|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|

New homes that middle-income families can afford to buy – as opposed to rent – are a rarity in Mountain View but the city could soon get dozens more with a large rowhouse development in East Whisman that includes nearly 50 below-market-rate homes.
In a 6-0 vote, with John McAlister absent, the City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to approve a 195-unit housing development at 515 and 545 N. Whisman Road, replacing two vacant office buildings and a surface parking lot on the 10-acre site.
Council members supported the project on the basis that it would add a large number of ownership homes in Mountain View at a more affordable price than a typical single-family home. However, they also described the development as a missed opportunity that could have supported more housing density and an expansive park.
“The residents who are very close by in existing neighborhoods, who are asking for parks and open space and commercial amenities, city services, they’re not going to get that here,” Council member Lucas Ramirez said at the March 10 meeting. “They’re just going to get 10 acres of rowhouses, and I think that’s too bad.”

The developer, Stonelex, is proposing to construct nearly 200 three-story rowhouses spread across 30 buildings. Plans show three- and four-bedroom homes with two-car garages and an additional 30 parking spots for visitors. The project also includes a 0.24-acre publicly accessible park and other gathering areas, including a dog run.
Council members praised the developer’s inclusion of 46 below-market-rate units, noting that it would provide more affordable homeownership opportunities for families priced out of the real estate market. The developer is planning to set aside 28 of these for moderate-income households and 18 for above-moderate-income households, according to the council report.
Brian Griggs, a consultant representing the developer, noted that the project would triple the number of below-market-rate ownership homes in Mountain View. As of 2024, there were 14 BMR ownership homes in the city.
“Home ownership is a goal of everyone I think, and this is one way that we can try and assist in that,” he said.
However, Ramirez expressed dismay that the vast majority of the below-market-rate homes would be clustered in one area of the development, near North Whisman Road. Most of the units also are smaller than their market-rate counterparts.
This goes against the intent of a city ordinance that stipulates below-market-rate units should be dispersed throughout a property, as well as being proportionate in size to market-rate units, according to the council report. Under the state’s “density bonus” law, if the developer provides enough affordable units, they can skirt some of these regulations with concessions and waivers. If strictly applied, some of the regulations would render this project infeasible, the report said.
Council members also raised eyebrows at the developer’s request for 20 waivers to exempt the project from particular building requirements, like maximum floor area ratios and site coverage.
“Twenty seemed like a lot to me,” Council member Pat Showalter said. “When I went through the list of them, some of them were very minor and others of them weren’t minor.”
A push for community input, project improvements
Another concern of council members was the developer’s decision to not hold a community meeting about the project. It is not a requirement but strongly encouraged by the city.
Griggs acknowledged it as a misstep. When pressed about reasons for not engaging the community, he responded that it was difficult to try and incorporate community perspectives that could be unsupportive of the housing development.
“They’re often emotional. They’re often vocal,” Griggs said. “A lot of people don’t want change and sometimes it’s challenging to have to say ‘no.’” He stated that the developer wanted to move fast as well.
Council members also expressed a strong desire to preserve more heritage trees on the site. These are bigger mature trees that are protected by a city ordinance. The developer plans to remove 307 trees, including 139 heritage trees, and replace them with 440 new trees.
“I do fear that we’re losing a lot of trees, not getting a lot of parks,” Council member Alison Hicks said.
The developer is paying the city $4.3 million in a parkland dedication fee, which is meant to offset the cost of providing adequate open space for the new residents, according to the council report.
There also was some concern about the potential of environmental contaminants on the property, which is located on a known Superfund site. Ahead of the meeting, Showalter questioned what safety measures were being put in place to mitigate groundwater and soil contaminants from previous industrial activities.
Griggs responded that the developer was working closely with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to ensure stringent protocols were being followed. The EPA will need to sign off on the project before the start of construction as well as prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, he said.
“We’re not going to just hit the bare minimum,” Griggs said. “The health and safety of the 195 homeowners here is going to be paramount.”




Always hard to understand how rowhouse projects (one of the least dense form of housing)……. can qualify for a density bonus….. without getting anywhere near close to density/height allowed in East Whisman Precise Plan.
Perhaps the city council doesn’t understand that if you pay less for a house, you shouldn’t get the exact same product. Nobody wants a subsidized housing ghetto of course, I’m not sure this is it.
This project is also part of the MEW Superfund Study area. W stands for Whisman. Groundwater remediation continues, and the new homes will have to incorporate vapor mitigation systems.
50 below-market-rate homes. Since an ave home is over 1 million what exactly are we trying to accomplish? Give some low income person a lottery win of a new home while the 10,000s of ave income workers have to rent.
Building homes on a superfund site, why didn’t I think of that. Oh thats why, I ‘m not an idiot. I guess 40 years of remediation finally worked, think they will have to sign a waiver. Better buy up some love canal, chernobyl, and more superfund sites
So, several of the council members have concerns, but signed off on this 6-0. Huh???
Even more concerning—and maybe I’ve missed the discussion on this—where/when are they putting the new high school??? Surely there needs to be one on “this side” of town to ease the impact of sending every high schooler south of El Camino (MVHS, LAHS, and/or St. Francis HS)???
Honest questions.
TIA.