City council approves 47‑unit Tirella Avenue condominium project amid neighbor concerns about parking and displacement

The Mountain View City Council on Sept. 23 approved a development review permit and tentative map to build a four‑story, 47‑unit condominium at 266–272 Tirella Avenue, with one level of underground parking and several zoning waivers enabled by California’s state density‑bonus law. The council voted 6‑1 to approve the project and related waivers; Councilmember McAllister cast the lone no vote, citing parking and neighborhood impacts.

City planning staff and the applicant described the roughly one‑acre site as medium‑high density residential and said the project would provide a mix of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom ownership units. Under the proposal the developer will provide five very‑low‑income units, which exceeds replacement and local below‑market requirements discussed in the staff report and makes the project eligible for an approximate 31 percent density bonus. To accommodate the density the applicant requested four waivers from R3 development standards, including maximum height, reduced upper‑floor setbacks, increased floor‑area ratio and increased site coverage.

Staff said the site contains 24 trees — 20 heritage trees — and that eight heritage trees and two non‑heritage trees would be removed because, in staff and the applicant arborist’s view, the trees were in poor condition or in conflict with the proposed building and utilities. The applicant proposed planting 38 new trees (34 on‑site plus four street trees), a 3.8:1 replacement ratio that exceeds the city’s typical 2:1 requirement for heritage trees.

Parking and transit distance were focal points during public comment and council discussion. City staff said the project parcel is within a straight‑line half‑mile of major transit stops and therefore is not subject to local minimum parking requirements under Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097) and state Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance. Several neighbors and speakers disputed the parking exemption and cited local street parking shortages, arguing that 47 residential units with 47 voluntary parking spaces could cause spillover into adjacent blocks, narrow two‑way streets and create safety risks for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Planning staff and the city attorney explained differing statutory references that apply to measurement and noted that AB 2097 is measured by straight‑line distance from parcel edge to transit stop under HCD guidance; a separate CEQA definition referenced by some speakers uses percentage‑of‑parcels tests for a “major transit stop” and did not apply to the AB 2097 exemption. City Attorney Logue told the council the staff interpretation of AB 2097 and the HCD guidance was appropriate for this project.

Council members pressed staff on tenant relocation and outreach. The site contains occupied units; staff confirmed the city had mailed English and Spanish notices, and a relocation consultant had contacted most tenants in Spanish where required. According to staff, one unit at 272 Tirella had been reoccupied and documentation indicated that tenant was above the income threshold for relocation benefits under SB 330; staff said tenants still have time under the relocation rules to apply closer to a construction start date.

The project participated in neighborhood outreach, design review consultation and a zoning administrator/subdivision committee hearing in August 2025, where staff recommended conditional approval with the conditions attached to the council report. The city concluded the project is consistent with the general plan and is categorically exempt under CEQA Guideline §15332 (infill development).

Why it matters: The approval uses state density‑bonus provisions and local waiver authority to add homeownership units in an established neighborhood; neighbors expressed concerns about parking and displacement that the council asked staff to monitor after construction.

Action and vote: Motion to adopt the development review permit and tentative map was made by Councilmember Hicks and seconded by Councilmember Showalter; the motion passed 6‑1 (yes: Clark, Hicks, Ramirez, Showalter, Ramos, Mayor Kamay; no: McAllister). The council also approved tree removal and conditions of approval contained in the staff report.

Next steps: The developer will proceed under the condition set by the council’s resolution and the tentative map. Planning staff will continue tenant outreach and the relocation benefits process, and the council asked staff to monitor neighborhood parking and any spillover effects after occupancy.