|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A plan to build an eight-story apartment complex in Mountain View’s East Whisman neighborhood got the green light Tuesday evening, despite some misgivings from City Council members that the developer did not solicit community feedback about the project.
The developer, Jeffrey Stone of WTA Middlefield, is proposing a 460-unit apartment complex at 490 E. Middlefield Road, replacing a two-story office building. Currently, the site is surrounded by one- to four-story office buildings although more residential growth is planned for the area, including a massive mixed-use development down the street at 675 and 685 E. Middlefield Road.
In a 6-0 vote, with John McAlister absent, the City Council approved the 490 E. Middlefield Road project at its March 10 meeting. Council members backed the developer’s plan to build hundreds of new homes, which would nearly all be studios and one-bedroom apartments and would include 60 below-market-rate units. They also praised the inclusion of 9,400 square feet of ground floor retail space.
However, a few voiced concerns that the developer chose not to hold a community meeting, describing it as a lost opportunity for residents to weigh in on what was happening in their neighborhood and shape ways to improve it.
“Neighbors are going to be surprised, and I just think we need to do our due diligence in daylighting the project, soliciting feedback because this is our community,” Council member Ellen Kamei said, adding that she resides in the East Whisman area. “Just because it’s existing office-commercial doesn’t mean that the people who live near it don’t care.”
Council members express support, some misgivings
Council members also honed in on environmental concerns. The project is located on a known Superfund site and has been impacted by groundwater and soil vapor contamination from past industrial activities on adjacent sites, according to the council report.
Council member Pat Showalter pressed the developer to elaborate on plans to protect the community from possible environmental hazards.
“It’s a safety issue for the people who are going to live there,” Showalter said. “And it’s really crucial that it’s done properly.”
Andrew Jacobson, representing the developer, noted that the project’s conditions of approval included mitigations that will be overseen by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
“There’s some work that’s already been done on the site so there is a [vapor] barrier that already exists,” Jacobson said. “It’s mostly known conditions where the troubled area is. We will work with the EPA before we start to get their blessing on our plan.”
Council member Alison Hicks expressed the strongest opposition to the project, largely related to the removal of a strip of green space for a “duckout” to make way for vehicle deliveries and passenger drop offs on Middlefield Road. The duckout also would minimize vehicle and bicycle lane conflicts.
“We keep one piece after another taking out green space and open space to the point where there’s nothing there,” said Hicks, who ultimately voted in favor of the project. “We’re building a concrete jungle.”
Council member Chris Clark disagreed, noting that the project would increase the site’s tree canopy over the long term. The developer plans to remove 107 trees, including 29 heritage trees, but will replace them with 159 new plantings.
“Despite the loss of the heritage trees in the near term, we’ll end up with better canopy in the long run and native species of trees as opposed to what’s there now,” Clark said.
There also was some concern from Showalter about the mix of apartments, which are mostly studios and one-bedrooms, with just 29 two-bedroom units.
Plans show studios that are 409 square feet and 460 square feet, one-bedrooms that are 614 square feet and 690 square feet, and two-bedrooms that are 818 square feet and 921 square feet. The below-market-rate units are mostly the smaller sized apartments.
Jacobson described the units as intentionally being smaller than typical apartments to draw people outside and into common areas. The smaller apartments also make them more naturally affordable, he said.
But Showalter questioned whether the studios and one-bedrooms were best suited for Mountain View’s residents, or would hold up as what she described as workforce housing in 30 years.
“It’s a very specific kind of lifestyle, which is fine, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a long-term one for many people,” Showalter said. “I think it’s going to be the kind of place where there’s a lot of turn over.”
The housing mix did not faze Mayor Emily Ann Ramos who noted that the city tends to focus on family-sized units.
“I like studio units. I live in a studio unit. If that is the thing that is kind of in the market right now, I don’t mind that that much,” she said.
The project also features a one-level garage with 442 parking spaces for residents. There are an additional 54 surface parking spots, including 34 spaces for commercial uses, according to the council report.
Lack of multi-bedroom apartments should minimize the impact on schools. Not that young families can afford to live here anyway.
If you build for transient residents, you get neighbors who really have no long term interest in Mountain View. Emily thinks everyone is like her….a long term renter.
Every developer will tell you they expect 50% annual turnover in apartments. Could you imagine if 50% of houses in a neighborhood were sold every year? What kind of neighborhood is that?
You build studios….and that’s what you get. This is true all over America. Studios are short term residents.
Since the 1980s, I have been watchdogging the investigation and remediation of U.S. EPA’s MEW Superfund Study Area. M stands for Middlefield and E stands for Ellis, so the property at 490 E. Middlefield is a part of the site. You can read about it at https://cpeo.org/chips.html#env-mew .
The TCE contamination in the area’s groundwater is not a threat to our health, because we don’t drink the groundwater from that site.
However, since 2002 EPA has been addressing vapor intrusion, the migration of TCE into overlying buildings, at the site. In fact, MEW is one of EPA’s oldest and largest vapor intrusion projects. It has been conducted with continuous community oversight.
As groundwater cleanup continues, current or future buildings at risk of vapor intrusion are required to install and operating mitigation systems that prevent TCE from coming up into buildings. If that is done properly (for as long as the contamination is present), the air in those homes will be as safe as air in homes outside of the MEW area.
It is unfortunate that this project, along with many others, has been exempted by state law from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the past, even before I served on the City Council, Mountain View used CEQA to reinforce EPA’s conditions for development, adding requirements to notify potential residents of contamination at the point of marketing.
While I believe these homes can be built safely, it is my hope that the developer, EPA, and the City will meet with our community about the environmental aspects of the development.
Silicon Valley has always attracted ambitious and unattached young people from around the country (and indeed from abroad). It’s important to have studio apartments for them. Hey, if they like it here, they may settle down and upgrade their housing.
““Even the modern yuppie needs a place to live,” Commissioner Alex Nunez said.” – https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2026/01/22/mountain-view-planning-commission-backs-8-story-apartment-building/
The MV City Council has taken those words to heart. In 2023 and 2024, 89% of new units constructed in Mountain View were market rate units targeted at the highest wage earners in the land, those earning more than 120% of Area Median Income. The pattern repeats once again with this project, which is 87% market rate. Instead of building affordable housing, MV is primarily building UNAFFORDABLE housing. Why? Concern for “modern yuppies”?
Meanwhile, the state imposed RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) requirements specify that MV is required to plan to accommodate the development of
– 2,773 units for very low-income households (25% of 11,135 total housing units)
– 1,597 units for low-income households (14% of 11,135 total housing units)
– 1,885 units for moderate-income households (17% of 11,135 total housing units)
– 4,880 units for above moderate-income households (44% of 11,135 total housing units)
Skimming those numbers, one can see that the state essentially requires that 44% of new units be constructed for “modern yuppies”. But MV is creating 89%, far more than the state requires. And the City Council approves these projects, again, and again, and again.
“Proportionately, the city is overshooting its goal for above-moderate income units while coming in lower for all other income categories.” – https://www.mv-voice.com/housing/2026/03/10/how-is-mountain-view-faring-with-its-plan-to-add-11k-homes-by-2031/
Yes! Thank you MV Voice for stating this truth!
Failure to build affordable units hurts existing residents two ways:
1) Most obviously, the “supply” of housing for middle income and lower-income households is not increasing sufficiently. According to the laws of supply and demand, the housing crisis will certainly continue for these families. They aren’t getting the new housing that the state “requires”.
2) When MV does not build enough affordable units, the State will actually PUNISH us! You got that? We NEED affordable housing. And we will be PUNISHED for not building it! Does that sound crazy to you? It does to me. But it is the law. I am not making this up.
How does the State punish us? SB 35 – authored by YIMBY hero Scott Wiener – kicks in. The assumption in SB 35 is that the only reason a community does not build affordable housing is because a community does not WANT affordable housing. SB 35 assumes – and this is really the core problem – that MV is not building affordable units because MV is full of snobs who don’t WANT lower income people in our community. That is not true for me, and I don’t think that is true of most people in MV.
The problem is that developer after developer brings projects to the table that are not designed to meet RHNA targets. They are designed to maximize profit. God bless America. For-profit developers make $$$ building market rate units, they lose $$$ building affordable units.
SB 35 grants “streamlined approval” for proposed housing projects that meet certain criteria. “Streamlined approval” means that voices of the community are muzzled. Similar to Builder’s Remedy, the City Council HAS to “reluctantly approve” monster projects because the law is the law. Why must projects that residents hate be approved under SB 35? Because MV didn’t build enough affordable housing. Why didn’t MV build enough affordable housing? Because the City Council keeps approving project after project after project that consists almost entirely of expensive, market rate units, apparently out of concern for the “modern yuppie”.
490 E. Middlefield Road looks like a large college dormitory being built to hire and house young Google workers. They are not intended for families. Google execs must be thrilled. Nothing wrong with that per se, except for the fact that, yet the needs of middle and lower income families are being ignored yet again.
I don’t think that SB 35 is fair, but it is the law. It was authored by YIMBY hero, Scott Wiener. Residents need to understand that by constantly approving projects that don’t contain sufficient affordable housing to meet our RHNA targets, our City Council is setting up Mountain View to be hit with sanctions from SB 35.