""It’s slightly concerning,” said Council member Emily Ann Ramos, who met with the developer the previous week and did not know about the proposed modification".

It's VERY concerning, While market conditions might explain the modification, they don't change overnight or within a week and this sudden change smells fishy.

At a minimum, City should have deferred the hearing to next Council meeting to give the public a say on a change posted only one hour before the meeting , and the City Council more time to assess the change.

Don't we have enough new housing construction in Mountain View already ??? My God... In the Rex Manor area in the last few years all we've been seeing is new construction. And look at Middlefield Avenue lately !!! And up and down ECR !!!
When is enough enough ???

The city is in real trouble. The recent Baykeeper decision still mean the city needs to install water treatment for storm drain before 2027, and they have a large legal bill to pay to Baykeeper because they won the case in federal court. And with the depopulation of Google offices, and the other business that relied on it. Look at El Camino Real lately?

This is a dumb plan if it comes to fruition.

If you're forcing someone to cut their price and build 4 units then where does that money go? If you read this feel-good story in The Voice you might not ask.

The answer is, of course, that while 4 homes are going down in price the other 28 units are going up along with the home values nearby. Way to solve it, City Council.

The way "Affordable Housing" works is:
1. Those paying full price pay a higher price
2. To pay down, the "Affordable" units
(According to the City Website)

So it is really "Subsidized Housing"

Why is this important?
You can't build your way into "Affordable" housing with this model.
Because the people paying full price....just have to pay more. So prices go up.

I see this a way to make people *feel good*.
So they can claim, "Look, we're doing affordable housing"
But regular buyers are footing the bills.
Other people may mistakenly believe that we found some magic way to make affordable housing in the bay area at no cost...(I say there is no free lunch)

4/32 = 12.5% affordable units. Supposedly, MV code requires 15% affordable units. But this 'requirement' is really more of a guideline ... again, and again, and again, and again. So once again, ALMOST ALL of the units created are expensive, market rate units. And this time, they are not even OWNERSHIP units?

"Council member Margaret Abe-Koga pressed for more details about the financial reasons for the change, which Berns described as a timing decision to better match with market demand."

This just goes to show that developers are clever business people who are not about to overdevelop to increase supply if they don't get the profits that they want. Those who think otherwise are simply naive to the realities of how developers actually operate.

To the people in that area who will have to live with the overcrowding created by this construction, may I suggest something?
Personally, I would announce to all people involved in destroying this residential neighborhood, that I will personally boycott and shun anyone who is involved in this project. Starting with the City Council, I would also include the developer, the real estate agents, sellers and buyers, and the construction people and suppliers. Prospective tenants and buyers should be informed that they will be unwelcome and shunned.
If, on the other hand, they build housing that is in line with the rest of the neighborhood (no more than two stories), then they are welcome.
BTW, how many people involved with approval of this project (especially City Council members) live with such a project in their immediate neighborhood?

When boycotting and shunning the people that are destroying a neighborhood, you should do so with a ‘3 No V’ approach - “No Violence, No Vandalism, No Vulgarity”. Everyone involved should sign an oath to follow the ‘3 No V’ method. The worst thing that can happen would be to be labeled as dangerous or destructive.
Telling those who are harming homeowners and tenants that they are ‘destroyers of neighborhoods’ should be the message that goes out to the general public, with no other baggage.

While it's understandable that some individuals may have concerns about new construction in their neighborhoods, the approach of boycotting, shunning, and labeling people involved in these projects as "destroyers of neighborhoods" can be corrosive to a community's culture and counterproductive in the long run. Communities thrive when they are inclusive, diverse, and welcoming to people from all walks of life. Alienating those seeking housing, whether they are buyers, tenants, developers, or construction workers, is not conducive to fostering a healthy and vibrant community.

New housing developments can bring economic growth, jobs, and opportunities to an area. They also offer housing options for individuals and families who are looking for a place to live. Excluding or stigmatizing them does not set a positive example for children and younger generations. It's important to teach our children values of empathy, cooperation, and community building rather than exclusion and hostility.

Constructive dialogue and engagement with the local government, developers, and other stakeholders can lead to better outcomes for everyone. Rather than focusing on boycotting and shunning, it may be more productive to work together to find solutions that address concerns about overcrowding and maintain the character of the neighborhood while also accommodating the needs of the growing population. Building a sense of unity and cooperation within a community can have far more positive and lasting effects than divisive actions.

whenever I read a discussion like this, I have to ask"why do we need more market rate housing?" We don't need "economic growth, jobs, and opportunities" as the area is already too crowded, and doesn't have the infrastructure to support more people. I am reminded of a slogan from the 70s: "Growth for its own sake is the philosophy of a cancer cell." I think this development IS destroying neighborhoods. Shunning is pretty tough, but we've got to get the message out.

SRB and Leslie Bain - I agree with you (and 'simple math', Oh! Fractions!) the two Council members you mention don't seem to have the guts - to Just Vote NO. Talking 'concern' is very cheap and really gets nothing / when you Have the Power of The Vote!

1 hour change? - Just Vote NO / or better "make a motion to table" to the next meeting. Parliamentary procedure that even the most junior Council member should know - and certainly the veteran that is running to be our County Supervisor.

ref: League of California Cities; Rosenberg's Rules of Order, Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century / page 5, top of page "Motion to Table"
Web Link

@Steven, thank you once again for your kind comments. However, I disagree with you about whether to praise or condemn Abe-Koga after she pressed for an explanation about why ownership units had suddenly turned into rental units. I admire her for pressing for such an answer, and admire the Voice for their reporting on this matter. I find it shocking that a developer can actually ask for such a change AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, and even more shocking that they would be given an approval.

I hold all Council Members accountable for their votes after they were given the answer. I also fail to understand why MV code is not being enforced. I attended the Springer/Cuesta/Phyllis Area Neighborhoods Meeting held on October 5, 2023 and raised the issue that only about 11% of units in projects such as this one were typically created as affordable units. Council Members Pat Showalter, Lucas Ramirez, and Emily Ann Ramos were in attendance. Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava assured the audience that MV code requires 15% affordable units. That is true. However, she did not mention that this “code” was more of a guideline, and that it is RARELY enforced. And now less than a month later, the Council has approved yet another project that does not have 15% affordable units. Unanimously.

State politicians have mandated that MV build 6,225 affordable units over the next 8 years. Based on our past history, there is absolutely no way that we will reach this goal. This project gives us 4, count them 4, affordable units. Woo-hoo! And when we don’t meet our goal, the state holds the city of MV accountable for it. Bills like SB 35 kick in, enabling developers to bypass normal approval processes, supposedly to “boost affordability and help tenants”. See comments: Web Link

In reality, state politicians have handed an expensive and and unfunded mandate to us. It is not tenants who are being “helped”, it is developers and others who benefit from the production of market rate units.

Why is MV code is not being enforced? Why haven’t city leaders crafted a plan to create the 6,225 affordable units that the state requires of us to prevent bills like SB 35 from kicking in? And why is the title of this article so misleading? This bid is NOT about entry-level home ownership … the developer asked for, and was given, approval to create “temporary” rentals “until such time as [the developer] can then convert it over to condominiums” ... “the developer hopes that the market will change”.

I think that this weird project is going to have a lot of trouble getting financing at this point, even with the option to rent units as opposed to sell. it was always a stretch for a lender to loan on a project like this. More likely, the developer uses the new optional rent/sell as a way to market it to a bigger developer who might buy it at a discount and back burner it for a while. More buyers for an apartment complex project than for condos.

So the real question to have asked would be, "How long before you sell this project and let someone else develop?
"

Leslie, it's concerning to hear about the apparent discrepancy between the 15% affordable housing requirement stated in the Mountain View code and the actual 11% of affordable units reported in projects like the one discussed at the Neighborhoods Meeting. It seems like there might be a lack of transparency or enforcement when it comes to ensuring that developers adhere to the affordable housing guidelines.

Can you elaborate on how the city's representatives responded to this issue during the meeting? Did they provide any explanation or assurance about addressing this gap between the stated requirement and the reality of affordable housing units being provided in these projects? Understanding their perspective could shed light on the city's approach to affordable housing and what steps, if any, they plan to take to bridge this gap and ensure compliance with the stated guidelines.

i agree. It appears the City Council said it would uphold a 15% minimum in public, but in practice it dropped the portion to 11%? That is significant. Maybe the City is not able to stand up to developers, which means we need more STATE laws prohibiting cities from not performing. Also this should be reported to the state so that perhaps the Attorney General will take action?

Why is MV code not being enforced? I don’t know. The City Council clearly has the ability to approve projects that do not contain 15% affordable units. The evidence is in this very article, this project only has 12.5% affordable units. 4 affordable units / 32 total units = 12.5%

I have performed similar calculations and left similar comments on many other articles. This project is actually BETTER than most. The state rewards developers for providing 11% affordable housing so 11% is a commonly seen ratio. See Web Link for another project, article states

“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.” This project was also approved.

“Can you elaborate on how the city's representatives responded to this issue during the meeting? Did they provide any explanation or assurance about addressing this gap between the stated requirement and the reality of affordable housing units being provided in these projects?”

The discussion came about as part of a very long answer to a question I had submitted: “A tax initiative is planned for Fall 2024 elections. I am concerned that fees were cut in the Housing Element, developer impact fees, that were previously collected for parks and open spaces as the population increases. Now the financial burdens are being xferred to ordinary residents. This is not just, especially when most residents are not even aware of fees being cut for developers. Will these fee cuts be communicated to voters before the 2024 elections? How?”

Both Shrivastava and Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews spoke at length to answer this question. I would love to describe in detail what transpired, but I fear the mods will remove them and replace with “[Post removed due to being off-topic]” Shrivastava did confirm, “When MV passed it’s Housing Element, we were required to reduce fees that were being charged to developers for parks.”

Andrews final comments were about how the proposed tax measure was not just about parks, “our council has a big vision for the mountain view of tomorrow”. Lots of discussion, he touched on affordable housing, then Shrivastava added some too, how the city is trying to increase the stock of larger units to better support families. She mentioned that MV code requires 15% affordable units. At that point I spoke out to say that the reality is that most projects have about 11% affordable housing. She implied to the audience that I was mistaken.

So no, they did not provide any explanation or assurance about addressing this gap between the stated requirement and the reality of affordable housing units being provided in these projects.

It's essential to clarify this issue with the city staff directly, as there might be some misunderstandings about the local Below Market Rate ordinance and how it applies to housing projects in Mountain View. Additionally, state laws such as the State Density Bonus could also come into play, influencing the affordable housing percentages in developments.

Given the complexities of land use planning and housing regulations, it's not uncommon for there to be confusion about the specifics of these requirements. Engaging with city staff members can provide you with accurate and detailed information about the regulations in place and how they are being implemented in real-time. They are often well-versed in local ordinances, state laws, and recent developments, and can offer insights that might not be readily apparent in public discussions.

I encourage you to reach out to the city staff, as they are usually very responsive and can be an excellent resource for understanding the nuances of these issues. Direct communication with them will likely provide a clearer picture of the situation and help address any concerns you may have about affordable housing percentages in local projects.

The rules are just different for ownership units than they are for rental units. 15% doesn't apply to for sale units in the same way, and there may be some payment made to the city in lieu of some of the BMR ownership units.

“It's essential to clarify this issue with the city staff directly, as there might be some misunderstandings about the local Below Market Rate ordinance and how it applies to housing projects in Mountain View.”

The public relies on the city to be transparent about matters such as this. I did bring this issue to city staff as directly as I could, and they implied that I was mistaken. The city website, Web Link states

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

-Subsidized affordable apartments ...

-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 15% of the units may be affordable.”

“The rules are just different for ownership units than they are for rental units. 15% doesn't apply to for sale units in the same way, and there may be some payment made to the city in lieu of some of the BMR ownership units.”

The public deserves transparency. If MV code does not require 15% affordable units then

1)why was such a statement made at the meeting and allowed to stand?

2)what does MV code actually require?

The state rewards developers for providing 11% affordable housing so 11% is a commonly seen ratio.

Over the past 8-year RHNA cycle Web Link 8,078 total units were created, 7,082 (88%) were market-rate, 12% were affordable.

In the current cycle, 15,000 units are planned, we can expect that 11% of those will be affordable (1,650 units). The state requires MV to build 6,225 affordable units, however; that turns out to match the population distribution from the 2020 census: over half of MV residents fall into the low and moderate income categories. Over half of MV residents are in need of affordable housing, we are most certainly going to miss our RHNA targets for these people, who are most hurt by the housing crisis.

But bad news for low-income and average workers is good news for those who primarily desire market-rate housing. The state only requires MV to build 4,880 for the highest wage earners in the land, but we can expect that they will get 13,350 which is almost 10,000 more! 15,000 x 89% = 13,350

Leslie, thank you for your Math. This is complex, thanks for paying attention, and posting!

Well, the requirement for 15% is not hard and fast since the application forms allow opting for an alternative policy. The city did not always require 15% and the rules have changed over time. Sometimes a project establishes a plan and that plan persists even after a change in the required numbers. It seems not long ago that Mountain View It looks like it was in about 2019 that the BMR in rental projects was increased from 10% to 15%. Townhomes and row houses have a higher requirement.

It's not enough to just call a unit BMR are there are different income targets for various levels. The 15% requirement appears to be for a weighted average of 100% of area median income with a range of 80% to 120%. This is not low income housing but some cities do have low income housing in their BMR inclusionary programs.

One possibility is that the applicant for the condo project requested a lower number of units because the average income level was lower than the required amount. One source says townhomes and row house developments have an average income level for the affordable housing included by requirement of 120% of area median imcome. The range for this type of project is between 100% and 150% of AMI. It seems to be implied that a townhome is a condo project for ownership housing. Condo projects like this one was have been infrequent in recent years, so maybe the 100-150% AMI applied to this condo project too and by targetting a different average BMR income level than 120% of AMI, the applicat got approved with 12.5%!

So it's not a straightward rule but the applicant can seek to target different income levels in the project application. The 15% number only applies where the targeted income in an apartment project is exactly at AMI, i.e. not low income housing.

“Leslie, thank you for your Math. This is complex, thanks for paying attention, and posting!”

Steven, thank you. Like you, I care about the poor. That’s actually why I am here so often, posting my comments.

I don’t object to construction of market-rate housing. What I object to is housing policy that DIS-PROPORTIONALLY favors construction of market-rate housing. The result is gentrification, which actually HURTS “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code”. And I object to state politicians pretending to fight for lower-income and average workers while they actually pass the buck.

It makes me cringe that gentrification is being implemented here in MV under a banner of “affordable housing”. Sadly, the situation IS complex, so it is difficult for ordinary people to understand the reality of what is happening. There is a lack of transparency at both the state and local level, and an absence of journalists diving into and explaining the details.

But it all begins with the state assigning responsibility for the creation of affordable housing to the cities. Instead of actually helping residents who are in need, they are setting up local city councils to be the fall guys. People should really think about that. The state has given an impossible task to the cities, in our case it is the creation of 6,225 affordable housing units. When we don’t meet it, state politicians pretend that we are anti-affordable housing. And they empower developers to overcome our “NIMBY-ism”. It’s ridiculous. It’s also an abuse of power.

I actually have some sympathy for the City Council, they are in a difficult position. Imagine what would happen if the Council rejected this project because it did not have 15% affordable units? I’m confident they would be denounced as being “anti-housing”. The YIMBYs say that “every unit helps”, a market-rate unit is just as good as an affordable unit. That logic might be good enough for those who want to increase the supply of market-rate units, but it does not hold for lower income and even homeless people. These folks need AFFORDABLE housing, but they don’t have powerful advocates fighting for THEM.

Is housing priced so as to be affordable to those earning 100% to 150% of the area median income rightly classified as being for low income people?

“Is housing priced so as to be affordable to those earning 100% to 150% of the area median income rightly classified as being for low income people?”

??? Not sure where your question is coming from. Per the new Housing Element, page 241, we find

“The City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element projection period are summarized in Table 35 ... the City of Mountain View is required to plan to accommodate the development of at least 11,135 housing units. This includes 2,773 units for very low-income households, 1,597 units for low-income households, 1,885 units for moderate-income households, and 4,880 units for above moderate-income households.” - Web Link

It’s kind of odd, the AMI details are not specified here. Fortunately, they are specified on “Housing units, built and planned, for 2015 through 2023 in Mountain View”, Web Link :

very low-income = 0-50% AMI
low-income = 51-80% AMI
moderate-income = 81-120% AMI
above moderate-income = 121%+ AMI

So the answer to your question appears to be “No”. 100%-150% is a combination of “moderate-income”, and “above moderate-income”.

Last night I realized something else. Those who say that a market-rate unit is just as good as an affordable unit are basically ignoring the requirements that have been handed to us by the state. A market-rate unit is NOT just as good as an affordable unit when it comes to meeting our RHNA targets, we obviously cannot meet our targets if we don’t build enough affordable units.

And if we don’t build enough affordable units, we are subject to state imposed sanctions, such as SB 35. So those who say that a market-rate unit is just as good as an affordable unit are essentially setting up MV to fail wrt our RHNA targets and thus be subject to these sanctions.

Most of the BMR units and affordable units are in projects which are entirely non market rate. The amount inside profit making projects as inclusionary is a small fraction of the plan for the goals.

It appears that the suggested inclusionary units for ownership housing target moderate income owners and some above moderate income levels, because they do target a range of 100% to 150% of AMI. For apartments, the suggested inclusionary units target income ranges of 80% to 120%, so all moderate income.

As an option, a developer can choose to include some units for lower income levels, and then this reduces the total number of units they need to provide as inclusionary affordable units.

“So it's not a straightward rule but the applicant can seek to target different income levels in the project application. The 15% number only applies where the targeted income in an apartment project is exactly at AMI, i.e. not low income housing.”

Respectfully, @LongResident, if this is true then transparency demands that this information be available on the city website, Web Link . Today if you click on the link that says “Below-Market-Rate (BMR) ownership and rental units” the result is Page Not Found.

Furthermore, city leaders should not be proclaiming that MV code requires 15% affordable units if that statement is not true. I have shown two examples of projects that were approved that do not have 15% affordable units, I could show many more. I have been paying attention to this issue for more than 2 years now, the majority of such projects provide closer to 11% affordable units, not 15%.

As I said before, the state rewards developers for providing 11% affordable housing. In the project described in the story, 4 of 32 units were affordable. Note that if the developer only provided 3 affordable units, the math would have been 3/32 = 9.4% affordable units. Thus, the developer would NOT have been “eligible for a 35% density bonus and up to two concessions under the state density bonus law, plus development waivers.” The developer provided exactly the number of affordable units that were required to qualify for the state density bonus law. That is what developers NORMALLY do, because why would they do anything else?

But the details of MV code pale in comparison the realities of state housing laws. The state is giving impossible tasks to cities by assigning them responsibility for the creation of affordable housing. It is a giant exercise in passing the buck. Cities have much fewer resources than the state, MV does not have the funding to create 6,225 affordable housing units, the city is scrambling to find resources to create only a tiny portion of that number: 1,690 units. Web Link

As a result MV won’t meet this “responsibility”, and state politicians know it. Such is their regard for everyone who earns less than 120% AMI. And when the “required” units don’t get built, state politicians pretend that we are anti-affordable housing. And they empower developers to overcome our “NIMBY-ism” in laws such as SB 35 and SB 423, which was authored by Sen. Scott Wiener and recently signed into law by Gov. Newsom. It’s ridiculous. These laws benefit tech industry titans, not ordinary residents. Our needs and our rights are being thrown under the bus so that Facebook, Google, and Amazon can increase their profits.

I agree that the transparency is not there, but by delving down through the various application forms on the city's website pages, I found the info.

It does explain things and it also makes sense. The cost to the owner of lower rents is greater in the case where the rents are affordable to lower income levels.

The interesting thing to me is that the whole thing is based on targeting moderate income levels, which is within 20% either side of the area median income. That's when the number is 15%. I hadn't realized that the tradeoff was defined for providing fewer units if they are targeted at below moderate income levels, i.e. below 80% of AMI. I am not sure that this tradeoff works the same in other cities. For example, Los Altos requires 20% and I haven't noticed may projects with any moderate income level affordable units, so-called workforce housing. The Los Altos projects seem to all specify so many very low and so many low income level affordable units, but rarely make any mention of moderate income level units.

"I agree that the transparency is not there, but by delving down through the various application forms on the city's website pages, I found the info."

You must be related to Sherlock Holmes. It did not occur to me to delve down through the various application forms on the city's website pages. I'm glad we both agree that the transparency is not there. Sadly that is true for many issues related to the Housing Element.

I wonder how many voters in MV are aware that the state required MV to reduce fees that were being charged to developers for parks in order to get the Housing Element approved? Which now puts the burden on our city to fund expansion of parks as our population grows by 40%. A burden that city staff apparently wasn’t even able to put a price tag on when they brought forward a proposal for a revenue measure that will increase taxes to be placed onto the general election ballot in November 2024, Web Link

So now the City of MV has BOTH
- the burden to create 6,225 affordable housing units, or else face sanctions
- the burden to fund expansion of parks

I wonder how many residents are aware that the state has delegated these responsibilities entirely to us? Yes, for sure, the transparency is not there.