294-296 Tyrella Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94043
Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investments owns a 0.48-acre corner lot at 294 and 296 Tyrella Avenue and Middlefield Road in Mountain View, where the council had approved an 11-unit rowhouse plan he proposed in 2021 and where he proposed 33 units in April 2022. On February 1, 2023, the day after the state housing element deadline, he submitted a six-story, 85-unit builder's remedy proposal with 17 affordable units; the site's development standards allow 17 units. HCD found the city's housing element compliant on May 26, 2023. Staff first told him to withdraw the earlier application, then said he could keep both, and the city said it was waiting for deposits it requires of all "complex projects" rather than delaying him. In 2024 YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund threatened to sue over the city's proposed conditions of approval, and on November 13, 2024 staff postponed a recommendation after the developer's attorney asked for more than 30 substantive revisions to the more than 200 conditions. After a March 12, 2025 hearing at which the planning division recommended approval with conditions, the council approved a seven-story, 80-unit version on April 8, 2025 by a 6-1 vote, with John McAlister opposed, and declined to extend the permit term. On May 14, 2025 neighbors organized as the Whisman Action Committee sued the city and the developer, alleging violations of CEQA, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and the city's affordable housing ordinance, and asked for a stay; the suit says the site is in a documented liquefaction zone and objects that all the affordable units are studios. The city says it does not believe it violated those laws. No ruling had been reported as of October 2026.
Ask a question to begin.
Press Enter to send · Switch personas to start a new conversation
The council approved the seven-story, 80-unit builder's remedy project on April 8, 2025. Neighbors sued in May 2025 over CEQA, seismic study and the affordable unit mix; no ruling or construction reported.
The day after the housing element deadline, Linebarger submits a six-story, 85-unit plan with 17 affordable units.
Mountain View VoiceHCD finds the housing element in substantial compliance, closing the city to new builder's remedy filings.
Mountain View VoiceA YIMBY Law letter accuses the city of imposing "unlawful conditions of approval" and urges approval without them.
Mountain View VoiceThe developer's attorney asks for more than 30 substantive revisions to more than 200 conditions of approval, and staff postpone a recommendation.
Mountain View VoiceAt a planning division hearing, staff recommend that the council approve an 80-unit version with conditions; Linebarger says the latest conditions make it infeasible.
Mountain View VoiceJohn McAlister votes no. The council declines to extend the permit term.
Mountain View VoiceThe Whisman Action Committee alleges violations of CEQA, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and the city's affordable housing ordinance and seeks a stay. The city is served May 16.
Mountain View VoiceApril 2024 letter: the city has attempted to "execute an end run around" the builder's remedy by imposing "unlawful conditions of approval."
Wrote to the city in 2024 threatening litigation if it imposed unlawful conditions of approval, and urged approval without infeasible conditions before the April 8, 2025 vote.
"Frivolous lawsuits are often CEQA related." He calls the suit a NIMBY tactic: "Why let the gate close behind them and leave out all the other people?" (May 2025)
The suit alleges "adverse impacts relating to seismic hazards given its location on a site in a documented liquefaction zone," challenges the CEQA exemption and objects to all-studio affordable units. It seeks a stay.
"I do not want this to go forward until we get clarity on what's required because cities are required to be very clear what they're doing, but the state legislature isn't giving us that ability to interpret it."
"I'm not happy with this project. I don't think that it fits into our community well for any number of reasons or fits Mountain View values."
"Currently, the city does not believe its actions with regard to the 294-296 Tyrella Ave. development project violated the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA'), or the city's Affordable Housing Program Ordinance." The city also "acknowledges the uncertainty in the law" on how those laws interact with the builder's remedy. (May 2025)
"The city is not required to obtain a geotechnical study for a project prior to approval of a planning permit if it is determined there is no potential undue hazard." (April 3, 2025 email.) A site geotechnical report will be prepared at building plan check.
The suit says the city wrongly found the project exempt from CEQA, approved it without a prior geotechnical report under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and broke its affordable housing ordinance by allowing all-studio affordable units. It seeks a stay. No ruling has been reported.
More than 200 proposed conditions of approval, some of which the developer said made the project infeasible, and a postponed hearing. The council approved the project on April 8, 2025, 26 months after filing, and kept the standard permit term.
Each row is a dated action by a deciding body, taken from the minutes, agenda packet, video, or ruling linked in the source column.
| Date | Body | Action | Vote | Staff recommendation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| April 8, 2025 | City Council | approved Approved the 80-unit condominium project; John McAlister voted no. | 6–1 | Approve | Mountain View Voice |
| May 14, 2025 | Court | lawsuit filed Whisman Action Committee suit against the city, also naming the developer; seeks a stay. | — | Unknown | Mountain View Voice |