Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

To hear Stephen Friedman describe it, his neighborhood of Jardin Drive is like Mountain View’s version of the Bermuda Triangle. For the more than 30 years he’s lived there, he’s gotten used to having to explain to garbage men, emergency responders and sometimes even city officials that, yes, his house is in Mountain View.

For reasons that remain unclear, the Mountain View boundary along the southwest corner of town juts down like a hanging tooth to encompass a stretch of Friedman’s block. That means Friedman’s home and five other households belong to Mountain View even though they’re surrounded on three sides by the borders of Los Altos.

This might not seem like a big deal, but those who live there say that it is. While Los Altos houses on either side of the block have addresses in the 300s, Friedman and his neighbors have addresses in the 2100s. That anomaly alone produces a string of problems. He remembers calling 911 years ago after his wife fell unconscious, and the emergency crews couldn’t find his house.

“If you blink, you miss our homes — that’s the nature of these illogical boundaries,” Friedman described.

His neighbors who share his plight couldn’t agree more. On Tuesday they rallied before the Mountain View City Council to advocate a solution: having their properties formally incorporated into Los Altos. In a complicated process that needs to be approved by both cities, the households requested modifying the borders as well as the federal postal codes to add the six parcels to Los Altos.

“It’s nothing against Mountain View,” said Barbara Daniels, one of the affected homeowners. “But the streets, the school system … the surrounding area feels more like Los Altos.”

Losing territory isn’t something any level-headed government undertakes lightly, but Mountain View staff admitted that the Jardin Drive properties are truly in a unique situation that straddled both cities. For those six homes, services such as water and garbage pickup are handled by Mountain View while sewers and street maintenance are the responsibility of Los Altos.

It seems that no one really knows how this came to be the case. Friedman, who might have done the most research on the matter, said it apparently dated back to the 1950s when both cities were rapidly expanding in competition with one another. A developer built the Jardin Drive homes in the Los Altos unincorporated area and Mountain View later annexed the parcels. Yet the properties in many ways were treated like they were part of Los Altos, he said. Many county maps from the time didnt’ show the property as part of Mountain View, he said.

“I could show you seven maps at the county and every one of them are different — some show us in Los Altos; some show us in Mountain View,” Friedman said.

Adding to the tangle, the workmen building the original homes connected the sewer lines to the Los Altos system. Friedman guesses this was done for expediency.

This emerged as a major issue in recent years as Jardin Drive homeowners attempted to get permits for remodels, and Mountain View staff informed them that they had to pay for a new connection back to the city’s sewer system. This would cost $30,000 or more, Friedman estimated. Asked about this on Tuesday night, Public Works department officials explained they would make this requirement regardless of the city boundary issue because the sewer main underneath the homes is due to be replaced.

Mountain View staff ended up siding with the Jardin Drive residents. On Tuesday night, they recommended that a relatively simple way to clean up this issue would be to allow the parcels to join Los Altos. By doing this, Mountain View’s only direct cost would be the loss of some property taxes, worth about $9,000 a year.

But some in the audience said that far more was at stake. Local attorney Gary Wesley warned city officials that the Jardin Drive homeowners likely had an ulterior motive in trying to join Los Altos, saying their property values would skyrocket.

“Everyone on the border with Los Altos or Palo Alto who wants to live in those cities and make more money, they can now apply to (leave) your city.” he said. “I would be surprised if their property values didn’t increase by $300,000.”

Wesley wasn’t the only one with that perspective. In the audience, a group of Los Altos homeowners were watching the Mountain View council meeting intently, and said that they were concerned that annexing Mountain View homes could sink their property values.

It’s pretty much indisputable that the Jardin Drive homes would see a significant property value bump if they had a Los Altos address, according to Coldwell Banker real estate agent Theresa Couture. Exactly how much would depend on the list of factors for each individual parcel, such as lot size, home condition, and even the house’s direction in relation to the sun, she told the Voice. When it comes to government boundaries, Couture said, the biggest factor for home values is the school district, although the city can also be a significant element.

“The median price in Los Altos is much higher than the median price in Mountain View,” she said. “If I was in Mountain View and the city was going to put me in Los Altos, I’d be pretty happy with that.”

Asked about the property value gain, Friedman said that wasn’t what he and his neighbors cared about.

“The housing prices aren’t very different; the tax rates are about the same. The school district is what people are after,” he said. “I don’t think (property value) is a big deal — that’s not my motive.”

Most council members gave the residents the benefit of the doubt. A few on the council talked about how they learned of the odd neighborhood as they were walking precincts for past elections.

“I remember getting out the precinct map and wondering ‘What the heck is happening here?’ In a rational world this would be in Los Altos, but it’s in Mountain View,” said Councilman Chris Clark. “This is an anomaly and we have the opportunity to clean it up.”

But Councilman Ken Rosenberg admitted he had his suspicions. Before the meeting, he said he spoke with the residents petitioning to leave Mountain View to ask if there was a way to keep their parcels in the city. If the city worked to resolve the sewer and address issues, would the residents be willing to stay in Mountain View?

“Their answer was definitively no — they want to move to Los Altos,” Rosenberg said. “I can only assume that the reason for that is monetary: their housing values do go up.”

Saying he didn’t like the lack of honesty, Rosenberg cast the lone vote to oppose the transfer. The City Council approved supporting giving the six parcels to Los Altos in a 5-1 vote. Councilman Mike Kasperzak recused himself from the vote since he lives in the vicinity.

With Mountain View’s approval, the residents now will petition Los Altos to also sign off on the transfer. As part of the transfer, the Jardin Drive residents will be required to pay for new hookups for CalWater, the water service used in Los Altos. After that, the boundary change will also need to be approved by the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission.

Join the Conversation

No comments

  1. I am happy that the homeowners on Jardin Drive got the majority of the Council to agree with them. I don’t think their situation is entirely unique — there are other odd boundaries along the edges of MV, Palo Alto, Los Altos and Sunnyvale that lead to confusion. It shouldn’t necessarily be a high priority for the City to address these issues, but I hope this decision will set some sort of precedent if other groups of neighbors request similar boundary adjustments. (I live downtown, so I’m not affected by the issue and don’t know any of the homeowners on Jardin.)

  2. Really? Ken Rosenberg is judging the honesty of others?

    Is this the same Ken Rosenberg who told us how he would vote on matters during discussions prior to his election, then did the opposite after getting in office?

    It takes a strange attitude for anyone to claim they understand the motivations of others. For Ken Rosenberg, it is hypocrisy.

  3. “Mountain View staff informed them that they had to pay for a new connection back to the city’s sewer system”

    That was too expensive for them.

    “As part of the transfer, the Jardin Drive residents will be required to pay for new hookups for CalWater”

    But it sounds like that isn’t.

  4. Hope they enjoy that nasty guardia infected water the Los Altans are forced to drink! Love our Hetch Hetchy!

    And what is this $9,000/yr lost in taxes? Is that total or just for one of the six houses? Also, I bet those houses are assessed at a very low rate. When they sell, the loss of taxes would probably be 200k or so.

  5. When is it appropriate for an elected official to change their mind?
    How much time has to pass between the election of the official and a vote made by the representative that is different than campaign promises? Surely, if no politician ever changed their mind on anything, there could be no progress.

    Barack Obama (indeed, most Americans) didn’t support “gay marriage” as a candidate, now he does.
    Many politicians didn’t like the idea of “mixed marriages,” and now they do.
    Many elected officials didn’t support women’s right to vote, and then they did.

    I think it’s ok for an elected to change their mind as long as they explain why. People can disagree with the change, naturally, but one shouldn’t be so pure in thought that any divergence from said thought is perceived as a lie. It makes the voter look bad, not the politician.

    Rosenburg, Showalter, and Kasperzak changed their mind on the “dedicated” lane…as they explained…because they saw the issue differently after further study. I’m quite convinced that people on this board LOVE to keep bringing it up because they didn’t vote for those guys in the first place. If I recall, the majority of contributors to Town Square in the last election supported Matichak, Neal, and Salem. Methinks you all are eating sour grapes.

    Personally, I’d rather have someone in office capable of making hard political choices than one who is absolute in their ideology. I remember Stephen Colbert, saying directly to then President George W Bush at the National Correspondence Dinner, “This man is resolute. He believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday.” It makes you chuckle, sure. But it belies an inflexibility in Bush that many perceived as a political weakness. The man seemed incapable of processing new information and changing his mind. Yes, many on this board likely see that as a strength. But again, we made very little progress under G.W. Bush. So, a politician with the courage to change their mind, KNOWING arrows will be slung into their backs, is alright by me.

  6. @Water

    The $9,000 in taxes is the calculation of the six houses combined. The City doesn’t collect 100% of the property taxes…this is just the apportioned amount. Also, some of those houses had turned over within the past few years. So their property taxes are already (relatively) high.

  7. No one knows about Michael Kasperzak who first said about bus-only lanes on April 21, 2014: “I do not know what I want.” But Pat Showalter and Ken Rosenberg did not change their minds so soon after the November 2014 election about the absurd plan to seize the left lane on El Camino for an occasional VTA bus by reading anything new (such as the highly critical December 2014 City of Mountain View letter to the VTA). They were approached by VTA operatives and evidently imagined that express buses would be the wave of the future. At least Rosenberg admitted he was wrong to have voted to support the plan -even with the conditioned he expressed. And Showalter said on April 21 she did not support a lane limited to infrequent buses. There is no evidence that Showalter or Rosenberg took a bribe. But they did doublecross voters. While positions can change legitimately, there was no good reason for them to change just a few months after the 2014 campaign. As to the actual topic – giving away property to Los Altos, there are two concerns: (1) what actually motivated staff and some councilmembers to support it and (2) what political (not legal) precedent has been set. On the first concern, it turns out that one of the homeowners is a political insider. I will leave it there for now to avoid having this post deleted by whoever does that. As to the second concern, the only feature that distinguishes these houses from other MV houses bordering Los Altos (and Palo Alto) is an alleged sewer issue NOT even mentioned in the written city staff report. So, further inquiry is underway. Stay tuned.

  8. Well, the anti-bus brigade is still spewing out lies about the BRT council vote. Sorry, but the side of elitism and snobbery lost on that issue. Get over it. The newly elected council members researched the project, liked what they saw and voted for it.

    If this was truly a horrendous decision, then where is the recall? Not even ONE percent of MV residents signed the recall petition! Most MV residents support a rapid bus system. Again, GET OVER IT!

  9. There will be no bus-only lanes on El Camino (at least in this decade) because the VTA will not be able to get a tax measure passed with the threat of bus-only lanes on the table. Sorry VTA bureaucrats, special interests and pro-bus knuckleheads.

    No wasteful bus-only lanes on El Camino. Get over it. Or don’t.

  10. Will they have issues with Los Altos? Looking at the map, these lots are much smaller than typical Los Altos parcels. It seems that the developer back in the 50s chose not to incorporate into Los Altos so they could squeeze six houses into a space that would only fit a few houses under Los Altos zoning.

Leave a comment