|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 11:38 AM
City acquires possible shopping center location
|
|
by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff
Photo
 | With an eye towards building another shopping center in Mountain View, the city has acquired a $9.5 million piece of property at the intersection of Moffett Boulevard and Highway 101, and council members are scheduled to set aside extra funding to clean up the site during tonight's regular meeting.
In June 2005 the city entered into an agreement to purchase the 6.6-acre site, known as the "vector control yard," from Santa Clara County. The city finally closed on the property last month.
"There are very few properties at a freeway interchange along Highway 101," said city manager Kevin Duggan. "We think it has great economic development potential." He added that the city has been trying to acquire the property for about eight years.
At tonight's meeting, the council is expected to set aside $265,000 in funding to clean up dead vegetation on the property and to demolish some buildings that have been used for "unauthorized activity." There are also homeless encampments in the forested areas of the site which may be addressed with repairs to the perimeter fence.
Council member Tom Means said the plan all along has been for the city to lease the site for retail development, an idea that he said came from Duggan. Though the City Council has discussed and voted on the property many times, Means said he has not heard of any other plans for the site.
"I think people see it as an opportunity to grab some land and do some development," he said. "I think that's what people want to see. But I don't think anyone has sat down and said, 'We want a Macy's there.' No one has gotten that specific."
Duggan said the point of developing the property is to generate land lease revenue for the city over time, as well as new sales tax revenue. He pointed to the city's other land leases, which include several with Google worth about $4 million a year.
"One of the ways we've been able to keep our budget and service levels that we have is through long-term land leases," he said.
"We don't see it as any savior from our short-term financial" problems, he added. But the new development would help the city be "as self-sufficient as possible. A traditional tax structure is not going to be enough to sustain our current level of services" into the future.
To complete the site purchase and make the land easier to develop, Duggan says the city has its eye on an adjacent three-acre property owned by the state located at the corner of the site up against Moffett Boulevard and Highway 101. It was used as a freeway entrance cloverleaf up until a redesign several years ago put the entrance on the other side of Moffett Boulevard.
At $9.5 million, the city paid "full market value" for its new property, which is what it was appraised at, Duggan said. Combining it with the state-owned property would have raised its value, according to the appraisal, and probably cost the city an additional $5.1 million, Duggan said. The city has agreed to pay the county that additional $5.1 million if the state decides to sell its land as well.
The $9.5 million purchase leaves the city's "strategic" property acquisition reserve at $12.3 million, money which the city has tucked away for such purchases, Duggan said.
A fire in January on the site made a power line fall across Highway 101, blocking traffic. The fire department said the fire was likely caused by a homeless person. The city will be pruning trees and remove dead vegetation and brush to prevent another fire.
The $265,000 for cleanup includes $200,000 to demolish the existing buildings, $45,000 to remove dead vegetation and $20,000 to fix a perimeter fence around the property.
Tonight's council meeting will also include a discussion on greenhouse gas reduction targets — including lowering fees for solar panel permits — and on an ordinance from 1979 preventing apartments from being converted to condominiums. Before the regular meeting, council members will go into closed session to discuss possible replacements for city attorney Michael Martello, who is retiring at the end of the year.
The regular meeting starts at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at City Hall, 500 Castro St.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Bruce Karney, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm I'm impressed by the creativity of Kevin Duggan and the City's staff in finding this opportunity to expand Mountain View's retail base.
|
|
Posted by Curious about taxes..., a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm Does anyone know what happens to property taxes on City owned properties? Getting the lease money is great but not if it takes property taxes dollars away from the schools for instance.
|
|
Posted by LFM, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm My initial reaction was - we do not need any more retail. However, given the location it could be a good move and good to see the city being entrepreneurial.
|
|
Posted by curious, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 4:55 pm This is amazing. Have we totally gone to a socialistic economy? Buying property with taxpayer money and developing it is not the function of a government. If you are a business in Mountain View, the city is using its taxing power to get money from you and then turns around and buys properties in direct competition with you.
"Tonight's council meeting will also include a discussion on greenhouse gas reduction targets — including lowering fees for solar panel permits — and on an ordinance from 1979 preventing apartments from being converted to condominiums."
How are these functions of a government? These are clearly unconstitutional.
No wonder businesses and citizens are leaving the Socialist State of California (SSC) in droves. The only way our population increases is through illegal immigration with the Federal government's open borders policy.
|
|
Posted by Seer, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm This is one of the more bizarre stories I've seen in a long time. It's as though it was written 20 years ago. With today's economic downturn and the glut of unused retail space in the city, I can't understand what the city is thinking. Economists are predicting a long period of flat economy or limited growth, so where will the demand for additional shopping come from? Instead, we should be looking for sustainable uses for the land that serve the interests of Mountain View's population, including potential relocation of businesses that are being zoned out of their current locations, such as those on Old Middlefield. A "small business enterprise zone" would provide jobs and short commutes for Mountain View residents, for example.
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 8:58 am It's a good idea to create long term tax revenues. Besides, we end up driving to Stanford Shopping Center or Westfield Mall; it would be nice to have something closer. That being said, Sunnyvale is developing an updated mall, and of course the Old Mill died -- so what will be at this new site that will successful and reliably generate tax revenues? We'll see how this plays out.
|
|
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Nov 4, 2009 at 10:32 am It sounds like the city got a good deal. If my understanding is correct, they will do a ground lease with someone else taking the risk and building the structures. Retail sites with immediate freeway access are generally in demand, so this seems pretty safe long term.
As far as doing this during a recession, remember the words of Warren Buffet: ""Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful."
curious-- city's make private investments all the time. What could possibly be LESS "socialist" than creating a long term, sustainable, low-risk, PRIVATE revenue source? Its not like the city is going to build the buildings or pick the tenants, and as far as competition, if the site is the best one for a retail venture, then SOMEONE will build there-- the city is taking advantage of the free market, not manipulating it!
|
|
Posted by Nick, a resident of another community, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:10 am Interesting.
I hope whatever development goes there takes full advantage of its awesome location along Stevens Creek with direct access to the Stevens Creek Trail.
Obviously, the location is good for retail due to freeway access/visiblity, and the easiest thing to do would be to plop a big box store down with a parking garage. But imagine if the western side of the property, the part along the creek, had a few restaurants with outdoor dining terraces overlooking Stevens Creek and were directly connected to the trail via a new footbridge. Something like the way the creek is used as a focal point in Downtown San Luis Obispo and Ashland, Oregon, or much smaller scale version of the River Walk in San Antonio.
Could be a very nice and unique place!
|
|
Posted by Opps, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 1:14 pm Maybe it will be a Home Depot. Opps the city already missed out on that deal at the old Emporium.
|
|
Posted by Thom, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm Mountain View doesn't need a new shopping center. Remember Mayfield Mall, or the Old Mill shopping centers? And it's a garbage spot to place anything like that. Across the street sits the former "Denny's" which was closed for lack of business. And the tiny strip mall across from it holds a restaurant that opens 2 days a week, a dry cleaners, and a small convienance store next to a gay bar. Bad idea again from the "City Council".
|
|
Posted by Jon Wiener, a resident of another community, on Nov 5, 2009 at 1:52 am Fencing to "address" homelessness sounds a little like Newspeak to me.
Curious -- Which constitution are you referring to? Both the state and federal constitutions give local governments broad police power to protect general public welfare by reducing pollution. Do you object to that, or is it the city's efforts to reduce red tape that has you so upset?
|
|
Posted by curious, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 8:01 am eric-"city's make private investments all the time. What could possibly be LESS "socialist" than creating a long term, sustainable, low-risk, PRIVATE revenue source?"
What's private about the city buying property to set up businesses with taxpayer money. By your definition, the Soviet state-run farms were PRIVATE because they sold their produce.
Jon Weiner-"Which constitution are you referring to? Both the state and federal constitutions give local governments broad police power to protect general public welfare by reducing pollution."
So to protect the general welfare, the city can set up farms, after all people have to eat and build houses, after all people need a roof over their head. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot. Mountain View already does build houses with their so-called low income housing program.
BTW, how about looking up the 10TH Amendment to the US Constitution. The only things the Federal government is allowed to do are those explicitly granted to it by the Constitution. Show me where it says the government can set up businesses. If the California Constitution does not have a section similar to 10TH Amendment, it should.
|
|
Posted by tina, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 12:28 pm I say they try and upgrade the area on leong drive where Mario's and the old Denny's used to be. that whole area should be cleaned up, bought up and sold before buying more property and making that look nice. oh yeah, i forget this area is by Evandale and they are going to let it all rot by itself.
|
|
Posted by Andrew, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 1:26 pm I don't think it's so bad for MV to buy this land...after all it was owned by the county (and the other parcel the state). MV now will take control of it and put it to go use for the city.
|
|
Posted by Ron, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 2:33 pm Curious - what are you on about??? The city is not buying land and building their own businesses. They expanded the city limits by aquiring county land with the intention of zoning it for retail use and growing tax income. If a current retailer is threatened they could always set up shop there. What the heck is socialist about enabling more retail space? Talk about a tempest in a teapot!
|
|
Posted by Matt Raschke, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 6:10 pm Looks like a very nice acquisition. Great job City Council! That site looks like a great candidate to provide more sales tax revenue.
|
|
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Nov 6, 2009 at 9:30 am um....
Curious, the city is not "setting up businesses". They are going to lease the land to a developer, just like they've done with several properties in Shoreline-- did Mtn View "set up" Google? It is a passive role. They bought an asset that will generate revenue. Would you prefer that Mtn View keep all its cash in mason jars buried under city hall?
Please get the facts straight before you spread your teabaggery goodness.
|
|
Posted by Tyred, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:19 am More shops? How much stuff do we all need? Silicon Valley has enough shops!! What about the huge renovation being proposed for San Antonio Shopping Center? I'd rather see an existing shopping center be modernized than a complete new complex get built. And yes, why is taxpayer money being used for building shops?
|
|
Posted by NW Resident, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:57 am In defense of Mario's restaurant on Leong, I don't think it's fair to lump them in with the vacant Denny's and other businesses on that block. Yes, they are open for dinner 2 nights a week (Thur/Fri), but also do lunch M-F and can accomodate group luncheons.
It's a nice family-run place with decent Italian food for the local neighborhood and we probably patronize them a few times a year. I think it would be great to have more businesses in the Moffett/101 area and might lead indirectly to the sprucing-up of Leong.
|
|
Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on Nov 7, 2009 at 3:59 am It weill be good for this corner, the site purchasted and other one that the city is eyeing, good invest, rents and taxes, mtn view is not the only city that has done this nor will it be the last. Dennys, the strips center and the motels and inns will get a much needed reinvest and more people coming to this part of town
|
|
Posted by Jeff, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 9, 2009 at 12:09 pm Maybe it should become an organic garden with a small center for the homeless. They could tend to the garden and have a place to stay. Whatever food is not needed for the homeless center could be sold for profit to help pay for the center, etc.
I agree that the existing commercial sites on Leong and San Antonio should be spruced up for shopping and this new site should be used for something else.
I haven't been shopping that much, have you? Would a new location with likely similar shops at other locations really make me shop more? No it will not.
|
|
Posted by Jon Wiener, a resident of another community, on Nov 11, 2009 at 8:30 am In case anyone is still Curious, the 10th Amendment reserves to the States powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution gives the federal government lots of power -- it can tax and spend for the general welfare, and it can regulate things that affect interstate commerce, even if they are not commerce themselves. More importantly, though, it is meant to increase--not limit--the power of the States.
The California Constitution, by the way, is one of the longest in the world. Web Link. However, it, too gives local populations a fair amount of power to govern themselves. Not as much as it should, in some cases, but certainly enough to enable them to buy and lease property and to reduce solar panel fees.
|
|
Posted by Linda Dupre, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2009 at 7:25 pm curious: OMG! I thought all the anti-socialist paranoids were here in AZ; the US Constitution includes providing for the common good "general welfare".
Nick, being a fan of the Stevens Creek Trail system I think your idea is awesome!!!!
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
