Mountain View’s February 10th Council meeting ran nearly to midnight, but the payoff was substantial: Council gave clear direction on the long-awaited R3 zoning update, approved a 2026 legislative platform that includes several housing production reforms we’ve been pushing for, and handled a consent calendar that included the 881 Castro street vacation for the Lot 12 affordable housing project.
R3 Zoning Update (Item 7.1)
This was the main event. The R3 zoning update has been in the works since 2019, and Council finally gave staff direction to complete it this year. The goal: replace the current R3 standards with objective, form-based standards that make multifamily housing feasible and encourage stacked flats over the townhome developments that have dominated recent R3 projects.
We submitted a detailed letter on this item back in January when it was before the EPC, and a follow-up letter on SB 79 and AB 130 implementation ahead of this meeting. Both James Kuszmaul and I spoke during public comment to reiterate our key recommendations: remove density limits in favor of form-based standards like FAR and height, reduce excessive front setbacks, replace arbitrary massing break requirements with ornamentation alternatives, allow ground-floor retail everywhere, and reduce parking minimums.
What Council Approved
Councilmember Ramirez moved a detailed 12-point motion that adopted the staff recommendations with several additions. The Council voted 5-1 (McAlister opposed, Kamei recused) on the first batch of items and 5-1 (McAlister opposed) on the remaining items. Here’s what we’re most excited about:
Ornamentation alternatives to massing breaks. Council directed staff to include ornamentation options in the massing features section, specifically allowing changes in materials, ornamentation, and window patterns as alternatives to the costly structural breaks in the current draft. This is exactly what we asked for in our letter. Massing breaks are expensive, create waterproofing risks, and don’t actually make buildings look better. Bay windows, balconies, and material changes do.
Commercial uses allowed in more subdistricts. Council adopted the EPC recommendation to allow commercial uses in R3-D and R3-B, not just the originally proposed R3-D. This was another item from our letter. If a developer can make ground-floor retail pencil, the zoning shouldn’t prohibit it.
Lot consolidation “incentive” scrapped. The original proposal would have punished small lots by capping their density to “incentivize” consolidation. Council directed staff to drop this and instead explore positive incentives like fee waivers and expedited processing. We argued strongly against the original approach, and it’s good to see Council agreed that artificially demoting small parcels isn’t an incentive.
Evaluate increasing FAR in R3-B. Councilmember Ramirez noted that recent R3 projects have all been townhomes, not the stacked flats Council wants to see. He directed staff to evaluate whether higher FAR in R3-B would send a stronger signal to the development community. This aligns with our recommendation to set R3-B FAR at 1.5 or higher, based on the actual FAR of recent projects that used the state density bonus.
Eliminate stoops from building entry types. Ramirez pointed to the Crossings development near San Antonio as an example of how stoops create dead zones. We agree: stoops push activity away from the sidewalk rather than activating it.
Arcades, cantilevered second stories, and clear stories. Councilmember Hicks championed allowing these features, which let developers widen sidewalks and create covered pedestrian spaces on private property without encroaching on the public right-of-way. This is exactly the kind of creative design tool that makes walkable neighborhoods work.
McAlister’s Opposition
Councilmember McAlister voted no on both motions, delivering a lengthy speech about how densification would ruin Mountain View’s quality of life. He cited a condo project in San Jose (the Fay) that went bankrupt allegedly due to lack of parking as evidence that reducing parking minimums is dangerous. Staff noted that project had a ratio of one space per three units, far below anything proposed for R3. McAlister also raised concerns about traffic, school capacity, and water, claiming 10% vacancy in market-rate housing suggests we don’t even need more units.
The vacancy claim is worth addressing. Even if true for one segment of the market at one moment in time, it ignores Mountain View’s massive jobs-housing imbalance and the fact that RHNA obligations exist precisely because the region as a whole has underbuilt for decades. A temporary market softening doesn’t mean the problem is solved. And the solution to concerns about infrastructure, parking, and schools isn’t to block housing: it’s to plan for growth.
Public Comment
The public comment was notable for the breadth of support for the update. James and I spoke on behalf of MV YIMBY. Manuel Salazar from SV@Home explicitly echoed our comments and expressed alignment with our positions on parking minimums and massing breaks. Alex Brown, Cliff Chambers, Daniel Hols, and Kevin Ma all spoke in favor of the update with varying degrees of urgency. Kevin Ma made a particularly sharp point: the massing break requirements would undermine modular housing construction, which inherently requires uniform building envelopes.
Olga Bright spoke in opposition, arguing that densification along San Antonio would destroy quality of life and that existing residents hadn’t been adequately informed. She said she didn’t think “anybody in Monta Loma, except for a handful of people, know about these proposed changes.” This item has been in process since 2019, went through the EPC, and has been publicly noticed at every step. At some point, the expectation that the city should personally knock on every door is itself a delay tactic.
Legislative Program Study Session (Item 2.1)
The meeting opened with a study session on the city’s 2026 state and federal legislative priorities. We submitted written comments urging the Council to ensure its positions are unambiguous and to avoid giving cover to jurisdictions that abuse local control to block housing.
Three items from our letter showed up prominently in the Council discussion:
Single-stair reform. Councilmember Ramirez raised this directly, asking the state lobbyist about the status of Assemblymember Alex Lee’s single-stair reform legislation. The lobbyist wasn’t familiar with the term, which is a reminder of how much education still needs to happen in Sacramento. Mayor Ramos also voiced support. Single-stair reform would make smaller condo and apartment buildings feasible on infill lots by removing the requirement for two stairways, which is standard in most of the developed world.
Condo construction defect liability reform. Councilmember McAlister noted he’s been pushing this since 2014. Councilmember Showalter also raised it with Senator Becker during his virtual appearance. This is one of the few areas where McAlister and the pro-housing majority agree: the current liability framework makes condo construction nearly impossible in California, which is a major reason almost everything built is rental.
Pro-housing city incentives. Vice Mayor Clark gave an extended pitch for rewarding cities with Pro-Housing designations. His argument: cities like Mountain View that are building housing and absorbing the political pain should get flexibility on deadlines and process, not be treated the same as cities that obstruct. We agree. If the state keeps treating good-faith and bad-faith actors identically, there’s no incentive for cities to be proactive.
Senator Josh Becker dropped in virtually to discuss his work on energy legislation (SB 254), child care subsidies, and workforce development. He noted the Lot 12 affordable housing project’s progress and committed to keeping pressure on corporate housing commitments from companies like Google.
Council unanimously adopted seven priority themes and a list of additional items. Staff will bring back the finalized platform for adoption on February 24th.
Consent Calendar
881 Castro Street Vacation (Item 4.1): Council approved vacating a public street and easement for the Lot 12 affordable housing project. Councilmembers Kamei and Hicks voted no or recused. This is a procedural step to clear the way for a project that has been in the pipeline for years, and Senator Becker specifically mentioned his excitement about its progress during his remarks earlier in the evening.
Transit Center Access Project (Item 4.2): Council approved the simplified Castro Transit Center access project, which replaces the original $271 million grade separation plan with a $6 million safety-focused project. The project will close the at-grade rail crossing at Castro, build a plaza, add trees along Evelyn, and install Class II and Class IV bike lanes. McAlister voted no, questioning the spending on bike infrastructure.
Charter Modernization (Item 6.1)
Council held a study session on proposed charter amendments for the November 2026 ballot, covering board appointment processes, term alignment, and vacancy procedures. Not housing-related, but worth noting as part of the City’s broader modernization effort.
Our Take
This was a good night for housing in Mountain View. The R3 update has been a seven-year process, and Council’s direction was broadly aligned with what we’ve been advocating: form-based standards that focus on building shape rather than unit counts, fewer arbitrary restrictions that make projects infeasible, and more design flexibility through ornamentation rather than mandated structural breaks.
The legislative platform session was also encouraging. Single-stair reform, condo liability reform, and pro-housing city incentives are all policies that would meaningfully move the needle on housing production, and it’s good to see them getting bipartisan support on Council.
McAlister remains the lone dissenter on housing, and his arguments continue to rest on the premise that Mountain View can simply opt out of the housing crisis. We can’t. The question isn’t whether R3 neighborhoods will change, but whether that change will be guided by thoughtful local standards or by state law defaults. Council chose local standards, and we’re glad they did.