City Council supports higher-density housing near Palo Alto and Sunnyvale borders, as well as major roadways
byEmily Margaretten
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Mountain View is making progress on its plan to increase residential density in parts of the city zoned for multifamily homes, following years of deliberation about how much housing growth should be on the table.
The City Council provided direction for staff to consider targeted density increases in the R3 zoning district, an area that makes up about half of the city’s multifamily residences, at a study session Tuesday evening.
Ultimately, the council took a selective approach on where to allow for high-intensity development, expressing a preference for sites near the border of Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, like Del Medio South and the Continental/Dale area.
In these areas, it would be possible for buildings to go up to seven stories or higher with state density bonuses.
Council members also singled out portions of the Central Park Apartments and Evelyn/Calderon area as good candidates for more development, given their proximity to major arterial roadways.
“I don’t really care how tall something is along a freeway as long as the neighbors are respected in the transition,” Council member Chris Clark said at the March 25 meeting.
Council members supported increasing residential density in other “change areas” of the R3 district as well, although at a lesser intensity. A majority of the council backed a zoning option that would allow for buildings to go up to five stories, again with the possibility of going higher with a state density bonus.
This was in line with a recommendation from the Environmental Planning Commission, which opted for a lower-density approach to upzoning most change areas in the R3 district at a Feb. 21 meeting.
Council members Lucas Ramirez and Emily Ann Ramos pushed back on the proposal, expressing a preference for a higher-density option in all of the proposed change areas for the R3 district.
Ramos expressed particular concern about the possibility of displacing tenants from rent-controlled apartments. Making projects more feasible by increasing density would help offset the risks of redevelopment, she said.
“In terms of making things more feasible, that is the trade-off I’m willing to do, getting higher density so that things like the tenant protections that we have on these existing units that would probably get demolished upon redevelopment … stay in place,” she said.
Similarly, Ramirez described projects in the past that had displaced tenants from their homes without providing substantial community benefits, citing examples like 570 South Rengstorff Ave., 2005 Rock Street, 2310 Rock Street and 1555 West Middlefield Road.
“Many of them have resulted in a reduction in unit count. There’s no affordability, there’s no parks or open space,” Ramirez said.
For these reasons, Ramirez advocated for the inclusion of more change areas in the R3 district to support more housing growth, in addition to the 14 sites identified in the staff report.
In a split vote, Council members backed the recommendation, providing direction for staff to upzone properties with existing condo and townhouse developments.
Council members also voiced support for upzoning lower-density sites, primarily south of El Camino Real and near the downtown area, as well as on either side of Moffett Boulevard between Central Expressway and Central Avenue.
“This project has been a long road coming,” Ramos said, referring to the totality of the R3 zoning strategy.
Most Popular
Mountain View to host first citywide pride celebrationApril 18, 2025 12:27 pm
Protesters in Mountain View decry wrongful deportation by Trump adminApril 16, 2025 1:26 pm
VTA finalizes contracts with three unions, excludes frontline workersApril 18, 2025 9:02 am
Emily MargarettenReporter, Mountain View Voice
Emily Margaretten joined the Mountain View Voice in 2023 as a reporter covering politics and housing. She was previously a staff writer at The Guardsman and a freelance writer for several local publications,...More by Emily Margaretten
3 Comments
Councilmember Ramos’s concerns about displacement, while valid, overlook a fundamental issue: Mountain View’s infrastructure is simply not designed to support the level of density being proposed.
Our city’s transportation network, roads, and utilities were planned for a different era, a time when single-family homes and lower-density development were the norm. Increasing density without addressing these underlying infrastructure limitations will only exacerbate existing problems, leading to increased traffic congestion, strain on water and sewer systems, and a decline in overall quality of life.
The argument that we can ‘trade’ density for tenant protections is a dangerous oversimplification. It ignores the fact that packing more people into an already overburdened system will ultimately harm everyone, including existing tenants.
Furthermore, the notion that increased density is necessary to solve the housing crisis ignores the fundamental design of our cities. We cannot simply shoehorn more people into existing neighborhoods without considering the long-term consequences.
Our cities were not built for this level of density. The current push for high-rise apartments and dense development ignores the character of our neighborhoods and the needs of our residents.
While addressing the housing shortage is crucial, we must do so in a way that is sustainable and respects the existing fabric of our community. We need to prioritize infrastructure improvements and explore alternative housing solutions that align with the original design and intent of our cities, rather than blindly pursuing density at all costs.
Log in to Reply
I still see a wide swath of area near downtown that isn’t upzoned. Let’s splatter than orange all over Old MV and Shoreline West too!
Log in to Reply
I recalled that Tan Construction, also known as Tan Americana, had planned to build two 15-story apartment towers on Dale Avenue, which was approved in early 1968. Most of the councilmen and City Manager Mr. Halloran… were pretty excited about the new plan. Then in the summer of 1985, Mr. Tan revised the plan to lower it to 13-story towers facing Hwy 85 behind the Big E department store instead. Unfortunately, due to his financial issues, he finally built the last section of his plot, which consisted of a few 4-story apartment complexes, reducing the number of units. He completed this project in 1994-1995.
Log in to Reply
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
