105 pending out of 109 Bay Area cities have their housing element disproved of by HCD at this point.

I hadn't thought about the applicant playing roulette with the process and just going for a permit he thought he might be able to sell at a profit. It would explain why he's objecting to the $50K fee, but he's illogical. He describes the location as close to downtown when it's a mile away. It's 1/4 mile from 85 and 1/2 mile from 101. Yeah, that's close in to downtown Mountain View NOT. It speaks to the reasoning by the applicant in general.

One thing people keep forgetting is that Moffett Field is set to build a whale of a lot housing on their installation. This 85 unit tower is closer to those new housing units than it is to downtown Mountain View. That's going to go above the 14,000 units projected by Mountain View over the next 8 years. There really isn't much of a shortage currently, and all the state's arguments for need have to do with projecting a lot of new population moving in and THEN needing housing. It's not clear that degree of growth will happen.

Any developer being offered this project with an approved 85 unit project is going to take into account nearby housing under process. Mountain View has clearly signaled that East Whisman will see massive new housing development. Moffett Field has clear plans for housing. AN 85 unit project in this spot would have to compete with those projects, which look to be more appealing to tenants. The project is not that attractive.

The law is the law. HCD has declared that Mountain View's drafts so far did not follow the law. That's the end of the story, until we come up with a new draft.

There is no shortage of housing in Mountain View. Just drive around - there are vacancy signs all over, the only problem being the price. Developers are not going to build without making a substantial profit, and throwing in a few BMR homes does not solve the problem. These companies will not be satisfied until they have covered the city in concrete and wrung every last dollar from buyers and renters alike. To hell with the environment, the loss of trees and green space. The city council seems to be happy to go along with this.

Right. Just like there's no shortage of cars, either. Just drive by Magnussen's Toyota. Plenty of cars for sale, the only problem being the price.

No shortage of eggs, either, for that matter. Trader Joe's had plenty the last time I checked.

There's no shortage but if Google were to go ahead and hire more people in the local area, perhaps by backpedaling on San Jose, it could create demand.

But so far as I can calculate in order to "pencil out" the units in this new building would need to rent for $4000 per month in present day dollars. Paying that much is market rate today, but only in buildings with amenities such as those located on El Camino Real and San Antonio following recent new construction. There's no room to discount the required rent owing to the inferior location of these new units in this oddball building.

And so far as HCD declaring MV's housing element submittal to be lacking, it was specifically because they thought the city overestimated when they said they could create 25% more unit than RHNA required. HCD basically just asked them to show their work on that, or they could have simply cut back on the optimism. There was no reason MV couldn't have gotten an approvable version to HCD--except for listening to YIMBY agitators who claimed otherwise.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that there is no shortage of housing in the area. The high housing prices in the Bay Area clearly demonstrate that there is a shortage of affordable housing, and it is forcing many people to leave the area or to live in overcrowded or substandard conditions.

Regarding the proposed building, I understand your concerns about the rental prices, but I believe that we need a diverse set of housing options spread throughout the city, including affordable units. While the proposed building may not be ideal for everyone, it could be a good option for those who are looking for more affordable housing.

In regards to your comments about the Housing and Community Development department's evaluation of Mountain View's housing element, I think it's important to note that the department's concerns were not simply about overestimating the number of units that could be built. There were also issues with the plan's lack of specificity and implementation details, which could have made it difficult to achieve the housing goals. It's important that we continue to work with the HCD to create a plan that is both feasible and effective in addressing the housing crisis in our community.

For HCD purposes and RHNA quotas there are two types of housing, market rate and affordable. Mountain Views quota and plans call for 6000 new units of affordable housing and a lesser number of new market rate units. The excess the city plans to provide lies in the market rate component, above and beyond the RHNA quota for greater than moderate income or market rate housing. The past success has been in exceeding provision of housing for greater than moderate income while everything else has been problematic.

While it's true that Mountain View has a mandate to provide a certain number of affordable units, it's important to note that this cycle's RHNA numbers are much higher than previous cycles. This means that even with a focus on affordable housing, the city still needs to provide a significant number of market-rate units to meet its obligations.

Additionally, the rejection of Mountain View's housing element by HCD was not solely due to optimistic numbers. The agency cited several other deficiencies, including a lack of adequate analysis of the zoning code, insufficient information on how the city will meet its obligations for low-income housing, and inadequate engagement with the community. It's important that the city addresses all of these issues in order to comply with state law and provide the housing options that are sorely needed in the region.

It's just a tribute to the fact that there is NOT any shortage of the market rate housing such as goes at $4000/month for rent. That's why HCD knows Mountain View will have trouble getting the market rate housing numbers up to where RHNA wants them. If there were truly a shortage, then the market forces would be insurmountable and the housing would flow from the city's mere stated intentions.

But the real issue is that there are insufficient funds for all the subsidies needed for all the intentionally affordable housing quotas too. I think the attention to the false needs for more market rate housing makes the acquisition of land for affordable units be much more difficult.

Here’s a story that illustrates the reality of what transpires under “builder’s remedy”: Ten people are invited to a conference. The 4 highest wage earners sit on the right side of a room. The 6 lowest-wage earners sit on the left. Eventually a pizza is ordered to feed them, it is cut into 10 slices. The 4 highest wage earners are given 8 slices. The 6 lowest wage earners are given two slices to share among themselves.

This is the TRUTH of what state politicians offer as their best solution to the housing crisis. A disgustingly large amount of housing units are still created for the highest wage earners IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO.

Giving two slices of pizza is of course better than giving only one, but the bigger and more important point remains: 8 slices of pizza are given to the 4 highest wage earners, while only 2 slices are given to the 6 working people who are in most desperate need. And the 4 highest wage earners still complain that not enough pizza is being given to them.

State politicians and YIMBY advocates position themselves as champions for affordable housing, but the truth is their policies benefit developers, Google, and highly paid techies/YIMBYs far more than “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code”.

Even under ”builder’s remedy”, only a trivial amount of truly affordable housing units will be created. The biggest winner is of course developers, who are allowed to construct Frankenstein monsters with the blessing of state politicians. Constructing a 6-story building on Tyrella that provides 80% market rate units? In an area where parking is already scarce? Only a highly paid YIMBY would cheer such a thing. Thank you Gov. Gavin Newsom for forcing such nonsense onto Mountain View.

Right. Let's show the developers who's the boss and go back to one slice of pizza!

Great to see that there is interest in builder’s remedy from developers, but I really hope this isn’t a case of Mountain View blocking new homes with unrealistic fees. It was my understanding that the council was aligned on their pro-housing agenda, but I guess we will see if the walk the talk.

I want to see builders remedy add to the supply constrained housing pipeline. I hope this project and many others get approved and built quickly.

I’m a young, lower middle income resident who is expecting my first child this summer. We are already rent-burdened with a one-bedroom and we can’t afford a two bedroom.

For all the anti-housing people in the comments, I am disappointed that you believe lower and middle income people shouldn’t be able to raise families in Mountain View. You are exactly the reason the state is passing these bills. You got your way for long enough, and with great cost to an entire generation. Now it’s time to build, baby, build.

Good luck, developers!

In 2016 Kate Vershov Downing resigned from the Palo Alto Planning Commission and wrote an article that went viral, Web Link : “It’s clear that if [highly paid] professionals like me cannot raise a family here, then all of our teachers, first responders, and service workers are in dire straits.” Translation: “a highly paid couple should be able to buy a house, dang it!”. Make no mistake, ending this SPECIFIC injustice is the main quest of the YIMBY movement, not helping lower-income folks.

Downing explained: “There is a small minority in Palo Alto that is local, wealthy and powerful and they don’t want change. They just want more jobs to grow the tax base, but they don’t want new people. They want to keep housing as expensive as possible.” These unproven theories don’t describe me or the residents that I know. But somehow behavior from a “small minority” in Palo Alto morphed into assumptions about the inner motivations of the MAJORITY of residents in MV. Is this fair or just? No.

YIMBY leaders proclaim that they are fighting for “affordable” housing. The reality is that they are doing a far better job at advancing the best interests of developers and tech workers, instead of those with lower incomes. Over the past 8-year RHNA cycle in MV, almost 90% of housing units created were targeted for the highest wage earners. Now we see that even when the YIMBY nuclear weapon is dropped, “builder’s remedy”, the most construction directed at OVER HALF THE POPULATION OF MV, the folks at the bottom of the ladder, is a measly 20% of units. Will this bring rents down for average workers? No, it will not, because MATH.

The true entity that is “blocking supply” of “affordable” housing is the MV City Council itself. Every time it approves a project where 90% (or even 80%) of units are market-rate, they are turning a blind eye to the needs of those most harmed by the housing crisis.

The pizza slices are actually not going to be produced in unlimited or even very large quantities even if housing elements call for that to happen. The demand just really isn't there for the pizza makers to do that. It's a case of a little incentive maybe helping but you can't just pull production more and more with added incentives. We're up against shifting values where people just aren't as interested in buying homes and not renting as was once the case. If there were more interest in buying then the market would be making more condos. Instead, the best we see is more rental apartments with a few bells and whistles but becoming smaller and smaller. People have choices and so they will seek out a place where the situation is less dense and there are nicer apartments available for lower prices. Government can't just will the prices to be lower here. Some naive young people think developers are going to overproduce and end up losing money on their projects so that they can then have cheaper apartments to rent. That confusion permeates the argument about their being a housing shortage.

Meanwhile those with the lowest income levels, i.e. say those below the median, they don't get enough government help to live in areas where the growth has been the most. YIMBY's say well any housing is good and if you build more deluxe apartments the leftovers will trickle down to lower income levels. Ronald Reagan had ideas like that and they don't work as he ended up proving.

Just an Observation,

Simply put, if the City doesn't do anything to correct the problem of requiring MANDATAORY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, and the state sees it happening where the state has to INTERVENE and make more MANDATROY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, ten the rest of the state can blame the City of Mountain View, like Huntington Beach.

But we have practically a non leadership City Council, because it has NO EXECUTIVE POWERS.

That is in the hands of the City Manager, who is NOT ELECTED and has a LIFETIME JOB.

This is why you cannot get any quality representation from any City Council of Mountain view. They actually are just figureheads, it is a PART TIME job, and they get paid less then the City Manager gets paid.

The people here simply do not understand the SYSTEMIC problem s here.

“”The pizza slices are actually not going to be produced in unlimited or even very large quantities even if housing elements call for that to happen. The demand just really isn't there for the pizza makers to do that.”

THIS! THIS! THIS!

Under our primary funding model - from FOR-PROFIT developers - affordable units are only built when developers want to build expensive, market rate units. When demand for those units slows/stops, construction of “affordable” units stops too!

“Government can't just will the prices to be lower here. Some naive young people think developers are going to overproduce and end up losing money on their projects so that they can then have cheaper apartments to rent.”

Developers are QUICK to point out before the City Council when a project won’t ‘pencil out’. It is a fantasy to think that developers will continue to build even when they will lose money as a result. Who would do that?

“Meanwhile those with the lowest income levels, i.e. say those below the median, they don't get enough government help to live in areas where the growth has been the most.”

If 11,000 units were constructed under the BEST CASE, builder’s remedy, 20% of those would be affordable: 2200 units. The state is asking MV to build 11,000 units, and mandates that 6000 be affordable. It doesn’t take a genius to see that MV is going to miss our targets by about 4000 units unless significant additional funding is provided.

The problem isn’t zoning, the problem is FUNDING. Relying primarily on for-profit developers to build affordable housing is a path to failure for teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code.

Trickle-down didn’t work in the 80’s. It wont work today either, it is nothing but pretty words from the wealthy to con ordinary voters into schemes that primarily benefit the wealthy. The TRUTH is, YIMBY advocacy primarily benefits developers, google, and highly paid techies.

Just an Observation,

The city doesn't have competent services regarding community development, they allow a apartment to operate in a designated R3.1 zone even though the apartment is an R4 property. But they don't even pay attentions to their own maps, their own laws, and follow them properly.

It is a complete mess, the City Inspectors do not have ANY equipment to use to determine whether a building is safe of not, Here is my capture of a conversation of the city inspect claiming just by visual scanning on the surfaces of the units he can detect safety for the unit

Web Link

Here is me just using a level to detect tilting

Web Link

So you cannot depend on the city to even perform proper inspections regarding structural safety.

Please understand this city is going to undergo a major crisis, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and many other companies are laying off here, and also pausing if not going to cancel projects in the city. Google just shut down a leasing company for residential units.

Web Link

and

Web Link

And

Web Link

There is as major Commercial and Residential market correction underway, there are signs that the Fed will raise their rates to 6% which is above the residential cap rate of 4.5%, meaning it will kill all the residential and commercial market profits, and make it simply bad to invest in them.

I don't think that the YIMBY element even contemplates anyone ever trying to tear down existing buildings because they violate zoning adopted after they were built. I don't think that urging red tagging of existing buildings and forcing all the existing tenants to vacate is something they imagine either.

The builders remedy law didn't envision almost every city being non compliant and subject to its bizarre provisions either. If HCD rejects too many more of the city plans, then look for changes to the law. Upping the 20% affordable to 50% affordable (or even 25%!) would be a good change.

Just an Observation,

I know we have had disagreements in the past, but LongResident hit the nail on the head there.

I know it may be nasty, but if the letter of the laws were to be followed by the City, that yes MANY apartments might have to be either REZONED of just taken down.

Rezoning doesn't appear to be a difficult situation, except it will disclose to the tenants already renting that they have been misled regarding the legality of the rental agreements.

This could result in as much as 4 years of rents having to be returned to the tenants because the rents were UNLAWFUL.

The best solution is to rezone, and for any tenants who was in the unit, the CITY would have to flip the bill in rental refunds, they are liable for it anyway as well.

But the other show is that if any tenant was part of rental assistance, these rents paid by funds provided by the Federal and State governments could be also fraud and criminal.

That means these landlords are in far more trouble then you think.

Another bit of evidence to show how poorly the City can mange itself. And thus any developer should bypass them immediately.

“Upping the 20% affordable to 50% affordable (or even 25%!) would be a good change.”

Agreed. However, at this point I feel it important to mention corruption in politics, public positions, and private positions.

The public position of so many politicians is that certain policies are needed in order to create more affordable housing. The need for affordable housing is real. But alert voters understand that one must question whether the PRIVATE position of these politicians matches their pretty words. Are the politicians truly trying to advance policy that will end the pain of ‘we the people’? Or are they actually out to further their own careers by gaining patronage from the rich and powerful? One gains such patronage by securing benefits for rich donors, this often requires deceiving ordinary voters.

IMHO, we are at a difficult moment in time that reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome. Innocent children psychologically prefer to blame themselves for abuse by a caretaker, rather than believe that the caretaker is not a good person. Similarly, it is very difficult for voters to hold the thought that our political system is such that politicians (both red and blue) do what is best for rich and powerful entities rather than ordinary voters. Web Link

Consider:

The status quo favors developers, Google, and highly paid workers - not ordinary workers. 9 market rate units for every 1 affordable unit.

Failure to achieve new and harsh HCD demands results in consequences that CONTINUE to favor developers, Google, and highly paid workers. 8 market rate units for every 2 affordable units.

Is the PRIVATE goal really to help ordinary workers? Based on ACTIONS alone, it looks like the goal is to help developers, Google, and highly paid workers.

I don’t expect “builder’s remedy” to change anytime soon.

“Upping the 20% affordable to 50% affordable (or even 25%!) would be a good change.”

You know what else would be a good change? Watching the City Council actually REJECT a project that provides fewer than the 15% affordable units that are supposedly required in “some new market rate developments”.

From the city website:

“There are two main types of affordable housing in Mountain View:

• Subsidized affordable apartments primarily to very-low and extremely-low income households. The City, along with other investors, provides funding to subsidize the rents in the affordable apartment developments. There are currently 1,197 subsidized apartments in Mountain View; and

• Below-Market-Rate (BMR) ownership and rental units affordable to low and moderate income households. BMR rental and ownership units are incorporated into some new market rate developments, where between 15% of the units may be affordable.” - Web Link

I believe that last line should read “where between 15% and 20% of the units may be affordable.”

I’ve been tracking news of such developments for about 2 years now, and I don’t think I have ever once seen a project where 15% of units were affordable, the percentage is always less.

Of course, if the council did reject a project on that basis, one could expect howls of rage from the “more housing of any kind” crowd. It doesn't occur to them that THEY THEMSELVES are actually "blocking supply" of TRULY affordable units for lower income folks by their actions, because for-profit developers consistently want to build as few affordable units as they can get away with.

I hope that our newest Council Woman, Emily Ann Ramos, will have the courage to point out in future meetings when a developer fails to meet the 15% "requirement", and will call to reject the proposal on that basis.

Mountain Views description of affordable housing doesn't make numeric sense. The numbers are increased for the next RHNA cycle but even in the current one, They went like this:
Mountain View 814(very low) 492 (Low) 527 (moderate) 1,093 (market rate) 2,926 Total. The city did exceed the market rate or above moderate quota but even so at even 20% of that total, it only would add 300 or so inclusionary units. There's now may that would cover the number of low and moderate income units required to be created. So somehow that type of unit has to be present in some way among the subsidized or all-affordable projects in the city.... The description you found on the city web site is inaccurate and misleading. You can't possibly say that all the moderate and low income units are present as inclusionary parts of developer projects or that none of the purposely subsidized projects can be expected to provide for moderate or low income and only focus on extremely low and very low income. It doesn't work for the numbers.

@LongResident, you need to look at the ACTUALS, not just the targets. Look at Table 3 on this Voice article, Web Link , which shows both the targets and actuals for the last RHNA cycle.

2,926 was the Total Target, however, the Total Permits issued was 8,078.

Compare the targets:
814(very low) 492 (Low) 527 (moderate) 1,093 (market rate) 2,926 Total

To the actual permits issued:
371(very low) 372 (Low) 253 (moderate) 7,082 (market rate) 8,078 Total

Note the FAILURE to achieve all targets other than market rate, a target that was WILDLY EXCEEDED. The cold, hard, data shows that developers prefer to build market rate units instead of affordable units.

7,082/8,078= 88% of all permits issued were for market rate units.

371+372+253= 996
996/8,078= 12% of all permits issued were for affordable units.

In other words, over the past 8 year RHNA cycle about 9 market rate units were created for every 1 affordable unit.

“You can't possibly say that all the moderate and low income units are present as inclusionary parts of developer projects or that none of the purposely subsidized projects can be expected to provide for moderate or low income and only focus on extremely low and very low income.”

???. Agreed. I never said that.