![]()
Housing
Open Space Plan
10/16/2001 Special Meeting
A Councilmember commented that if Grant Road and Marilyn Drive are
even implied as places for agriculture in the open space plan, then they
lose credibility for producing the housing units that the City has designated
them to produce to meet the ABAG numbers. Instead, she suggested that
the plan should say that they want to preserve some agricultural land for
the City but that no particular parcel should be mentioned. She endorsed
working with the school sites, supported having the Cuesta Park Annex in
the master plan and could not support taking away all of the potential
options for Rengstorff Park.
Housing Element
7/17/2001 Council Meeting
Draft housing element issues list
Councilmember Stasek supported striking a balance by increasing supply
and reducing demand in terms of the impact of job growth on housing
costs. She also supported a policy to increase ownership opportunities in
the City, stating it is an important part of the Housing Element and a
benefit to the community.
She spoke against high density, especially high-rises. She supported a
long-term policy goal for use of the City's in-lieu funds and proposed that
CDBG funding should be put into apartment rehabilitation, which would be
more cost-effective than building new units. She also proposed looking at
what other cities are doing in terms of mobile home park rent control. She
then spoke against proactive rezoning of the mobile home parks.
She also expressed interest in seeing what housing opportunities can be
provided for the City's public service employees and proposed coming up
with strategies for providing affordable ownership opportunities.
She clarified that the concept of smart growth is laudable but that the
reality is how to meet housing goals in the context of the indivisual parcles
that come before the Council. She added that she does not support
reducing the park in-liew fee, which would decrease the Council's ability to
produce open space.
Efficiency Studio Project
2/13/2001 Council Meeting
Identification of a preferred
site
Another Councilmember said she values consistency, and she
has been consistent in saying she would support either of these
sites because the project needs to get built. She said she would
like the opportunity to vote for the San Antonio Loop site first
because she is intrigued with what could be done with the downtown
site next. She said she thinks if Council does the efficiency studio
project on the downtown site, it would never be able to do any other
type of housing on the San Antonio Loop site, whereas, if the
efficiency studio project is placed on the San Antonio Loop site,
Council will have the opportunity to do a mixed-use project setting
aside a higher percentage for BMR or to do perhaps a joint
public/private development where Council could allocate for public
safety, teachers and City workers.
6/20/2000 Study Session
One Councilmember said that in terms
of the difference between the sale and the lease, one of the things
that was mentioned in connection with perhaps using the Rengstorff
Park site is that the money used to purchase the site could then be
used to purchase land somewhere else in the City. She said it seems
when you do a prepayment, you are presuming you are going to make up
this difference between the $2.2 million and the $3.8 million by the
earnings of having that money as investment earning over the next 55
years, which would seem to preclude using those funds for park
acquisition. Another Councilmember said she wants this project built
and can live with any of the sites. She said the City needs to get
as many units as possible and as cheap as the City can. She said
with the new information about the lease, she thinks more can be
done. Or, she said, with the lease payments, if it now comes to
where the City can build it this year or with more CDBG funding
build a better one next year, she said she thinks the City should
broaden its horizons a little bit, particularly as to the number of
units that could be built. In terms of parking, she said the City
needs to be realistic about how much parking can be provided. She
said she is not interested in the downtown site because she feels it
has a very high opportunity cost and because there is so much more
the City could be doing with that site in the whole redevelopment.
She questioned the height of The Crossings buildings on the other
side of the overpass, which should be compared with the height of
adjacent buildings.
2/15/2000 - Study Session
One
Councilmember asked if it is possible to buy a piece of land just so
that they have bought something and then turn around and sell it
when a piece of land becomes available that they actually want to
develop on. A Councilmember stated that the downtown site has a very
high opportunity cost, there are too many other potential uses and
they would lose potential parking. She noted that she is comfortable
with the San Antonio site because there is a lot of on-site presence
that brings a measure of control to this project that a hotel or
apartment would not have. She added that she is not comfortable with
rezoning given their time constraint and that their highest priority
is to lock up the land and make a commitment that every dime of
CDBG, HOME and set-aside funds between last year and goal date
should be allocated to this project.
7/27/1999 Council Meeting
A Councilmember expressed concern
that Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition provides 94 percent of the
affordable housing in the City. and stated that she is interested in
the integrated services development of Charities Housing. She added
that she has no opposition to a public-private partnership but is
opposed to anything that will delay their action on this project.
Finally, she stated that is is adamant to using next year's CDBG
Funds for this project and is not convinced that using the
Housing-Set-Aside Funds is necessary. A Councilmember indicated that
a precedent was set for using future year CDBG Funds when the City
made a commitment that the upcoming year's CDBG Funds would be
allocated to the Central Apartments when there was the danger that
the property might be converted to market rate housing. She
suggested that they would not be allocating funds that they do not
have but would identify future funding sources instead of advancing
a loan that may not be needed by the time the CDBG funds arrive. A
Councilmember stated that she is alarmed that they could not
complete an action even if it involved a funding option that was
identified in the staff report.
3/30/1999 Council Meeting
1999-2000 CDBG/Home programs - A
Councilmember expressed concern about the fact that the Salvation
Army operates the Clara-Mateo Alliance Homeless Shelter and because
the Salvation Army has recently come under scrutiny by the City of
San Francisco for some discriminatory practices, she would like to
see information come back on their operation at the shelter, She
added that although all of the capital projects are well deserving
of funding, one of the top priorities is the efficiency studio
project, and since the CDBG Funds seem to be in peril, she would
like to see that this project is fully funded in case that funding
is lost in the future.
Avalon Bay Towers
3/28/2000 Council Meeting
A Councilmember expressed her
opposition to this project because she does not think that the
community as a whole has ever embraced this type of high rise much
less two towers.
Resolution No. 16467 Carried 4-2; Noe,
Stasek no; Kasperzak absent (note - Vice Mayor Noe has been
supportive of this project, her no vote was on a specific parking
condition)
300-Block Bryant St.
11/9/1999 Council Meeting
A Council member expressed concern
about the lack of trees on the site and suggested that the motion
include a condition to require more trees be planted on the
property. Another Councilmember concurred and also emphasized the
importance that potential buyers are notified as to the commercial
aspects of this development.
Habitat for Humanity
11/16/1999 Study Session
A Councilmember stated that she feels
strongly that they should identify this year's upcoming CDBG funds,
rather than future Revitalization Housing Set-Aside funds for this
purpose. Another Councilmember stated that she does not think they
are giving the citizens of Mountain View value with this project
because the per unit subsidy is so high compared to other projects
that would house a lot more people.
939 West Dana St.
8/13/1999 Council Meeting
One Councilmember noted that there
was a requirement in the site plan for 30% open space and that there
does not appear to be 30% open space. The same Councilmember asked
if pathways are consistent with open space because open space should
be a place where people can relax and play. The Councilmember asked
if the Downtown Committee is looking at that definition of open
space in their review. One Councilmember commented that the east
elevation area is attractive as it is and is concerned with putting
stoops to the balconies due to safety issues and also because it
would make the balconies another entrance into the unit rather than
an area for relaxation or recreation.
Whisman Station
5/11/1999 Council Meeting
Another Councilmember said she
thinks a solution to that is to specify a housing type and then
allow the developer to work with that housing type at the density
that makes sense for that parcel. She said that certain housing
types are going to flow to certain densities. She said it is her
desire to provide a range of housing ownership opportunities in the
City of Mountain View, but if all that is built in the City is
expensive single-family homes, for a huge percentage of people in
the City, Council will effectively not have done anything to provide
them with the opportunity to stay in the community and own
something. She said that she leans to low-density townhouses with
the type and style that is directly across the street from this
parcel at this time. Another Councilmember said she feels that the
low-density townhouses are already a compromise between
single-family detached houses and the condominiums or higher-density
townhouses recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission and
she is not prepared to compromise further.
Affordable Housing
5/ 13/1997 Council Meeting
8.1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING-PROPOSED
JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
Motion: M/S Faravelli /Noe
Carried 6-0;
Figueroa absent
Consider Item No. 8.1 out of
order.
Councilmember Stasek stated that she placed this item
on the agenda to hopefully begin the process of discussing issues
that require in-depth discussion. She said that the upcoming
proposed joint study session with the Environmental Planning
Commission might be an excellent opportunity to begin a positive
discussion about what opportunities there are for affordable housing
in the City of Mountain View. She said the focus would be on
proactive measures and the supply side and what the City is doing
and what it could do.
Motion: M/S Ambra/Noe Carried 6-0;
Figueroa absent
That the City Council and the Environmental
Planning Commission (EPC) hold a joint study session to review
alternative techniques to address affordable housing needs.
Housing Trust for Santa Clara County
6/12/01 Special Meeting
One Councilmember said she thinks if
there is a way to get funding, the two-year pledge structure is
probably much more realistic considering the dollars that the City
has available, and she said she can appreciate that it probably
makes sense to have restrictions on the first $250,000 so it is
specifically targeted to the efficiency studios. However, she said,
she would hate to see Mountain View go the way of Palo Alto and
completely foreclose the opportunity for any first-time home buyer
program, so she questioned restricting the first-year contribution
and targeting it to the efficiency studios but not doing it for the
second year because there may be the potential that there would be
some projects that would provide some home ownership opportunities.
|
