Mountain View City Council approved two significant housing projects in the East Whisman neighborhood at its March 10th meeting, together adding over 650 new homes to an area that has long been dominated by office parks and surface parking lots.
490 East Middlefield Road: 460 Mixed-Use Units (Item 6.2)
The headline item of the evening was a proposal by Development Partners to build a 460-unit mixed-use residential building at the corner of East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street. The project would replace a two-story commercial office building on a 2.86-acre site with a contemporary, seven-story mixed-use development featuring ground-floor retail, a pool, coworking space, and over 34,000 square feet of open space.
The project is using the state density bonus to build 27.5% above base density in exchange for providing 60 affordable units at an average of 65% AMI, split between two income levels. The development agreement also includes $1.2 million for ground-floor retail tenant improvements, $1.2 million toward community benefits, and a sales tax point-of-sale designation.
Loading Zone vs. Bike Lane
The most debated topic was a proposed loading zone cutout along the East Middlefield Road frontage. The Environmental Planning Commission had recommended the cutout to accommodate deliveries and ride-hailing drop-offs, but it would encroach on a planned Class IV protected bike lane along Middlefield.
Councilmember Hicks raised concerns about the steady erosion of green space and bike infrastructure as more projects add curb cuts and loading zones. Public speakers from the Slater neighborhood, including resident Andrew Wills who bikes Middlefield daily, also weighed in on balancing delivery access with cyclist safety. Public Works Director Jennifer Ing noted that the cutout would be about 20% of the lobby frontage and would require coordination with the city’s planned Class IV bike lane project. Vice Mayor Clark, drawing on his own experience with loading zone issues on El Camino, supported the cutout as a practical necessity.
Other Notable Discussion Points
Vapor barriers: Councilmember Showalter highlighted the importance of proper vapor barrier installation given the site’s proximity to the MEW groundwater plume, urging the applicant to go beyond minimum EPA requirements. The applicant confirmed that EPA sign-off is required both before construction and before occupancy.
Unit mix: Councilmember Showalter expressed concern about the high proportion of studios, characterizing the project as essentially “really nice dormitories.” We’d note that studios are among the most affordable market-rate units a developer can build, and strong demand for them reflects the reality of Bay Area housing costs. More unit types means more people housed.
Park fees: Councilmember Kamei urged flexibility on the timeline for the park acquisition and development fee, noting that Pyramid Park is already oversubscribed, that “you cannot find a swing on a weekend,” and with this project and a nearby 600-unit development coming online, the East Whisman area urgently needs more public park space.
Library drop-off: Kamei also floated a creative idea: a library book drop-off within the project’s retail space. She’d checked with another Santa Clara County library and learned the return box is less than 10 feet. Mayor Ramos enthusiastically supported the idea, noting the need for mini city services as density grows far from downtown.
The Vote
The project was approved 6-0 (with Councilmember McAlister absent), on a motion by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Showalter.
Councilmember Hicks described her vote on 460 homes as a “coin flip” over the loading zone’s impact on a tree buffer. She ultimately voted yes, but not before lamenting that “it might be your mapping app or your Lyft or Uber that would determine the fact that we have to take out the buffer and the trees.” We’d gently suggest that ride-hailing drop-offs at a 460-unit building are not an exotic edge case.
Councilmember Ramirez praised staff’s “creativity in negotiating the development agreement,” particularly the community benefits package. He encouraged staff to bring similar flexibility to future projects navigating the “complex tapestry” of state density bonus law and precise plan requirements.
515-545 North Whisman Road: 195 Rowhouses (Item 6.3)
The second public hearing was for a 195-unit rowhouse development on a 10-acre site on North Whisman Road, replacing two vacant office buildings. The project would demolish 139 of 151 heritage trees on site (replaced at more than 2:1 ratio with 440 new trees) and create 30 three-story rowhouse buildings with individual rear-loaded garages.
The project includes 46 BMR units: 28 at 100-120% AMI and 18 at 170% AMI under an alternate mitigation targeting middle-income homeownership. The applicant noted Mountain View currently has only 14 BMR ownership units citywide. With about 4,000 people on the BMR waitlist, that number tells you less about this project’s contribution than about how little the BMR program has produced relative to actual demand. Building 195 market-rate homes that people can actually buy is itself a contribution to affordability.
“Frustrated by the Housing Typology”
Several councilmembers expressed what Councilmember Hicks called being “frustrated by the housing typology.” The concern was that three-story rowhouses represent a less efficient use of land compared to stacked flats, which could have yielded more units and more open space on the same footprint. Councilmember Showalter echoed this, saying the project was “basically good” but “isn’t the best use of land.”
We share some of this frustration. But if the city wants denser typologies like stacked flats, the answer is to make them the path of least resistance: increase base FAR so mid-rise projects pencil without density bonus concessions, offer expedited approvals, reduce setbacks, and provide other carrots that make stacked flats the obvious choice. Lamenting what developers choose to build under the rules the city itself set is backwards. Regardless, the project brings much-needed housing to an area that currently has almost none.
One bright spot: Councilmember Hicks praised the project’s “transitional architecture,” which she contrasted with the “fake craftsman” style she sees in too many townhome developments. We agree. As we’ve argued before, features like bay windows, balconies, and material variation do more for a building’s appearance than prescriptive massing break requirements, and without the cost and waterproofing headaches those mandates create. The city should keep this in mind as it updates design standards across multiple zoning districts.
BMR Unit Distribution
Councilmember Ramirez raised a concern about the BMR concession: the affordable units are concentrated on one side of the site in smaller floor plans. He worried this could become a loophole, that “anyone can now come in and say, ’this happens to be where all of the small units are.’” Housing Director Wayne Chen acknowledged the issue and said it would be addressed in the upcoming BMR ordinance update. The broader question the Council should be asking is whether adding BMR requirements to the point where developers need density bonus concessions to make projects pencil is actually producing more affordable housing, or just making all housing harder to build.
Environmental Remediation
The site is in a contaminated groundwater area. Nine conditions of approval require EPA clearance before construction and before occupancy. Griggs noted that the EPA case manager who had been working on the site, Alana Lee, unfortunately passed away, creating delays as new staff get up to speed.
Community Meetings
Several councilmembers spent significant time pressing both applicants on their decision not to hold voluntary neighborhood meetings. The rowhouse developer, Brian Griggs, was candid about the reason: “you have to balance how many rights you have implied under the state now as a developer versus being collaborative.”
State law deliberately streamlined approval timelines precisely because “community input” processes have historically been weaponized to delay and block housing. Both projects were approved 6-0. The Council should be cautious about re-creating informal process requirements that the legislature worked to remove.
The project was approved unanimously, 6-0 (with Councilmember McAlister absent).
Other Business
Closed session: The Council approved a settlement with Castro GPRV 10 LLC regarding open space credit calculations for the 881 Castro Street development, resulting in a $2 million park fee. The vote was 4-1, with Councilmember Kamei voting no, Councilmember McAlister absent, and Councilmember Hicks recused.
Zoning ordinance update (Item 4.1): The Council adopted amendments to Chapter 36 of the zoning code to align with state law, approved 6-0 on consent.
Facade grant program (Item 4.2): Councilmember Hicks successfully broadened the city’s facade improvement grant program beyond its downtown focus, changing the name to “placemaking and historic improvement” to better reflect its citywide scope. Approved 6-0.
Our Take
This was a good night for housing in East Whisman. Over 650 new homes were approved in a neighborhood that desperately needs the transition from office parks to a livable, mixed-use community. The Council spent a lot of time on process complaints about community meetings and hand-wringing over typology choices, time better spent on the retail, transit, and infrastructure that will make East Whisman a real neighborhood.
One detail worth noting: the 490 Middlefield project voluntarily built 442 parking spaces despite having zero parking requirement under city code. That’s a lot of money spent on car storage in a neighborhood half a mile from a major transit stop. If the Council wants to bring down housing costs, encouraging developers to actually take advantage of reduced parking requirements, rather than building garages anyway, would do more than another round of community meetings.
If the Council wants different outcomes, the tools are zoning and development standards, not informal pressure on individual applicants. Set the rules right and the next 650 units get built faster.