|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Yard signs are popping up around Mountain View drawing attention to a contentious state bill that could allow for denser housing in areas near train, light rail and bus stops.
Senate Bill 79, which was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener, would set statewide zoning standards within a half-mile of major transit stops.
In Mountain View, the legislation would apply to Caltrain and Valley Transportation Authority light rail stations. However, it would not apply to bus lines in the city, according to a spokesperson for Wiener’s office. While “bus rapid transit” is included in the legislation, the bus routes that run through Mountain View don’t meet those criteria because there aren’t dedicated bus lanes, the spokesperson said.
The combined bus and bicycle lanes that exist along portions of El Camino Real do not count, he added.
Under SB 79, maximum building heights would 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. Buildings also could go taller with state density bonuses that allow developers to build more housing units in exchange for providing affordable housing.
“Building many more homes near public transit tackles the root causes of our affordability crisis while bolstering public transportation across the state,” Wiener said in a March press release.
SB 79 has received the backing of housing and environmental advocacy groups, including California YIMBY and Greenbelt Alliance. But not everybody is on board with the legislation. Critics of SB 79 say it would override local zoning initiatives and impose onerous conditions on low-density neighborhoods, even when cities make good-faith efforts to plan for additional housing growth.
In recent weeks, a group of Mountain View residents have expressed similar concerns and have claimed that SB 79 could lead to the destruction of historically significant buildings in the downtown area.
The Mountain View Transit Center – a major Caltrain, light rail and bus hub – is next to the city’s historic retail district, which is made up of one and two-story buildings on the 100, 200 and 300 blocks of Castro Street. The area also is surrounded by the Old Mountain View and Shoreline West neighborhoods, which include many older single-family homes and low-rise apartment buildings.
The prospect of upzoning Castro Street has drawn particular concern from Livable Mountain View, a historical preservation advocacy group.
“This is our history. It’s only three blocks and maybe a little bit of the sidewalks too,” said Robert Cox, founder and steering committee member of Livable Mountain View. “We just want it to be here, not only for a few years but for future generations.”
Other parts of Mountain View impacted by SB 79 would include neighborhoods around Caltrain’s San Antonio Station near the Palo Alto border. This has not sparked much public discussion, likely because the area is already slated for high-density housing and office growth, irrespective of SB 79. But there have been concerns about the scope of SB 79 in Palo Alto and its impact on Eichler-style neighborhoods near San Antonio Station.
Neighborhoods around VTA light rail stations, including those near the Whisman, Middlefield and Bayshore/NASA stations, could see more housing density with zoning changes under SB 79 too.
“It just doesn’t seem fair, given all that we’ve done as a city in Mountain View to accommodate the growth of housing,” Cox said, referring to the scope of SB 79.
SB 79 includes a provision for a “local alternative plan” that would allow cities to choose where to build housing within a half mile radius of major transit stops, although it still requires cities to maintain the same total base housing capacity as provided by SB 79. The alternative plan also provides some flexibility for a city if it has upzoned an area recently, according to Wiener’s office.
Currently, Mountain View is working on updating a precise plan that will guide future development in the downtown area. The city also is planning for more residential density along the Moffett Boulevard corridor, across the train tracks from the downtown Transit Center.
“The law itself allows for alternative plans and so because we’re being proactive, we’re already kind of ahead of this ball,” said City Council member Emily Ann Ramos, who supports SB 79. “We still have to meet minimum requirements that would be in that state bill, but it is my hope that we would meet those minimum requirements regardless.”
Ramos also noted that SB 79 was created to promote transit-oriented development, not to demolish historical buildings. It would be difficult to tear down any building with historical status, she said. But Ramos added that the city’s historical preservation process could be clarified.
“If it’s specific properties that have truly historic context then I don’t doubt that we can find ways to make that protected,” she said, while adding that it would be problematic to claim that every property was historic.
Council member Lucas Ramirez similarly said that it was likely the city will take a balanced approach to complying with state housing requirements, so that community priorities are included.
“I expect that Mountain View will likely work on a local alternative to protect historic resources to find a more palatable community-supported approach to upzoning around the transit stations,” he said.
For Ramirez, the regional implications of SB 79 are a big reason to back the legislation. It would lift regulatory barriers to housing in the Bay Area, forcing other cities to provide their fair share, he said.
SB 79 passed the Senate in June and is waiting to go before the Assembly for a final vote. If the bill passes both chambers, it will be sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign.
Love it. The arrogance of Old MV needs to be confronted head on. Build baby build.
True arrogance is destroying a city’s history. There are many other sites to build on while still respecting a people’s culture and history.
Two towns over: Your “nom de Voice” indicates you’d be far less impacted, if at all, by runaway development as would those “arrogant” Old Mountain View residents. Instead of casting aspersions at residents, uhh, two towns away from you, how about providing a thought-out argument for SB79 — something deeper than “build baby build”?
enough is enough. No on SB 79!
Long-time Old Mountain View resident here. I accept that the SB 79 bill isn’t perfect. Specifically, while it might create more housing, it might not do much for affordability. I also don’t know if there are ways to empower local control while still achieving the same goal of increasing overall housing density. That said, we need more housing — here and everywhere that regulations conspire to make it scarce and prohibitively expensive. So I’m open to ways to improve the law — e.g., prioritizing construction on major roads like El Camino and Evelyn — but I’m not sympathetic to “build a wall” arguments that categorically oppose new construction.
Such a ham handed approach. A better method would be to allocate housing units to the .5 mile radius and allow the cities to decide where to put them. If it ends up with putting a skyscraper on a caltrain lot, so be it, but forcing a large geographic area to absorb dissonant structures is cruel.
We need housing and we want people to be able to get out of their cars to live here. SB 79 is for the climate, area schools, businesses, our health, and our tax base. I would love to see more people living downtown who can frequent businesses and really make Castro Street even more successful.
Low density development near Transit stations is an environmental cancer in our cities, resulting in air pollution, climate emissions, noise, isolation, bad health outcomes – all the bad things we don’t want. We need Transit that people can access and we need housing near jobs on the Peninsula, not 2 hours away from jobs in Hollister, Modesto, and Alameda County. We have way too many jobs and way too few homes in Mtn View. Let’s change that and make our city even better!
There’s lots of available space in San Jose. Build more apartnemtns in cities
I doubt that any of this proposed housing is for those who need it the most – those living in RV’s, living in cars, living on the streets, living in shelters like Hope’s Corner. There is already some huge housing complex under construction on Shoreline across the street from the shopping center that houses Safeway. I don’t understand where these large high rise structures would be put. Are they going to knock down single family homes in a neighborhood and erect a high rise apartment building?
Housing projects will attract more crime. If you want to see the future of Mtn. View, take a look at downtown San Jose.
Politicians in Sacramento keep dodging the real issue. Building more housing will not reduce housing costs. They pass one law after another in a vain effort to appear to be doing something. There is a high vacancy rate in the new housing in Mountain View, something like 12%. New projects see that and they hold back because they don’t want to deal with a 20% vacancy rate in their new project as they add to the oversupply.
Meanwhile land in these areas targeted by Weiner’s bill see an increase in value for the land, RAISING the cost of any new housing projects in areas covered by the bill.
I don’t think the OMV residents will suffer financially. It would raise their home values for this bill to pass. However, they have a moral opposition to this farce.
Livable Mountain View would like to thank the Mountain View Voice for drawing attention to Senate Bill 79 (SB79), which if passed, could have profound consequences to our city’s downtown historical retail district and residential Mountain View neighborhoods.
However, we would like to state clearly that if SB79 becomes law, regardless of whether Mountain View adopts a “local alternative plan”, SB79 is a threat to Mountain View’s downtown historic retail district (the 100-300 blocks of Castro Street) for many reasons including that an SB79 local alternative plan can explicitly permit impact zones to be declared around bus stops. In addition, there are no explicit protections for our historic retail district in SB79 and Mountain View’s Historic Preservation and Register Update. SB79 does not provide for ‘work arounds’ for irreplaceable historical resources in Mountain View and across the state.
Residents and visitors alike who share the experience of Mountain View’s historic retail district should oppose state mandates that would destroy it and our historic neighborhoods by writing or calling Senator Becker and Assemblyman Berman today!
To read more about this, visit our Livable Mountain View website:
https://www.livablemv.com/2025/08/29/response-to-mountain-view-voice-article-state-bill-to-increase-housing-near-transit-draws-scrutiny-in-mountain-view-august-26-2025/
Robert Cox and Louise Katz
For the Steering Committee of Livable Mountain View
Let’s all take a step back and examine the long-overused term “affordability.” Developers and targeted property owners will evoke that term at the drop of a hat when advocating for high-density housing, SB79-enabled or not, but with no context as to *who* can afford what they argue is affordable. Sure, a one-bedroom, one-bath apartment at $3,200/mo, is more “affordable” than a similar $3,500/mo. unit, but that’s not going to help a minimum-wage local worker get into such a unit and still not struggle. Let’s *please* stop misrepresenting the “affordable” label to housing that’s anything but. And while we’re at it, let’s do what we can to get the state legislature to deep-six SB79!
Kind of ironic that a group named Livable Mountain View doesn’t want people to actually live here. Surely it’s obviously a good idea to have as many people as possible being able to walk to Caltrain, and to have easy access to downtown? (I’ve been very glad to have been able to live within walking distance of Caltrain, I want as many people as possible to have that opportunity.) The bill isn’t going to take anybody’s house away, if people with single family houses a couple of blocks away from downtown don’t want to sell, they don’t have to, but they shouldn’t be able to control what their neighbors do with their own property.