News

Deal moves teacher housing project closer to reality

Mountain View Whisman signs agreement with developer FortBay for 144 affordable units on Middlefield Road

The Mountain View Whisman School District is one step closer to launching its very own workforce housing, signing off on an agreement last week that would reserve more than 100 affordable units exclusively for teachers and school staff seeking to live and work in Mountain View.

The unanimous decision by school board members on March 21 finalizes an agreement with the developer FortBay, which is proposing to build 716 apartments at 777 W. Middlefield Road. Under the agreement, 144 of those units on the western wing of the project would be leased to the school district, giving it full control over selecting tenants.

The three-way partnership between FortBay, the district and the city of Mountain View has been in the works for nearly a year, and was announced in October as an alternative to the district developing its own land for a housing project. The agreement also satisfies FortBay's requirement for affordable housing units which, absent the partnership, would have made the project infeasible, according to a city staff report.

Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph urged trustees to think of the project as an important investment to retain teachers amid a region-wide housing crisis. Employees are sharing apartments and commuting 50 to 60 miles to get to work, he said, and the district doesn't have even close to enough funding to bring salaries up to the median income in Santa Clara County.

"I firmly believe if we plan on keeping the 666 employees that are here ... that the 144 units will make a big dent," Rudolph said.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Assuming the project receives city approval in the coming months, the employee housing portion of the project could be completed as soon as late 2021.

Under the agreement, the district will lease a subset of FortBay's massive proposed housing project -- 1.8 acres along Shoreline Boulevard -- and pay the developer $56 million to construct the 144-unit apartment building. Lease the land will cost $900,000 during construction and $1.8 million after, though the project is expected to be cost-neutral, Rudolph said. The district will collect rent from the employee tenants and will likely convene a special board to determine the rental rates, which he clarified would only be able to go down -- not up -- to balance out the finances.

Setting the rents and conducting the lottery process that determines who gets to live in the subsidized housing is best handled by a separate and impartial entity, Rudolph said, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

"You do not want a teacher or staff member to say the board is retaliating because of something they said," Rudolph said.

The school district has been exploring workforce housing options since early 2016, weighing whether to emulate successful teacher housing projects created by the Santa Clara Unified School District and the San Mateo County Community College District. A feasibility study looking at the district's own property ultimately landed on district-owned land at Cooper Park as the most viable option, but it was faced with vehement opposition from nearby residents.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Mountain View Whisman officials instead sought to piggy-back on a project already in the development pipeline -- FortBay's project -- and offered to pay for the affordable housing component. Of the 144 apartments, 36 will be designated as "low-income" units for employees whose household income lands between 50 and 80 percent of the county's median income ($125,000). The remaining 108 units will for "middle income" families, available to households making up to 120 percent of the median income.

Rents will be based on what each household makes, Rudolph said, but on average the low-income employee tenants will pay between $1,409 for a studio and $1,811 for a two-bedroom apartment in monthly rent, while the moderate-income employeese will pay between $2,630 and $3,381. The entire FortBay project will have 878 parking spaces, but only 144 will be available to the teacher housing units.

Whether this technically satisfies the city's affordable housing requirements is debatable. The city doesn't have a firm handle on what the equivalency is between a low-income and a middle-income housing unit, but roughly estimate that the 15 percent affordable housing requirements translates to a 27 percent middle-income housing requirement. Under that standard, the agreement with the school district would then fall slightly short.

But city officials may choose the waive the difference, in part because it would bring middle-income housing stock to an area with virtually none. Annual housing reports going back to 2007 show Mountain View needed to generate more than 500 "moderate-income" homes to meet the demand, but issued permits for only four units. The dearth of moderate-income housing is a consistent problem across all cities in the nine-county Bay Area, fueled largely by the lack of tax credits and subsidies.

Past city staff reports also note the partnership means Mountain View can make significant progress towards meeting its affordable housing needs without having to foot the bill, but the city is expected to contribute some money into the project. The agreement leaves open the option for the city to make a one-time payment toward construction of the 144-unit building in exchange for the "first right of refusal" on 20 of those units for city employees.

Plenty of details are still to come. Rudolph said the board still needs to establish a process for verifying employees qualify for the housing, how long they can stay in the apartments and what to do if teachers quit their jobs with the district or their income suddenly exceeds the ceiling for what qualifies as low- or middle-income. The school district could also consider policies for who can apply if there are vacancies that remain unfilled after soliciting school employees, but Rudolph said the demand is so high he doubts it will be necessarily.

"I don't think that is going to be an issue for us at all," he said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Deal moves teacher housing project closer to reality

Mountain View Whisman signs agreement with developer FortBay for 144 affordable units on Middlefield Road

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 11:42 am

The Mountain View Whisman School District is one step closer to launching its very own workforce housing, signing off on an agreement last week that would reserve more than 100 affordable units exclusively for teachers and school staff seeking to live and work in Mountain View.

The unanimous decision by school board members on March 21 finalizes an agreement with the developer FortBay, which is proposing to build 716 apartments at 777 W. Middlefield Road. Under the agreement, 144 of those units on the western wing of the project would be leased to the school district, giving it full control over selecting tenants.

The three-way partnership between FortBay, the district and the city of Mountain View has been in the works for nearly a year, and was announced in October as an alternative to the district developing its own land for a housing project. The agreement also satisfies FortBay's requirement for affordable housing units which, absent the partnership, would have made the project infeasible, according to a city staff report.

Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph urged trustees to think of the project as an important investment to retain teachers amid a region-wide housing crisis. Employees are sharing apartments and commuting 50 to 60 miles to get to work, he said, and the district doesn't have even close to enough funding to bring salaries up to the median income in Santa Clara County.

"I firmly believe if we plan on keeping the 666 employees that are here ... that the 144 units will make a big dent," Rudolph said.

Assuming the project receives city approval in the coming months, the employee housing portion of the project could be completed as soon as late 2021.

Under the agreement, the district will lease a subset of FortBay's massive proposed housing project -- 1.8 acres along Shoreline Boulevard -- and pay the developer $56 million to construct the 144-unit apartment building. Lease the land will cost $900,000 during construction and $1.8 million after, though the project is expected to be cost-neutral, Rudolph said. The district will collect rent from the employee tenants and will likely convene a special board to determine the rental rates, which he clarified would only be able to go down -- not up -- to balance out the finances.

Setting the rents and conducting the lottery process that determines who gets to live in the subsidized housing is best handled by a separate and impartial entity, Rudolph said, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

"You do not want a teacher or staff member to say the board is retaliating because of something they said," Rudolph said.

The school district has been exploring workforce housing options since early 2016, weighing whether to emulate successful teacher housing projects created by the Santa Clara Unified School District and the San Mateo County Community College District. A feasibility study looking at the district's own property ultimately landed on district-owned land at Cooper Park as the most viable option, but it was faced with vehement opposition from nearby residents.

Mountain View Whisman officials instead sought to piggy-back on a project already in the development pipeline -- FortBay's project -- and offered to pay for the affordable housing component. Of the 144 apartments, 36 will be designated as "low-income" units for employees whose household income lands between 50 and 80 percent of the county's median income ($125,000). The remaining 108 units will for "middle income" families, available to households making up to 120 percent of the median income.

Rents will be based on what each household makes, Rudolph said, but on average the low-income employee tenants will pay between $1,409 for a studio and $1,811 for a two-bedroom apartment in monthly rent, while the moderate-income employeese will pay between $2,630 and $3,381. The entire FortBay project will have 878 parking spaces, but only 144 will be available to the teacher housing units.

Whether this technically satisfies the city's affordable housing requirements is debatable. The city doesn't have a firm handle on what the equivalency is between a low-income and a middle-income housing unit, but roughly estimate that the 15 percent affordable housing requirements translates to a 27 percent middle-income housing requirement. Under that standard, the agreement with the school district would then fall slightly short.

But city officials may choose the waive the difference, in part because it would bring middle-income housing stock to an area with virtually none. Annual housing reports going back to 2007 show Mountain View needed to generate more than 500 "moderate-income" homes to meet the demand, but issued permits for only four units. The dearth of moderate-income housing is a consistent problem across all cities in the nine-county Bay Area, fueled largely by the lack of tax credits and subsidies.

Past city staff reports also note the partnership means Mountain View can make significant progress towards meeting its affordable housing needs without having to foot the bill, but the city is expected to contribute some money into the project. The agreement leaves open the option for the city to make a one-time payment toward construction of the 144-unit building in exchange for the "first right of refusal" on 20 of those units for city employees.

Plenty of details are still to come. Rudolph said the board still needs to establish a process for verifying employees qualify for the housing, how long they can stay in the apartments and what to do if teachers quit their jobs with the district or their income suddenly exceeds the ceiling for what qualifies as low- or middle-income. The school district could also consider policies for who can apply if there are vacancies that remain unfilled after soliciting school employees, but Rudolph said the demand is so high he doubts it will be necessarily.

"I don't think that is going to be an issue for us at all," he said.

Comments

Interested
Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 25, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Interested, Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 25, 2019 at 2:45 pm
15 people like this

Mountain View teachers are among our most valued local employees - and this will go a long way towards retaining some that now drive long distances to work here. I think there was a lot of thought put into this - the lottery system, the independence of who selects those housed, verification of employment, etc. - and I congratulate those working towards the success of this program.
We need to do the same for our fire and police. When the county's median income is $125,000/year, it makes housing difficult for some of the most vital people working here in Mountain View.


SCAM
Registered user
North Whisman
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 pm
SCAM, North Whisman
Registered user
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 pm
11 people like this

Just pay the teachers more money. It’s a whole lot cheaper. What are they going to do when they then have to pay tenants to move out per Measure V?

What kind of nuts are running things that they would scam taxpayers in this way?


Randy Guelph
Cuernavaca
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Randy Guelph, Cuernavaca
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:11 pm
15 people like this

It's telling [Word removed] who you think are "worthy" of having homes in Mountain View. What about the people who take your trash, clean your house, cook your food, serve your food, clean your office, take care of your children, clean your street? Tough luck, eh?


Red Mustang
Bailey Park
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Red Mustang, Bailey Park
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:31 pm
17 people like this

Ah yes, a board and superintendent unqualified in basic economics enacting socialist policies. This will be fun to watch.

But I guess teacher housing like this is important, particularly for all the teachers Superintendent Rudolph will be pulling in from his old districts to come to Mountain View. How else will they afford Silicon Valley prices when compared to Mayberry, North Carolina?


neighbor
another community
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:52 pm
neighbor, another community
on Mar 25, 2019 at 3:52 pm
12 people like this

This is equivalent to having a lottery and giving 144 people to give a raise. Let's just give them a raise without the cost of construction.


Just Curious
Registered user
another community
on Mar 26, 2019 at 11:34 am
Just Curious, another community
Registered user
on Mar 26, 2019 at 11:34 am
10 people like this

That's exactly what happens when regulations do not let market to sort things out. Teachers cannot afford living in this area not because of the nature of their profession. It's because of their relatively low pay and totally unbalanced supply and demand. Teachers salaries are whatever they are because of low property taxes, i.e. Prop 13. And housing inventory is low because of rudimentary zoning.

The generation of teachers who grew up in this area and don't have to pay market price for housing is retiring. The quality of new hires is declining even in LASD schools.


alexprime
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Mar 27, 2019 at 8:24 pm
alexprime, Shoreline West
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2019 at 8:24 pm
2 people like this

@scam
I see your point that giving teachers pay raises instead of subsided housing may be cheaper or better in other ways but I couldn't see myself voting to raise wages just to see it all go straight to the landlords through the outrageous "market-rate" rents around here.


SRB
Registered user
St. Francis Acres
on Mar 28, 2019 at 8:51 am
SRB, St. Francis Acres
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2019 at 8:51 am
4 people like this

Fully support teacher housing and the school districts investing in that.

However that deal sounds like a sizable giveaway to the developer. The developer was mandated to provide and finance these affordable units as part of the City requirements (x% of affordable housing included in the project). Since it seems that the school district is now paying for these units, doesn't the deal result into a nice multi-million dollars savings for the developer? Is the developer even contributing any money to build these units? If not, at a bare minimum, the developer should be required to make a sizable monetary contribution/donation to the school district.

Also looking forward more clarity on the City's financial role in the deal.






Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.