Mountain View council backs higher-density mixed-use option, prioritizes wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes on Moffett Boulevard

Mountain View — The City Council directed staff to study a higher-intensity mixed-use alternative for the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan and to prioritize wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities and protected bike lanes when developing streetscape options, council members said Tuesday.

The direction came after a staff presentation that laid out three land-use alternatives and six streetscape approaches for the corridor between Central Expressway and Middlefield Road. Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blasinski and project planner Aki Snelling told the council the plan would implement the city’s general plan and housing element and that outreach so far included an in-person workshop with 85 attendees and 144 online survey responses.

Why it matters: The precise plan will create development and streetscape standards for the Moffett corridor. Council’s preferred scope will shape environmental review and later design standards, and could affect building heights, housing densities and how the city allocates limited right-of-way space for people and vehicles.

Staff summarized three land-use alternatives: “A” (medium-intensity mixed use) with a base housing density around 75 dwelling units per acre and building heights in the 4–5 story range; “B” (higher intensity mixed use) with a base density up to about 100 units per acre and building heights of roughly 5–7 stories and a requirement for ground-floor nonresidential uses along Moffett; and “C” (focused mixed use) putting higher-density nodes near the transit center and other nodes while keeping lower density elsewhere.

Blasinski said the Environmental Planning Commission was split: 3 of 6 commissioners recommended Alternative C, but the commission did not reach a majority on any single approach. She told the council public comments varied widely on density, building height and parking; workshop poll participants strongly favored wider sidewalks and protected (rather than only buffered) bike lanes.

Public commenters pressed the council for a “people-first” corridor with wide sidewalks, tree shade, plazas and active ground-floor uses. April Webster, speaking for a neighborhood group, summarized outreach findings: “Residents don’t want another ‘pass-through’ corridor. They want a people-first neighborhood — safe, walkable, vibrant and green.”

Council direction and votes - Land-use envelope: By voice straw poll the council indicated a preference for Alternative B (higher-intensity mixed use). Vice Mayor Ramos, Council members Ramirez, Hicks, Clark and Showalter voted in favor of Alternative B; Council member McAllister preferred Alternative A; Mayor Kamay preferred Alternative C. The council’s direction will be used to scope environmental review. - Streetscape priorities: The council agreed that staff should study streetscape alternatives with the following emphasis — wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities first, protected bike lanes second, and then strategies to evaluate road diets and parking preservation (including exploring on‑street parking, loading zones, permit parking and centralized parking). The streetscape priorities carried 6–1 in a council voice vote; Council member McAllister voted no, citing concerns about parking impacts for existing businesses. - Business preservation and density-bonus analysis: Council unanimously supported staff pursuing strategies to help preserve existing businesses in the corridor and directed the city attorney and planning staff to prepare an off‑agenda memo analyzing how state density bonus law interacts with local requirements and what options the city has to strengthen ground-floor commercial outcomes.

What staff said next: Blasinski and Community Development Director Christian Murdoch told the council that the preferred alternative will be used for environmental review and drafting the precise plan, and that additional focused outreach and further meetings with the planning commission and council will follow. Murdoch warned that state density bonus law may allow developers to seek concessions or waivers even when a jurisdiction intends to require ground-floor commercial space.

Notable details and constraints - Outreach: staff reported a March 3 workshop with about 85 participants and an online survey with 144 responses (March 7–April 6). Workshop polling favored wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes as top priorities. - Density and height ranges presented by staff: Alternative A up to ~75 units per acre (roughly 4–5 stories); Alternative B up to ~100 units per acre (roughly 5–7 stories) with required ground-floor nonresidential; Alternative C concentrated 100 units-per-acre nodes in two commercial nodes and 75 outside nodes with 4–7 story heights. - Parking and legal limits: Staff repeatedly noted state law constrains local requirements for parking and that trade‑offs will be required in the narrow right of way.

Next steps: Based on the council’s direction staff will prepare environmental review and draft the precise plan, including more focused outreach and a return to the planning commission and council. Staff also will prepare the state density bonus analysis requested by council.

A selection of speakers: Amber Blasinski, assistant community development director; Aki Snelling, project planner (Moffett project); Christian Murdoch, community development director; Mayor Ellen Kamay; Vice Mayor Ramos; Council members Ramirez, Hicks, Clark, McAllister and Showalter; resident speakers April Webster, Sergio Barajas and others.

Ending: Staff said the preferred alternative will define the “envelope” for CEQA study and that the council can still refine standards and limits as the precise plan moves toward adoption.