|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new plan for Moffett Boulevard is taking shape, as the Mountain View City Council deliberated on options Tuesday evening to encourage more residential and commercial development along the corridor.
In a 5-2 vote, the City Council decided to go big and support a land use option that would allow for higher-density development with buildings that could go up to seven stories in height along Moffett Boulevard and nearby areas.
“I really think it’s valuable to study the biggest envelope, not that we’ll necessarily go with that eventually but we’ll have the information to study it,” Council member Pat Showalter said at the April 22 meeting.
Council members also weighed in on streetscape options, backing the possibility of a “road diet” to facilitate protected bike lanes as well as wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities. They encouraged staff to find opportunities for parking solutions as well, although it was a lower priority.
The area under consideration for redevelopment runs the length of Moffett Boulevard from Central Expressway to W. Middlefield Road. The location is 20 acres in size, omitting the Moffett Mobile Home Park and 555 W. Middlefield Road.
But it also could get much larger, as the City Council proposed expanding the boundaries of the change area last year. Future study areas include 500 Moffett Boulevard (Shenandoah Square), 500 W. Middlefield Road (Willow Park) and 555 W. Middlefield Road.
The City Council also identified an area between Willowgate Street and Central Avenue as a potential site for redevelopment because of its proximity to the Mountain View Transit Center.
At the April 22 meeting, Council members largely supported the option that would allow for the most intense development, with buildings five to seven stories in height and up to 100 residential units per acre. The plan also would require ground floor commercial uses.
The current land use supports buildings up to four stories in height and 43 residential units per acre.
Council member John McAlister expressed a preference for a less dense option than the council majority. “I am not a big believer in building at all limits because it doesn’t build community, it builds silos,” McAlister said.
Mayor Ellen Kamei took a middle-ground approach and expressed a preference for an option that would allow for higher density along some parts of Moffett Boulevard, but less in other areas.
Kamei also expressed concern that the redevelopment of Moffett Boulevard could drive up rents and push out existing businesses.
Community Development Director Christian Murdock noted that the city does not have an official policy or program directly related to business preservation, but it could encourage developers to make arrangements to keep commercial tenants housed. It also might be possible to relocate small businesses to other parts of the city, he said.
Council members recommended that the city of Mountain View focus on business preservation as an integral part of the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan.
Public comments at the meeting were mixed. Several speakers expressed concern about the implications of upzoning Moffett Boulevard, an area with a lot of single family homes and two and three-story apartment buildings.
“I’m a bit distraught by the process to see where this is all going,” said one resident who lives in the Willowgate neighborhood. “We have a wonderful community … It’s very concerning to think soon I’ll have, who knows, maybe a four-story, maybe a nine-story, seven-story building beaming down on me.”
Others saw the possibility of transit-oriented development and more housing as an asset for the community.
“I think that we have a lot of chances right now to set a standard for the extension of downtown in a way that it grows to support Mountain View – to support the residents not just who are here now but in the future,” said Mountain View resident Alex Brown.
Commenters also urged the council to redevelop Moffett Boulevard as a more walkable and bikeable neighborhood.
“Residents don’t want another pass-through corridor. They want a ‘people first’ neighborhood, safe, walkable, vibrant and green,” said Mountain View resident April Webster.
The City Council expressed support for a possible road diet on Moffett Boulevard that could reduce the number of vehicle lanes to provide more space for wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes, trees and pedestrian amenities.
Street parking was not a high priority for the council majority, although they encouraged staff to look at the possibility of loading zones and a centralized garage. On the whole, they favored active transportation options and more greenery.
“Wider sidewalks and the pedestrian amenities are key in this area because we want folks who are frequenting this area … to have a really nice experience, much nicer than exists today,” Council member Chris Clark said.
Low-income, high-density residential near the freeway will lead to more increase in crime. We’re bringing Oakland to the Peninsula.
Developers don’t build housing for low income residents. Even the BMR units which are set based on area median income fractions are generally quite expensive and unaffordable to those who are targeted. Just look at the new project done by the elementary school district. Ticky tack units that are unappealing is the best they could do, but the rents on these units are just not affordable to teachers, who are not generally thought of as low income. They actually have a semi decent income for this area, with the salaries having been greatly raised in the past few years. Still the project is unaffordable BMR unit housing.
The money for developers lies in building so called market rate units where they can command considerable rent. What this location can do is to create housing for workers with jobs in Palo Alto who can’t squeeze into that city, where rents are notably more expensive than in Mountain VIew. It’s the same old story. There once was a sucking vacuum pulling MV employees to reside in San Jose. because rents there were markedly cheaper. Now we have less incentive because SJ rents are high too. They may be lower, but for that matter so are those in new projects in Sunnyvale. So now Palo Alto workers have a closer option, i.e. living along Moffett Boulevard. And yes, to the extent that Google employees survive the recession, they might live on Moffett Blvd too.
The zoning changes are aspirational, and there’s little assurance such projects will be built. The time for speculation in the real estate market has passed. Stagflation is hard to fight. Interest rates may go down but then again they might not. They aren’t really that high in the span of history for the last 50 years. Only during the past 25 years with a dotcom bust and a housing recession have interest rates stayed relatively low, lower than makes sense. The Fed rate should be at least 2 percent and the mortgage and construction financing should be expected to be around 5 percent. For a very long time we have cheaper construction financing than that and this has spurred the market for construction over the last decade. Odds are very good that the financing costs will revert back to at least 5% and that will deter speculation.
It’s about time, because that speculation has fueled rent increases that need not have occurred. So even with depressed construction we could hope to see rental rates fall, which in turn depresses construction even more.
One person says apartment buildings are bad because they turn into crime-ridden slums. Another says they’re bad because they’re too expensive. No one notices they can’t both be right.
IVG, actually they can both be right. Density, brings crime. This is a data driven fact. Look for research from YA Kim in 2021 and R Lafrogne-Joussier · 2023
I am not advocating against density, I’m just pointing out the facts.
I attended a local neighborhood meeting where we looked over 3 different sets of plans. My recollection is that all groups said they didn’t want the buildings to be more than 4, maybe 5, stories tall. I see the city has continued with the “up to 7 stories” in spite of the neighborhood input. Yes, they may keep it at 4-5 stories, but the fact that “up to 7” is listed leads me to think the neighborhood opinions didn’t matter much.
I attended a local neighborhood meeting where we looked over 3 different sets of plans. My recollection is that all groups said they didn’t want the buildings to be more than 4, maybe 5, stories tall. I see the city has continued with the “up to 7 stories” in spite of the neighborhood input. Yes, they may keep it at 4-5 stories, but the fact that “up to 7” is listed leads me to think the neighborhood opinions didn’t matter much.
I’m the owner of Sousa’s Wines on 400 Moffett blvd, we took over the business 25 years ago, our plan was to expand, to be more than a Liquor store so we added Portuguese and Brazilian Groceries and other food items, we heard years ago that the strip mall would be demolished and build apartments but the bottom level would stay as retail space, I guess that all changed , only apartments, no retail, it doesn’t make sense, the city worries about traffic, pollution etc. But no retail, meaning if you need a gallon of milk at ten o’clock at night you got get in your car and drive to Shoreline? Oh wait, you can ride your bike on your brand new bike lane..