|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Land use changes in Mountain View are around the corner with the recent passage of a state law that allows denser housing to be built near major transit stops. The city’s Environmental Planning Commission has taken notice and is seeking clarity on how Mountain View will respond to the legislation, but city staffers don’t plan to give a formal update until early next year.
The legislation in question, Senate Bill 79, has set statewide zoning standards within a half-mile of train, light rail and certain bus stops. Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, the law goes into effect July 1, 2026.
At a Nov. 5 meeting, the Environmental Planning Commission, an advisory body that makes recommendations to the City Council on land use issues, asked for more information from city staff about the impacts of SB 79.
Several commissioners expressed concern that the legislation could lead to the demolition of historically significant buildings on Castro Street that are near the Mountain View Transit Center – a major train, light rail and bus hub.
“I think that would be such a big loss,” Commissioner Joyce Yin said. “So the sooner we act to prepare, the better.”
Under SB 79, building heights could go up to seven stories within a quarter-mile of the station and six stories within a half-mile of the station.
However, the request to receive more information was put off by city staff. Community Development Director Christian Murdock told the commission that the City Council would be the first to receive updates about SB 79, which would not occur until late January or early February.
“There’s a lot of work the city needs to do between now and then to understand the implications of SB 79 and indeed that work has started,” Murdock said. “I’m not sure I can commit to providing an update as requested to the commission prior to us having an opportunity to provide the same update to City Council.”
Commissioner Bill Cranston pressed staff to come back with an analysis before the end of the year, noting that it could impact deliberations about future development in the downtown area and Moffett Boulevard corridor, as well as updates to the city’s historic preservation ordinance.
“I realize that staff like the idea of being very certain on everything, ‘i’s dotted and t’s crossed,’ but we also need to be able to react to things as they come up,” Cranston said.
The request for staff to provide updates about SB 79 was supported by all of the planning commissioners except for Alex Nunez who said it was not necessary to add the extra burden on staff.
“I think that if we want to get that report, we could either go to that City Council meeting or we could inform ourselves,” Nunez said.
But other commissioners pushed back, saying it would be more effective to weigh in on SB 79 as an advisory body and provide a recommendation to City Council.
Murdock, the city’s community development director, was not swayed by the arguments and reiterated his position that the City Council would have the first crack at SB 79 early next year.
“I’ve tried to subtly indicate it, but maybe I’m being more forthright at this point that the message is clear,” he said. “We will do what we can, but I’m not able to commit to us having a particular agenda item or update at this time given the myriad competing workload demands on staff.”
Commissioner Yin urged the city to be cognizant of a July 1 deadline under SB 79 for jurisdictions seeking to create a “local alternative plan.” With an alternative plan, cities can choose where to build housing near major transit stops so long as they maintain the same total base housing capacity that SB 79 stipulates.
The deadline also concerned Livable Mountain View, a historic preservation advocacy group that opposed the passage of SB 79 earlier this year.
If the city does not act quickly, it is possible it could miss the deadline for getting an alternative plan certified by the state, according to Robert Cox, a Livable Mountain View steering committee member. The state could take several months to review and approve an alternative plan, a situation that presents a lot of ambiguity about whether the clock would stop in terms of SB 79 enforcement, he said.
Other nearby jurisdictions, including Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, are moving quickly through the process but Mountain View is not, Cox told the Voice.
As a taxpayer, I’d like the City to quickly figure out if SB79 diminishes or even obsoletes the scope of some of its current work (Downtown Precise Plan, Moffet Precise Plan, Historic Preservation ordninance, some of the Housing Element programs…). For instance, what would be left of the Moffet Precise Plan if SB79 sets the zoning for most of that area?
A prudent path might be to pause a lot of that work, until early 2026 when City Staff will have digested the SB 79 impact.
SRB is right. They need to learn to pivot. The law was passed exactly a month ago. January is 3 months. They should have something to say about it!
There goes the Mofett Mobile Home Park because under SB79 right now, the city can’t protect those residents from development. However, there’s a chance the law will be amended to excempt mobile home parks from mandatory development approval.
So, there’s a reason to wait because SB79 is still under review.
“Old” is not the same as “historic.” I see nothing on Castro St. that is so precious that it shouldn’t be torn down when it is no longer viable. Rengstorff House is enough.
Palo Alto just did pause its downtown plan while assessing SB79 : https://www.paloaltoonline.com/housing/2025/11/11/palo-alto-pauses-downtown-plan-as-state-housing-law-upends-local-rules/
Mountain View should similarly pause Dowtown/Moffet Precise Plans and Historical Ordinance work. Let’s not spend more money on plans that will either require significant changes or just become obsolete.