Council approves 7‑story, 80‑unit Tirella Avenue condominium under state "builder's remedy"

Mountain View — The City Council voted 6‑1 on April 8 to conditionally approve a seven‑story residential condominium project at 294–296 Tirella Avenue, authorizing a development review permit, tentative map and heritage tree removal permit under the state Housing Accountability Act's "builder's remedy" provisions.

The Council's decision follows a lengthy exchange among city planners, the applicant and more than a dozen neighborhood residents who said the project would be out of character for the immediate area, worsen traffic and parking, and cast new shadows over adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval, citing the project's compliance with limited objective standards and the project's qualification for the builder's remedy because the applicant's preliminary application was submitted when the city lacked a certified housing element.

Why it matters: The builder's remedy restricts a city's ability to deny or require changes that would reduce density for qualifying housing projects. Council members repeatedly described the decision as constrained by state law even while many acknowledged neighborhood concerns. The approval now allows the applicant to proceed toward building permits subject to the final conditions of approval the Council adopted.

Staff and legal overview Diana Pancholi, the city's principal planner, told council the 0.48‑acre site at the southwest corner of Tirella Avenue and Middlefield Road would be replaced by an 80‑unit, seven‑story condominium with three levels of parking. Staff's report said the proposal includes 20 percent of units as lower‑income affordable housing (16 units at 80 percent AMI), three levels of structured parking totaling about 83 spaces on‑site, and an approximate 11,000 square‑foot rooftop deck and about 20,000 square feet of open area across ground and roof levels. The applicant requested removal of six on‑site heritage trees; staff said the applicant proposed planting 17 replacement trees at a 2.8:1 ratio.

City Attorney Selena Chen briefed the Council on the legal background. She said the project qualifies as a builder's remedy project under Government Code section 65589.5 and related provisions because the applicant submitted its preliminary application when the city did not have a substantially compliant housing element. Chen noted recent statutory amendments and that applicants may choose which version of the law to rely on; she also cautioned that courts have not fully defined every aspect of builder's remedy litigation.

Applicant presentation and project details Applicant Forest Landberger said the project would replace one single‑family house with 80 units, provide the 20 percent lower‑income units required for builder's remedy eligibility and would not displace any low‑income tenants. The applicant said he had met with neighbors in 2023 (he described having met with about 28 neighbors) and had reduced the project size by roughly 6 percent during review. The applicant acknowledged concerns about several conditions of approval he said would render the project infeasible and asked the Council to adopt language revisions to permit expiration and related items.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns Residents who live within a few blocks of the site urged the Council to delay or deny the project, citing the building's height and massing relative to a neighborhood of mostly one‑ and two‑story homes; existing narrow streets with frequent double‑parking near nearby schools; the safety of the intersection at Tirella and Middlefield; insufficient onsite parking; loss of sunlight for adjacent properties; and rooftop amenities such as a bar and pickleball courts the residents said could increase noise. Several speakers asked the Council to seek a court ruling on the interplay between the builder's remedy and local land‑use control before approving the project.

Supporters of the project said the site is near transit and downtown amenities and that adding housing — including 20 percent lower‑income units — advances the city's housing goals. One nearby resident who supports the project noted transportation demand measures proposed by the applicant, such as car‑share and bike programs, that aim to reduce car ownership.

Council deliberations and vote Council members echoed the split between neighborhood preservation and state housing rules. Councilmember John Ramirez, who moved approval, said staff had worked in good faith with the applicant and that state law constrained the city's options. Several members urged broader state reform of the builder's‑remedy process while acknowledging the Council's legal limits. Councilmember McAllister stated he would not support approval, citing unresolved community impacts. The motion — which included staff's conditions and two late modifications to the project resolution related to building‑code language — passed 6‑1 (McAllister opposed).

Formal actions and next steps The Council's conditional approval included: a development review permit to build a seven‑story, 80‑unit condominium; a tentative map to create a single lot of 80 condominium units; and a heritage tree removal permit authorizing removal of six heritage trees with replacement plantings as required in the conditions of approval. Staff found the project categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (infill development). The resolution requires legal commitments ensuring the 16 affordable units remain deed‑restricted for a minimum term (30 years was noted in the staff report).

The applicant may proceed to building permit applications subject to the conditions set by Council and the city’s standard permit‑extension process. Council and staff noted the project will require further plan‑check, utility coordination and compliance with conditions before any building permits are issued.

Clarifying details - Project address: 294–296 Tirella Avenue (APNs 160‑32‑001 and 160‑32‑002) - Site area: 0.48 acre - Units proposed: 80 total; 16 units (20%) designated for lower‑income households at 80% AMI - Parking proposed: 83 vehicle spaces on site - Heritage trees to be removed: 6; proposed replacement: 17 trees (approx. 2.8:1 ratio) - Staff finding on environmental review: CEQA Guidelines §15332 (infill exemption)

Outcome The Council conditionally approved the project, 6‑1. Staff will finalize conditions and proceed with permit processing and ministerial plan checks required before the applicant may pull building permits.