Mountain View EPC debates land-use alternatives, streetscape priorities for Moffett Boulevard plan

Mountain View—9s Environmental Planning Commission on March 19, 2025 took up the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan study session, reviewing three draft land-use alternatives and a short list of streetscape options that staff will take to City Council at a study session on April 26.

The plan is intended to establish precise zoning and streetscape standards for the Moffett Boulevard corridor and to implement guidance from the city—9s general plan and housing element. Senior planner Aki Snelling told commissioners: "The Moffet Boulevard Precise Plan will be a new precise plan that will serve as a zoning regulations for the area shown here." The staff presentation summarized outreach (including a March 3 workshop with about 85 participants), a still-open online survey and council direction given in November 2024.

Staff presented three land-use alternatives: Alternative A, a medium-intensity mixed-use approach with housing densities up to approximately 75 dwelling units per acre and maximum building heights of four to five stories; Alternative B, a higher-intensity mixed-use approach requiring ground-floor nonresidential uses, with densities up to about 100 units per acre and maximum heights of five to seven stories; and Alternative C, a focused mixed-use approach that concentrates the highest densities and taller buildings in nodes (near the transit center and between Central Avenue and Cypress Pointe Drive) while keeping lower densities elsewhere.

Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager, said the nodes in Alternative C were chosen "based on access to roads that connect to surrounding neighborhoods, as well as adjacency to R3 and other higher density properties" and proximity to the transit center. Staff told commissioners the alternatives are illustrative and can be mixed and matched to form a preferred alternative.

Questions from commissioners and public commenters focused on three themes: how to attract ground-floor, neighborhood-serving commercial uses; how state density bonus law might limit the city—9s ability to require ground-floor retail; and how the corridor—9s limited right-of-way should be allocated among sidewalks, bike lanes, parking and landscaping.

Commissioners expressed a preference for a blended approach. Several (including Vice Chair Nunez and Commissioners Donahue and Pham) said they favored a version of Alternative C that preserves the node concept but pairs it with the higher overall density of Alternative B in the parts of the corridor where that makes sense. Commissioner Cranston and others urged concentrating commercial uses in walkable nodes rather than spreading small retail along the entire corridor. Commissioner Cranston recommended treating the segment closest to Central Expressway differently from the rest of the corridor, noting existing built conditions.

Public comment included April Webster, a resident who said she had attended outreach meetings and favored pedestrian and bicycle improvements: "I'd really like the EPC to consider a road diet as one of the options," she said, citing pedestrian priorities and counts at the Castro transit center.

Staff and the commission discussed state law and incentives at length. Anderson warned that, under current state density-bonus implementation, "it is very likely that developers will be able to waive commercial requirements, or request incentives or concessions for commercial requirements," meaning required ground-floor retail could be difficult to enforce without other incentives or local bonuses. Commissioners asked staff to study local bonus frameworks used elsewhere in Mountain View (North Bayshore, East Whisman) to see whether a locally controlled incentive could encourage ground-floor commercial while remaining lawful under evolving state case law.

Engineering and right-of-way constraints were also discussed. Ed Arango, assistant public works director and city engineer, explained that parts of the corridor cross land owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way) and that SFPUC typically requires written authorization for improvements on its land and strictly limits changes necessary to protect its water infrastructure. Arango and staff said Moffett Complete Streets and Middlefield Complete Streets are already federally grant-funded resurfacing projects that will add protected bikeways and fill sidewalk gaps; changing federally funded projects—9 scope now would be high-risk and would require additional federal review.

Commissioners prioritized streetscape elements in roughly this order: wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities, protected bike lanes (preferred over buffered lanes), and measures to support small business activation (including some short-term loading/delivery accommodations). Several commissioners and staff said on-street parking and medians are lower priorities because the corridor—9s right-of-way cannot accommodate all options at once.

Staff said next steps: staff will record the commission—9s direction and present it to City Council at a study session on April 26. Based on council direction, the project team will start environmental review and drafting the precise plan, with additional focused outreach and more EPC and council study sessions later this year.

The commission did not take a formal land-use vote at the meeting; the session was a policy study to gather EPC input for city council.