Planning commission backs staff zoning approach to meet housing-element site targets, urges steps to protect neighborhood-serving businesses

Mountain View — The Environmental Planning Commission on Jan. 15 recommended that the City Council adopt staff-recommended zoning and general-plan changes to make the housing element site inventory consistent with zoning and allow for new housing at several targeted opportunity sites.

Senior planner Krisha Penollar told commissioners that the item implements “housing element program 1.1G, which is to ensure the zoning and general plan are consistent with the housing element site inventory and other housing opportunity sites.” The staff presentation listed seven sites and staff’s recommended land-use approaches and explained the city must meet a housing element deadline at the end of 2025.

Staff recommended treating Leon Drive with a general mixed-use village center designation to achieve a target of about 43 dwelling units per acre (proposed 1.35 FAR); Miramonte (1702 Miramonte), Cuesta (77 Cuesta Drive) and sections of Calderon Avenue as neighborhood mixed-use allowing about 30 dwelling units per acre (proposed 1.05 FAR); amending the Grant Road precise plan to reference an R‑3 multifamily zone to permit up to 30 units per acre while retaining policy language that recognizes the existing convalescent hospital as an allowed use; and taking a focused, site‑specific precise‑plan approach for the Mountain View Transit Station — proposing to allow up to 75 dwelling units per acre while deferring detailed standards pending coordination with Caltrain.

Public commenters pressed several site-specific points. Max Bozel suggested the city study quiet-zone feasibility to reduce train-noise impacts on potential residential development at the transit corridor, noting other nearby cities have studied quiet zones. Bozel said the city should “proactively begin to assess the feasibility of implementing a quiet zone as part of the recommendations and amending the EACPP, thereby encouraging much needed transit‑oriented development within the acceptable noise exposure guidelines.”

Tejas Mistry, speaking for the property at 55 Fairchild Drive (Ramada by Wyndham), urged greater balance between commercial and residential outcomes in the Avondale Precise Plan area. Mistry told commissioners that “the general plan mixed use village center would allow us to do… an FAR of 1.35 and you compare that to commercial neighborhood 35 feet with 2 stories max and an FAR of 0.35,” and said the existing commercial‑neighborhood rules make redevelopment of hotels and other businesses financially impractical in that area.

Other public speakers supported the staff recommendation while asking the city to preserve neighborhood‑serving commercial uses. Mary Dadio, a Cuesta Park resident, said she “favor[s] the recommended zoning to allow buildings up to 3 stories with densities of roughly 30 residential units per acre, and with neighborhood transitions to the R‑one zones.” Chuck Muir asked staff to consider ways to preserve small, walkable retail and suggested the city evaluate office-to-residential conversion opportunities in underused office areas.

Commission deliberations focused on balancing the housing element targets with protections for existing businesses and neighborhood transitions. Chair Dempsey recused from the discussion of 1702 Miramonte because of proximity to her home; Vice Chair Gutierrez presided over that portion. Commissioners asked how the city would handle noise issues raised for the transit corridor; staff replied that noise impacts are typically evaluated at the project level and that existing building‑code interior noise standards and targeted mitigation language in other precise plans can be applied or further studied if council requests it.

Several commissioners voiced support for staff’s targeted approach. Commissioner Cranston noted the mixed‑use village center designation already contains setback and height transition standards for properties adjacent to R‑1 zones. Commissioner Donahue and others said parking and other site‑level concerns would be addressed during later development review. Commissioner Nunez and others underscored interest in preserving neighborhood‑serving commercial uses and in exploring ways to help existing small businesses remain or return after redevelopment.

Community development director Christian Murdoch told the commission that staff are aware of concerns about displacement of small businesses and that the recommended zoning aims to avoid creating nonconforming uses so existing businesses are not constrained while sites remain in current use. Murdoch said developers sometimes can be encouraged to provide below‑market commercial space or other concessions, but there is no easy, universal solution.

At the conclusion staff summarized commissioners’ direction. Community development director Christian Murdoch reported he heard “broad support for the staff’s recommendation with the following additions: there was majority support for expressing a desire to figure out some way to incentivize the return of existing business operators into the commercial spaces on the sites that are redeveloped.” The commission also took a straw poll on whether to specifically flag the Grant Road convalescent‑facility densification question for council; staff reported that 4 of 6 commissioners supported highlighting that issue for council consideration.

Next steps: staff will draft the proposed zoning and general‑plan amendments, prepare environmental review, and return the items to the commission and then to city council for final action later in 2025 to meet the housing element deadline. Staff said amendments for the Mountain View Transit Station would be minimal at this stage because Caltrain is the primary owner and additional, site‑specific standards will be developed with Caltrain as discussions proceed.

Why it matters: the measures would align the city’s land‑use rules with sites already identified in the housing element and enable the densities the state expects for Mountain View’s site inventory, while commissioners asked staff and council to pursue tools to preserve neighborhood retail and to study noise and other site constraints before individual projects move forward.

Votes at a glance: This item (Agenda item 5.1) produced a commission recommendation to the city council rather than a final local ordinance. Staff reported broad majority support to forward the staff recommendations to council and a straw‑poll majority (4 of 6) to flag a request that the council consider whether the Grant Road convalescent facility should be explicitly allowed to redevelop at similar density to a residential project. The transcript does not record a formal roll‑call vote on an ordinance or resolution at this meeting.

Closing: Staff will draft the implementing ordinances and environmental analyses, return to EPC and then to council, and coordinate with Caltrain on any transit‑center standards before any detailed standards or joint development are proposed.