|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Rolling back a proposal to cap office growth in Mountain View, the City Council provided new direction for its vision of the city, as part of a larger discussion about what kind of changes to make to the downtown area.
On Tuesday evening, Nov. 7, the council deliberated on key topics related to the second phase of updates to the Downtown Precise Plan.
The plan covers a 100-acre area that stretches from the Transit Center to El Camino Real. Within this area is a mix of office, residential and civic uses, as well as a historic district, said Principal Planner Diana Pancholi, who presented the study session to the council.
Last December, council members approved a set of amendments to promote active uses of the downtown, with particular attention to revitalizing vacant and downtrodden buildings along Castro Street as well as blocks near the transit center and Evelyn Avenue.
The second phase of the project is similarly focused on creating a vibrant and sustainable environment, Pancholi said. But the scope is broader, as it covers more ground and more areas for intervention.
One key consideration of the study session was a proposal to temporarily cap office development downtown. The cap would not include developments already in the pipeline, but it would hit pause on new office growth until the precise plan was updated.
The Mountain View Chamber of Commerce opposed the office cap, stating that it was unnecessary and risky, and would curtail new investments in the community.
Livable Mountain View, an organization that often weighs in on development issues, supported the cap, stating that the downtown needed a better office and housing balance.
Council member Lisa Matichak said she wanted to explore the option of the temporary cap, noting that it was not a moratorium on all office developments. But other council members recommended delaying or removing it from the work plan. Current market conditions already are limiting office developments, they said, and they preferred to focus staff efforts on other priority items.
“When we talked about this, when we were developing our work plan almost a year ago, the interest rates hadn’t gotten to the point they were, the ability to borrow money hadn’t slowed down so dramatically,” Council member Pat Showalter said.
“I just think this is something that’s going to happen naturally. There’s a huge vacancy rate, and I don’t think we need to impose this. I think the economy is imposing it. And I just hope that we’ll get more housing development, because that’s what we really need,” she added.
Another hot button topic for the council was whether to create a downtown advisory group. Members commended staff’s outreach plan to engage a wide range of community participants, but they split on whether it was necessary to add an advisory group to these efforts.
Matichak cautioned that an advisory group could be taken over by the special interests of outside advocacy groups and potentially wouldn’t represent the perspectives of community members.
Council members Emily Ann Ramos and Showalter countered that opinion, saying that advisory groups often articulate perspectives that are internally diverse and highly informed, offering opportunities for a deeper engagement with the proposed topic.
Ultimately, the council split 3-2 with members Ellen Kamei, Lucas Ramirez and Matichak recommending against forming an advisory group, while Ramos and Showalter were in favor of it. Mayor Alison Hicks and Council member Margaret Abe-Koga were recused from the study session because of their homes’ proximity to the downtown area.
Council members largely converged on the scope and focus of the precise plan updates, with staff proposing to cover a wide range of issues that would amend certain standards, processes and guidelines within the existing plan. For instance, some of these amendments would address parking and signage regulations, landscaping standards and permitting processes while others would cover development standards, like building density and land use for businesses and housing.
“I support the scope of work proposed by staff. I think it’s good to do a deep dive,” Ramirez said, adding that as staff explore issues to update in the precise plan, some may require substantial changes while others would require less.
Ramirez found the current boundaries of the downtown precise plan adequate, although he was open to other scenarios if there were reasons for expanding it, he said.
Matichak, on the other hand, said she was committed to keeping the existing precise plan boundaries in place. She was not interested in changing the character of the downtown area, particularly in regard to Castro Street.
Another sticking point for Matichak was how to manage the area’s parking, or lack thereof, an issue that recent state law AB 2097 has compounded. The law has provisions that make it possible for developers forgo providing parking for projects located within half a mile of major public transit.
“Not everyone can make use of the light rail, the train, the buses, and a lot of people are still driving their cars to downtown Mountain View. I think we need to just recognize that we all want great public transportation, but we’re not there yet,” Matichak said, adding that this should be a priority consideration for the downtown area.
The projected timeline for the Downtown Precise Plan project is approximately 28 months, Pancholi said, with final adoption hearings likely to occur in the fall of 2026.
Mountain View aims to give Shoreline’s burrowing owls a boost with more fundingApril 14, 2026 2:19 pm