|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Nearly two years ago, Mountain View approved a market-rate housing project that would have replaced a Valero gas station at San Antonio Road with a five-story building of for-sale condos and ground floor commercial space.
That plan has since been scrapped, and now a new developer, CRP Affordable Housing, is proposing to instead build an eight-story, 100-unit affordable housing development.
The project at 334 San Antonio Road would include units for households earning between 30% and 70% of the area median income, with 36 one-bedroom, 28 two-bedroom and 36 three-bedroom units, that includes one manager unit, said Seth Sterneck, CRP Affordable Housing managing director.
The project is notable not just for the balanced mixed of unit sizes. The developer also does not plan on applying for city funding, making it the first affordable housing project to go this route, according to Mountain View city staff.
According to CRP Affordable Housing Director Jack Burlison, they had reached out to city representatives when acquiring the site, but were informed that funding sources were limited and that the city planned to prioritize affordable housing projects on city-owned land instead.
“We understand that funds everywhere are constrained, but we believe this project should be feasible without city funding,” Burlison said when questioned about the financing.
To pencil out the costs, CRP Affordable Housing is looking at a mix of funding sources that includes property tax exemptions and concessions and waivers that are available under California’s state density bonus law.
The requested concessions largely relate to a reduction in open space requirements, exemptions related to minimum ground floor height standards and interior storage space, as well as the removal of certain transportation demand management requirements, according to the city.
The project, which is located near major public transit, also qualifies for parking reductions. The developer is planning to build a ground-level garage with 17 parking spaces, and 100 secured bike storage spaces for residents with additional space for guest bikes.
“By not having to provide as much parking on the site, we can build more units on the site and achieve a higher density, which helps the deal pencil financially overall,” Burlison said.
The proximity to high-resource areas, like good schools, economic opportunities and mass transit, also made it an attractive site to develop, Burlison said, noting that the project was designed to appeal to a workforce that supports Mountain View.
For now, the housing will serve lower-income individuals and families. But this could change in the future if funding opportunities come up for special needs populations, Burlison said.
Working with the city of Mountain View
Although the city is not financing the project under the current plan, city officials have expressed support for the approach, with hopes that it might be a viable pathway for other affordable housing projects.
“This is a unique project, and developers are trying to find ways of making projects work when they understand that the funding across public jurisdictions is limited, as it is for the city,” said Mountain View Housing Director Wayne Chen. “I think that’s a really important piece for us.”
Still, the city has provided some suggestions for how to change the project’s architecture and landscape design so it is more welcoming for the community.
Located at the corner of San Antonio Road and California Street, the building rises eight stories high and forms a C-shape around a central courtyard. It has several vertical towers and dark enclosures – an issue that raised concerns during a public hearing with the city’s development review committee on June 5.
Committee members encouraged more open spaces with more light, plantings and softer hardscapes. They also commented on the dense massing and repetition of the vertical towers, and made suggestions to reduce the perceived scale of the project.
“The trick is to break down the scale and the math and make it feel more humane,” said Committee member Emily Jones, who provided ideas to minimize the visual impact of the towers.
Committee member Linda Poncini also pushed for more variation in the building materials. “Because the project’s affordable, doesn’t mean it has to be plain and boring. You can still do good detailing, you can do some change of materials, some change of texture that does not make it look like a tenement building,” she said.
But Shellan Rodriguez, the project applicant, noted that these kinds of changes could add up in cost. It is not just an issue of different materials but also the need to coordinate different contractors and workers on site, she said.
“There is always a push and pull to create an exterior that is aesthetically pleasing but also affordable… We’re just dealing with multiple priorities and we have to make this thing feasible,” Rodriguez said.
The estimated timeline for the project, while contingent on funding and city approval, would be approximately one year to start construction and about two years to build, according to the developer.
I’m glad the committee is not trying to let the developers build “the projects” like asthetics.
“For now, the housing will serve lower-income individuals and families. But this could change in the future if funding opportunities come up for special needs populations, Burlison said.”
What exactly does this mean? In the future, the housing might NOT serve lower-income individuals and families?
What is a “special needs” population?
One question, who will be paying for costs associated to safe removal of gas station?
ah – the picture at the top is at the site of the old Milk Pail (across San Antonio). Note the detailed shape of the ‘building in back’ -left- matches the movie complex. should’t the two pictures be swapped? tower or tower(s)
As Leslie B. noted / the devil may reside in-the-details.
NOW is Not THEN. Ah, “womensplaining” / one Latina developer to two women planning commissioners; “How to meet-a-budget.”
100 UNITS AND 17 PARKING SPACES!
Whoever thought that up is not living in the real world and has no understanding what people will do. Parking in this area is going to become an absolute nightmare if this goes in. Better budget more money for parking enforcement and ticketing of double parkers, plus emergency services for the accidents that result from it.
I completely agree with Bernie. Only 17 parking spaces is totally unrealistic! In what world are our planners and council members living? Certainly not the one in which the family car needs to be parked. And remember that not everyone is young and sturdy; the elderly and disabled don’t ride bikes everywhere.
17 Parking Spaces for 200 bedrooms? Right. And you expect all the people who have cars now, maybe living in them, will just “give them up” to move in? Who is smoking what?
And then the statement: “The developer also does not plan on applying for city funding…” Followed by: “… includes property tax exemptions…” So rather than the city chipping in a couple of hundred thousand dollars up front, the will give up millions of dollars in property taxes in the future. Real smart!
Finally, are these units going to be For Sale” or rentals. If for sale, what prevents them from being resold at market rate in a few years? If rental, who will be managing the site, again making sure only eligible renters are renting?
I agree we need to deal with the affordable housing crisis in the short term, but we can’t ignore the long term financial burdens either.
“As Leslie B. noted / the devil may reside in-the-details.”
Thank you Steven. That’s exactly what I’m thinking. Building affordable housing is like providing free lunch, we don’t have much of it because there’s not much profit in it. I want to know, where is the profit going to be generated?
And never forget, during the original city council meeting where approval was granted to build 62 for-sale units, the applicant made a highly UNUSUAL last minute request to take option 1 (with 13 affordable units) completely off the table. They did this AFTER a motion had been made, and seconded to approve that option! Thus the council was only left with option 2 (with 10 affordable units). I did some quick math to determine that option 1 would have generated far less profit for the applicant than option 2, so they took it off the table literally at the last minute. I wonder what scheme is being followed in order to generate profit this time?
““For now, the housing will serve lower-income individuals and families. But this could change in the future if funding opportunities come up for special needs populations””
Notice, the applicant is saying that the housing MAY OR MAY NOT serve lower-income individuals and families depending on the funding! This is a very curious and important comment. If they get some type of funding, the housing would be market rate? It seems like deceptive trickery is going on. The 62 units project would have been 5 stories. The proposed project is 100 units and 10 stories. Think of the profit that the applicant would make if they are allowed to change these units at the last minute from affordable to market rate. The applicant got away with a last minute change last time, after all. The City Council squawked, but “reluctantly” gave their approval. Would they do that again?
Some people believe that the addition of market rate units is just as helpful as the addition of affordable units. I think that is nonsense. Tell that to the low-income people who are suffering the most during this housing crisis. Tell that to “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code”. If the City Council enables construction of a 10 story building, almost all of which somehow “becomes” market rate units (depending on the funding!), the words “bait and switch” would take on new meaning.
With the limited income level eligible to live in the building, few will be able to own a car. This is not just below average income. This building is limited to households with over 30% less than the area median on up to 70% less than the area median. Some might be employed but not earning much income but not enough for a car. Many are on SSI or some other form of government assistance so are not employed. Childcare is so expensive that a single parent with a couple or three kids may not work due to needing to be there to provide childcare. In such a case there’s no car either. You’ll have people on the autism spectrum that can’t drive but can live on their own in a place like this. Heck they might get a job at the movie theater. This isn’t a typical low income housing building, since the top earners earning less than 80% AMI earn too much to live here. Those are the low income people that own cars, the ones who earn the most. Can’t live here. Ruled out.
People earning 20% less than the area median income up to 20% above are considered to have a moderate income, and there are subsidized units available for them too. They may well drive. People earning 29% less than the area income on up to 20% less are considered low income but they have trouble owning a car. They aren’t allowed to live in this complex. Too much income.
People earning 50% less than AMI are really really unlikely to own a car. They will be many of the residents in this complex. They are poorer than what some people think of as poor. People earning 65% less than AMI can live here too. No chance of a car for them.
“People earning 50% less than AMI are really really unlikely to own a car.”
Really? Are there facts to back up this assertion? Pls read: “As Mountain View plans to expand safe parking, advocates say more space is needed for commuter vehicles”, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/06/26/as-mountain-view-plans-to-expand-safe-parking-advocates-say-more-space-is-needed-for-commuter-vehicles
“As the city of Mountain View prepares to increase the number of spots at the Shoreline safe parking lot by more than 50%, program participants still need a place to park their commuter vehicles – the cars they use to get around during the day, but not to sleep in.”
Even people living in RVs own cars. Believe it or not. Transportation costs are actually HIGHER for people who don’t own cars than for those who do. It is cruel and discriminatory to make car ownership especially difficult for low-income people, by not providing sufficient parking in low-income housing.
But my major point remains: The applicant is saying that the housing MAY OR MAY NOT serve lower-income individuals and families depending on the funding! It seems like deceptive trickery is going on. The applicant should NOT be approved for low-income housing, and then be permitted to then charge market rates for these units after approval has been granted. Bait and Switch. Anyone who truly cares about “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code” needs to come forward and make their feelings about this matter known.
Great project! Just as long as the city doesn’t meddle with the “massing” and such. “Breaking up the massing” always leads to the same design tricks, which make the building look cheap despite costing more.
Thought I’d like a link to this article published recently in the Voice: “State auditor finds lack of transparency in Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s financial and employee records” – https://www.mv-voice.com/transportation/2024/06/18/state-auditor-finds-lack-of-transparency-in-santa-clara-valley-transportation-authoritys-financial-and-employee-records/
““The State Auditor confirmed what we have known for years: VTA’s process for appointing directors lacks the appropriate transparency that the public demands, and the short length of terms that members serve is both an outlier among similar transit agencies and is an unnecessary obstacle to board members,” Berman wrote in a statement. ”
“VTA directors serve terms that last just two years, which is shorter than most other transportation agencies, like members of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s board of directors, who serve four-year terms. According to the audit report, this results in a less experienced board.”
The FACT is that the VTA is simply doing a poor job at providing great public transportation. Without good alternative transportation, cars are still necessary for most families. Forcing low-income residents to use lousy public transportation is cruel. It is a myth that they do not own or use cars.
I’d love to see hard data about how many families in MV don’t own a car. Taking away parking spots forces residents who have cars to find some other place to park it, most likely in the surrounding R3 neighborhoods or into the shopping center. Shoppers who cannot find a parking space will be discouraged from doing business in that area, which will make it more difficult for stores to succeed so a number of them will close. This approach is simply bad urban planning. It is reasonable and appropriate for the city to consider the transportation needs of residents, and the negative consequences that will arise if adequate transportation alternatives do not exist.
Yes, brilliant. Assume no one has any cars, and the only place to get anywhere is to ride heavy rail to expensive downtowns.
For sure no one will own cars! Everyone is going to take the bus, right? haha That’s exactly what’s happening today at the low-income housing at Castro and El Camino?
Hint: It’s not.
People in the RV safe parking program own RV’s that are operational. They are not the lowest income of all people. To also own a car makes a household closer still to the median income level, even if still below that mark.
There is a real truth to the difference compared to a household depending on public assistance of some sort including SSI and paying 30% of that total household income level to cover the rent in a subsidized apartment and then needing to have food stamps. Owning a car is expensive, even an old beater. If you don’t need a car to get to work, you’re not likely to then pay for a car.
to cover food. The project here is not meant to serve all low income people. It’s not even meant to serve those who are completely destitute. The income range of 30% to 70% of AMI is not the same as the people earning 70% of AMI up to 100% of AMI who are still poor but may be more likely to devote some of their income to a car, and they may need to do so for their employment. The car is what lets them earn more in some cases particularly those who have say 6 or more different employers that they travel to reach.
Those RV owners with cars don’t need to pay rent so that helps them afford a car as well.
“People in the RV safe parking program own RV’s that are operational. They are not the lowest income of all people. To also own a car makes a household closer still to the median income level, even if still below that mark.”
Do you have any evidence to back up your opinions? I find this one especially interesting “They are not the lowest income of all people.” You are telling me that people who are living on the streets in RVs are financially better off than people who can afford to live in VERY LOW affordable housing, namely those who earn less than 50% of Area Median Income? If that is true, it implies that the people who are living in RVs actually PREFER to live in RVs instead of other, more traditional housing units? Is that right? I know that there are some high wage earners who live in RVs because they refuse to pay high rents, but I don’t believe they make up the majority of the population who lives in RVs.
“If you don’t need a car to get to work, you’re not likely to then pay for a car.”
Wow. You imply that people are living in RVs primarily because they need cars to get to work? And that lifestyle helps them afford the car.
But people who live in BMR units (and earn less than 50% of AMI) are doing so instead of RVs primarily because they don’t need cars? NOT because living in traditional housing is far more comfortable and safer than living in an RV?
Does that mean that said people who live in BMR units don’t have jobs? Or does it mean that they PREFER to use public transportation to get to those jobs, and to the dentist, and to the doctor, and to the grocery store, etc.? I would really love to see the sources that you have to show that is actually true for most people living in these BMR units. They either don’t work or they love public transportation?
It is extremely hard to be poor in America. Public policies that force these folks to spend more money on transportation than they otherwise would using a car, and to spend enormous amounts of time to attend to their daily activities, is simply a means to heap even more hardship upon them. I think its a great way to encourage them to leave the community, which is the exact opposite of the original goal for creating affordable housing in the first place.
Build baby build! Let’s build this and a lot more. Build more downtown. Build more around grant and el Camino. Stack em high. Being on the mixed use. Living for the day when we can redevelop some of the unsightly areas of SFH around Cuesta Park and usher in a new area.
Something seems amiss here. Los Altos agrees to a 90 unit low income housing plan with 90 parking spaces ( https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2024/06/21/santa-clara-county-approves-10m-for-los-altos-first-all-affordable-housing-development/ )
But here in Mountain View we are looking at 100 units and only 17 parking spaces????
Something is seriously wrong here!
And before someone launches into the “they won’t need parking spaces, public transportation is close by” argument; they should seriously go to the other article and express dismay at the large number of parking spots that could be converted to one or two more units, using the same “they won’t need parking spaces, public transportation is close by” argument. Yea let’s see how that plays out there!
I’m not against low income housing. But if this works the way it should, the people moving in will improve their lives and possibly their income. They will most likely then buy a car to make their lives and their work opportunities better, before they decide to buy a bigger house and move out. What happens when they start buying cars? Or… Once they improve their lives and go beyond the current income threshold the city/county kicks them out? Probably not. But again, a successful outcome here is going to exasperate the parking situation.
My guess if it goes through, the local house owners/renters will start renting out a parking space in their driveways for a few hundred a month.
In Santa Clara single person low income household is $102k, very low income $65k. 3-person household low income is $132k, very low income $83k.
The city should really survey current low income residents to see how many of these households don’t have cars. Doubt it is significant. Almost impossible to live without a car here, unless you have enough income to pay people to do your errands/shopping.
Very low income range for 1 person in Santa Clara County has a RANGE. It goes from $38,000 through $64,000. Quite a number in the range are closer to $38K than to $64K. People living on SSI due to disability, for example. In the low income range, the Los Altos project includes single people earning up to $102K but this one tops out at $90K. We’ll see how the parking works out but there is reason to believe that this project has lower parking needs than the one in Los Altos. That extra $12K income for the top level who qualify adds a lot of potential for car ownership. The MV project is quite a bit closer to transit and grocery stores and low income jobs too for that matter.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The city really has no choice in the matter since there’s no city money in it and it’s ALL AFFORDABLE.