Should be "a pedestrian paseo" rather than "peso"

Love it. Love all the development going on in the area. Keep it coming.

For the intended paseo, I would want to see a design similar to Park Place, which has an open paseo extending from across the street from Eagle Park over to Castro Street, by Starbucks and the UPS Store. That implementation was done over 30 years ago, I believe, and any plans to put structures over paseos at this location would be regressive and should not be part of the plans for this development, in my view. Even as we build more densely, we should avoid designs that close us off from nature around us.

Looks like a great project. Lots of new "starter homes" on wide, multi-lane streets.

Underground parking, so no need for street parking, keeping that free for traffic.

Commercial as well to provide local walkable-to services.

I completely agree with bkengland. Maybe I'm not understanding what a paseo is, but I'm pretty sure it should not have a ceiling or roof or anything but sky above it.

Seven stories is too tall. Keep it 4 stories. That is not gargantuan and does not ruin El Camino Real.

Good project. south Castro has always been much less active than the north. With this addition the entire Castro can become a lively downtown street.

This is a great location for this project. Perhaps, with community support, we can increase the number of units on the same footprint.

"The idea is for people to live near where they work, Yonekura said" He left out the adjectives, "high wage workers". Out of a total of 83+21=104 units, only 21 will be affordable to average and lower-income workers. That's 20% of the project, which is much higher than what other developers usually propose (a ratio of 11%). However, may I remind everyone that the RHNA targets handed down by the state were 11,000 units, with 6,000 of them being affordable. 6,000/11,000 is OVER HALF what the state "requires". We will never, ever, ever meet the RHNA targets when ALMOST ALL of the units created in project after project after project are for expensive, market rate units that most residents in MV are unable to afford. And make no mistake: state politicians have crafted policies that place responsibility for affordable housing completely on the backs of cities like MV.

Let's at least be honest: the idea is for high wage workers to live near where they work. We are undergoing GENTRIFICATION in MV, a process that drives lower-income people out of communities (often women and people of color). That's the part of the story that never seems to get reported.

Seems to me that this is a good project - and evolving with strong, consistent, and very local feedback (thanks Mr. Miller). 7 stories is reasonable - if done right with step-back, step-down toward the newer multi-story residential owner condos on the corner of Hope and Church.

[How many stories is the "Avalon"residential towers down on El Camino towards Palo Alto - use Google Map street view to see for yourself]. Fellow CITIzens, are you bothered by those? If you live in the multi-story residences to the North or East of those towers / do you mind the noon-afternoon shadows on your homes cast by these towers? (and nearby multi-story residents / do you mind the shadows that Your Homes cast on the shorter pre-existing residential buildings?)

Left out of This Article - there is an equally large multi-story residential/commercial development in planning on the South-East corner of El Camino and Castro. IMO the author should have at least mentioned that / and provided a planning dept link.

Density is being forced upon MV in the name of "affordable housing". The state created a rigorous process in order to ensure that our Housing Element met with their approval. Our City Council decided to be exceedingly cautious with regard to meeting the state demand for 11,000 total units, and VOLUNTARILY upped the number dramatically.

"Mountain View is required by the state to plan for 11,135 additional units in the next eight years, and the latest draft puts the city’s total sites inventory at 17,609, meaning the city is well above its requirements." - Web Link

But the RIGOR COMPLETELY STOPS when it comes to ensuring that sufficient housing units are created for low-income and average workers. Which makes the process a sham when it comes to "affordable housing". ALMOST ALL of the housing built over the past 8 years has been expensive, market rate units (see “Housing units, built and planned, for 2015 through 2023 in Mountain View", Web Link ) and ALMOST ALL of the housing built in the next 8 years will also be expensive, market rate units. The only way we will meet the state "requirement" of 6,000 affordable units is for the City Council to reject proposals that don't have sufficient affordable housing in them. Projects get approved one at a time, and a certain crowd always cheers every new project, regardless of the number of affordable units in them.

For-profit builders simply don't voluntarily build affordable housing because THERE IS NO PROFIT IN IT. And THAT is the true reason why housing hosts are so high here, NOT because so-called "NIMBYs" are "blocking supply". Building thousands and thousands more expensive market-rate housing units is NOT going to help low-income and average workers, you know, teachers, service workers, and kids who don't code. I thought this grand exercise was all about helping THEM. Those claims were simply NOT TRUE. Density is being forced upon MV in order to maximize construction of expensive, market-rate units, in order to help tech titans like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, hire and house even more highly paid workers here.

I'm glad some light is being shown on this important corner of Mountain View. With the other end of Castro being closed to support an attractive pedestrian mall, it makes sense that other end, Castro and El Camino, return to being the historic "Gateway" to Mountain View.

To see the illustrated proposal I presented to City Council and the Old Mountain View community in 2022, which shows the old classic "Mountain View" sign superimposed in a modern view of Gateway Park, you can download the brief pdf proposal here:
Web Link

or if that's filtered out:
www dot puregrain dot com slash GatewayParkProposal dot pdf

I hope this leads to an open and healthy discussion of what is in the community's best interest for a Gateway to Mountain View between the City Council & staff, community members, and the developer, GPR.

Hoping that second time will be the charm.. and that we won't see that developer sit again on an approved project for years. Also looking forward more stores/restaurants reopening on that neglected part of Castro.

For over 2 years now, I’ve been hearing comments that the reason that housing is so expensive is because existing residents are “NIMBYs”. These charges are simply NOT TRUE, which makes them highly offensive. THIS PROJECT demonstrates the TRUTH of the situation. Innocent people are being falsely blamed and demonized, which is outrageous in America.

We are at the mercy of for-profit developers when it comes to building affordable housing for low-income and average workers. Developers wildly prefer to build expensive, market rate units instead of truly affordable housing. Note that in this project ALMOST ALL of the housing units will be market rate. But very clever state politicians hold MOUNTAIN VIEW and its residents responsible if and when we fail to meet the RHNA affordable housing targets that ABAG has set for us. We are accused of being elitists, and even racists, who want to keep out undesirable lower income from our community. What the heck? What is a resident who wants MORE affordable housing for low-income and average workers supposed to do? How does one object to the LACK of affordable housing being built in project after project brought before the City Council?

Recently in the Mercury News: “Despite billions spent, new data shows almost a third of the nation’s homeless now live in California - The state’s homeless population increased by 6%. Why is the crisis still getting worse?”, Web Link

“Experts and advocates say that while drugs and mental health play a significant role, the homelessness crisis will persist until the state can reverse its intensifying affordable housing shortage.”

What a surprise. Who would have ever thought that failing to build affordable housing would enable both the homelessness crisis and the housing crisis to continue?

MV lacks a plan to create the 6,000 affordable housing units that the state “requires” us to build. Why is that? Why did the state’s rigorous approval process for our Housing Element not require us to have such a plan? Why is this target being essentially ignored by the City Council when new housing projects are brought before them?

Roberto, I like your thinking. This intersection's time in the sun has clearly arrived, between this project, the proposed Chase Bank project, and the Greystar development (Rose Market) that opened just a few years ago.

As you're probably aware, the city can't get too ambitious with the intersection because El Camino is administered by Caltrans. A sign spanning Castro would be great, though.

Note that in this project, like all the others from for-profit developers, ALMOST ALL of the housing units are market rate. MV lacks a plan to create the 6,000 affordable housing units that the state “requires” us to build. The dirty little secret is that there ARE CONSEQUENCES to our city when we fail to meet these targets, because very, very clever state politicians hold MV and ITS RESIDENTS responsible for not meeting them. Most of the public has been kept in the dark about this, and does not understand what is going on.

Developers become eligible to use bills like SB 35 / SB 423 (authored by Sen. Scott Wiener), which are sold to the public as bills to “boost affordability, help tenants,” Web Link What they actually do is REWARD DEVELOPERS for not building enough affordable housing in the first place! The simple TRUTH is that MV WON’T meet our target of 6,000 affordable units because developers consistently bring projects like this one to the City Council, where ALMOST ALL of the housing units are market rate. If we build 20,000 new units, and 20% are affordable, only 4,000 affordable units would be created. We would miss the target. But the state only “requires” us to build 11,000 units … there is no way on earth that 6,000 of those units will be affordable. No possible way.

“State housing law requires cities and counties to report their housing production annually according to the number of building permits issued within the jurisdiction by income level. SB 35 applies to cities that are unable to issue sufficient number of building permits to meet their regional housing needs allocation (“RHNA”) goals for both above income and lower income units. ” - From “FAQs ABOUT SENATE BILL 35 AND VALLCO TOWN CENTER APPLICATION” Web Link

When we FAIL to meet the targets for affordable housing, state politicians (and others) cast residents as NIMBY elitists who are indifferent to the housing crisis. This is grossly unfair, and dirty politics.

Can we finally bury this theory that “NIMBYs” are “blocking supply”? The simple truth should be obvious by now: we lack truly AFFORDABLE housing because for-profit developers avoid building it. What’s worse is that the “pro-housing” crowd seems to be cheering them on. Why is this crowd not voicing concerns about MV lacking plans to create the 6,000 affordable housing units that the state “requires” of MV?

The area median income is $181,000 for a family of 4. The affordable units in a condo project in Mountain View are targeted at Moderate income levels, so the "affordable" units in this project will be available to income levels of $101,000 for a single person up to $217,000 for a family of 4.

I have bad news for the champions of affordable housing above all. New homes are expensive because that's how much it costs to build them, and this is partly (though not entirely) due to NIMBY pressure. Public or "social" housing might come in a little cheaper, but not enough to deliver affordable housing without massive subsidies. These subsidies have to come from either market-rate units (such as in this project) or huge tax increases.

There are two takes on the term "affordable" for housing. The units that RHNA counts as affordable are not that much cheaper to live in than market rate housing. Take a look at the rents which can be charged to various income levels here: Web Link

The cost to subsidize varies depending on the income level, and rent of some amount is charged to all residents. For a 4 person low income household the rent that can be charged ranges from $2040 to $3264 for a two bedroom apartment. The tenants actually pay somewhere in that range. That's the bulk of the cost of the rental unit, the rent, not the subsidy. When a market rate for profit apartment rents for $5000, somewhere around 25% of the rent goes directly to offsets the property tax cost for the owner. For a low income unit owned by a non profit, there's no property tax to pay. So the funding needed for the affordable unit can be between 20% and 40% of the cost to build the unit. The lower the income level, the higher the subsidy. If tenants rise in income level, they pay more rent. For a moderate income tenant, the rent that can be charged in this size of household ranges from $3264 to $4896. At the midpoint of $4000 per month, considering the lack of property tax, the project might actually make money off of the moderate income tenant, and then use that to subsidize lower income levels if there is a mixture of levels in the project.

“New homes are expensive because that's how much it costs to build them ... Public or "social" housing might come in a little cheaper, but not enough to deliver affordable housing without massive subsidies.”

Exactly! The widely spread “theory” that housing costs are high because so-called NIMBYs have been “blocking supply” is simply NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID. It is cruel and unjust to scapegoat innocent people for a problem they did not cause.

It is also cruel and unjust for state politicians to assign responsibility to create affordable housing to local governments. Indeed, it is not possible to create such housing without MASSIVE SUBSIDIES. And yet, the state has in fact assigned such responsibilities to MV; this is called an “unfunded mandate”:

“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.” - p. 241, Web Link

Listen to a volunteer lead with the group MV YIMBY describe how SB 35 / SB423 affects a community that fails to create affordable housing as required:

“Under SB 35, some local governments, when approving certain residential developments, must fast-track this process. Which local governments? Those that have not made sufficient progress towards building their fair share of new housing under the state’s planning rules.” - Web Link

Do you see? If we fail to build 6000 affordable units, MV is painted as not doing our “fair share” wrt to building affordable housing, even though we cannot possibly meet this target without massive subsidies.

Now listen to CA YIMBY, who fought to pass SB 423:

“cities also have broad discretion to approve or deny individual housing projects ... often block new homes outright, or put up insurmountable barriers to their development. In these cases, cities often find themselves falling short on their RHNA targets, which leads to housing shortages, displacement and eviction crises, and increasingly unaffordable housing.” - Web Link

Do you see? If we fail to build 6000 affordable units, MV is painted as “blocking” development, even though we are at the mercy of developers, and cannot approve building affordable housing unless they present proposals to the City Council.

This is grossly unfair, and dirty politics. Punishing residents with SB 423 for not implementing an unfunded mandate is outrageous, especially when they are also being kept in the dark.

For those who care: SB 423 was approved of by Marc Berman and signed into law by Gov. Newsom. We are subject to it if we fail to build 6000 affordable units, which we WILL FAIL TO BUILD because MV lacks
1) plans to build them,
2) funding to build them,
3) efforts from so-called “pro-housing advocates” to build them.

Leslie, I think there are major connections you are missing in your logic that might help clarify the problems and potential solutions.

First, the price of homes is high because there is so much competition for the few homes available here.

Second, there are few homes available in our city because the city has established zoning policies which restrict how many homes can be built here, artificially limiting the total number of homes which can exist in the city.

Third, most people do not view it as desirable or moral to use legal barriers to prevent people from freely moving around in America.

If the city still chooses to have restrictive zoning like this, then it's important for the city (and others like it) to have credible plans to generate the necessary number of homes. Lacking progress towards those goals over the past several decades, the state chooses to remove some of the powers it's granted to local jurisdictions.

With too few homes available, and it being repugnant to use legal barriers to prevent people from choosing to live here, what options are available to us?

You're overlooking an important provision of SB35. Cities that fulfill their RHNA targets for market-rate homes but fall behind on affordable homes are only subject to streamlining for affordable homes.

I’m sorry Clarence, but I think is YOU who is missing “major connections” in logic.

Am I wrong when I point out that state politicians have assigned responsibility to create affordable housing completely to local governments? BTW, did you see the story in 2022, “State to withhold $1B in funding to spur more aggressive efforts to reduce homelessness”?

“California will withhold $1 billion in funding until the state's local governments develop new plans to reduce homelessness, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday, Nov. 3.” - Web Link

Am I wrong when I point out that the state requires MV to build 6000 affordable units? This FACT is documented in our new Housing Element (p. 241).

Was I wrong to agree with ivg when they said, “New homes are expensive because that's how much it costs to build them ... Public or "social" housing might come in a little cheaper, but not enough to deliver affordable housing without massive subsidies.”?

Am I wrong to say that in their guest essay urging passage of SB 423, a volunteer lead with the group MV YIMBY describes each city’s RHNA targets as their “fair share of new housing under the state’s planning rules”?

Am I wrong to say that when they urged passage of SB 423, CA YIMBY implies that cities fall short on their RHNA targets because because those cities are misusing their “discretion to approve or deny individual housing projects ” to “block new homes outright, or put up insurmountable barriers to their development.”?

What I fail to understand is how any “housing advocate” group can urge passage of SB 423, but then remain completely silent on the FACT that MV has neither plans nor FUNDING to create our “fair share” of AFFORDABLE housing. Meanwhile, people describe the creation of yet more UNAFFORDABLE housing as being “good projects” and even “great projects”. And then residents are actually blamed for the lack of affordable housing! The situation is ridiculous.

Density is being forced upon MV in the name of "affordable housing". The state created a rigorous process in order to ensure that our Housing Element met with their approval. But the RIGOR COMPLETELY STOPS when it comes to ensuring that sufficient housing units are created for low-income and average workers. Which makes the process a sham when it comes to "affordable housing".

The problem is NOT zoning. The problem is FUNDING. Housing costs are outrageous here because developers don't make any profit when then they build affordable housing. Developers will continue building UNAFFORDABLE housing as long as there is a market for it. And the truth is, there is lots and lots of demand for expensive, market-rate housing.

Maybe we can find some straightforward common ground. You rightly recognize that there aren't enough homes that are affordable to people. Similarly, it should be clear that by banning apartments from being built in large areas of the city, for example, South of El Camino or near our downtown, the city has artificially restricted the number of these homes that can be built. To alleviate this situation, would you support by-right approval of 100% affordable housing developments at any density throughout the city?