|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A proposal to build high-density housing in Mountain View using builder’s remedy has faced roadblocks on its path to approval. Now, a pro-housing advocacy group has weighed in with the threat of litigation, arguing the city is violating state housing laws by enforcing its zoning rules on the project.
The nonprofit group YIMBY Law has accused Mountain View of trying to circumvent state housing law by imposing “unlawful conditions of approval” for the housing proposal at 294-296 Tyrella Ave., according to a letter submitted to the city on April 9.
The developer, Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investment, wants to build a seven-story, 85-unit housing development on the site, replacing an existing single-family home and empty lot. The proposed density would exceed local zoning standards.
According to YIMBY Law, Mountain View is obligated to process and approve the application, which qualifies for builder’s remedy. Under this provision, if a jurisdiction fails to comply with state-mandated housing goals, then it must allow a development to move forward at any density or height, as long as 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households.
The application for the Tyrella project was submitted one day after Mountain View failed to meet its housing element deadline on Jan. 31 last year, opening the door for builder’s remedy. The developer also plans to include 17 affordable units as part of the package, hitting the 20% threshold.
But instead of fast-tracking the development, YIMBY Law contends that Mountain View has stymied the project at every turn. It has attempted to “execute an end run around” builder’s remedy that violates state law, the letter said.
The letter claims that Mountain View does not have control over its zoning and development standards in the case of Tyrella, as its housing element was not in compliance with state law at the time of the project’s submission.
It also notes that Mountain View identified its below market rate program, park land dedication requirements, transportation demand management measures and parking requirements as impediments to building more housing in the city.
“Despite this admission, the (city) is now attempting to circumvent the (Housing Affordability Act) by imposing these constraints on an affordable housing project as conditions of approval,” the letter said.
Ultimately, the letter urges city officials to approve the project at Tyrella Avenue without stipulating conditions on it. If it fails to do this, then YIMBY Law intends to pursue litigation against Mountain View to enforce state housing laws, the letter said.
The City Council plans to deliberate with legal counsel in closed session regarding the letter at its Tuesday, June 25 meeting.
Didn’t the City already approve a project in 2021 with the same developer and for the same parcel?
I thought they did too. But I’m guessing the builder pulled it because there wasn’t enough profit in it and figured MV would fail, this triggering the builder’s remedy option to go higher and denser = more profit.
I’m surprised they will build a 7 story construction within walking distance of Moffett Field! Don’t they realize what a hazard this will cause for aircraft trying to land there? Someone get the Secretary of Defense on the line.
The original approved project was for 12 (I think that’s the number) townhouses.
YIMBY Law makes the words “affordable housing project” a complete joke. Only 20% of the units will be affordable. The vast majority of units will be expensive and market rate.
To describe this organization as a “pro-housing advocacy group” is deceptive. They are a “pro-market-rate-housing advocacy group”. The amount of affordable housing proposed for this project is trivial.
Mountain View has a major jobs/housing imbalance and the construction of new homes is desperately needed. The criticism that this would not contribute to affordable housing rings hollow to me because any basic primer in economics would discuss the market implications for when demand massively exceeds supply…
Mountain View has the highest rents in California. We need both market rate and low income housing.
YIMBY means yes to more housing of all kinds, including subsidized and market-rate. Every additional “expensive and market rate” unit means one less rich family competing for scarce “cheaper and market rate” housing.
So they don’t want to provide a workable way for the trash to be picked up and they’re exempt from that because the city had been so perfectionist in its revised housing element that this hadn’t gotten approved on time. In between housing elements, the old one is not still in effect? This law suit seems to be grasping at straws. No check for basic functionality while housing elements are being picked part by state HCD? Any logical legal interpretation would be that objective city requirements like being able to pick up trash, they still apply.
Housing elements have an expiration date. Once the 8-year planning horizon has passed, the housing element is no longer valid.
I’m not sure what the deal is with trash pickup, but city requirements are waived only if they limit the size of the project, such as height limits. I’d think rules having to do with trash pickup would still be OK.
20% of 85 units is 17 affordable units, which is a helluva lot more than the zero affordable units on the site today.
2 B continued. Litigation against a state housing law?
Unlikely to succeed IMO. What do you think? Should the City pay to ‘fight this out to the death’ ( i.e. they loose and have to pay the developer’s lawyer)
IMO Whisper words of wisdom, Let it BE Let it BE!
satellite View Google / very near 2 large complexes
Shadow Brook Apartments and Mountain Brooks Condominiums both which front on Middlefield.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/294+Tyrella+Ave,+Mountain+View,+CA+94043/@37.398552,-122.0658004,219m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x808fb73ec0640a27:0x1442acec24fbc862!8m2!3d37.398187!4d-122.065434!16s%2Fg%2F11c5df0v0d?entry=ttu
If you read the city response to the proposed design, they don’t violate any state housing laws. That part is made up. They point out things like the developer not having a workable plan for the trash pickup and so forth. Also the city has a traffic management plan for the area and the project is non compliant. The management of traffic is not blocked by state housing law.