|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For the last two years, North Bayshore has represented Mountain View’s testing ground for creating an idyllic neighborhood for tomorrow. City leaders envisioned a diverse community where tech engineers and kitchen staff could live and work next to one another in the same high-density neighborhood. They spoke of creating European-style promenades, thousands of micro-apartments and a people-mover that would help eliminate the need for vehicles. And to fund that grand vision, the city looked largely to one company — Google — which had long expressed interest in creating a mixed-use neighborhood as part of its showpiece headquarters.
But a review of the city’s precise plan on Tuesday, Nov. 29, left some council members second-guessing this vision and wondering if they were asking too much of one of the world’s wealthiest companies. Could their ambitious road-map for North Bayshore wind up as a lovely dream without any help from private developers, asked Councilman Mike Kasperzak.
“From an economic perspective, what I’m hearing is this plan is great, but no one will do anything,” he said. “Yes, Google wants employees to live out there, but they’re not going to subsidize it. Any development has to be economically viable in a market setting.”
The Nov. 30 meeting to review the North Bayshore precise plan threw a wet blanket on some aspects of the city’s latest vision. That master plan now calls for creating three new mini-neighborhoods totaling 9,850 homes centered around Joaquin Road, Shorebird Way and Pear Avenue. During their review, council members signaled that they may need to loosen some aggressive goals for affordable housing and parking.
Google’s team was conspicuously absent from the study session meeting, but the company sent a lengthy letter just hours beforehand that fueled some frustration among council members.
John Igoe, Google’s real estate director, said in the letter that the city’s affordable housing goals for North Bayshore may not pencil out. For the maximum density bonus for offices, Mountain View planners wanted Google and other developers to dedicate one-fifth of their new apartment units as affordable housing. This bonus “may not be financially feasible” given the high land costs, Igoe warned, and he encouraged the city to drop its density requirements.
Google is the major landowner in North Bayshore.
The council was split on this issue. Kasperzak and council members John Inks and Ken Rosenberg suggested pulling back from the 20-percent affordable housing requirement for the maximum density bonus.
On the other side, Councilman Lenny Siegel said he didn’t fear demand would evaporate, given Google’s stake in adding housing and the race to build housing nearby. But he worried that the template proposed by the precise plan could exclude middle-income households and create few opportunities for families to settle in the neighborhood.
“People at Google believe North Bayshore is never-never land, in the sense that you never grow up everyone is going to be child-free and living like a college student,” he said. “I’d like this to be an area with families and not just tech workers.”
For the first time, Google representatives also revealed they wanted some guarantee that the new housing they would build would primarily benefit the company’s own workforce. For years, Mountain View officials had resisted the idea of allowing tech companies to build worker dormitories, saying it would create a community disconnected from the rest of the city. But Igoe, in the letter, said that his company needed a priority system giving first dibs on new housing to those working in the area. He said it made sense to give North Bayshore workers priority since they would be able to walk or bike to work, reducing the amount of traffic in the area.
“To be clear, Google does not propose to prioritize North Bayshore housing for employees of any particular company,” he wrote, suggesting a system similar to what Stanford University uses for its off-campus housing.
But that may be a moot point now that Google has edged out its main competitors in North Bayshore. In July, Google agreed to a generous land swap with LinkedIn, which gave LinkenIn ownership of seven buildings near Sunnyvale in exchange for development rights and leased offices in North Bayshore. As a result, Google had acquired nearly all the allotted space for development in North Bayshore, the office park north of Highway 101.
The city’s traffic plans became one of the most difficult issues of the evening, especially a proposed “aggressive” restriction on parking that in most cases would force developers to provide fewer parking spots than the number of apartment units. The Sobrato Group, the only developer other than Google interested in developing housing, warned that the parking restrictions would be extremely difficult to implement, especially since it would be years before the city completes mass-transit connections into North Bayshore. Sobrato is currently working on plans for the neighborhood’s first major housing project, about 800 housing units near Space Park Way.
“I’ll have to tell (the residents of) two, one-bedroom units they’ll be sharing one parking space between their two cars,” said Tim Steele, a Sobrato vice president. To impose that kind of restriction on the project before any transit alternatives are in place would be “very difficult,” he said.
But city planners and traffic consultants urged city leaders to stick with the onerous parking restrictions, describing it as the most effective way to limit the number of solo drivers clogging the roads. Speaking at the meeting, Jeff Tumlin, a city consultant from the traffic firm NelsonNygaard, suggested it would be the most aggressive parking system for any suburban neighborhood in the country.
“This would be the pushing the envelope farther than anyone’s ever pushed it,” he said. “Making sure the cost of providing parking isn’t hidden in the cost of providing housing, that’s one of the critical ways we can address housing affordability and meeting our traffic goals.”
But council members were largely sympathetic to the developers’ concerns, and they agreed that parking restrictions needed to be loosened, at least for the initial wave of housing developments. In an idea embraced by her colleagues, Mayor Pat Showalter proposed a 20-year plan to gradually tighten parking standards as more transit infrastructure comes online.
Among those plans, VTA is currently studying a light-rail extension into North Bayshore. Meanwhile, the city of Mountain View is going to implement reversible, dedicated bus lanes along Shoreline Boulevard, and is also studying long-term plans for an automated-guideway transit system.
“We’re on the cusp of major changes in people’s driving and parking habits between people primarily using their own vehicles and having the sharing economy really take off,” Showalter said. “We still don’t know how that’s going to play out as far as parking management.”
For being some of the most highly sought property in Silicon Valley, tech companies in North Bayshore seem to be waiting to bring forward new developments, city staff said. Back in 2015, Google and several other firms fiercely competed for about 2.2 million square feet of bonus development. But since then, most of those companies have held back on any projects using that space. In an idea mostly supported by the council, planning staff recommended imposing a Dec. 2018 deadline for developers to either submit their projects or file for an extension.
What happened to Google’s bubble campus (http://mv-voice.com/news/2016/03/30/googles-futuristic-plan-wins-cheers-from-city)? Did it get rejected by the council?
The city should start this process by imposing a per-employee tax on any company with more than 300 employees in Mountain View – say 1 or 2 percent per year of the employee earnings.
That would reduce the crazy growth of office space and traffic, and the money could be used to improve roads and support low income housing.
Just to be completely clear about it – the transportation consultant proposed that parking requirements for residential units should be CUT IN HALF from normal City requirements, to one-half of a parking space for each studio or 1-bedroom unit, and one space for each 2-bedroom unit. This was proposed because Planning staff is trying to figure out a way to implement the council’s unrealistic vision of putting 10,000 new units in North Bayshore, when the roads simply won’t support the traffic. The theory, unsupported by any real-world experience, is that future residents would “self-select”, and only those willing to go without a car would apply to live there. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with any sense that many residents would move in, keep their cars, and park their cars anywhere in MV streets where they could find a space.
But that’s not what bothered the Sobrato rep. He stated that with such an inadequate parking allowance, he wouldn’t be able to market the apartment rentals. It was the developer’s reluctance that led the council to back off from the consultant’s ill-considered starve-the-parking scheme. I really hope we’ve seen the last of this idea.
It seems incongruous that Google would insist on market viable developments where market demand is significantly influenced by their own development density. The idea of sustainable communities means shouldering the full impact and responsibility for your role in the shared environment. It’s hard to see how Google expects to realize the benefit of worker density without contributing to its facilitation while claiming itself a company dedicated to sustainable goals.
I’m so sad to see Google continuing to manipulate the situation, office and housing, and continue to try and take from our community at our expense. They consistently act like they own our town and that we should be subsidizing them. Shame on their executives and that real estate guy. With the money they make, do they really need to be greedy and step on others!!??
Our city council has become a rubber stamp for Google’s manipulations. Our lovely small city is now a bona fide “company town” with the sad trajectory of all company towns… disaster. Just read any history of any company town and you will see what I mean.
Google is not to be trusted with its claimed priorities for Mountain View. It is a corporation and its priority is and always will be its bottom line. Don’t be fooled. It’s time to start saying “NO!” to the spoiled brats on their sprawling campus.
The article states that
Google’s plan is like Stanford’s off campus housing policy which “does not select any specific business for priority” (paraphrased).
I recently inquired about an apartment at the complex on El Camino in Los Altos. I was told it was only open to Stanford associates.—So much for “no specific business”.
What about the Hangar One restoration?
Don’t look for others to solve society’s problems. If Google wants to build units to house it’s own fine, it’s their property. Look for socialism in Venezuela or Cuba. Property rights are vastly important in a functioning republic. The city council of Mt. View is doing a good job considering the city has changed from a working class town to a high income town virtually overnight. Brain power is what Mt. View wants most of all not a bunch of free loaders. Rent control will be by far the biggest issue coming up next year. Revocation of an initiative? George Drysdale social studies teacher
An educated business man (college educated business major) would know that private property belongs to the owner not the omnipresent government. Countries where the state owns property are socialist and thereby destroy productivity and liberty. Proper zoning is necessary but does not put government in charge of a property’s lawful deployment. Remember the Bill of Rights. George Drysdale
Google should attend Council meetings before getting concessions. Last-minute letters don’t cut it. However…
@Monta Loma:
“But that’s not what bothered the Sobrato rep. He stated that with such an inadequate parking allowance, he wouldn’t be able to market the apartment rentals.”
That’s only true if you ignore the second half of the sentence: “especially since it would be years before the city completes mass-transit connections into North Bayshore.” It’s the lack of transit that makes it infeasible. With transit, it’s difficult but doable. The transit just needs to come first (and Google needs to pay for it).
@Tim Phelps:
“I’m so sad to see Google continuing to manipulate the situation, office and housing, and … take from our community at our expense.”
What exactly has Google “taken” and not paid for? Yes, we have more traffic than we did a few years ago. But I’m not aware of any freebies given to them.
I don’t understand this widespread notion that Google is run by some sort of Montgomery Burns who’s out to screw everyone over. It’s true that Google’s goal is to make a lot of money. However, turning Mountain View into a sea of red brake lights is not conducive to making a lot of money, because then Googlers will have to sit in traffic too.
Since I’ve been asked this before, I should point out that I do not work for Google or have any other conflict of interest in this situation.
@The Business Man:
“This project has been in limbo for 4 years.”
Well, first we had a City Council that was opposed to it. Since that circumstance changed, wheels have been turning again. And this project is much more difficult and takes more planning than just dropping an apartment building on El Camino.
“Remember the Constitution does establish that all land is in fact public and is allowed to be taken as long as the person owning the property receives compensation for the land value only.”
That is not at all what the Takings Clause says. The very idea of “taking” implies that property is private. (And I like the way Louisiana calls it “expropriation.”) Eminent domain is an exceptional circumstance, and the Supreme Court has recognized strict limits on its use.
Thanks!
I agree: we need to be vigilant but optimistic.
In the end this plan won’t go through and Google will mostly be in Sunnyvale. Their great migration has already started. It’s a shame MV wouldn’t play ball.
Who is working for the benefit of whom in this relationship? I’m pretty sure council is not working for the benefit of the residents of Mountain View here. As an aside, the developer, Sobrato, basically stated that it would be very difficult for them to try to market/lease units to people with the kinds of parking restrictions the city was proposing, and sans the lack of infrastructure in place to support alternate modes of transit.
Snipped from the article…
“For the first time, Google representatives also revealed they wanted some guarantee that the new housing they would build would primarily benefit the company’s own workforce. For years, Mountain View officials had resisted the idea of allowing tech companies to build worker dormitories, saying it would create a community disconnected from the rest of the city. But Igoe, in the letter, said that his company needed a priority system giving first dibs on new housing to those working in the area. He said it made sense to give North Bayshore workers priority since they would be able to walk or bike to work, reducing the amount of traffic in the area.”
…more…
The city’s traffic plans became one of the most difficult issues of the evening, especially a proposed “aggressive” restriction on parking that in most cases would force developers to provide fewer parking spots than the number of apartment units. The Sobrato Group, the only developer other than Google interested in developing housing, warned that the parking restrictions would be extremely difficult to implement, especially since it would be years before the city completes mass-transit connections into North Bayshore. Sobrato is currently working on plans for the neighborhood’s first major housing project, about 800 housing units near Space Park Way. …
…more…
“I’ll have to tell (the residents of) two, one-bedroom units they’ll be sharing one parking space between their two cars,” said Tim Steele, a Sobrato vice president. To impose that kind of restriction on the project before any transit alternatives are in place would be “very difficult,” he said.”
…more…
“Speaking at the meeting, Jeff Tumlin, a city consultant from the traffic firm NelsonNygaard, suggested it would be the most aggressive parking system for any suburban neighborhood in the country.”
Exactly how hard is it for you to make an actual point WITHOUT rambling?
I hate to say this about Google, but here is some truths.
This project has been in limbo for 4 years. It was a ploy to get all kinds of benefits provided to Google from the City of Mountain View. If this project was “for real” it would have been designed and started within 2 years.
Google also used this project as a means of manipulating any decisions made by the City Council. The city council always looked at this as a multi-million dollar benefit to the city. But never actually got Google to sign any agreement to make any commitment. This was a very serious problem that should have been dealt with within the first 6 months.
If Google would refuse to make the commitment, this is a sure sign that the project is nothing but a “pipe-dream” and was nothing but a teaser. This organization has billions of dollars to invest, and surely should not have been so self-centered in the first place.
The idea that the residences would first be only available to Google employees is a evidence that it was going to be a “factory-town”. Where Google owns the employees, the employee’s homes, the employee’s stores etc. Didn’t we learn that this was a bad idea in the early 20th Century.
The City of Mountain View should just scrap this ill-conceived and practically unworkable plan and start fresh.
Any project that takes more than a year to get started should die, it becomes simply obsolete.
A tax is not a good solution.
But having the required infrastructure rework to support the increased traffic must be done in part of the plan. That means a substantial new intersection for 101 and 237 and Central Expressway. Central Expressway must be widened 1 lane each way, same goes for 237 and 101.
The plan must provide at least 1 parking space for either employee or resident, or 2 for a two bedroom apartment. The project must provide 1 below market apartment for every 1 at market apartment. This does mean that the below market apartment complex may be less “luxury” than the other. But this provides a better inventory count of residential options.
This must be done prior to any development. This will provide the resources necessary to achieve many results. The first is that Mountain View can be still a pro business atmosphere, at the same time the negative impact on the community can be reduced or better yet the community can be improved for the long run.
I am a strong YIMBY person when plans are well thought through. We as citizens of Mountain View must demand that this be done to prevent the potential downfalls people have been discussing for some time.
This situation can become successful but it requires that everyone work out the plan so that it can succeed. We citizens of Mountain View can make Mountain View even better than it is today, and make it a shining example of what can be done when good plans are created and implemented the right way.
The traffic consultant is simply wrong. I cannot understand how any traffic analyst could have supported the idea with any “valid” scientific analysis.
I observed the testimony and I found that the assumptions made were only that. The assumption was clearly proposed to placate the original planners at that time. But since no scientific analysis was provided, the “opinion” of the consultant was not worth any consideration.
There can never be any dependence on the “idea” of having people only live in the site that work there. The behavior of people is that they will simply find any place to live within their means and travel as far as they have to to work. I personally worked out of a hotel for 8 months in the central coast.
If it is approved, the City will end up with a nightmare of a result. No plan can be approved without the required infrastructure support. There is no reason not to implement infrastructure redesign when we have the opportunity to have a private group make public infrastructure improvement. Let Google make the changes on their expense, and we can get much better resources for free.
I simply believe there is no way it should move forward without proper infrastructure resource planning.
I agree with all above.
Unless the City has a backbone, and simply does what is right for the Citizens of Mountain View and not for Google, we can wind up with a terrible mess.
In fact, I demand that Google bears much burden if it wishes to move forward because it has so much benefits it gets in the process. It must provide equal benefit to the public if it wishes to move forward.
Again, if we are going to do this, we have to do it the right way.
Alan,
Good work, unfortunately we need to then get it in writing that any residence must not have any “priority” of any kind.
If you can get it on tape and contact your government representatives and the news to have the practice nullified and/or any financial incentives provided by the public be revoked so that a message can be made before the problem arises in Mountain View.
The public has the right to justice when injustice has occurred. A good business will not abuse customers or deceive them either. There are 2 rules in business:
Rule one: the customer is always right.
Rule two: in the case of the customer being wrong, refer to rule number one.
Pretty simple don’t you think?
George,
You seem to forget civics 101. THe City determines the zoning and permissions of how land can be used. Or did you forget your own professional education and practice.
Even though we live in a republic. Remember the Constitution does establish that all land is in fact public and is allowed to be taken as long as the person owning the property receives compensation for the land value only. It in fact does not matter what structures are on the land at all under Eminent Domain.
United States
Eminent domain in the United States
Most states use the term eminent domain, but some U.S. states use the term appropriation (New York) or expropriation (Louisiana) as synonyms for the exercise of eminent domain powers. The term condemnation is used to describe the formal act of exercising this power to transfer title or some lesser interest in the subject property. Where this happens, such as when an easement or a leasehold is taken, the condemnor must pay just compensation, the same as in total takings.
The constitutionally required “just compensation” is usually measured by fair market value of the part taken, plus severance damages (the diminution in value of the property remaining to the owner [remainder] when only a part of the subject property is taken). Where a partial taking provides economic benefits specific to the remainder, those must be deducted, typically from severance damages.
The practice of condemnation came to the American colonies with the common law. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the taking be for a “public use” and mandates payment of “just compensation” to the owner.[4]
In federal law, Congress may take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government.
In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of “public use”.
Since the “Republic” has determined that all land is public, that seems to negate your claim.
It seems that many have had the wrong idea of the way land is used in the US. This same issue is involved with the FCC because airwaves and now the cable industry has been assumed to be publically owned given that Federal or State monies has been provided to develop it.
And that is the most important part. I would argue that no development has ever occurred in the U.S. where the use of Federal, State, County, or City has either provided direct subsidy or incentives for the development or less than market cost for financing such a project. That inherently means that that project or development is not private, but a publically owned entity because public funding or assistance was used.
Again most people assume that all private development is private, but an educated businessman will uncover the truth. Unless the private project can document that absolutely no public or governmental accommodations were made, all projects should be assumed to be public owned.
This is the reality even though most of my business siblings don’t really understand.
George,
I guess your referring to :
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.
Eminent Domain is in compliance with this amendment because private property is taken for public use WITH just compensation.
You don’t seem to understand that this amendment ENABLES the taking of private property, it does not FORBID it. The founders of the constitution knew that by the manipulation of a wealthy minority, the use of private ownership would result in a “Feudalistic” system Feudalism is defined as:
feu·dal·ism
ˈfyo͞odlˌizəm/Submit
noun
historical
the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.
The founders clearly designed the Constitution to prevent Monarchies and Nobles from being SPECIALLY protected by the new nation. All Citizens are treated equally, thus a homeowner or the biggest corporation are treated identically regarding Eminent Domain. Where did you get the idea that the Vth Amendment prevents the taking of private property when in fact, it is the enabling factor?
I am frightened that George might be educating his students based on a political philosophy. This kind of education results in students not being properly educated. This is the cause of most problems and criticism of the educational system.
Please understand that sometimes we all are surprised that we make mistakes. Look at Alan Greenspan because he had to admit that the market can be manipulated by business interests which resulted in the great “Bubble” of 2007 bursting. He even said so in congress in a congressional hearing.
Also, please understand that my efforts are only to provide an objective, fact based input into the conversation. My intent is to be educational.
Just a quick note,
I grew up in the county where the American Revolution started, Middlesex County of Massachusetts, where Concord and Lexington is.
As a child, I was immersed in the founding of our country. And believe me, the very thought of the current state of our country would be the exact opposite of what the Minutemen were fighting for.
ivg,
I cannot disagree with you. You are right on target.
As I always say, expect the worst but hope for the best.
I still think that if the plan is well designed, move full speed ahead.
MV could not afford the public cost of the private enterprise.
Google has been playing a game with MV. First saying it would do one thing and then changing their plans persistently. They were never serious about development in Mountain View.
Playing ball with a hand grenade is not a good idea.
The thing to consider on this issue: Google is building a Boulder, Colorado Campus. http://www.timescall.com/business/ci_28582746/google-breaks-ground-new-330-000-square-foot https://careers.google.com/locations/boulder/
All thinking about expansion of Google ( and money spent ) needs to be thought of in the context of the fact that everything costs less than on the West Coast.
Now it is nice to think of the opening of Disneyland in 1956. Monorails, open promenades, etc but that is a FOR-PROFIT Company, specializing in entertainment.
It is not in the minds of other FOR-PROFIT Companies to provide for an entertainment solution to the problems of employees and the movement of same. Google can’t afford to build an EPCOT style of housing. Is Mountain View ready to build these options for housing?
Google has applied a common business strategy: delay until a less expensive solution can be found: The Boulder Campus. Everything an employee could want, just like the SFBA and costing far less. Even the residents have a similar SFBA arrogance; ” We have hamburger flippers in McDonalds with PhD’s here in Boulder “. They also take pride in the fact AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS ARE DISCRIMINATED HERE ” so any collision between a bicyclist and an auto means that the CAR DRIVER IS AT FAULT! To put all this in perspective, Boulder is the home of ” Mork and Mindy. “. Yes, the house got tons of flowers when Robin Williams died. ( there are more comparisons but I want to keep things civil ).
This campus makes sense for any for-profit Company. Denver is now showing signs of a rent/ownership housing bubble like the SFBA has. Many builders/people are in a ” grab it while you can ” mode in Denver. Except there is far more open space around Denver. Even my house in the mountain is valued at $100,000 more than when I bought it.
Google has made a smart decision. Now, Mountain View must do the same.