Comments on BMR Program Amendments (Item 7.1)
November 3, 2025
Dear Mayor Kamei and City Councilmembers, We support the changes that align the BMR program with current economic conditions and past project experiences, such as removing the ownership “equal to 100% AMI” requirement that many projects used a density bonus concession to waive due to technical infeasibility. We are happy to see the proposed BMR graduated fee schedule, given anecdotes of how much the fees as-is have impacted small unit development. We would like to see this graduated fee schedule extend to projects at least up to 10 units. There have been various state laws that have streamlined small unit developments that use 10 units as their cutoff (SB 684/1123, SB 10, SB 478). In doing so our city would further facilitate these gentle-density projects led mainly by our residents, rather than large institutional development. SB684 and SB1123, in particular, were meant to encourage more ownership opportunities.
Dear Mayor Kamei and City Councilmembers,
We support the changes that align the BMR program with current economic conditions and past project experiences, such as removing the ownership “equal to 100% AMI” requirement that many projects used a density bonus concession to waive due to technical infeasibility.
We are happy to see the proposed BMR graduated fee schedule, given anecdotes of how much the fees as-is have impacted small unit development. We would like to see this graduated fee schedule extend to projects at least up to 10 units. There have been various state laws that have streamlined small unit developments that use 10 units as their cutoff (SB 684/1123, SB 10, SB 478). In doing so our city would further facilitate these gentle-density projects led mainly by our residents, rather than large institutional development. SB684 and SB1123, in particular, were meant to encourage more ownership opportunities.
We would like to see greater transparency on the land-dedication cost-recovery contribution for staff time and negotiation of the land-dedication alternative, and on how the in-lieu fee was updated. A contribution of nearly $1 million in the land-dedication example appears very high, and we would like to understand the assumptions behind it and whether the City’s economic models are reasonable.
Best Regards,
David Watson
On behalf of Mountain View YIMBY
(Published retroactively on September 1, 2026 — this letter was emailed to the City Council on November 4, 2025, but was not posted to the site at the time.)
