|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A group of Mountain View residents is trying to block a seven-story builder’s remedy project from getting built, claiming the city approved the development without taking into account seismic safety standards or environmental impacts.
In a lawsuit filed last week, the residents contend that the city violated state laws and an affordable housing ordinance when it approved an 80-unit condominium project at 294 and 296 Tyrella Ave. The lawsuit is seeking a stay on the project until the matter is settled, according to the May 14 filing.
Mountain View is still in the early stages of reviewing the claims, as it was served the lawsuit on May 16, according to city spokesperson Lenka Wright.
“Currently, the city does not believe its actions with regard to the 294-296 Tyrella Ave. development project violated the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or the city’s Affordable Housing Program Ordinance,” Wright said in an emailed statement.
“However, the city acknowledges the uncertainty in the law with regard to how these laws interact with builder’s remedy law and look forward to receiving any necessary clarity, direction and guidance from the court,” Wright said.
The developer, Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investments who also is named in the suit, told the Voice that the 80-unit residential development will create a lot more homes in a region that struggles with massive inequality and housing affordability.
But local residents have expressed opposition to the development, saying in public hearings that it is too tall and too dense for their neighborhood, which consists mostly of single-family homes and two-story apartment buildings.
The project was filed at a time when Mountain View’s housing element was out of compliance with the state, allowing it to proceed as a builder’s remedy project. Under builder’s remedy, projects can bypass local zoning regulations and development standards if 20% of the residential units are affordable to lower-income households.
The City Council approved the project on April 8, after receiving a lot of public comments from the community and from prohousing advocacy groups, including YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund.
Now a group of local residents – referred to as the Whisman Action Committee, which includes four people who voiced opposition to the development before it was approved – have filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that it has contravened state law by approving the project without requiring a seismic hazard report to be submitted beforehand.
The lawsuit also argues that the project should not have been found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires public agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of a project and to propose mitigations if necessary.
According to the suit, there is “substantial evidence” to suggest the project would have significant impacts on traffic, noise, air quality or water quality in the neighborhood. This includes the possibility of “adverse impacts relating to seismic hazards given its location on a site in a documented liquefaction zone,” the lawsuit claims.
Linebarger says the litigation has no merit. “Frivolous lawsuits are often CEQA related,” he told the Voice, noting that these kinds of suits can delay projects by taking up a lot of time and money to resolve.
It’s a NIMBY tactic to block housing, Linebarger said, referring to people who oppose development in their neighborhoods by advocating for strict land use regulations. “Why let the gate close behind them and leave out all the other people?” he asked.
Just days before the Tyrella project was approved, city staff responded to a written public comment about seismic safety standards from Timothy Palmer, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Amber Blizinski, the city’s assistant community development director, said at the time that the Tyrella project is located in a seismically active region in northern California but does not cross any fault lines.
“The city is not required to obtain a geotechnical study for a project prior to approval of a planning permit if it is determined there is no potential undue hazard,” Blizinski said in an April 3 email.
According to Blizinski, an environmental impact report also had been conducted as part of the city’s general plan that assessed “geotechnical characteristics citywide” and included mitigation measures. A geotechnical report for the site will be prepared later on during a building plan check to ensure seismic building code compliance, Blizinksi said.
However, the lawsuit contends that the geotechnical report needs to be prepared prior to the approval of a project, not afterwards, to be in accordance with state law. If a waiver is granted, the lawsuit says it needs to be based on information of soil areas in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
The lawsuit also claims that the city has run afoul of its affordable housing ordinance by allowing the project’s affordable units to be all studio apartments, rather than a proportional mix of unit sizes relative to the rest of the project.
Linebarger has told the city that modifications to the mix of affordable units would render the project infeasible, according to an April 8 council report. This could lead to legal challenges under the provisions of builder’s remedy, a situation that the Mountain View City Council sought to avoid by approving the project at the April 8 hearing.
“At the end of the day, our ability to deny the project or to impose changes that reduce the density or render the project financially infeasible are really limited, and if we attempted to do so, it is very difficult for us to defend those impositions in court,” Council member Lucas Ramirez said at the time.
The May 14 lawsuit seeks to make the city fully comply with state law regarding seismic safety and CEQA, as well as the city’s affordable housing ordinance.
Mountain View launches pop-up program to address commercial vacancies downtownJanuary 29, 2026 12:29 pm
Linebarger is right.
Here’s hoping that the courts quickly stop the NIMBYs this time. We all need to compromise for our community’s collective greater good.
4 idiots holding up everything.
“Mountain View’s housing element was out of compliance with the state”
Does this phrase bother you as much as it bothers me? I mean, heaven forbid our city is “out of compliance” with what Legislators in Sacramento want us to do with our city.
The law is the law.
Linebarger can’t get financing for the project and has asked the city to extend the period for which the permit is valid already. So this lawsuit’s potential delay works in his FAVOR. That’s the reality! It’s not that likely to ever get built, especially with interest rates rising still more thanks to our fearless leader in DC. Investment in long term treasuries is less desirable and a higher rate has to be offered to have a change to sell the debt instruments at all.
YIMBY Law is funded by Yes In My Back Yard, which is designated as a 501(c)(3), the same kind of
non-profit as a church, or an org set up to prevent cruelty to children or animals.
Only difference is, YIMBY Law exists to sue local governments to ensure that Builder’s Remedy projects are built, despite any concerns or objections raised by the community. See https://www.mv-voice.com/city-government/2024/06/24/mountain-view-lawsuit-threat-builders-remedy-project-yimby-law/
Think about that. Is the work of YIMBY Law similar to the work of a church? YIMBY Law is a non-profit (!) fighting on behalf of developers, high wage workers, and the Tech industry. Donations to them are “tax deductible to the full extent permitted by law.” Our tax dollars are being used to help the rich and powerful achieve their own objectives.
And consider this: under the old builder’s remedy, the nuclear option of the “pro-housing” movement, only 20% of the new units must be affordable. But a “new and improved” Builders Remedy has been passed, and now only 7% (!) of the new units must be affordable.
“We work to end the housing shortage and achieve affordable, sustainable, and equitable housing for all.” – https://www.yimbylaw.org/
“housing for all”? No. These words are misleading to the point of almost being laughable. But most of the public doesn’t understand the truth of the situation, which is tragic.
The lion’s share of the new units in this project will only be “affordable” to highly paid workers (/tech workers). Everyone else in the community – OVER HALF THE POPULATION IN MV – is getting crumbs, and yet must endure the negative impacts of the project.
“New study by Fed economists directly contradicts Yimby narrative on housing prices” – https://48hills.org/2025/03/new-study-by-fed-economists-directly-contradicts-yimby-narrative-on-housing-prices/
“But what the study found is that the single most important factor, one that far outweighs “constraints,” is the income and wealth of the people who are moving into a city.”
“Cities that allow almost unlimited development and cities that have strict limits show the same price hikes in comparison to the income of the residents.”
What does this mean? High housing costs here are NOT caused by residents “blocking supply”. That is nothing but a vile conspiracy theory. High housing costs here are caused by the hiring practices of Google, Meta, and Apple … increasing the presence of highly paid workers, who drive up the cost of housing by using their income to make the winning bids (the highest bids) on the homes they desire.
The high cost of housing is a real problem that is causing pain for so many families. The YIMBY movement pretends to be fighting to relieve that pain for everyone. But it is not true. YIMBY policies are not designed to help families with VERY LOW, LOW, or MODERATE incomes in any significant way.
YIMBY Law exists to sue local governments to ensure that Builder’s Remedy projects are built, despite any concerns or objections raised by the community. YIMBY Law is a non-profit (!) fighting on behalf of developers, high wage workers, and the Tech industry.
Linebarger said “It’s a NIMBY tactic to block housing”. This is the goto move of the YIMBY movement, of course. Shame and blame (in other words, demonize) anyone who dares to express concerns, even to monstrosity projects such as this one on Tyrella Ave. I am considered a NIMBY because I think that families with VERY LOW, LOW, and MODERATE incomes are getting the short end of the stick with policies designed to maximize the construction of market rate units.
I applaud the residents who filed this lawsuit.