Council may kill Google housing in General Plan vote Tuesday Around Town, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Jul 7, 2012 at 3:28 pm
The city's roadmap for development through 2030 is finally ready for a City Council vote after four years of work, and council members say they will vote against an option for 1,100 apartments that Google wants near its headquarters.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 6, 2012, 4:02 PM
Posted by Rebecca, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 11:13 am
Thank to those council members that voted no. The North Bayshore area is an environmental treasure that will become increasingly important as the city grows and more and more people rely on this area for respite from urbanization. We in Silicon Valley are the best and the brightest, we can plan for population expansion and maintain what natural areas we have. Otherwise, what will seperate Mt. View from all the other development parks in the region? I love Google and want to see them maintain the low profile, open air feel that is there now. What a tresure.
Posted by Eric Rosenberg, a resident of another community, on Jul 9, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I drive in this area a lot, the weekday traffic is already unbearable, adding that much more traffic for residences in the area, said residents taking kids to and from schools, all of which are the other side of Hwy 101, etc. would make the area even worse than it is now.
I am also concerned that this type of development would start eliminating what open space is left for wildlife. Not all the birds and animals in the shoreline area live on the bay, a large number of them rely on the open fields for food and nesting habbitat.
Posted by Tina, a resident of the Jackson Park neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 2:28 pm
What about Moffett Field? There's already housing there... Wouldn't the gov't be anxious for someone to take if off their hands? Roads, retail & everything is all set up. Google could come in & beautify it (which it desperately needs) and together they could get the groundwater problem dealt with. That way, the blight of Moffett Field could be dealt with and North Bayshore could be preserved. Much easier to build connecting roads & bike paths from Moffett to Google than having to cross 101, too... And it would ease congestion for the west-of-101 traffic.
Posted by gitadev, a resident of another community, on Jul 9, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Council members Macias, Siegal, Bryant and Abe-Koga all deserve kudos for their courage in looking out for the long-term health of the city and its economic future.
I would also like to point out that the real issue- which the housing hysteria is carefully distracting from - is that the North Bayshore area is densifying a lot. Google and the Chamber would prefer this issue not be focused on by the public or the Council. Given that 101, Shoreline and Rengstroff are all at capacity, the conversation would normally have been about whether this density is feasible at this time.
Posted by Andrew, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 4:05 pm
How building of new apartments can help to ease the traffic? People living there will have to drive there children to schools anyway. Then they will drive to work on the same streets that are already congested.
Posted by Samantha, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 4:24 pm
I applaud the council members who voted no to Google providing residential units for an "ELITE" group of their employees, will everyone else be excluded from living in this area, this is terrible, and shame on the council memebers who want to turn this area into a Google controlled facility. This area should be used by all in Mountain View not just employees of Google
Posted by Jarrett , a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Under the proposal that was being crafted for North Bayshore, development would actually be concentrated along North Shoreline Boulevard and the edges would be repurposed from parking lots to open space. This would make transit service more effective since Shoreline is a natural spine that links the area to the rest of the city. Even if housing wasn't allowed, there will still be substantial job growth in the area. The General Plan allows up to 30K jobs in North Bayshore, up from about 18K today.
By adding housing to the mix, you can give people a choice to live near their job and not compound to the traffic problem. Obviously not everyone wants to live close to their job, but why are we forcing the people who do want to live close to commute?
@Andrew– There are interventions to discourage driving which will need be explored whether or not housing is allowed. For example, Stanford has an extensive Transportation Demand Management program that was developed in response to a policy that allowed near infinite university expansion, as long as they didn't exceed year 2000 car trip counts. They've achieved the goal thus far despite big medical center and research building expansions.
Housing is an important part of the strategy because it gets people off the road who really, really don't want to be there in the first place. The area would likely have multifamily development which would limit school-age children as enrollment data from Los Altos Unified School District has shown for developments such as Avalon Towers. At the end of the day people will still be driving, but they'll be driving much less than if it remained single use office.
Posted by GSarducci, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Tying housing to jobs is feasible in remote mining town, and highly undesirable here. In a fantasy world all the residents of these new units would work a bike ride away at Google. Reality shatters that. A couple lives there and only one works at Google. Someone quits but keeps their apartment. We have to assume it's generic housing, not housing for employees living nearby. Then we ask, is this the best place for housing: climate, soil, schools and shopping? I'd say, no.
Posted by Doug Pearson, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 9:25 pm
I'm with Jarrett; I think housing is needed in North of Bayshore, along with the planned expansion of offices and retail. The existing retail businesses in North of Bayshore are already crying for residents (customers).
Posted by susan johnson, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2012 at 11:39 pm
North Bayshore is area between 101 and Shoreline, between Stevens Creek and San Antonio. It is a small area - less than a square mile. There are no schools, no stores, no services. Housing belongs near services, not in Shoreline.
The City just celebrated the opening of a bike bridge over 101, and its only minutes from residential areas to North Bayshore by foot or by bike. Council members Abe Koga, Bryant, Macias and Siegel are sincere in their concern for the many negative "side effects" of housing in that area - and should be applauded for their support for true smart growth
Posted by caryl, a resident of another community, on Jul 10, 2012 at 8:12 am
Humans need nature and wildlife to maintain balance in their lives - especially people who spend their working hours in front of a computer screen. It is soul restoring to go and walk in Shoreline Park. It is made more wonderful that the few remaining burrowing owls are being protected in the park - maintaining the balance.
Posted by Dave, a resident of another community, on Jul 10, 2012 at 10:56 am
Why is it that Google's motto of do no harm extends to other places and not it's own backyard? There are other ways to ameliorate housing and traffic issues in this area other than putting more pressure on a sensitive wildlife area.
Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on Jul 10, 2012 at 11:12 am
Ideas here. Starting at ECR and North Shoreline, build low density homes, mostly townhouses, flats, single family homes with a unit, some small rowhouses. We have a big old wide street, we can add light rail, put the street on a diet and build a big old park down the middle. Between Central to 101, build more med density, more flats, rowhomes, condos and apts, close to 101 the taller the buildings. Build short term units close to Google for those who will be at Home Office for periods less then a year or more then a month. You could allow for blends of office building and residents, retail can fit under both.