|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new state law that allows for more housing near major transit stops drew scrutiny in Mountain View last year, especially from community members looking to protect historically significant buildings in the downtown area from being demolished to make way for high density residential development.
Now the city is planning to develop an “alternative plan” that would mitigate some of the impacts of Senate Bill 79, a state housing law that supersedes local zoning standards and goes into effect July 1.
Under SB 79, maximum building heights can range from six to nine stories within a half mile of a Caltrain station and five to eight stories within a half mile of a light rail station, depending on the proximity to the transit stop.
In Mountain View, there are two Caltrain stations and three light rail stations that fall under the scope of SB 79, as well as a light rail station at Moffett Field. City staff have calculated that the legislation impacts about 21% of Mountain View’s total land area.
The state law gives cities the option to create local alternative plans, which allow them to choose where to permit residential development near major transit stops, so long as they maintain the total net housing capacity required by SB 79.
On Tuesday evening, the City Council directed city staff to develop a local alternative plan that aims to protect registered historic buildings in the downtown area near the Caltrain station.
The council also supported having city staff work on “objective development standards” for SB 79, similar to what is being proposed for the R3 zoning district, an area that makes up a large portion of the city’s multifamily residences.
“If you have objective development standards, you can enforce them,” Council member Pat Showalter said. “We need to have them because otherwise the state has control, and we don’t really want to cede the control for our local development to the state.”
However, the decision to pursue an alternative plan necessitated some tradeoffs. Creating the plan would be time consuming for city staff, meaning that other projects – like precise plan updates for the downtown area and Moffett Boulevard as well as a dark sky ordinance – could be delayed, according to a council report.
“The reality is we can’t, at the staff level, do all these things all at once,” Community Development Director Christian Murdock said.
Council members largely backed a recommendation to defer work on the precise plan updates and dark sky ordinance. Other high priority projects that could help inform the local alternative plan would be continued. These include updates to the city’s R3 zoning district, historic preservation ordinance and objective design standards.
“If we’re going to pursue a [local] alternative, then we should do so with some urgency, and I’m willing to defer the things,” Council member Chris Clark said.
However, even with the deferral of some work items, the city would not have a local alternative plan ready by July 1, according to city staff. The state deadline did not alarm council members, many of whom pointed out that it was unlikely the city would receive proposals for large residential projects in the near future, given current economic conditions.
“I don’t think we’re going to have a flood of applications on July 1,” Clark said. “If there were going to be significant applications later this year, it’s probably going to be from the most well-resourced developers with whom we have relationships, who probably don’t want to torch those relationships.”
For Council member Alison Hicks, preserving the core of the downtown area was a high priority, even if it meant taking a bit more time developing a local alternative plan to protect it. The area is more than just a collection of historic buildings, Hicks said, adding that it also conveys a sense of place.
Mayor Emily Ann Ramos similarly stressed the importance of the downtown area to community members, and proposed that developing objective design standards would be the best shot at preserving the look and feel of what currently exists.
Mountain View council approves cheaper plan to close downtown train crossing to carsFebruary 12, 2026 10:00 am
I don’t think it’s fair to claim that the opposition to downtown residential growth is all about historical preservation – they’re NIMBYs who have decided that historical preservation is the most palatable issue that they can use to carry out their fight to shut other people out of living downtown.
Downtown Mountain View is clearly one of the very best places in the city for dense housing. I benefited from years from being able to walk to the downtown Caltrain station to get to work, and I continue to benefit from being able to walk there for dinner, for shopping, for the library. The more vibrant downtown is, the more livable the city is; housing absolutely should go there, those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to already easily access it shouldn’t try to shut out other people.
Agreed. But this isn’t *such* a bad outcome. They’re only going to shift development away from a small portion of the Caltrain station area.
Any housing built in Mountain View due to SB79 will be highly expensive and promoting of gentrification. It will increase average rental prices.