Great project. The number of affordable units has increased from 29 in the 2021 version to 70 in the Builders' Remedy version (20% of 350). And the renderings look much better than the old industrial buildings that now occupy the site.

Just an Observation,

David Avny sold my building at 184 Centre Street for $4M but bought it for $5M. And the CSFRA requires that when reduction of services occurs that is an illegal raise in rent.

On top of that it is a R4 building in a R3.1 zone, and the foundation is cracking and my floor is sinking.

Since this has been a recent sale, that means there was a $1M loss of the services of the building. a 20% decline.

That means under CSFRA I am entitled to a 20% discount on rent, and I am going to take him to court for it. Specifically:

(c)Petition for Downward Adjustment — Decrease in Housing Services or Maintenance.

A decrease in Housing Services or maintenance, or deterioration of the Rental Unit beyond ordinary wear and tear, without a corresponding reduction in Rent, is considered an increase in Rent. A Tenant may file a Petition to adjust the Rent downward based on a loss in rental value attributable to a decrease in Housing Services or maintenance or deterioration of the Rental Unit. The Petition must specify the circumstances allege to constitute a decrease in Housing Services or maintenance, and demonstrate that the Landlord was provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to correct in like manner to Petitions filed pursuant to Subsection 1710(b)(2) herein.

(d)Petition for Downward Adjustment — Unlawful Rent: If a Landlord demands or retains Rent in excess of the lawful Rent pursuant to this Article, a Tenant may file a Petition to adjust the Rent to its lawful level.

The loss of $1M is an ACTUALL proof of reduced services given that the property should not have lost any value under his management.

And since he no longer is he landlord, he cannot do a thing about it.

The new owners probably have no clue about it either.

Which project will be built, SB330 or Builder's Remedy. The SB330 version reportedly only has 14 BMR units in it. Palo Alto really should be requiring more affordable units in general, or is it because allegedly Palo Alto has a shortage of market rate housing more than low income housing that SB330 lets such a project have so few BMR units? Hmmm.

It looks like basically the SB330 project turns into the bigger one by adding 50 BMR units to the plans and then 8 more market rate units. I wonder if the developer really intends to build the larger version. What's the point of making 2 applications at once?

Just an Observation,

SB330 was passed BEFORE the new housing element law.

It was designed for "no net loss"

Builders remedy simply expanded it, making it a requirement to now ADD more affordable housing, not just keep the older numbers.

Which is great, So far Mountain view nor Palo Alto has succeeded in the compliance with their housing element approvals as of today.

It looks like they will fail. They had their chance.