Mountain View City Council members agreed Tuesday night to allow a new 33-unit row house development, increasing the housing density in the area and adding more permanent housing to a city dominated by rental units.
The project won the council's favor in a 6-1 vote, but not before some reservations were expressed by housing advocates on the council.
The project calls for demolishing 17 existing apartments in favor of the houses, and some council members found it hard to support a project that ditches affordable rental units in favor of homes that are expected to cost between $825,000 and $1.1 million.
The Mozart Development Company acquired the properties at both 2025 and 2065 San Luis Ave. over the last two years with the intent to build new homes on the 1.8 acres of land, between North Rengstorff Avenue and Sierra Vista Avenue. The project's total of 33 houses butts up against the zoning limits for the multiple-family residential area.
The project will displace 16 households in the existing apartments on the property, according to a city staff report; 11 of the households qualify for assistance under the city's Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. Households making less than 80 percent of the median income in the area qualify for the assistance, which includes a full refund of the tenant's security deposit and three months' worth of market-rate rent for a similar apartment in the area.
Justin Mozart, who spoke at the meeting, told council members that they have been in constant contact with the apartment tenants and have waived the rent for months in preparation for the new development. He said tenants have been given close to 180 days' notice, which he said should ease the transition for the existing residents.
"We've done everything we could to go above and beyond the mandated notice time," Mozart said.
Council member Lenny Siegel, who voted against the development, said he appreciated the good-faith effort on the part of the developers, but struggled to support the project as a whole. He said the property is now home to 17 "naturally affordable" units, which are all going to get torn down in favor of prohibitively expensive homes. At a time when city officials are grappling with the issue of residents forced out of the area because of the high cost of living, he said, it's important to find ways to preserve the more affordable units available in Mountain View.
"We have project after project where we're seeing existing housing people can afford to live in being torn down, and replaced with housing that is very expensive," Siegel said. "We can't subsidize enough affordable units -- we're doing the best we can -- but we can't keep up with the number being torn down."
Council member Ken Rosenberg, who voted in favor of the project, said his decision wasn't a slam-dunk. He said it's important to promote more permanent residential properties in a city where 60 percent of the population lives in rental units, but losing a stack of apartments in the process makes it it tough to support the development wholeheartedly.
Rosenberg commended the developers for working closely with existing tenants, and said it ought to be the council's charge to make sure it becomes common practice in Mountain View.
"I do want to send a signal to other developers ... if there are people living on your land, that this council requires above-and-beyond-type of gestures," he said. "We can't put that into legal words, but you need to step outside of the comfort zone and realize that housing is impacted in this area and be part of the solution."
Council member John McAlister had some concerns about the project related to traffic and the loss of heritage trees, but looked at the loss of apartments as a necessary step towards shoring up housing stock in the city. If more dense housing is the goal, McAlister said, then fellow council members ought to be supporting this kind of project.
"Here is an example of somebody increasing the density of their property, getting us more units, getting us more diverse housing stock," McAlister said. "To make an omelet, you gotta crack some eggs. That is what's required."
Siegel, responding to McAlister's comments, said the project is indicative of a larger problem in the city. Because of zoning restrictions, he said, the city has made it difficult to build housing on vacant or under-used land, and forces the council into the awkward position of approving housing projects that tear down existing housing in the process. Increasing available housing in the Bay Area is going to take awhile, so it's important to preserve more affordable housing options until supply and demand evens out, Siegel said.
"It'll take awhile for supply and demand to slow the growth in rents. So when we replace units that are affordable to the average middle-income person with units that most people can't afford, we are creating a problem," he said.