Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council paves way for Whisman development

Original post made on Mar 26, 2009

The City Council has unanimously approved zoning for 38 acres of industrial land to be converted to hundreds of housing units along Ferguson Drive -- a mix of single family homes, row homes and higher density stacked flats.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 4:28 PM

Comments (20)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by smart growther
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 26, 2009 at 3:21 pm

A surprising 7-0 vote. A great addition to the city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by one word
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 26, 2009 at 4:38 pm

School?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Secondly
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm

Please don't let the VTA determine the home's density, their goals are not our goals. They want to pay off their white elephant and do not live here. Some high density is fine, but like BART in Fremont, if all you do is build high density homes for the mass transit system, you get, well to be blunt - FREMONT.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by don't do it
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 26, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Water shortage's, traffic, pollution, empty buildings. Why build more? Enough already. How's that song go? First you take paradise and put up a parking lot.You don't know what you got till its gone!Let's plant trees for now and build later when I'm dead and gone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A balanced viewpoint
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 27, 2009 at 7:24 am

In response to the post from Secondly above about the City's goals and VTA's goals...

The City's General Plan calls for creation of higher-density housing and commercial development near transit, in order to provide more housing options, improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make the best use of scarce land resources.

VTA would like to see the creation of higher-density housing and commercial development near transit, to help cities provide more housing options (which can create transit riders), improve energy efficiency (which can be achieved by a shift to transit), reduce greenhouse gas emissions (ditto), and see each city make the best use of scarce land resources around the transit system.

Mountain View is a member agency of VTA, is represented in VTA's Board and Committee system (our Mayor is the chair of the Policy committee), and partnered with VTA on the creation of the light rail extension to Mountain View in the 1990s. It is in both the City's and VTA's interest to make the best use of this transit investment to achieve all the goals listed above.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Don't do it.
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Dear Balance viewpoint, Thank you for the info, now my question to you is, is there a shortage of housing right now in Mt.View? Do we really need it right now at this time? Can't we just enjoy what we have? How much money are these houses going to sell for? 8 to 1.1 million? Is that affordable to maybe the google and yahoo crowd? Do we need more shops in Mt.View? Whats wrong with the shops on Whisman and Middlefield? Will they survive when there is more competition? Are they struggling now? I just don't understand why we need to build more other then making more money for the developer. Have you seen the project on Mathilda, Its bankrupt and it will be awhile before they finish it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A
a resident of another community
on Mar 27, 2009 at 8:38 pm

I've been a Mountain View resident for 16 years now.

I think we're growing too much. Getting too "urban"-ish, along with all the good and bad that it brings.

I'd rather not see more housing, or more shops. I'd like us to take better care of what we have. (Food Street, anyone?).

(By the way, what neighborhood is the East side of North Rengstorff?)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 28, 2009 at 11:45 am

More cars more noise more smog why would we want high density housing. Light rail is way too slow and goes two few location so the people who live in this new housing might on the average use it once a week or less while all of their other trips will be in cars. The city council has been fooled again.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 30, 2009 at 10:05 am

I thought that the city government's primary responsibility was to the current residence. Silly me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Eduardo Miranda
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 30, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Compared to the Mayfield development which has been under considerable scrutiny and open for public comments from MV residents prior to approval by the City Council, I feel like this zoning change was approved through the back door. Every new development in the Whisman neighborhood is denser and has less public park area than previous development/phase. When approving this type of zoning changes the Council should consider existing densities in neighboring areas. The Mayfield development is primarily surrounded by low density residential areas (1-6 units/acre), whereas density in the existing Whisman neighrhood next to the proposed development is at least three times higher. Providing the developer the option to build either two-story single family homes or three-story row homes with a simple desire from the council for two-story single family homes is not enough. Developers are driven by profit and MV residents rely on the City Council to put clear limits to developers. I find totally unacceptable that impact to traffic by this new project is simply considered as "significant and unavoidable."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by LK
a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2009 at 7:30 pm

First off ... it's so gratifying to find out that I don't live in a "neighborhood" ... my part of Mountain View doesn't seem to count. Regarding the proposed density of this development ... why is it that Mtn View City Council/Planning Department always insist on putting the super high density housing on this side of Central Expressway????? 38 acres on this side = 1100 homes. 15+ acres on the "good" side of town (The farm on Grant Road) = 50 homes. Hmmmmmm. Wouldn't it be nice if the 38 acres up for grabs became home to just 100 - 150 homes???? Between NASA's business park plan and this plan, traffic is going to become a nightmare.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by heinz brunner
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 31, 2009 at 6:40 am

seems as though the overwhelming majority feels the same way for several reasons against mtn. views high and higher density policies. apparently that majority elected the current council members who have obviously no intention to listen to the people that put them there and are running on their own agenda.
we are facing a water shortage and they want to add more demand?
how idiotic is that? the grant road project isn't that much more demanding as the "farm" had irrigation demands. but the rest of it?
c'mon city councilmen use your heads, oh, that's right................


 +   Like this comment
Posted by smart growther
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 31, 2009 at 2:28 pm

The water shortage is mostly to due to a lack of price rationing. Some cities do not monitor water usage and charge a fixed fee. The council listens very carefully but not to unverifiable claims and just plain nonsense. How much density is too much? Everything mentioned above was studied for several years. To claim the re-zonong was done by the backdoor is just nonsense. Most of the comments above are ill-informed.

Grant road has 30,000 trips per day. hard to argue that 220 more trips from the levin project will have a significant impact.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Really ?
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 31, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Let's all be honest and admit the council in MV is OWNED by developers, all councils are. Remember the other development on Ferguson, I live next to it. They changed the maximum height of the buildings at the behest of the builder - no other reason.

OK by me to build houses, but let's build houses, not the umpteenth set of undistinguished row homes - again - FREMONT - is that what we want, go visit Fremont, come to Mountain View and then tell the council to THINK for once. Really, just tell the council for the first time ever to actually THINK. Is another set of row homes what we need. After looking at Fremont you will say NO.

Congrats to the developers for buying themselves a nice council.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Secondly
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 31, 2009 at 3:10 pm

Balanced ? I must have misunderstood the word. That is an ad for the VTA. Balance means looking at both sides, clearly you aren't - please change your screen name to VTA Monger, that way it is clearer your intentions.

I love public transport, trains and mass transit are great, but they are built for the people of a community, you suggest that we build our people's homes around our transit. OOPS, that is backwards. Does the light rail reduce traffic - i would guess by .000002 percent. It is poorly designed and expensive to ride and stops extensively included on Central Expressway for no apparent reason.

Let's build a community that is served by transit, not the other way round.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rodger
a resident of The Crossings
on Mar 31, 2009 at 6:28 pm

I call on the city council to reverse this terrible high density housing. How can we get them to look at this again and come to the aid of the people that elected them?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Interesting
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 31, 2009 at 7:43 pm

I find it interesting that the most vociferous opponents of this supposed "high density" development on this board are from the Whisman Station and Crossings neighborhoods -- which were primarily built within the past 10 years. Benefit from the newer housing that previous Councils had the foresight to approve, then yell for the gates to be locked after that...

And for truly high-density housing near light rail, check out Portland, or parts of San Diego. The densities in many new developments there are three to four times those proposed in the South Whisman Precise Plan, yet Portland and San Diego rank extremely high on most livability indices.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Samrt Growther
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:59 pm

A lot of mis-informed ranting. You are correct "interesting" about some of the whisman residents. They purchased at a location that was previously commercial and then opposed any new development. To suggest that the council is owned by the developers is just plain silly. Check out the campaign spending records , most give thousands of dollars to council member in other cities and little if any to MV council members. What attracts developers to MV is a council and staff that respects the rights of property owners in a fair way. What some residents want is to violate these rights since they were here first.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by concerned
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:31 am

Bottom line here is greed. More money to line to pockets of city officals, is all they care about.

They don't think about the water shortage, they don't think about the traffic, the over population, the congestion, the air quaility, the sewage problem, the trash problem, all they care about is more money.

It's a sad state when 7 people can control the outcome that involves millions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frances
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Is thew city council paying any attention to what is going on with enrollment in the MVWSD? Where will these children go to school? I'm tired of high density housing, Mountain View is slowing losing it's charm.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 3,366 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 20 comments | 2,578 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,923 views